Sitting of 26 February 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Wyatt: If he will make a statement on the role of individual learning accounts in the workplace and the home. [29877]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published yesterday our consultation document "The Learning Age". That set out our proposals for developing individual learning accounts to help people to take more control of their learning and manage their own careers.
  Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend explain how people who are out of work might benefit from the learning initiatives and credits, and what impact they might have on the national grid for learning and the university for industry?
  Dr. Howells: Individual learning accounts will focus in particular on those who are currently out of work and would like to acquire new skills in order to return to work. The accounts will run alongside a range of other Government initiatives, such as the new deal, which is aimed specifically at 18 to 24-year-olds and is designed to help them to return to training and education, and to obtain work.
  Through the Green Paper, we are consulting on how that will impact on the national grid for learning. We believe that the grid will extend to colleges and universities, and to public places. The individual learning initiative will be linked in many ways to many parts of the national grid for learning, and to the whole education and training spectrum.
  Mr. Willis: We were deeply disappointed by the Green Paper that was published yesterday, but one feature that pleased us was the introduction of individual learning accounts. That has long been a Liberal Democrat policy, and we are glad that the Government have adopted it.
  To date, have any financial institutions expressed interest in taking up the 1 million £150 bank accounts that are to be introduced as part of the policy? Has the
  478
  Chancellor of the Exchequer already ruled out the two other important elements of individual learning accounts—tax relief on income put into the accounts by employers or individuals, and the matching of income by the Treasury?
  Dr. Howells: I am very glad that the Liberal Democrats have seen fit to support individual learning accounts. We think that this is an excellent initiative, and we are very encouraged by the response of industry. We have discussed the initiative widely with industry, and we will continue to do so. We hope very much that employers will see the sense of topping up individual learning accounts: we think that they are an excellent way in which to promote training, and we think that training equals better profits. The best firms understand that, and are already putting a great deal of money into training—£10.5 billion last year. We want to do everything to encourage them.
  Mr. Derek Foster: Will my hon. Friend commend the managing director of Thorn Lighting in Spennymoor? Speaking about the work force, he said, "We discovered that with every pair of hands we were given a free brain." Is it not true that most employers only scratch the surface of all the skill and talent that they have in their work force? Is that not why lifelong learning and individual learning accounts are crucial?
  Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend is right. Many firms contain enormous potential that has hardly been recognised, and certainly has not been developed. We must encourage employers to take such action—especially the great mass of small and medium-sized enterprises that are often firefighting just to stay alive. All too often, such employers worry only about their margins and their bottom lines. We need to reconfigure the whole delivery of training and education, so that it is tailored to meet the requirements of employees and employers, and to improve their competitiveness and that of the country.

  New Deal (Long-term Unemployed)
  Miss McIntosh: What representations he has received from long—term unemployed people concerning their eligibility under the new deal. [29879]
  The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): I have received a number of such representations. The new deal for adults who have been unemployed two years or more will start this June, and we are currently considering piloting the extension of the new deal approach to cover those who have been unemployed for a shorter period.
  Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister find that the Secretary of State supports his view that the success of the Government's new deal policy will be proved by making the downward trend move even more rapidly, and that the long-term unemployed under-25-year-olds—those who have been unemployed for more than two years—are the hardest target to help now? Their chances of leaving the count are only 57 per cent. What measures do the Government intend to announce for the summer, and what take-up has there been from the private sector for the new deal to help the long-term unemployed under 25?
  Mr. Smith: The new deal for the longer-term unemployed has not started yet, but, when it does, we

  479
  shall all see the take-up from employers. The initial signs are encouraging in terms of the overall support and participation in the new deal by both small and large businesses. On the current trends in unemployment, of course the new deal first offers help to the younger unemployed, but we shall be introducing help for the longer-term unemployed. It is interesting to note that while unemployment has fallen sharply for the young unemployed, it has also fallen equally sharply for the older and longer-term unemployed.
  Mr. Reed: Although I welcome the emphasis we have placed on young people and getting the young generation back to work, will my hon. Friend accept that in many constituencies such as mine in Loughborough, where many people lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector, those in their 40s have much to offer this country, particularly engineers who have been made redundant over the past few years? The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) will know about this, as Loughborough used to be his constituency. We know full well that those people have much to offer. Can we ensure that we move as quickly as possible to bring into the scheme those in their 40s who have another 20 years to offer?
  Mr. Smith: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend about the contribution that older unemployed people and older workers have to make. That is why we are extending the new deal to the older age group in June, and it is why we maintain a wide range of programmes aimed at helping older workers back into jobs. It is also why I am consulting on how we can most effectively tackle discrimination in the workplace, which so badly afflicts the prospects of so many of those trying to get back into work.
  Mr. Willetts: Does the Minister accept that there are more people who have been unemployed for more than two years than there are young people who have been unemployed for more than six months? Can he defend the fact that 90 per cent. of the budget will go on young people and only 10 per cent. on the long-term unemployed? Does not he remember that, in the Chamber the other week, he said that the reason why the Government could not support legislation to ban age discrimination in recruitment advertisements was that their new deal would be caught by it?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that, thanks to the legacy we inherited from his Government, youth unemployment is still twice the level of unemployment among the rest of the work force. The damage done to those young individuals, starting on what should be a life in work, but being consigned by the policies of the previous Government to a life on benefit, is incalculable, not only to them but to the communities in which they live and to the level of crime in this country. We make no apology for keeping our promise to get 250,000 young people off benefit and into jobs. We will help older people as well through the measures I have announced today.
  Mr. Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend remember that there is a lost generation in this country—lost due to the incompetence and unfeeling nature of the former Government? Many people became unemployed in the early 1980s during that bitter recession, and many of those
  480
  in our towns and cities have not worked to this day. The sooner the new deal gives them a chance to get back into work the better.
  Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. Providing such a chance is why, from June, those workers will be eligible for a £75 a week subsidy for six months as they move into employment, and why they will be eligible to take up the training and study opportunities that they were denied by the Conservative party.

  New Deal
  Mr. Paterson: What representations he has received on the new deal. [29880]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): We are receiving enthusiastic support from across the country. In the 24 hours following the launch of the new deal television advertising campaign, we have received more than 780 calls, mainly from employers. Most importantly, the reaction from unemployed young people themselves in the pathfinder areas has been very positive. Last week, 154 young people who were not yet eligible for the new deal presented themselves early.
  Mr. Paterson: In the past 15 years, small businesses employing fewer than 20 people have created 2 million jobs, enjoying the benefits of our deregulated, free-market economy. The Federation of Small Businesses has stated that, if business rates were sharply reduced, small businesses could take on up to 25 per cent. more employees. Has the Minister received representations from such organisations on reducing Government-imposed business costs with the money that Ministers have confiscated from the utilities?
  Mr. Howarth: It is really very sad that the Conservative party appears to be indifferent to unemployment among young people. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights reminded the House a moment ago, the Conservative party left youth unemployment at twice the national average and at twice the level that it was in the early 1980s. Now, the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that we should not bother about unemployment among young people. Of course we desire to create conditions in which businesses, including small businesses, can prosper. However, a very large majority of the 1,362 employer agreements to take part in the new deal that have already been signed are with small and medium-sized enterprises.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fast-growing enthusiasm among employers for signing up to the new deal? Perhaps that enthusiasm is attributable to the fact that real-life employers have been used in the national advertisements, and that their enthusiasm is evident to everyone watching them. Does he agree also that young people's enthusiasm is growing? For the first time, they are getting a real chance to combine what they want, what they can offer and what employers want. That opportunity is making a tremendous difference to the new programme.
  Madam Speaker: Before the Minister replies, I note that the hon. Member for North Shropshire

  481
  (Mr. Paterson), who tabled the question, has left the Chamber. I remind hon. Members that they must wait until the question is finished.
  Mr. Howarth: Indeed, Madam Speaker, the indifference of the Tory party could not have been more vividly shown. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) is absolutely right: the new deal is a massive undertaking—a real national effort—in which it seems that the only people who do not want to be involved are those in the Tory party. However, Conservative Members' support will be welcome. There is, in my experience, a welcome for the sinner who repents, and I encourage them to overcome their embarrassment—which we all understand—and join employers and voluntary organisations in a shared commitment to provide effective help to those who have been the casualties of the policies of the later years of the Conservative Government, and those who are most vulnerable to the processes of economic change.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is it not a fact that the Government can find only approximately a half of the quarter of a million young people whom they want to help in the new deal? Do the Government still assert that the new deal will be cost neutral, despite the fact that 17 similar schemes undertaken in 10 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have proved to cost far, far more and to be extremely expensive? Is not unemployment still falling in this country because of the excellent economy that the previous Government left? Is the new deal, therefore, not irrelevant?
  Mr. Howarth: The penny seems slow to drop. The Conservative Government left unemployment among young people at twice the level that it was among other groups in the population. We think that a proper—a vital—responsibility of Government is to address that. Each month, about 15,000 to 20,000 young people pass six months' plus unemployment, and we, for our part, will not give up on them.

  Basic Literacy
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: What plans he has to enforce standards of basic literacy in schools. [29882]
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): Literacy is at the heart of our drive to raise standards. By the end of this Parliament, we expect 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds to reach the standard expected for their age in English. We have made the curriculum more flexible and reduced bureaucracy so that primary schools can focus on the basics, and we have allocated £59 million to support literacy in 1998–99.
  Mr. Howarth: The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), was speaking a moment ago about sinners who repent. We greatly welcome the fact that, at long last, the sinners in the Labour party are repenting of their failure to acknowledge the importance of the three Rs in providing our children with the basic ability to compete in the world. We appreciate what the Minister has done, but why has it taken so long? After all,
  482
  the Labour party has been in charge of delivering education at local level across much of the country. What is the Minister doing to ensure that our teacher training colleges understand the importance of the three Rs, especially literacy, in their curriculum?
  Mr. Byers: We have changed the initial teacher training curriculum so that teachers are taught how to help children read. The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the legacy that we inherited whereby one in four 11-year-olds failed to reach the expected level in English. He should give some thought to what is happening in his local education authority area. Hampshire, I am pleased to say, has agreed that, by the end of this Parliament, 88 per cent. of 11-year-olds will have reached the required level.
  The hon. Gentleman might also thank the Government on behalf of the schools in Aldershot which, as a result of an announcement made three weeks ago, will have 8,000 new school books this financial year. That is an example of the Government not just talking about raising standards, but providing the resources to ensure that it happens.
  Mr. Clapham: Although I understand that there is a need to improve literacy standards, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a place for the creative arts? Will he consider what might be done in the future to ensure that the creative arts are included on a wider basis in education?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has established a creative arts curriculum group which will report on how we can develop the non-basics in the primary curriculum. However, we have to get the basics of reading and writing in place before young people can benefit from the creative arts.

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. Sanders: What representations he has had from local organisations with respect to Agenda 2000 and the reform of the European structural funds. [29883]
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I have received three representations from further education and from the Confederation of British Industry. In addition, my right. hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights has held meetings with the Alliance for Regional Aid and the Local Government Association.
  Mr. Sanders: The Secretary of State will be aware that the structural funds are divided up by regions across the whole of the European Union. The Devon and Cornwall region receives around £191 million from the present programme up to the year 2000. The problem is that, in future, the region that will determine how the programme affects our area will be the whole of the south-west region. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the special problems of Devon and Cornwall, which make the area distinct from the rest of the south-west, will be recognised in the new programmes after 2000?
  Mr. Blunkett: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and

  483
  I will make every possible representation. That includes providing the foundations from our presidency in getting right Agenda 2000, and ensuring that the European social fund and the remaining structural funds are used effectively so that we protect our areas from the changes that are inevitable in that new period of funding.
  Mr. O'Hara: Given that the European Union is now confident that provision for the expanded Community can be catered for from growth within the European economy, and given that the United Kingdom is currently classed as the fourth poorest of the European countries, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he and his colleagues will be fighting to ensure that there is no reduction whatsoever in the UK share of structural funds after 2000?
  Mr. Blunkett: As my hon. Friend knows, it is important to this country that the assessment is based on gross domestic product and the real economy. As things improve, we hope that there will be less need for investment in regions that currently suffer deprivation, such as his area and my area. We need specifically to protect objective 2 programmes—we shall take every possible step to ensure that we do so.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not clear that Her Majesty's Government would be unwise to look to the European Union in the longer term to sustain jobs in regions of high unemployment in the United Kingdom, particularly in view of projected enlargement? If the European Union is unable to support British jobs, is not it crucial that the Government reduce the net British contribution in the next quinquennial financial perspective from 2000? Is not it of paramount importance that the budgetary bind has no adverse effect on enlargement?
  Mr. Blunkett: The negotiations to ensure that we receive from the European Union what we put into it, and the way in which we balance broad economic objectives across the 15 nations—more when the Union has expanded—with the need to invest regionally, are part of the programme that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Cabinet are addressing. If we had had a better environment in which to approach these issues, we would obviously have been able to make more rapid progress.
  Mr. Pearson: European structural fund money has played a major part in the economic regeneration of the physical fabric of Birmingham and the west midlands, and has improved the work force's employability. In welcoming my right hon. Friend's comments on the importance of objective 2 and the reform of the structural funds, may I encourage him to make representations in the strongest possible terms so that we receive our fair share of European regional money in the west midlands and in the rest of the United Kingdom? Proposals that mean that the United Kingdom will suffer a disproportionate cut are not acceptable.
  Madam Speaker: Is there a question there?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will do my best to answer the question as I perceived it. The answer is yes. I will ensure that, at the joint education and social affairs informal meeting in London on 12 and 13 March, we start to address these
  484
  issues, so that we highlight the importance to the United Kingdom of the structural funds and draw the press's attention to the significance of getting Agenda 2000 right. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's question.
  Madam Speaker: Or his comment.

  Unemployment (Regional Disparities)
  Mr. Wigley: What steps he plans to take to reduce regional disparities in unemployment levels. [29884]
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Notwithstanding welcome falls in the overall level of unemployment and, indeed, some narrowing of regional disparities, we recognise the deep-seated problems in Wales, notably in the valleys and rural areas. That is why we are proposing an expanded role for the Welsh Development Agency—which will work with the national assembly—and the initiatives in the new deal, such as employment zones and regional selective assistance.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that my constituency has the highest unemployment rate—9.4 per cent.—in Wales, but does not have full development area status? Is not it time to consider the panoply of tools that are available to the Government—to the Department for Education and Employment and to the Department of Trade and Industry—to ensure that all avenues are explored in order to bring down these unacceptably high levels of unemployment?
  Mr. Smith: Indeed, which is one of the reasons why we set up prototype employment zones—the one in Wales includes the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—to explore new ways in which to pool existing streams of funding and to harness local community effort from the bottom up, in partnership with the Government's wider approach. We are doing that precisely to generate jobs, to enhance employability and to give hope to those of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents who are in long-term unemployment.
  Ms Moran: I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend welcome the prototype employment zones. Will he join me in welcoming an initiative that will tackle the severe problems of the long-term unemployed in areas of persistence and long-standing unemployment? Will he consider extending the initiative to areas such as my constituency in central Luton? Does he agree that focusing on local problems and local need is infinitely more effective than the standardised schemes that were the legacy of the previous Government?
  Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. Partnership and the bottom-up approach are integral parts of the new deal, which will benefit the older and longer-term unemployed as much as the young unemployed. Partnership with business, local councils, the voluntary sector and environmental groups will bring real hope to those who suffer the legacy of the failed policies of the previous Government.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I recognise the problems in the Caernarfon constituency, which are always ably articulated by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), will the Minister give me an

  485
  assurance that the Government have no proposals, under the new deal or anything else, that will damage the prospects of areas with low levels of unemployment such as my constituency of Macclesfield, which has about 2.2 per cent. unemployment?
  Mr. Smith: Indeed not. Under the new deal, help goes to the individual, so unemployed people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will receive help in the same way as unemployed people elsewhere. The particular focus of the new deal on enhancing employability and equipping people with skills means that it will be good for the wider community and the young long-term unemployed in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and good for business.

  New Deal (Retail Sector)
  Mr. Love: What representations he has received from the retail sector about the new deal. [29886]
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I have had discussions with representatives from retail organisations about the new deal for young people, and have been very pleased with the enthusiasm and commitment that they have shown. Many retail organisations have already signed national employer agreements, including Dixons, W H Smith, Tesco and Sainsbury.
  Mr. Love: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that many young people eligible for the new deal will want to work in the retail sector? The agreement whereby in-house training provided by retail companies can be translated into National Vocational Qualifications has been warmly welcomed within the industry. Will he ensure that all future arrangements include the same combination of high-quality education and appropriate qualifications to ensure the long-term job prospects of the young people involved?
  Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. It is a core requirement of every aspect of the new deal that it should supply high-quality training to a recognised standard. That is why the agreement that we have reached with the retail industry is not only of value in ensuring that well-regarded in-house training arrangements are translatable into progress and NVQs, but is a model for framework agreements in other sectors which we shall also be pursuing.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Gapes: If he will make a statement on his Department's measures to reduce unemployment. [29887]
  Mr. Andrew Smith: We shall continue with policies for sustainable economic growth and employability that create employment opportunity for all, including raising educational standards and extending lifelong learning, as well as the new deal and other Employment Service measures.
  Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Will the Minister continue to make sure that the Government's policy to get people off benefit and into work will lead to long-term employability, and real skills and education so
  486
  that they will have long-term prospects in the job market, in contrast to the failed policies of the previous Government—the Mickey Mouse jobs and the so-called schemes which left so many young people bitterly disillusioned about their prospects of getting work in future?
  Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right to say that the new deal will offer real jobs and qualifications leading to a life in work instead of a life on benefit. That is why every employer agreement—subject to the young person progressing satisfactorily and being sufficiently well motivated—commits the employer to providing a continuing job beyond the period of subsidy. That is why we insist that young people have at least the equivalent of one day a week training towards a recognised qualification. As those features of the new deal become better known among young people as well as employers, hundreds of youngsters are trying to get on to the programme early.
  Mrs. Browning: The Minister will be aware that, among the people on benefit whom the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) mentioned, are people with learning disabilities, who might be quite capable of carrying out the tasks required in the workplace but whose essential difficulty might be communication and behavioural problems. What, in practical terms, do the Government intend to provide as support either to them or to the workplace to enable more people with learning disabilities to get off benefit and into work?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady raises an important concern. That is why the programme provides for early entry into the new deal for disabled people, including those with learning difficulties. They will not have to be in receipt of jobseeker's allowance for six months before being able to receive the benefits of the new deal. Those benefits will include, as a follow-up to the initial gateway interview, assessment of their particular needs and referral to specialist course and agencies, including voluntary groups with a track record of success in working in the community, to ensure that needs are addressed. Another core feature of the new deal is such tailored help, which responds to individuals' needs. We want to ensure that those with learning difficulties or other disabilities get a fair deal through the new deal.
  Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the tens of thousands of redundancies in the steel industry over many years? Many of them took place in my constituency. We have also lost development area status and objective 2 status. Many estates, streets and communities are still trying to pick up the pieces following the redundancies. Will the new deal help the long-term unemployed?
  Mr. Smith: Yes, it will. My hon. Friend's constituents will be able to benefit from the employer subsidies for recruitment and the training and study opportunities that the new deal will make available from June for long-term unemployed people—as well as being able to benefit from the wider application of the principles of employment zones, which I described earlier.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Spring: What steps he is taking to ensure that funding from central Government for education is actually spent on education by county councils. [29888]
  Mr. Byers: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the leaders of local authorities to emphasise that the increase in resources of more than £1 billion should be passed on to schools. Of that, more than £10.7 million should be going to schools in Suffolk.
  Mr. Spring: In practice, educational provision in the county of Suffolk, for example, is under threat. In practice, for the first time in the county's history, school budgets are being cut. Would the hon. Gentleman like to take this opportunity to apologise to all parents, teachers and governors who, having heard his party's education, education, education slogan, now know that they have been bitterly let down and misled?
  Mr. Byers: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not allow prejudice to get in the way of fact. He needs to be aware that the Government have provided £10.7 million for schools in Suffolk—way above the rate of inflation. That is only half the story. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Suffolk's capital provision, he will see an extra £1.2 million for school building this year and, for the coming financial year, no less than £5.3 million for capital spending for Suffolk schools. That is another illustration of a Government who do not just talk about raising standards, but provide resources to see that it happens.
  Ms Hodge: I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on the extra money that they have found to put into schools. Does he share my concern that some local education authorities are not passing on to schools the money that the Government have made available? Would he, in particular, condemn Conservative-controlled councils such as Kensington and Chelsea, which is keeping more than 30 per cent. of its education budget centrally? Will he take steps to make the allocation of education spending at local authority level more transparent so we can see where the money is spent?
  Mr. Byers: I deeply regret the decisions taken by the councillors in Kensington and Chelsea not to pass on the considerable additional resources that the Government have provided to them. They will be held accountable in the May local elections by the parents, teachers and governors of the schools of Kensington and Chelsea because of their failure to put education first. That is the top priority of the Government. We have provided the resources and we want local authorities to provide that money to schools so they can join with the Government in raising standards and giving our children the best possible start in life.
  Mr. Dorrell: Does the Minister accept that the acid test of the Government's commitment to education will be the movement in school budgets when those have been finalised by local authorities in the next few weeks? Does he not understand that all the rhetoric—of which we have heard more this afternoon—rings hollow in schools around the country where budget increases seem likely to be barely more and, in some cases—as my hon. Friend the
  488
  Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said—less than, inflation? Is it not the case that the balloon of expectation pumped up last year by the Government has now burst and that it is clear that the Government's priority is not education, education, education, but presentation, presentation, presentation?
  Mr. Byers: That was one prepared a bit earlier today. For the first time in many years, schools throughout the country will have an above-inflation increase in resources—provided by this Government. Every council has had its capping level lifted so that it can passport the new money directly for school spending. That is another illustration of the Government putting standards first. Most importantly, the acid test of the Government will be the fact that, at the end of this Parliament, a greater percentage of our national wealth will be spent on education than when we took office.

  Citizenship Education
  Dr. Tony Wright: What plans he has to include citizenship education in the national curriculum. [29889]
  Mr. Blunkett: I have appointed an advisory group on citizenship and democracy under the chairmanship of Professor Bernard Crick—with you, Madam Speaker, as its excellent patron—to ensure that we can develop, as part of the review of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, both citizenship and democracy education for the future.
  Dr. Wright: We have been talking about the importance of educating young people in citizenship for the past 30 years or more; the problem is that we have only ever been talking about it. Will my right hon. Friend respond to the report of the group, when it comes—I congratulate him on setting it up—in terms of two principles; first, that a democracy has an obligation to educate young people in citizenship; secondly, we shall make progress only if it now becomes a requirement, and not merely a recommendation?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am keen that we do not repeat the situation that appertained when the previous Labour Government lost office, when Baroness Williams was in my post. She was still talking about this subject when the Government were defeated. We now need action to ensure that the curriculum reflects the critical importance of citizenship and democracy to equip our young people for the world of tomorrow so that they understand the structures of our society and democratic institutions, and their part in holding the Government to account.
  Mr. Brady: Will the Secretary of State ensure that citizenship education also makes an important allowance for educating children on the importance of keeping promises, such as that highlighted in The Times this morning? The report states that the Prime Minister wrote to a Doctor Tillson, assuring her that her children would continue to receive funding under the assisted places scheme until their education at their school was complete. That promise has now been broken. Is that not a bad example for the Government to set?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall ensure not only that people understand the importance of keeping promises, but that

  489
  they can read so that they may get the promises right. The promise we made we shall fulfil. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous Government's scheme to extend assisted places to primary education had not yet been implemented at the point to which he refers.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Does not Britain provide less social and civic education than other countries with a national curriculum? In my right hon. Friend's review of the national curriculum, will he consider ways to include the provision of social and civic education?
  Mr. Blunkett: The answer is yes, and the Minister for School Standards will introduce proposals, in consultation with the Department of Health, so that we can ensure that personal and social education is supported by health education. In that way, we shall have a clear picture of our support and help for young people in the future.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Llwyd: What current review there is of the operational efficiency of training and enterprise councils in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [29890]
  Dr. Howells: We are looking at the efficiency of all the organisations we fund as part of the departmental spending review.
  Mr. Llwyd: Is it not time to evaluate the work and results of TECs? In particular, is it not time to consider whether many of their functions could better be performed by colleges of further and higher education?
  Dr. Howells: We are looking closely at what the TECs do so that we can ensure that they are focusing on the objectives of this Government, including providing proper value for money; ensuring that the TECs rid the part of the training and education system that they fund of fraud and abuse; and improving the performance of weaker TECs to the level of the best TECs. Some good TECs are doing valuable work in improving the competitiveness of the regions that they serve.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his assurance that the TECs will be investigated. Many of my constituents have been let down by the Wakefield TEC, because the shortage of skills and lack of training has been apparent in an area with many redundant mineworkers. In reviewing the efficiency of TECs, will my hon. Friend take especial interest in the Wakefield TEC, because it has failed many local people?
  Dr. Howells: I know that my hon. Friend and his colleagues from neighbouring constituencies have assiduously monitored the progress of Wakefield TEC. It has had special problems, of which we are aware. A few improvements have been made recently, which will make a significant difference. I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking closely at Wakefield TEC and will draw several lessons from its failure to provide the goods in its training schemes.
  Mr. Dorrell: I welcome the generally favourable approach that the Minister is taking to TECs, which he
  490
  continues in his replies this afternoon. Will he confirm that almost the only firm decision that was included in the glitzy presentation yesterday was the cut of £150 million in the money available to the TECs, which he has just endorsed? Will he explain why he thinks it sensible to announce a reduction of £150 million in the resources available to a scheme that he supports, before the review that he mentioned earlier takes place?
  Dr. Howells: The right hon. Gentleman has once again completely misunderstood the situation. The TECs have £280 million languishing in their reserve accounts that should be used to provide education and training. Those sums have been sitting there for years in some cases and we aim—we have consulted the TECs on the subject—to make that money work. It will work by providing individual learning accounts, which will improve the lives of the people who live in the regions served by the TECs.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), is not part of the problem of TECs and further education colleges as training providers in areas where there are skills shortages and a higher age of unemployment that insufficient investment has been made in appropriate training opportunities? Will my hon. Friend look at that during his review?
  Dr. Howells: That is a central function of the TECs and, where they have failed, it is nothing short of a disgrace. They were set up by the previous Government to provide exactly the sort of functions described by my hon. Friend. During the review, we shall make sure that, in future, no TEC will be guilty of a dereliction of duty of that sort. It is absolutely vital that, if they spend large amounts of taxpayers' money, they spend it well and provide the skills and training required in their regions.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: When he plans to meet the chairman of the Standing Conference of Principals to discuss higher education funding. [29892]
  Dr. Howells: My right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to meet the chairman of the Standing Conference of Principals, but the Department is in close contact with all the higher education representative bodies.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that the Secretary of State will urgently review that decision. My constituent, the excellent Professor Norman Taylor, principal of the outstanding Surrey institute of art and design, expects to meet the Secretary of State shortly. The Secretary of State will be aware that students already feel betrayed because, far from accepting the Dearing recommendations—as the Prime Minister rather ill-judgedly asserted yesterday—the Government have rejected Dearing and are abolishing student maintenance grants and hitting the poorest students harder. The principals will make it clear that they are fed up with the mountain of propaganda. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where's the question?"] I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance—that is a

  491
  question—that the beneficiary of those measures will be higher education and not the Treasury.
  Dr. Howells: I am aware, Madam Speaker, that you have asked us to deal only with questions. We have just heard a good speech, although I did not believe a word of it. If we are going to talk about betrayal, we believe that the betrayal of students was the reduction by a quarter in funding per unit over the previous 10 years. That was nothing short of a disgrace, and we are going to reverse that.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: When my hon. Friend does meet the principals, will he bear in mind that top-up fees will deter students from lower-income families? Will he stand firm in ensuring that having no top-up fees becomes part of the Government's strategy?
  Dr. Howells: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that top-up fees play no part whatsoever in our proposals.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Allan: What plans he has to give extra funds to the further education sector. [29895]
  Mr. Blunkett: The Government have allocated, within the spending control totals, an additional £100 million for further education in the coming year, plus the substantial proportion of new deal expenditure on both day-release and in-house training and the full-time education option available to young people from April onwards.
  Mr. Allan: Does the Secretary of State let the House expect the regional development agencies to have a strategic planning role in the provision of the FE sector and its funding in future? How does he expect the relationship between regional development agencies and the regional committees of the Further Education Funding Council to evolve?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I expect there to be a strategic part that regional development agencies can play, both in the planning of further education provision and in terms of the development of meeting skills needs. That is why we appointed Chris Humphries to chair the new skills task force and why it will be working at regional as well as national level. That is why we think that further education has a critical role to play and why "The Learning Age" Green Paper and our consultation will concentrate heavily on sharing with the community as a whole the task of getting it right for the future, so that, instead of snipers and cynics, this country can have a programme that equips the whole nation for the economy of the 21st century.
  Mr. Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a considerable part of the additional £100 million announced at the end of last year was tied into new initiatives for the colleges and planned growth for next
  492
  year and so did not compensate for the loss to colleges of the cutting of the demand-led element by the previous Government? Does he have plans to ensure that colleges will receive further funds for the 1998–99 financial year?
  Mr. Blunkett: As I have already said, we have allocated £100 million plus. We cannot compensate automatically for the lost years in which further education was extremely badly treated by the previous Government, with the imposition of enormous productivity gains and changes in unit funding. What I can promise is that the changes in resourcing as a consequence of our changes to funding for further and higher education will ensure that those funds are reinvested, as part of our comprehensive spending review, in lifelong learning as a whole, which includes both further and higher education. The future for further education and lifelong learning is better than any that this country has ever known, and it is our intention to make sure that we get it right.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Secretary of State confirm the findings of the House of Commons Library research paper that the Government will take £2.5 billion out of the pockets of students in the next three years under their proposals; that, in order to make it even remotely feasible for students to go to university, the Government will have to lend back £2.25 billion to those students, with the result that virtually none of the money that Dearing identified as being needed will be available to put into higher education? That is all of the burden and none of the benefit.
  Mr. Blunkett: I can see that we need a numeracy as well as a literacy strategy. I have never heard such claptrap in all my life. We are not taking money off students. We are providing the resources that students need and expanding the amount of money and then collecting—[Interruption.] I am being heckled wonderfully, Madam Speaker. If Opposition Members would listen, they might learn a little. The truth of the matter is that students will then, on a progressive basis, repay only at a time when their income allows them to do so. So we are not taking money from students but providing money for students.
  Within five years, we shall have raised through our proposals as much as £800 million for reinvestment. I spelt that out on 23 July and I spell it out again now. I hope that Opposition Members can get it right for the future.

  School Non-attendance
  Mrs. Humble: What measures he is taking to reduce the rate of non—attendance at school. [29896]
  Mr. Byers: We are providing direct, practical help by supporting locally devised projects in 119 local education authorities at a total value of £22 million in 1998–99. We have also consulted widely on detailed new guidance for schools on attendance issues and will be issuing the final version of this shortly.
  Mrs. Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the £0.5 million that the two education authorities in my area will receive. Does my hon. Friend agree that projects such as those being developed by Lancashire and the new unitary authority of Blackpool, which involve both parents directly in schemes to combat non-attendance and other agencies, are vital as part of a partnership and a shared approach to deal with this difficult problem?
  Mr. Byers: I am delighted that the Government have been able to provide an extra £0.5 million to local education authorities in my hon. Friend's area. It is a clear demonstration that the Government take non-attendance seriously. We believe that children who do not attend school not only lose out on valuable education but drift into crime and anti-social behaviour. That needs to stop and we are now putting measures in place to ensure that it does.
  Mr. Bercow: Is the Minister aware of the proportion of cases of truancy in which the parents are unaware of what is happening? It seems essential that, if the problem is to be tackled, we discover at what stage the parents become aware of the activities of their children.
  Mr. Byers: For the first time since 1 May, I am going to agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right. Proper education works well when the school and the parents stand shoulder to shoulder with the pupil. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but, looking at the empty expanse of green Benches opposite, I think that we need to have a non-attendance programme for Conservative Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is one of only 17 who have sat through all of Education and Employment questions this afternoon.

  New Deal (Men Over 40)
  Mr. MacShane: What proposals he has to extend the new deal programme to men over 40 years of age. [29897]
  Mr. Andrew Smith: New deal provision for adults, including men over 40, who have been unemployed for two years or more will start this June. We are also considering piloting the extension of the new deal approach to cover those who have been unemployed for shorter durations.
  Mr. MacShane: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that, in Rotherham, some 50,000 men lost their jobs under the Tories? The equivalent of five army divisions were destroyed by Conservative economic policies. Those men, many of whom are now too old to get work but too young to die, are the legacy of those wasted Tory years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, excellent as the new deal is for young workers, we should not forget our obligation to men over the age of 40 as our policy develops?
  Mr. Smith: We certainly shall not forget them, I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend. That is why, in June, we shall extend the benefits of the new deal to the longer-term older unemployed, and why we are considering how to extend to them the support that the gateway provides, as well as the advisory support that is available and the subsidised employment opportunities. If that can be delivered with the innovation, energy and dedication evident in partnerships such as that which has been pursued in Rotherham, the older unemployed will have hope for the future.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 2 MARCH—Completion of consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill.
TUESDAY 3 MARCH—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on ISAs, PEPs and TESSAs, followed by a debate on the countryside. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
WEDNESDAY 4 MARCH—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Sixth Day).
THURSDAY 5 MARCH—Until about 7 pm, completion of consideration in Committee of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Partial Continuance) Order.
FRIDAY 6 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 9 MARCH—Remaining stages of the National Minimum Wage Bill.
TUESDAY 10 MARCH—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Remaining stages of the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 11 MARCH—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Progress on remaining stages of the School Standards and Framework Bill.
Remaining stages of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 12 MARCH—Remaining stages of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
FRIDAY 13 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
Mrs. Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving us the business for two weeks. As she knows, we greatly appreciate the fact that she manages to give the House the provisional business for the second week. I know, as does she, that it has been quite tricky to arrange that business this time. We understand that business management is becoming more complex, because it is difficult to predict how long Committee stages will take, and we appreciate the fact that the Leader of the House endeavours to keep her pledge.
May I ask yet again for a debate on the national health service? Last week, we had the embarrassingly steep rise in NHS waiting lists, and this week there has been another embarrassment for the Secretary of State for Health with the disclosure that, despite his protestations, the Public Administration Committee has revealed that he has been
496
packing NHS trust boards with political nominees. The Committee's Chairman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), has rightly criticised the Secretary of State over the fact that 111 out of 113 council appointments came from the Labour party. The House should have a chance to debate those matters in Government time, together with the seven statements made by Health Ministers since the election, given that the only debate on the NHS since 1 May has taken place in Opposition time.
Will the Leader of the House also provide time for a debate on her Government's abuse of this House? I am sorry to have to put it to the right hon. Lady in that manner, because I know that she feels strongly about the issue, given the views that she has expressed in the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. It is important that the House should not be sidelined and insulted by the constant stream of announcements, press briefings, conferences held outside the Chamber and disclosures on the "Today" programme.
Last week, the Leader of the House promised in good faith that the House would be informed before the wider world about the contents of the millennium dome. However, baby dome was announced on the "Breakfast With Frost" programme on Sunday and on Tuesday, the day that the glitzy launch took place at breakfast time, there was a written answer from the dome Minister saying that the Prime Minister's speech on the subject would be placed in the Library when it opened at 10 am, after the launch. The Government's plans for lifelong learning were also disclosed outside the House, and the House was thrown a sop in the form of a written answer.
The consequences for the Government of that arrogance were demonstrated yesterday, when the Minister for the Environment had to come to this place and apologise for briefing an outside group before he briefed the House. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's apology, which was gracefully made. However, it would have been less embarrassing for him and for the Government if their cavalier and rather hostile attitude to the conventions of parliamentary democracy had not made that apology necessary.
I feel sure that the Government will wish to arrange an early debate on social security issues. The amount of pre-Budget press briefing, with or without the knowledge of the Secretary of State for Social Security, has resulted in mess, muddle and confusion. With the Secretary of State supposedly sticking to her line that cuts in lone-parent benefits are necessary—although who could be quite sure—the Chancellor's people telling the press that he has bowed to Back-Bench pressure on lone parent benefit cuts, and the Prime Minister yesterday denying it all, we need a little clarity in that area. The House does not deserve that contempt of parliamentary democracy. I ask the right hon. Lady to insist that her ministerial colleagues adopt the view that she expressed so admirably to the Hansard Society earlier this week.
Finally, as the right hon. Lady said, we shall devote part of our Opposition day to a debate on PEPs, TESSAs and ISAs. Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that the Minister responsible for those matters, the Paymaster General, will reply to that debate?
Mrs. Taylor: On the last point, a senior Treasury Minister will reply to the debate. With regard to the

497
pre-Budget speculation about the Department of Social Security, the right hon. Lady should take the advice that the Prime Minister offered during Question Time yesterday, when he dealt with that matter very clearly.
As to the right hon. Lady's request for a debate on the national health service, she should read again the report of the Public Administration Committee that was published last week—I thought that Conservative Members might refer to it last week, but, as usual, they are a week or two behind. That report did not criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in the way that the right hon. Lady suggests. All appointments to NHS boards since the election have been made on merit and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is important that we abide by those guidelines, and my right hon. Friend has done that.
The right hon. Lady's other questions were about what she described as abuses of the House. I informed her and the whole House last week that the House would be kept informed about developments regarding the millennium dome. That was the case, and written parliamentary questions were answered. There has been no change of policy. I do not think that many hon. Members would want the House to be used as an exhibition centre or would consider it a good use of our time if we were to examine the details of the dome in this place, when we should be discussing legislation that is currently before us.
With regard to the Green Paper on lifelong learning, the right hon. Lady will recall, as she was a member of the previous Administration, that it was quite exceptional for any Green Paper to be the subject of a statement to the House.
I am glad that the right hon. Lady welcomed the graceful apology, as she described it, given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on the right to roam. I wish that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) had been as gracious in accepting that apology. If there was any abuse of the House, it was from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I am after another debate on Iraq—not on whether we should bomb or invade, but on what we should do to help the Iraqi people to achieve democracy, peace and economic and social progress. When I raised the matter on Tuesday with the Prime Minister, he twice said that we are doing everything we can to help in those areas. May we have a debate to discuss the details of what we are doing, and what we think we should do, to assist in those areas?
Mrs. Taylor: I understand the concern, which is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people but with Saddam Hussein's regime. My hon. Friend will know that many Government Departments have provided assistance to the people of Iraq. Indeed, during Health Question Time this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health detailed some of the help that was included in that programme. I do not think that it is possible to find time for a debate, but it is important that that information should see the light of day.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Leader of the House aware that, during the student lobby yesterday,
498
official police photographers took close-up pictures of some of our constituents in an intimidatory way, to try to discourage them from exercising their normal rights as citizens? Will she inquire whether that is normal practice? In future, will old-age pensioners, the disabled and farmers be photographed in that way? Is not that an abuse of the normal right of access of citizens to the House and to us as Members?
Secondly, has the Leader of the House made representations to the BBC, on behalf of us all, about the way in which it is dumbing down parliamentary and current affairs programmes that report to the nation the many activities of the House? Is she aware that in some parts of my constituency it will be impossible to listen to "Yesterday in Parliament" or "Today in Parliament"? Any increase in the number of times that "The Week in Westminster" will be broadcast—it will have a small audience on a Thursday—simply will not compensate for that. I hope that she will make representations on behalf of the whole House.
Thirdly, is the Leader of the House aware that there is all-party concern about anxieties expressed in all parts of the rural environment, about the way in which 10 months have made even worse the product of 10 years and more of Tory neglect of rural areas? Will she now recognise that there is anxiety on both sides of the House to make real what the Prime Minister is apparently prepared to concede is necessary: a new approach to poverty, deprivation and services in all parts of the rural community?
Mrs. Taylor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I had not heard anything about the taking of photographs yesterday. I am sure that he has taken that up with the relevant authorities.
On the issue of the BBC, the hon. Gentleman may recall that you, Madam Speaker, invited hon. Members to comment, and I think that you made representations at the time. The hon. Gentleman may know that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport met this morning and questioned senior representatives of BBC Radio on the matter. The Select Committee has asked that no changes be made until it has published its report and recommendations. I am sure that the BBC will consider that request carefully.
On the issue of the countryside, I at least welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the problems in rural areas have been growing for the past 18 years and have not developed in nine months, but it is a false dichotomy to say that there is one group of problems in the countryside and another in urban areas. Many of the Government's policies on health, transport, housing, education and crime are relevant wherever one lives.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend please insist to the BBC that its plans should not include cutting down on scrutiny of Select Committees, which is usually an important part of its reportage? If those outside the House are to know what is happening day by day, they must rely on accurate representations of what we do from the BBC, not on a series of cheerfully written and wholly inaccurate reports that relate only to the individual idiosyncrasies of Members of Parliament.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend will recall that one thing that has happened in recent weeks is that the House now

499
produces, as a result of some of the Modernisation Committee's recommendations, a weekly list of all the Select Committee hearings, stating the topic and who is giving evidence. It is in everyone's interest that there should be a greater awareness of what happens in Select Committees, and serious reporting such as we can get through those programmes is useful to people outside. Those who want that information often find it difficult to get it in other ways.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Following a debate in the other place on 18 February, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in this Chamber on the restitution of assets to victims of Nazism, especially in the light of the extremely worrying comments of the Minister who participated in that debate, who implicitly suggested that the Government would take no action in returning those assets to victims of Nazism? If she cannot find time for a debate, will she at least ask the appropriate Minister to make a statement as soon as possible in this House?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right to anticipate that I cannot find time for a debate in the near future. His wisest course of action might be to apply for an Adjournment debate.
Mr. James Wray: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on the fluoridation of public water supplies? There has a move by Ministers to push the fluoridation of public water supplies, and I want us to debate the moral and medical aspects of that, because it is in breach of the Food and Drugs Act 1956 and section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968, and was thrown out of the Scottish courts under the Water Act 1945. It would be unfair of Ministers to try and push that issue, especially given that there is a free vote in the House and in the Labour party.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend will be aware that Ministers, in Scotland and the rest of the country, are consulting on health-related matters, and a Green Paper touches on the issue that he raises. My hon. Friend and others may wish to respond to the consultation that is taking place.
Mr. David Amess: Will the right hon. Lady consider an early debate on local government democracy, particularly on coalition government? Is she aware that last Thursday, Mrs. Lesley Salter won the Chalkwell ward for the Conservative party from the Liberal Democrat party, as a result of which Southend council is now made up of 19 Conservatives, 13 Liberal Democrats and seven Labour councillors? Does she agree that it is improper for the seven Labour councillors to continue to prop up the 13 Liberal Democrats?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that we can have a debate on local government in Southend—or, as some hon. Members have suggested, in Basildon.
Mr. Frank Cook: First, may I support the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for a further debate
500
on Iraq? As founding chairman of the all-party land mine eradication group in the House, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the accelerating momentum around the globe for the development and discipline of policies on humanitarian de-mining and clearance of unexploded ordnance? That is of increasing interest. Improving the clearance rate would greatly help third-world aid projects, and there is pressing interest in the level of Government involvement in land mine eradication programmes. I seek a half-day debate on the subject.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises two serious issues. I answered the first when responding to a previous question. The whole House welcomes the progress that has been made on land mine eradication. It is appropriate for the House to debate such issues, but he knows the pressure of business as well as everybody else. I am afraid that I cannot hold out the prospect of an early debate on that matter, important though it is.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I press the Leader of the House for an early debate on the current situation in Northern Ireland, so that the House can explore how far the two Governments have danced to the tune of terrorists, of whatever ilk, and moved from the Mitchell principles? There were to be no preconditions to the talks, but Sinn Fein now says that it will not go back into the talks until it has met the Prime Minister. Sinn Fein is due to return on 9 March; I suspect that it may not go back in until after the purported meeting on 10 March. Surely that should not happen.
Mrs. Taylor: Clearly, the issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers are serious. All Hon. Members want the talks to succeed, and we are all aware of our responsibilities to choose our words carefully and to try to advance the peace process rather than cause difficulties. At the moment, an early debate is not possible, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland tries to keep the House informed. I am sure that that approach will continue.
Mr. David Winnick: Bearing in mind the fact that during Question Time we had an exchange on citizenship, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is totally unacceptable for the BBC to put forward plans whereby "Yesterday in Parliament" would be broadcast on long wave only? That programme has an audience of more than 1 million people; half, or more, will be lost if the BBC proposals go ahead. "Today in Parliament" lost half its audience when it went on to long wave.
As the House is not divided over the matter, will my right hon. Friend and the shadow Leader of the House make a joint representation to the BBC and tell it that it has no business whatever marginalising the proceedings of Parliament? Without Parliament and our democracy, there would be no BBC. I hope that there will be unanimity on this. Wearing her Commons hat, not her Government hat, will she and the shadow Leader of the House see the BBC people as soon as possible?
Mrs. Taylor: I have already acknowledged the strong feelings on both sides of the House, which were expressed some months ago when the plans saw the light of day. I have also outlined to the House the action taken today

501
by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. The BBC chairman will be available in the House on 12 March to meet hon. Members on the matter. A meeting between Madam Speaker and the chairman has already been arranged for 17 March. I hope that there will be sufficient opportunity to ensure that the BBC is in no doubt about the strength of feeling on both sides of the House.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Lady make time for a full debate in Government time on countryside issues, because they are undoubtedly at or near the top of the list of parliamentary anxieties? Does she agree that it might be worth while attaching to Bills a rural impact statement, to test the interests of rural communities against those of towns, to ensure greater equity? Does she further agree that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer put more duty on petrol, he would be inveighing against rural areas?
Mrs. Taylor: I think it right to assess the environmental impact of legislation when it is introduced, regardless of the nature of that legislation. I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's basic premise that the issue is "rural versus town". I do not think that it does anyone any good to try to portray it in that way, or to try to pretend that the problems that have arisen in rural areas have become apparent only in the past nine months.
Gillian Merron: There has been publicity recently relating to the industrial tribunal criticisms of Lincolnshire police authority and the handling of grievance and disciplinary procedures, which have been the subject of investigation by Humberside police—although, regrettably, their report remains secret. Will my right hon. Friend allow a full debate on the matter, so that we can make progress in increasing openness and effectiveness?
Mrs. Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend has asked questions about the issue before. Fortuitously, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is present, and will have heard what she has said today. I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will find other ways in which to pursue the matter.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I agree with the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the action that the BBC may take to reduce coverage of Parliament's activities, and I thank the Leader of the House for taking such a positive stance. May I express the hope that the governors and chairman of the BBC will note what Parliament feels—and what I think people outside feel—before taking any irrevocable action?
Can the Leader of the House also tell us when a statement will be made, or a debate take place, about the roads review that is currently being undertaken?
Mrs. Taylor: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make his voice heard during the consultations that I mentioned—and I am sure that the fact that the chairman of the BBC is to be in the House has not escaped his notice. Given the hon. Gentleman's reputation, I expect that he will be present then. I think that a positive stance has been adopted on all sides.
502
I am afraid that I cannot say anything about the roads review at this stage, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is warned of when it will be completed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If there is a statement or a debate about the implications of the march of the rural communities, will my right hon. Friend bear this in mind? I speak as someone who has been in the House for more than 20 years, representing a rural constituency 30 miles long and about 20 miles wide. One of the problems that we face in the rural villages—more than 20 altogether—is that they were utterly ruined by the last Tory Government, who shut every single pit in every single pit village, and created a BSE crisis that has hammered all the small farmers in my constituency. Almost all the ruin and breakdown of the social fabric has been a direct result of what was done by those Tories, many of whom will be cheering people on at the beacons and in Hyde park on Sunday. Let the country know where the trouble started, and let us remember that we shall have to mend all the problems created by that lousy lot.
Mrs. Taylor: I hope that my hon. Friend catches your eye during Tuesday's debate, Madam Speaker. As someone who has represented a rural constituency for more than 20 years, he is well placed to examine the problems that exist there. I think that rural areas gave their verdict on the last Government—and it is significant that there are now more Labour Members representing rural constituencies than Tories and Liberal Democrats put together.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please arrange for a debate on the relationship between the House of Commons and the Government in the context of the extent to which the Government are increasingly refusing to answer questions tabled by Members of Parliament? Does the Leader of the House realise the number of occasions on which written questions in particular, but also oral questions, are met with what amounts to a point-blank refusal to divulge information that should rightly be in the public domain, not only now but particularly in the light of the oft-repeated claims by her Government that they believe in open government? Surely it is time for a debate on that matter, in order to get it out into the open and regularise it.
Mrs. Taylor: As a member of the former Government, the right hon. Gentleman is showing his usual lack of memory in these matters. There have always been holding answers and limited answers. More questions are being asked and, often, the quality of the answer reflects the quality of the question.
Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I am sure that I speak on behalf of many colleagues from the Merseyside area if I once again appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to give consideration to a full debate in the House on the Hillsborough disaster. My right hon. Friend will be aware that in the week since the publication of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's report, there has been intense and increasing concern and anger on Merseyside and in the wider region.
The whole affair gives rise to a wide range of issues relating to the management of disasters and their aftermath. A full debate in the House would, for once,

503
give us a full and adequate opportunity to address the issues. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might even welcome an opportunity to make a full response on the record. A debate would also provide a full opportunity to explore what could and should be done about what my constituents regard as an unclosed chapter of history.
Mrs. Taylor: There is to be an Adjournment debate, which has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), a week on Monday. I am sure that that will not be considered sufficient to cover all the issues that hon. Members would like to raise. We all have enormous sympathy for those involved, and we understand hon. Members' desire to raise those issues. However, as last week, I have to say that I do not rule out the possibility of a debate on the matter, but I do not want to raise false hopes that there can be an early debate in Government time.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the right hon. Lady grant the House an early debate on foreign affairs, so that right hon. and hon. Members may have an opportunity to hold Her Majesty's Government to account on their policy towards European Union enlargement, which is supposedly at the heart of their Euro-presidential efforts? That is particularly important in the light of early-day motion 827 on Estonia, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and signed by 39 hon. Members.
[That this House notes the importance of the 80th anniversary of Estonian independence on 24th February; welcomes the decision to include Estonia in the first wave of European Union enlargement negotiations, due to start under the UK Presidency of the European Union in April 1998; notes that Tallinn, the capital, is a thriving city with a successful stock market, banking, business and insurance sectors, is a growing tourist destination and presents increasing opportunities for British business investment; notes the positive efforts made by Tallinn City Council to prepare for membership of the European Union and to promote the inclusion of the Russian minority; and calls on the UK Government to encourage British investment in Estonia and the UK's relations with Estonia.]
The right hon. Lady will be aware that the President of Estonia is in this country this week, and it would be a symbolic gesture and would be warmly welcomed if Her Majesty's Government could give that commitment.
Mrs. Taylor: I understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is important, but he will know that I have announced the business for the next two weeks and that much of the following week is to be taken up by the Budget debate. Important though those issues are, it is not always easy to find time when hon. Members request it. I shall bear that in mind, but I cannot raise hopes of an early debate.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Can the Leader of the House squeeze some time out of the calendar to allow a proper debate and a Division on the BBC? All the protests have been made and the BBC continues to show complete contempt for anything said in the House. Putting
504
"Yesterday in Parliament" on long wave is like sending it to Siberia—all we get on long wave is Radio Baghdad. Putting "The Week in Westminster" on Thursday means that no hon. Member is likely to be able to listen to it. Sending the chairman down here is not enough. He may be bland, but we are not blind. We do not want this public relations schmoozing; we want a proper debate. I think that a deeper strategy is involved, because I believe that certain senior BBC executives want to decouple the BBC from the public and the nation and possibly want to privatise it. The House must take this much more seriously than simply meeting the odd delegation or sending the odd letter of protest.
Mrs. Taylor: The action that I have already outlined—that the Select Committee will report on the matter, that the chairman of the BBC will be made available in the House to discuss it, and that he is to meet you, Madam Speaker—is not mutually incompatible with a debate: the problem is finding time for one. One way of securing a debate would be if many hon. Members were to enter the ballot for a one-and-a-half-hour Wednesday morning debate. By the law of averages, one of them might be successful.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady find time for a statement next week by the President of the Board of Trade, in which she can clarify, once and for all, whether the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, Lord Simon, has paid to charity the profit on the sale of his BP shares? Lord Simon gave a specific public undertaking to make that donation. The right hon. Lady will recall that I have raised that issue before. When I last raised it with her, she claimed that Lord Simon had done the right and proper thing. Did she mean by that that the donation had been made: yes or no?
Mrs. Taylor: As I have said before, my noble Friend has done the right and proper thing, by obeying all the established rules on the conduct of Ministers.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As we are not yet, alas, out of the Iraqi marsh, may I hark back to the questions of my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), and ask the Leader of the House to reflect again that it is not sufficient to say that we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people? As a letter from four recent ambassadors to Baghdad, Sir Donald Maitland and our arms negotiator, David Summerhayes, in today's issue of The Independent makes clear, there are real on-going problems. The Leader of the House replied to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire that the Secretary of State for Health had made a comment during Health questions, at column 172, in reply to a question from me, but that was—necessarily—a very brief comment. Before Easter, could she not reflect on whether we should have a follow-up debate?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that we can have a debate in the near future on that specific point. My hon. Friend is a very experienced hon. Member and very often finds time to raise issues, regardless of the fact that there will not be a debate in Government time.
Mr. David Tredinnick: The right hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have yet to

505
respond to the report of the Procedure Committee in the previous Parliament on delegated legislation and its scrutiny. Does she propose to introduce measures to improve the scrutiny of delegated legislation? Does she not think that the time has come for a full debate on the scrutiny of delegated legislation, which is of great concern to many hon. Members?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government recently submitted a memorandum on the scrutiny of European legislation to the Modernisation Committee. We are considering also what has to be said about delegated legislation. The best course of action is for the Modernisation Committee to examine the issues. It may be appropriate for the House to debate those matters at some stage, but not in the immediate future.
Dr. Tony Wright: May I ask one more question on broadcasting? Although we have heard that the BBC's proposals to restrict parliamentary broadcasting are causing distress in the House, the proposals from all broadcasters effectively to withdraw party political broadcasting are causing distress across the nation. Those matters are important and involve not only party managers, broadcasters or even individual hon. Members: they are House matters and democracy matters. My right hon. Friend mentioned the Modernisation Committee, but we have no guarantee that its reports will be debated in the House. Will she give us an assurance that, in the near future, those matters will at least be debated by the House?
Mrs. Taylor: The proposal that I made for several hon. Members to enter the ballot for the hour-and-a-half debates might be the best way forward.
Mr. Graham Brady: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is considerable concern among professional providers of child care about suggestions by the Government that it may be possible rapidly to train large number of school leavers to engage in child care activities? Does she accept that child care is desperately important and that it should be done well? May we have an urgent debate on training for child care?
Mrs. Taylor: I certainly agree that training is important, as is child care itself. The steps that are being taken, in the welfare-to-work programmes, for example, are ensuring that quality training is available.
Ms Helen Southworth: May we have an early debate on the unfair competition represented by out-of-town shopping centres that provide free car parking? It is an issue which is particularly pertinent to my constituency, where the town centre is the vibrant hub of a local community. People there are working to provide an integrated and sustainable transport policy, recognising that car parking charges are an important factor within that.
Mrs. Taylor: There will be questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on Tuesday, and it might be possible for my hon. Friend to raise that issue then. Failing that, I can only recommend trying to secure an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: We have all seen the expensive television advertisements about the
506
new deal, but I am concerned about the silent majority whose voice is not heard. May we have a debate on the impact of the windfall tax on people who work in the utilities and who may lose their jobs because of the utilities' inability to invest the money that they would otherwise have invested and because the utilities will no longer be able to peg their prices? I raise that matter following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about some hon. Members not being able to obtain proper answers from Ministers via the Table Office.
Mrs. Taylor: We debated the windfall tax last summer, and the House endorsed the Government's proposals.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to see the excellent exhibition by the Design Council in the Upper Waiting Hall, which covers some of the exciting products in the millennium product challenge fund? Is she aware that we have not had a debate on design innovation for a long time? Design innovation is at the heart of this country's competitive edge. Will she not only visit the exhibition, perhaps with some senior colleagues, but arrange a debate on that important subject?
Finally, would not it be better for the whole nation if the BBC spent a little more time broadcasting what we say in the House instead of spending so much time being anti the millennium and the millennium exhibition?
Mrs. Taylor: I think that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend's last comment. As for the Design Council exhibition, I saw it briefly one morning this week. I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will encourage other hon. Members to see it. As for a debate on design innovation, he will not be surprised to hear me repeat what I said before about parliamentary time and the difficulties that I would have in finding Government time for such a debate. Of course, there are Trade and Industry questions on Thursday and, as a regular attender at those, he might well find the opportunity to make some of the points that he has made today.
Mr. Bill Rammell: May we have an early debate on the importance of local education authorities prioritising education spending, as the Government have done? I should like to inform my right hon. Friend of the situation in my local authority area of Essex, where the move from a Labour-Liberal Democrat administration to a Conservative one on 1 April meant a move from four years of consistently spending above the standard spending assessment to a proposed Conservative budget £3.5 million below the SSA. That has meant a complete, sudden and brutal cessation of discretionary awards to dance and drama students. There are six potential such students in my constituency who have gained places at prestigious dance and drama colleges but who are finding their life chances being taken away by the new Conservative administration. May I ask for an early debate on this subject and, through my right hon. Friend, ask Education Ministers to ask those Conservative councillors in Essex to rethink their decision, even at this late stage?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has made his point well and informed the House of the new priorities of the

507
Conservatives in Essex. He will not be surprised at my saying that there is no Government time for the debate that he requests. He may be fortunate in securing an Adjournment debate, although we shall soon be discussing the remaining stages of education Bills, and he may find that he can raise some of the issues then.
Mr. David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the multilateral agreement on investment is an issue of profound significance to trade and industry in this country and many others? The negotiations are currently taking place in Paris and the agreement may be signed shortly after Easter, so will she discuss the matter with her Cabinet colleagues and ensure that, before the Government sign any agreement, there is a full debate on the Floor of the House?
Mrs. Taylor: I think that there have been two debates on the matter—there was certainly one earlier this week—and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the Government's position clear last week, if not the week before, at Question Time. If my hon. Friend wants to raise any outstanding points, he could try to do so during Trade and Industry questions on Thursday, but I do not think that a full debate on the matter is possible in the near future, simply because we are very short of time on the Floor of the House.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: At my surgery about a week ago, I met a father whose son urgently needed his tonsils removed but had been told that he would have to wait up to eight months on the national health service, even though the same surgeon could perform the operation privately the following week. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider her decision on a debate on the national health service, so that Labour Members can raise such issues as consultants' contracts and the deliberate manipulation of waiting lists to favour the private sector? We want to expose the dire legacy that we inherited from the Conservative Government, and correct some of the misinformation that Conservative Members are giving about what we need to do to rebuild the national health service.
Mrs. Taylor: Since the Government came to office, we have announced an extra £1.5 billion for the health
508
service—£300 million for this year and £1.2 billion for next year—so it is extremely tempting to arrange such a debate. However, my hon. Friend is aware of our priorities in the legislative programme. I shall certainly bring his specific point to the attention of Ministers, but if he wants to take those local issues further, I can only suggest that he takes his chances with all the other hon. Members in the ballot for an Adjournment debate.
Sir Patrick Cormack: May I thank the right hon. Lady for what she said about the BBC and associate the Opposition with the concerns that have been expressed this afternoon? Will she go one stage further and write to the chairman of the BBC today, enclosing a copy of Hansard containing the exchanges that have taken place, and ask him to see her personally when he comes to the House on 12 March? If she wants my right hon. Friend the Member for South—West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and me to be present, we should be glad to do that.
Will the right hon. Lady also clarify a point that she made in replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for South—West Norfolk? She said that a senior Treasury Minister would reply to the debate on TESSAs and PEPs, but sidestepped the specific question whether the Paymaster General would reply. Will she assure us that there will not be another evasion, such as occurred when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sat in the Smoking Room while the House debated beef on the bone? The Paymaster General is specifically responsible for these matters, and we expect him to reply.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman protests too much. There will be two Government speakers during that debate: my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will open the debate and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will close it. We are treating the debate as we treat every other—extremely seriously.
I am more than happy to ensure that a copy of the Hansard report of the exchanges is sent to the chairman of the BBC. How we take the matter further, especially as Madam Speaker has already planned to meet the chairman, should perhaps best be discussed through the usual channels.

Orders of the Day

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 24 February].
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
    Clause 1

      NUMBER OF MEPs, ELECTORAL REGIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM
      Amendment moved [24 February]: No. 26, in page 1, line 24, leave out from 'region' to 'shall' in line 29 on page 2.—[Mr. Trimble.]
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 9, in page 1, line 25, leave out from 'be' to end of line 26 and insert
      'an open regional list system.
      3A. An open regional list system is a system which complies with the following requirements, namely—

      (a) each electoral region shall be divided into a number of constituencies equal to the number of MEPs to be elected for that region in accordance with subsection 2(4) above and Schedule 1;

      (b) each candidate shall nominate on the ballot paper one constituency in the relevant region which he will represent, if elected;

      (c) in the event of the same constituency being nominated by more than one successful candidate, the candidate elected first shall represent his nominated constituency;

      (d) successful candidates unable to represent their nominated constituency for the reason given in sub-paragraph (c) shall, in the order of their election, choose another constituency to represent, and;

      (e) if an elected candidate has nominated a constituency which no candidate elected before him has nominated, he shall represent that constituency even if a candidate elected before him, whose own nominated constituency has been taken, seeks to choose it.'.

      No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out from 'cast' to end of line 2 and insert
      'in one of the following ways:

      (a) for a registered party;

      (b) for a candidate listed as a member of a registered party; or

      (c) for an individual candidate not listed as a member of a registered party.'.

      No. 51, in page 2, line 2, after 'candidate,', insert
      'whether or not the candidate is a member of a registered party,'.
      No. 2, in page 2, line 4, after 'candidate', insert
      'not listed as a member of a registered party'.
      510
      No. 3, in page 2, line 4, after 'votes' insert
      ', with votes for candidates listed as members of a registered party counting towards the total vote of that party.'.
      No. 4, in page 2, line 8, leave out from 'number' to end and insert 'shown below.

      Number of seats already allocated

      Divisor

      2

      3

      3

      5

      4

      7

      5

      9

      6

      11

      7

      13

      8

      15

      9

      17

      10

      19.'

      No. 5, in page 2, line 16, leave out from 'filled' to end of line 18 and insert 'as follows—

      (a) a quota shall be determined which is equal to the total number of votes polled for all the parties, divided by the number of seats to be allocated, plus one.

      (b) votes cast for the candidate at the top of the party list shall be compared with the number of votes cast for the registered party to which that candidate belongs.

      (c) where the candidate has fewer votes than the quota, the votes for that candidate will then be topped up to reach the quota using votes from the party vote, reducing the number of votes won by the party accordingly.

      (d) this process continues for each candidate on the list until the party votes have been exhausted, except where there are insufficient votes in the party vote to top up a candidate, in which case those votes are allocated to the next person on the list with sufficient votes, who moves one place up the list.'.

      No. 6, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
      '(7A) The style of the front of the ballot papers to be used shall be in the form set out in Schedule (European Parliament Ballot Paper).
      No. 10, in page 2, leave out lines 22 to 24.
      No. 11, in page 2, leave out lines 25 to 28.
      New clause 4—Evaluation by Secretary of State of open list system and method of allocating seats—
      '.—After section 7 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, there shall be inserted the following section—
      "Evaluation by Secretary of State of open list system and method of allocating seats

      7A.—(1) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the first election held under the regional list system set out in section 3 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament, setting out what appear to him to be the principal advantages and disadvantages of conducting subsequent such elections by an open list system.

      (2) A report under subsection (1) above may also contain proposals for changing the arrangements for the allocation of seats set out in this Act.

      (3) In this section, 'open list system' means an electoral system in which the names of those candidates on a party's list

      511
      are listed on the ballot paper and each voter can choose whether to cast his vote either—

      (a) for a registered party, or

      (b) for an individual candidate, whether or not that candidate is on a party's list of candidates.".'.

      Amendment No. 27, in schedule 2, page 8, leave out lines 19 to 25.

      'EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT BALLOT PAPER

      EASTERN ENGLAND CONSTITUENCY

      ELECTION OF EIGHT MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

      You may vote in one of two ways:

      EITHER

      □

      □

      □

      □

      Put 'X' in one of these boxes to indicate the party of your choice

      Conservative Party

      Green Party

      Labour Party

      Liberal Democrats

      OR Put 'X' in one of these boxes to indicate the candidate of your choice

      Conservative Party

      Green Party

      Labour Party

      Liberal Democrats

      Others

      □

      FORBES

      □

      SKYLARK

      □

      CLARKE

      □

      HOLDER

      □

      THWAITE

      Annabel

      Daniel

      Winston

      Maureen

      Norman

      SOCIALIST

      LABOUR

      □

      SMYTHE

      □

      ANDREWS

      □

      BLACK

      □

      CHAUDHRI

      □

      KENT

      Sir Alan

      Melanie

      Michael

      Ajit

      Anthony

      PROCANING

      □

      PARSONS

      □

      VALERIAN

      □

      PETERS

      □

      HUSSEIN

      □

      McINTYRE

      Giles

      Jennifer

      Angela

      Rupal

      Lord

      NATURAL LAW PARTY

      □

      SIDCUP

      □

      SVENSON

      □

      ELLERTON

      □

      MUIR

      Lady Anne

      Bob

      Sir Paul

      Seymour

      INDEP'NT

      □

      BIRCH

      □

      BELL

      □

      BEDFORD

      □

      SMEDLEY

      Dominic

      Celia

      Baroness (Anne)

      Jemima

      MARXIST

      □

      PRESSMAN

      □

      UL-HAQ

      □

      MEADOWS

      Marlene

      Tariq

      Simon

      □

      LANCASTER

      □

      POTTER

      □

      GOLSTEIN

      Sir Alfonse

      Amelia

      Samuel

      □

      TRUSTFUL

      □

      CHAPLIN

      □

      HUNTER

      Derek

      Nazalia

      Sarah

      4.20 pm
      Mr. David Trimble: After the debate had finished at 10 pm on Tuesday, I reflected that perhaps I had been too generous in taking interventions, because, had I not done so, I might have finished my speech and would not be standing here today. None the less, those interventions raised interesting points.
      When the debate finished, 1 was responding to an intervention from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)
      512
      Amendment No. 79, in page 8, line 25, at end insert—
      '(3C) Regulations under this paragraph may make provision requiring party lists of candidates and nominations of individual candidates to be supported by signatures of electors in the relevant constituency, and may specify the numbers of signatures required.'.
      New schedule 1—
      to correct what I thought was a misapprehension when he 4.20 pm said of the single transferable vote system that
      "people lose the ability to make a clear choice when their vote is shuffled through the system".— [Official Report, 24 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 272.]
      I was about to tell the hon. Gentleman that he was wrong to suggest that votes are shuffled through the system under STV. If votes are transferred, it is because the elector has indicated a preference.

      513
      Votes are not transferred automatically. Under the STV system, it is common for an elector to plump—to mark only one preference. Consequently, the vote is never transferred. It is counted for the person in respect of whom the elector has indicated a first preference, and that is it. If a vote transfers to anyone else it is because the elector has indicated a preference.
      As I was saying on Tuesday, when STV was introduced in Northern Ireland, the electors took it very seriously and considered very carefully the way in which they marked their preferences, in terms of voting not just for parties and candidates within those parties, but for other individuals on the list.
      Mr. William Cash: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman means. If I used the word "shuffled", I should be happy to alter it to "transferred". However, irrespective of whether a voter has preferences, he has a higher preference for one candidate as opposed to another. It is clear that the second preference has a much lower order of priority. The first-past-the-post system provides a real choice. Although we could debate the issue ad nauseam, there is something inherently unsatisfactory about the second preference being given the advantage over the first choice.
      Mr. Trimble: I shall return to the merits and demerits of the first-past-the-post system and the elections for which it is appropriate.
      Preferences and the expression of preferences in STV allow the elector to make a sophisticated judgment on individuals and parties. Those preferences can be used not simply to vote for candidates or parties, but to vote against others. It is common in Northern Ireland for people to shape their preferences—parties advise them to shape their preferences—to express positive and negative preferences. That gives the electorate a wider choice, enabling them to express things in a more sophisticated manner. That is part of the attraction of STV. All systems have advantages and disadvantages. I am dwelling on the advantages of STV, but I shall outline its disadvantages as well.
      I emphasise that STV has resulted in quite keen electoral interest, which we must all bear in mind. Given the very large constituencies as a result of the Bill—even with the single transferable vote system, there will be large constituencies—something that excites the electors' interest is of value. In addition, political parties have to adopt their voting and transfer strategies. They cannot just sit back and leave it to the electorate. Parties have to consider responses and decide what to do.
      One of the criticisms that we commonly make about STV—we are aware of its flaws—is that it encourages competition between candidates of a party. The normal strategy for a party under the STV system is to run one more candidate than the number of the seats that the party thinks it will win. If, by virtue of experience and opinion polls, it is considered that two of a party's candidates will be elected, the standard advice is to run three candidates. One must always allow for the possibility that the party will do better than expected. An extra candidate would take advantage of a movement of opinion in favour of a party.
      Running an extra candidate above the number that the party expects will be elected means that probably at least one person will not be elected. That gives rise to
      514
      competition between candidates. Ideally, one would hope that such competition attracts voters to the party, although candidates quickly conclude that it is easier to persuade people who are already committed to their party to switch from party candidate A to party candidate B than to persuade someone who is not in favour of one's party to switch their allegiance. Competition therefore develops between candidates, which can sometimes be taken to quite interesting extremes.
      I remember the case of a former colleague who, back in 1982, stood as one of our six candidates in the 10-seat South Antrim constituency. Our most prominent candidate was then James Molyneaux, now Lord Molyneaux. The party poster listed all six candidates in alphabetical order. The gentleman in question decided to emphasise that his name was first alphabetically by excising from the poster—literally cutting out—the four names between his and Jim Molyneaux's. He tried to get on to Jim's coat tails by that device. I cannot remember whether it succeeded.
      Rev. Martin Smyth indicated assent.
      Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend, who was elected in a different constituency in that election, is nodding, so the stratagem may have succeeded—although the success may also have been a consequence of one other feature of STV, which, in my eyes, although not in the eyes of others, is a serious disadvantage. It is thought to be a significant advantage if one's name starts with a letter at the beginning of the alphabet. However, that is not always an advantage; it depends on circumstances.
      Although we consider competition between candidates a disadvantage of STV generally, such a cloud may have a silver lining in European parliamentary elections. It will help to open up the debate on Europe in parties, and enable the electorate to take part in that debate and express preferences for the views on European issues of particular candidates in a particular party.
      On Europe, the debate is not between, but within, parties. Pro and sceptical attitudes exist within all three parties and, consequently, a transferable vote system—or a system that enables the electorate to distinguish between candidates for a particular party—will allow the electorate to distinguish between particular wings of a party on these issues. That will develop the debate within the parties and enable the electorate to take part, and their view might be interesting.
      That might be of particular interest to the hon. Member for Stone, who is a vigorous participant in the debate within the Conservative party. He might welcome a system that enabled the electorate to join in. Obviously, it would be a stronger point for him if he believed that the electorate would join in on his side—and he may believe that. I commend the system to him on that basis.
      4.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Stone raised another point about the first-past-the-post system. It is generally known that our party has expressed a preference for that system for many years, and we must deal with the issue in case we are accused of inconsistency. We would never advocate a single transferable vote system, or any proportional electoral system, for elections to this House. We are endorsing STV as the electoral method for the proposed Northern Ireland assembly, and the amendment does

      515
      likewise with regard to the European Parliament. However, we draw clear distinctions between regional assemblies and the European Parliament and this House.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I followed the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Tuesday through my magic machine. If we accept the position that he has just elucidated, there will be an inevitable move towards proportional representation in this House, whatever we say. Once the gate is opened, the arguments that are used constantly to encourage people to believe that proportional representation is somehow fairer will result in a push towards Members of the House of Commons being elected that way.
      Mr. Trimble: The floodgates are already open. Proportional representation has been operating in Northern Ireland for more than 20 years, and is being proposed by the hon. Lady's party for Scotland and Wales. One can stem the tide for this House by the argument that I was about to make.
      The reason why I draw a distinction between elections to this House and those to other places is that elections to the House are to elect a Government. There are arguments for having an electoral system that reflects a broad spread of opinion, and that is fine if we are dealing with a body where the premium is on having the broadest range of representation and where there is no need for clear policy decisions.
      If—as in the House—we have to sustain a Government, that Government must make clear decisions. We want the electorate to be able to make choices, because a PR system will produce a range of representation and will result in coalitions having to be formed. The real policy choices are then in the construction of coalitions, and those take place after elections, rather than before.
      The paradox is that PR—which represents a wide range of views—may result in the electorate not being able to choose a Government, which would be created after the event by the deals that people do. For that reason, I believe strongly that the first-past-the-post system must be retained for the House and for the formation of Governments.
      Regional assemblies for the United Kingdom will be essentially administrative and will not make major policy decisions, although I know that will not be welcome news for the strong proponents of devolution. I recall the comments made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign when he likened the proposed Scottish Parliament to an English parish council. That was a bold comparison—the Scottish Parliament will go far beyond a parish council, but it will still be essentially an administrative body.
      The Scottish Parliament will not have the power to take major policy decisions; nor will the Northern Ireland assembly. In the current inter-party talks, we constantly remind other parties—which are more ambitious in their views—of the realities of life, including the fact that the Northern Ireland assembly will not share the characteristics of a government.
      Similarly, the European Parliament does not have to sustain a government. The European legislature is the Council of Ministers, and the European executive, in so
      516
      far as there is one, is the European Commission. The European Parliament is a consultative body, and there is a strong argument for ensuring that a wide range of views is represented there.
      Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman has, no doubt, studied the Amsterdam treaty in some detail, as some of us have. Has he noticed that it will grant extensive powers to the European Parliament, which have been minimised by the Government because they do not want people to know what is going on? The reality is that, under the procedures for majority voting and co-decision, the arrangements for an individual member state to achieve its objectives will be severely curtailed. The right hon. Gentleman's argument will be eroded by the Amsterdam treaty, because the Council of Ministers will be given increased supranational powers in the movement towards one country called Europe.
      Mr. Trimble: I defer to the hon. Gentleman in his knowledge of the detail of the treaty. None the less, my point remains valid, because the legislature in Europe is the Council of Ministers. Provisions are made to give the European Parliament some influence, but it is still only a consultative body. The argument that 1 made earlier to justify the retention of the first-past-the-post system for the House of Commons does not, therefore, apply to the European Parliament, and I hope that it never will. I do not believe that European institutions will develop in such a way that the European Parliament will acquire the characteristics of a genuine parliament or will be required to support a government.
      All electoral systems have characteristics and biases, and we must choose between them. They all produce representation to a greater or lesser extent, and we should be open about the effect that is sought for a particular institution. That is why I drew a distinction between the need for the first-past-the-post system for the House of Commons and a representative system for elsewhere.
      The representative system that I have suggested for the European Parliament would place a premium on producing a proportional result and would give the electorate considerable influence in deciding the representation of the various parties. Although list systems may produce proportional results, they do not give the electorate the opportunity to choose. The closed list system, in particular, has the disadvantage of favouring party leaderships, which is, of course, why it has been proposed.
      The system proposed by the Liberal Democrats is an unhappy compromise. I especially dislike the formula that the Liberal Democrats propose in amendment No. 4 for the allocation of seats. It has been deliberately chosen to favour small parties and departs from the clarity and simplicity of the d'Hondt formula. We debated that issue in some detail in 1996, and eventually chose the d'Hondt formula. If one is to have a list system, it is better to have the d'Hondt formula, rather than the proposal in amendment No. 4, which is designed simply to be advantageous to smaller parties. On that issue, the Liberal Democrats, like some other parties, want to get their thumb on the wheel.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and, later, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam

      517
      (Mr. Allan) will seek to deploy the case for the Sainte-Lague, rather than the d'Hondt, system—it is, after all, used in a great many countries. However, on his earlier point, does he not recognise that if we are to have a list system, which is not our highest preference either, it is much better to have one with open lists, whereby the public have some influence over the choice of candidates, than one with closed lists?
      Mr. Trimble: As I said on Tuesday, it would be much better still to go the whole hog. If the Liberal Democrats were to go the whole hog and support our amendment, they would be supporting their first preference. At this stage, they ought to express their first preference; if they have to haul down their sights later, so be it. However, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for providing the name of other formula—the one that is biased in their favour—which I confess I had forgotten.
      On Tuesday, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that the legislation was providing a test run on proportional representation. I want to repeat a point I made on Tuesday, which is that test runs on proportional representation have already happened: they happened in Northern Ireland, and hon. Members should look closely at that example. Having looked at the two different systems that have been applied in Northern Ireland, we think that the advantage lies with the single transferable vote system.
      The Liberal Democrats confirmed on Tuesday and again just now that the single transferable vote is their preferred system—the system which they would go for if they could, and if they were not scared of offending the Government. They should remember that the STV system was introduced into the United Kingdom by the Conservatives and, when it was reintroduced in modern times, it was the Conservatives who did that; the Labour Government who followed them endorsed and re-enacted the STV system.
      Therefore, my amendment offers a proposal which is the first preference of the Liberal Democrats and has been introduced by the Conservatives and endorsed by Labour. On that basis and if rationality were to apply, I would expect all of them to rally round the amendment.
      Mr. James Clappison: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 9, 51, 10 and 11, which stand in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall seek your leave, Sir Alan, to press for separate votes on amendments No. 9 and 10, which deal with important subjects.
      I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). He raised some important points and I shall touch on three of those, as they lend support to the arguments that I shall deploy in support of our amendments. The first point was about candidates' order of priority on the ballot paper. In a closed list system, the ranking of candidates is an important matter.
      Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman made a thoughtful point about what happens under the new system when a Member of the European Parliament crosses the floor and moves from one party to another, but the response he received from the Home Secretary was not really satisfactory. The point is this: under the new system, MEPs will be elected under a party banner and not, in any sense, as individuals. If they cross the floor and join another party,
      518
      it cannot be pretended that they are in the same position as a Member of this Parliament who crosses the Floor, which was the argument the Home Secretary used.
      Members of Parliament are elected as individuals, but MEPs are not—they are elected purely on a party basis and that fact has implications that have not been sufficiently answered.
      I was also interested in the right hon. Gentleman's arguments about the differences between, and the reasons for using, different systems for different assemblies.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Robert Syms: On the point of people who switch parties, the situation is worse than my hon. Friend says. Under our current system, when people are nominated, the process ends with an election. Under a list system, people are nominated for four years—until the next election. A situation can arise where, although the next person on the list has long left one's party, that person may fill a vacancy.
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend made some important points in earlier debates, and he has hit the nail on the head again today.
      I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that the first-past-the-post system has served the House of Commons and this country well and has provided us with stable government. However, the arguments go further and extend in favour of using the first-past-the-post system for European elections as well. It is our belief that first past the post is the best way of ensuring quality representation on behalf of electors and a good quality of MEPs in Europe. All I say now in support of the amendments will be coloured by our conviction that the first-past-the-post system has served us well in this country and in Europe.
      There is evidence of the first-past-the-post system earning wide admiration, not only in this country, but throughout Europe. Many MEPs from other countries view with admiration our first-past-the-post system. In order to dismiss that system, which has served this country well, the Government will have to do better than the bald statement in the Home Office press announcement, which stated:
      "The relationship between Members of the European Parliament and their constituents is by its nature different to the closer ties expected of a Westminster MP."
      We accept that the work of an MEP is different—we have heard that from Members of Parliament on both sides of the House who have served as MEPs. In many cases, MEPs work for a different clientele, but they also serve individual constituents and we believe that a constituency system serves the interests of electors and helps MEPs to discharge their functions and form relationships with the different groups in the constituency.
      Amendment No. 9 is designed to reintroduce the link between an MEP elected under the new system of voting—of which we do not approve, but there it is—and a constituency. We find it hard to understand arguments against that link, because it will help MEPs to serve their constituents.

      519
      That answers the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on Tuesday. He asked:
      "Who will identify with what and how will they go about it?"
      Under the new system, how will MEPs elected on a list of seven, eight or even 10 Members representing a giant constituency go about their task? My right hon. Friend asked about what would happen on the day after the election:
      "Will it be a colonial carve-up with the appointment of divisional governorships of various parts of the region?"—[Official Report, 24 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 230.]
      Will the MEPs sit down and decide what each of them will do? Would it not be better if, from the outset, there was a known constituency system and a constituency link about which the electorate knew in advance? As a result, after the election, each elector would know which individual MEP was serving his or her constituency.
      Mr. Beith: I recognise that the purpose of amendment No. 9 is to attach a constituency to a Member of the European Parliament, once that Member has been elected. That is a perfectly fair aim, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that to describe that as an "open regional list system" is misleading? It is not an open list system in the sense that it would give voters the opportunity to change the slate of candidates put forward by the party. Perhaps, on reflection, it might have been better to describe it differently.
      Mr. Clappison: I make common cause with the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the list system. Our amendment is designed to combine the new voting system—which we do not like—with a constituency system. I certainly make common cause with criticism of the Government's proposal for a list system. In fact, I would go further. I think that it is difficult—almost impossible—for anyone to defend it. It has been widely criticised and is recognised as a system which leads to party placement. I shall deal with that in the debate on a later amendment, and I shall now confine my comments to support for this amendment.
      Mr. Cash: While I recognise the difficulties inherent in having to keep pace with the times, and given that Labour has a massive majority and is determined to drive through a system of regional lists, may I invite my hon. Friend to accept that the long title of the Bill—whatever advice my hon. Friend may have received—does not appear to preclude the idea that we should insist on a first-past-the-post system?
      Does my hon. Friend accept that we are getting dangerously close to accepting the principle of regional lists, and that that may be held against us in due course? I urge him to consider carefully the significance of the wording that has been adopted in amendment No. 9 and, for that matter, amendment No. 53.
      Mr. Clappison: I accept my hon. Friend's comments. I thought that I had given a sufficient health warning, but if I have not, I make it even clearer now that we support the first-past-the-post system. We believe that the proposed system is a bad system, and we have tabled our
      520
      amendment to improve the system a little bit. It will be an improvement to have a constituency link for individual Members.
      There is common ground between this group of amendments and an earlier group. The amendments that deal with the size of the regions are based on arguments that link directly into the argument about constituencies. The regions that the Government have decreed are so vast, so incoherent, so lacking in justification and will be so difficult for electors to understand or MEPs to represent that we believe that it will be an improvement to divide them into constituencies. I have listened to the debate, and I have found little compelling argument in favour of the proposed regions and constituencies.
      The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made some comments about a town in Scotland—I think it was Eyemouth. He chose it as an extreme example. Does it make it any easier or better to put that town into not just the south of Scotland but a vast region covering the whole of the rest of Scotland, with a list of MEPs to represent it? The town would be thrown in not just with the south of Scotland but with central Scotland, the highlands and islands—to which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred—and so on. Does that make any sense? Surely it makes the problem even worse.
      Mr. Richard Allan: We suggested that it could not make it any worse and would have the advantage of creating a team of MEPs working on a regional basis with other regional organisations. They would have a single voice in defending the interests of Scotland. The fundamental problem is that the constituencies are already so large that the connections just are not there.
      Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman must accept in all fairness that it is a pretty vast region. There is a problem with the argument that he and his right hon. Friend have advanced. It is a trap that people who argue on the basis of what they see as an extreme example fall into. The extreme example under the present system is infinitely better than the best of the new system. The new system will involve a group of MEPs—the hon. Gentleman called it a team—who will inevitably be more remote than under the present system and will be asked to do far more work.
      We all tend in the House to argue on the basis of our own examples, so I give Liberal Members an example that is dear to my heart. My Westminster constituency is part of the European constituency of Hertfordshire, which includes most of the county of Hertfordshire. The European constituency is to be abolished and merged into the giant Eastern region, which will cover many other counties in what is described as the east of England.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred to the various organisations and interests in a region. Business and education interests are organised on a county basis. The chambers of commerce and the local Confederation of British Industry branches are organised on a county basis and speak for the county and nowhere else. My hon. Friend the Member for North—East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) knows that to be the case.
      The local education authority is the Hertfordshire county council. Most of the voluntary groups in my constituency are part of a Hertfordshire group. Everything

      521
      tends to be organised on a county basis. In the reorganisation of local government there was a vigorous debate about whether there should be a county council or a series of souped-up district councils with greater powers than previously. A strong argument was made on behalf of Hertfordshire. People identified with Hertfordshire and wanted to keep the county, and they did so.
      Hertfordshire organisations speak for the people of Hertfordshire. This is just one example. In an earlier debate about regional identity, the Minister of State, Home Office said:
      "It struck me as bizarre to introduce sub-regional divisions that seemed to have no coherence, and no historical or current justification."—[Official Report, 23 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 255.]
      I do not know whether she suggests that the Eastern region has more significance for people in Hertfordshire than the county of Hertfordshire. I have to say that the history of the peoples of the Eastern region of England is a volume that has yet to be written. If a person from abroad asked my constituents where they lived, they would say that they came from Hertfordshire. If they were asked where Hertfordshire was, they would say that it was in the south-east of England, or in the home counties around London. Not one in 100 would say that they lived in the Eastern region.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): If the regional boundaries are so bad, will the hon. Gentleman explain why, in November 1993, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, came to this Dispatch Box with a great fanfare to declare the new regions not just for minor administrative purposes but as a major arm of government and representation of people at regional level?
      Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary is making a jump there which is not justified by fact. The regions were set up for administrative convenience to bring administration closer to people. They were not set up as electoral regions to represent electors or as an expression of any cultural or historical identity—specifically not. They were put there for administrative convenience. To their discredit, the Government have hijacked those regions and tried to turn them into something that they were never intended to be.
      The right hon. Gentleman would be hard put to find any cultural or historical significance, fellow feeling or identity of purpose between all those people who live in the region described as the South East, stretching from Kent to Milton Keynes, or the Eastern region, stretching from Hertsmere to Norfolk.
      I say nothing against the other counties in the Eastern region. My constituents like Norfolk. Many of them go on holiday there, but they do not think that they are part of the same region as Norfolk.
      May I put it to the Home Secretary that the amendment is relevant not only to the ease of electors knowing what is happening and who represents them, but to the quality of representation that MEPs can provide? Westminster Members of Parliament are always emboldened in our dealings with the Government or whomever by the fact that we have a constituency link and speak on behalf of our constituents. I know of the affection and interest of the Home Secretary in all matters Belgian—[Laughter.]
      522
      He is very interested in Belgium. He plays the admirable party game "Ten Famous Belgians". I have received a letter from a former ambassador to Belgium and to Austria. He writes with some knowledge of the European scene. I refer to a Mr. O'Neill, who writes:
      "The party list system (or even multi-member constituencies) destroys the personal link between the member and the elector: the legislature becomes less responsive and more remote. The member no longer has any kind of authority or standing deriving from his personal mandate in his dealings with his Party, and he becomes entirely dependent on the Party for whether or at what point (sheep or goat) he appears on the Party list. The consequence is that the quality of candidates falls, and they come to be chosen almost exclusively from the ranks of career Party officials."
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Unlike us.
      5 pm
      Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself and his party.
      I turn from the defects of the Government's proposed system and how they would be remedied by amendment No. 9, to the closed list system, with which amendment No. 51 deals. There are Liberal amendments on the same subject.
      The closed list system is extremely difficult to defend. When the Government unveiled it, it attracted almost universal criticism and concern. The Times stated in a leading article:
      "This is bad for democracy and will be bad eventually for the parties too. The Government plans to introduce the worst possible kind of PR for the European elections. Its closed list system allows voters no say over which candidate they want. They can merely vote for a party which will then appoint its own placemen to the Parliament."
      On Second Reading, there was scarcely a friend to be found in the House for the closed list system. It will be interesting to see whether any hon. Member will defend it. It did not win many friends among the Home Secretary's colleagues in the European Parliament. One Labour MEP is quoted as saying:
      "The Prime Minister will not tolerate people who know about European issues, only authentic brain-washed Blairites."
      That was the voice of Mr. Ken Coates.
      Mr. Brian Jenkins: He is an authority.
      Mr. Clappison: Perhaps Mr. Ken Coates was in a good position to judge, and he may now be in an even better position to do so.
      Whether among serious commentators or members of the Labour European group, few are coming forward to defend the closed list system. It was therefore not surprising that—possibly as a result of his interest in all matters Belgian—the Home Secretary told us on Second Reading that he was launching an interesting consultation on the Belgian electoral system.
      In fairness to the Home Secretary, he made it clear—rather like a judge passing sentence—that he was giving no promises about what the eventual sentence would be, but he led us to believe that it was an interesting development. He was as good as his word and put a paper in the Library on the operation of the Belgian electoral system. I have a copy of that paper.

      523
      I should be interested to know why the Home Secretary chose the Belgian system. He looks perplexed. I hope that he knows the answer—he chose it, not I.
      Mr. Straw indicated assent.
      Mr. Clappison: Good, the Home Secretary knows the answer. Perhaps he will tell us why he chose the Belgian list, rather than any of the other lists in the European electoral systems—the Danish system, for example, which he also mentioned in his speech. The open list systems are not strange in Europe. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told us with pride:
      "I am prepared to listen to the arguments for adopting a Belgian-type system and to give them careful consideration."
      Since then, there has been a deafening silence from the Government for three months. We do not know what great debate has been taking place. We will be interested to learn what arguments the Government considered during the consultation and which argument clinched it for the closed list system, which was the Government's original preference. Did new facts come to light about the Belgian system that the Government did not know on Second Reading?
      As a Belgian detective—Poirot, Simenon's Maigret, or Tin Tin—might say, it is all rather perplexing. Were those all red herrings that were thrown into the plot to mislead us, or have we yet to come to the final twist of the plot?
      Mr. Straw: I shall deal in more detail with the Belgian system when I speak. Meanwhile, let me put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery about where the suggestion of the Belgian system came from. He has it in front of him. It was not my suggestion. As I said on Second Reading:
      "It has been suggested, both by the constitutional group Charter 88 and by the Liberal Democrats, that we could introduce an electoral system of the sort that operates in Belgium and Denmark, whereby voters can vote either for the party list as a whole or for an individual candidate from the party list".—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 813.]
      I then spelt out how that would operate and went on to say that we were willing to consider it, without giving commitments about our final decision until there had been a chance to consult the House, which is what we are doing.
      Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary has missed his vocation. He has thrown another red herring into the plot. We did not hear the argument that clinched it for the Government, but no doubt we shall hear that in due course.
      I am fully aware of what was said on Second Reading. The Home Secretary said that it had been suggested that they could introduce an electoral system
      "of the sort that operates in Belgium and Denmark"—
      and, one could add, in many other European countries.
      Why did the Government chose the Belgian system, rather than the Danish? Is it entirely coincidental that those of us for whom the differences between European electoral systems are not the natural stuff of our reading now discover that, in Belgium, there is a history of the preferential voting system not making much difference to
      524
      the order of candidates, whereas, in Denmark, which the Government did not choose as one of their examples, there is an established history of preferences being expressed by voters, and the voters' preferences making a difference to the final outcome of the election? We await an answer from the Home Secretary.
      We have heard nothing yet from the Government, and the situation remains as unsatisfactory as it was on Second Reading. We believe that a closed list system is a bad system. One word that has been used to describe it is degrading. That is appropriate. It will not get our support in any circumstances.
      The Home Secretary also told us on Second Reading that he was interested in the differences between various divisors and methods of election. I remind him of another point that he made. I refer to proportionality, which relates to some of the amendments tabled by the Liberals. The comments about Belgium and Denmark are not the only ones for which the Home Secretary owes the House an explanation.
      The right hon. Gentleman told us on Second Reading why the Government had chosen the d'Hondt system in preference to the Sainte-Lague system. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for that pronunciation, of which I was previously unaware. The Home Secretary set out the reasons why he chose the d'Hondt system and said:
      "Sainte-Lague does not necessarily produce more proportional results. I have already introduced the proportionality index to the House—I noticed how hon. Members listened with bated breath. By calculating the index score for six regions using the 1994 European election vote in the United Kingdom, we found that, on average, d'Hondt scored higher than Sainte-Lague."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 812-14.]
      Divisors are not my natural interest and I am not an expert in these matters. I have about the same level of interest in them as does the Home Secretary. However, this is an important matter and he explained why the Government had chosen that system. It has important consequences in terms of how many MEPs are elected from each region. Other people are more interested in this subject, and one of those is Professor Ian Maclean of Oxford university.
      Mr. Beith: A Liberal Democrat.
      Mr. Clappison: He may well be. He is certainly an expert on electoral systems, and he knows his stuff on these matters. The Home Secretary's comments came to his attention and he suspected that something was wrong—in fact, it was a bit more than a suspicion. It was impossible for the Home Secretary to be right, because the Sainte-Lague system is never less proportional than the d'Hondt system and is frequently more proportional than it—contrary to what the Home Secretary told us on Second Reading. The good professor thought that there had been a mistake—I am glad that the Home Secretary admits it now—he carried out simulations and he found that he was correct. I am glad that the Home Secretary has realised his mistake.
      Mr. Straw rose
      Mr. Clappison: Before the Home Secretary intervenes again, I must advise him that it would have been a good idea for the Government to answer my written question on that subject.
      Mr. Straw rose—
      The Chairman: Order. Mr. Clappison has the Floor.
      Mr. Clappison: I shall certainly give way, but the Home Secretary might also like to respond to my next

      525
      point. I asked the Government last week whether they had made a mistake, and I received the answer earlier this week that they were still thinking about it. The Home Secretary has obviously thought about it, so perhaps he can give us an answer.
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's implication is preposterous. He should know that, because I wrote to the shadow Home Secretary, his right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney)—just as I wrote to the Liberal Democrat spokesman and other party leaders—as soon as we were aware that an error had been made. I apologised for that error and I have placed in the Library the details of the revised calculations. Furthermore, the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), put on record in the Official Report of 20 January exactly what the situation was, and he repeated my unreserved apology to the House.
      Mr. Clappison: I welcome that apology, and I accept the Home Secretary's explanation. However, he will understand that some issues flow from that mistake—not least what the Home Secretary said about comparisons between this country and Europe. He knows that, if we dismiss the argument in favour of the d'Hondt system that he gave us on Second Reading, there is little left to support the Government's chosen system. The Government say that they believe that the d'Hondt system is fair—that is a subjective opinion. They say that it is simple—I leave it to the Committee to judge whether any of these electoral systems are simple.
      The Government also say that d'Hondt is commonly used in Europe, but it would appear that they have not used the system to calculate the relationship between seats and regions. According to those who are expert in such matters—I am not one of them—the Government have apparently used a different form of divisor for that calculation, which looks very much like the Sainte-Lague divisor that the Government dismissed for the purposes of electing MEPs. Perhaps the Home Secretary will explain that. What is the basis of the system that the Government have finally adopted for determining the relationship between seats and regions?
      That decision has important consequences. The Home Secretary will know that the system that he has chosen for electing MEPs—the d'Hondt system—gives the Labour party an extra seat in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman is looking quizzical: he would do well to take up the issue with those who are authorities in such matters. The different system that the Government have chosen to allocate seats between regions produces one fewer seat for the south-east and one more seat for London. That is an important consideration. In those circumstances, the Home Secretary owes it to the Committee to confirm whether there is a difference between the divisors, what divisor relates seats to regions, and what the justification is for those decisions.
      We hold no brief for any of those issues. We have some sympathy with the Home Secretary because we know that it is not his natural terrain.
      Mr. Richard Burden: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There is a legitimate argument about whether d'Hondt or Sainte-Lague is the
      526
      best and fairest mechanism of allocating seats according to votes. It has nothing to do with the allocation of seats to regions.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Clappison: The Government must explain why they have chosen different systems for those two functions. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has not heard my reply; I ask him to do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say. The Government must explain why they have chosen different systems. The hon. Gentleman is a fair man and he must accept that, as the different systems apparently produce more favourable results for the Government in both cases, they owe the Committee an explanation.
      It is no use the Government's claiming that the divisors are used commonly in Europe. As I understand it, the system that the Government have produced is unique in Europe: it is the only system that has a closed list at a regional level. Perhaps the Home Secretary will identify any other European country that has a closed list at a regional level. I am not aware of such a country within the European Union.
      The Home Secretary is looking hopefully to his box: I suggest that he will find no other country with that system within the European Union. There may be another such country elsewhere in Europe. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) provided the example of Bulgaria earlier. I am sure that the old Communist rulers of Bulgaria would recognise that system, but it is not recognisable to hon. Members.
      We have some sympathy for the Home Secretary, and we recognise that a mistake was made about the electoral systems. We always accept an apology, and we are aware that this is not natural terrain for the Home Secretary. He does not compare too badly with certain other members of the Government—I am thinking specifically of the command of arithmetic demonstrated by the Minister for School Standards and the command of theology exhibited by the Minister for the millennium dome. I do not intend any disrespect to the dome. The Prime Minister has told me that I must visit the dome, and I am looking forward to that almost as much as I am looking forward to my guided tour of the Lord Chancellor's apartments.
      There are serious matters for hon. Members to consider. We cannot approve of a system that is based on a mistake and on a closed list that we believe is undemocratic and which destroys the link between candidates and their constituencies. They are bad features of the system, and our amendments are designed to set them right.
      We are also concerned about the important subject of party registration. We are alive to the concerns that have been expressed in this place about the registration of parties and party names. We know of the problems that were caused in the last election, and we treat the subject seriously. We regret that the Government have approached the registration issue in this way and introduced it into the Bill at this stage, after two important pieces of constitutional legislation have passed through Parliament and when this Bill is in Committee. It is rather late in the day for the Government to announce their ideas on registration. We believe that there should have been wider consultation at an earlier stage.
      I know that the Home Secretary recently wrote to my right hon. Friends giving details of his plans. We would have preferred to receive those details much earlier—

      527
      certainly before the Bill reached its Committee stage and before the consideration of important constitutional legislation. A subject of such seriousness cannot be dealt with in this way, amid the shambles of the Government's plans for different electoral systems and against the background of this Bill, which destroys links between Members and their constituencies, and damages and degrades our electoral system. We are not happy about that, and we shall register our unhappiness in due course.
      As I have said, we shall seek a separate vote on the question of party registration in order to signal our concern about the Government's plans. We shall also seek a separate vote on the constituency link, because we do not believe that the Government have offered sufficient arguments to support their proposals. We believe that our constituency link would slightly improve a bad and an inferior system.
      Mr. David Drew: My speech may be a brief interlude in the melodrama being played out opposite. During the many hours that we have considered this legislation, we have heard about the Opposition's unwillingness to embrace electoral reform and their absolute hatred of regions. One wonders why that hatred is so strong. Some of us believe in regions, have regional accents and look to building up regions. As we look to the next millennium, one wonders whether there is a present or a future, as Conservative Members always seem to look backwards.
      Mr. Syms: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Drew: I shall take an intervention, but I must first make some progress.
      I rise mainly to support new clause 4 standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg). We feel strongly that whether it is an open list or a closed list system, it is right and proper that an investigation is made at an appropriate time after the first elections are held. I am very much in favour of an open list system, but if a closed list is chosen, it is right and proper that an appraisal is made of how well it operated. The clause allows that to happen.
      Mr. Damian Green: If the hon. Gentleman is arguing in favour of the open list system, will he join those in the Division Lobby who wish to vote for such a system for the election, when it happens, and not just conduct a post mortem on it afterwards, which he appears to want to do?
      Mr. Drew: We do not know whether a Division will be called, and, if so, which way we shall vote. Many of us have worked long and hard for reform of the electoral system.
      There are other reasons why it is important that there is an investigation after the first elections using the regional list system. We could look again at the allocation of seats. As always, we on the Government Benches are open to persuasion that it might be possible—[Laughter.) The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) laughs, but that is what those of us who have supported electoral reform over many years believe.
      528
      We are prepared to take on board the different opinions of others from outside the party, and, as I said on Second Reading, those who represent no party. It is important that we understand. We are not all electoral reform "works" on the Government Benches. We genuinely want to open up democracy. We want a different form of democracy—one that has been a long time in coming in this country, which we shall see in due course.
      Mr. John Bercow: I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about openness and his readiness to embrace other opinions and to see them represented. Will he therefore explain whether in his judgment it would be acceptable if an open list system secured the return of Labour Members of the European Parliament who were fundamentally opposed to the European single currency?
      Mr. Drew: Of course. That is one reason why I support an open list system. If the electorate choose to elect a person with a different policy from that of the leadership, that is a strong reason why it is a better system, and it is one for which I shall argue.
      Another reason for a revision—this is not something about which I feel strongly—is the tabulation system, the use of divisors. It might be useful, after the first regional list system, to look again at divisors. It was put to me by a representative of a party that is not represented in the House that it is important that its point of view is heard. It feels strongly that national tabulation is preferable to regional tabulation. I have an open mind on that point. When we form the legislation, as we will, it is important that we have an opportunity to look again at whether particular parties or individuals have been discriminated against. That is a strong reason why the clause has been introduced.
      I shall talk now about the benefits of an open list system—the main reason why I support the proposed change. There has been much argument about breaking the constituency link. There are those who strongly support the constituency link for the Westminster Parliament, but there is no constituency link for the European Parliament. It does not exist. There is no rapport between the Member and the constituency, because it is too large.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Drew: Yes, but I must make progress afterwards.
      Miss McIntosh: I can identify on the Government Benches a number of colleagues who have served, as I have, in both Parliaments. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, now that it has been reduced to a mere 500,000, the existing constituency of a Member of the European Parliament is the same size as that represented by a congressman in the United States; that most of the work is done through channels similar to those of a congressman and a Member of Parliament; and that it works effectively?
      Mr. Drew: I bow to the hon. Lady, who must be superwoman, because she represents a European Parliamentary constituency and is a Member of Parliament. She represents different parts of the country.

      529
      The very nature of the point that she made proves that it is possible to change the way in which we elect our MEPs. It is a different system with different jobs.
      Opposition Members made the point on Tuesday about functional specialism, which is quite different for an MEP. That point was not lost on me. It is a strong argument for having a regional list system. MEPs do a totally different job, and therefore can be elected in totally different ways. That adds to the checks and balances, about which I spoke at great length on Second Reading. We feel strongly that the advantage of a regional list system must be put across.
      Mr. Burden: Like my hon. Friend, I hope that the Home Secretary will look closely at the advantages of an open list system, but would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that, contrary to the impression that we are getting from Opposition Members, in a recent survey undertaken by three academic institutions—the London school of economics, Birkbeck college and the university of Essex—more than two thirds of voters revealed that they would like a regional list system for elections to the European Parliament, whether a closed list or an open list?
      Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend. I am not aware of that study, but it is important that we listen to the electorate. When they are polled on the change, they seem to like the idea of being able to vote for a person or party or, indeed, an individual who does not represent a party. The open list system presents the best of both worlds: it gives an elector the chance to vote for a person—that person will usually represent a party—but if the elector just wants to elect a party, he or she can do so. That is the best thing about the system.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I counsel caution. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, when polled, 70 per cent. of the Welsh electorate supposedly supported a Welsh assembly, yet, when the judgment came, only 25 per cent. voted for it and 75 per cent. did not? One has to be cautious about polls showing supposed attachments to prospective systems in which they have not been involved.
      Mr. Drew: I accept the hon. Gentleman's observations. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating, but we are starting from such a low participation base anyway. That is a strong argument for change. People do not vote in the European elections.
      Mrs. Theresa May rose
      Mr. Drew: I cannot give way any more; I must make progress.
      The open list system can and will allow people to participate differently.
      On Second Reading, I spoke about people who, year in, year out, vote for a party that has never represented them. Under this system, they can be assured—if that party is one of the major parties—that, with good fortune they will be represented. That is not unimportant. That gives a whole new opening to the democratic structure of this country.
      530
      Such a system brings us into line with Europe, most of which now elects MEPs through a regional list system. There may be a difference between an open list system and a closed list system, but if we adopt the system that some Labour Members want, we shall be in the mainstream—[Interruption.] Some Conservative Members obviously would not want to be in the mainstream, but that would tie us to the good will that exists, which is not to be frowned on.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the turnout at European elections in this country so far has been deplorably low and that it is important to consider mechanisms that will lead to a much higher turnout at future elections?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Drew: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why it is so important that we try to improve our democracy. I look forward to increased participation.
      This forms part of the constitutional changes which the Labour party was elected to deliver. It is not a whim; it concerns a stated policy in our manifesto and comes about through the joint consultative committee with the Liberal Democrats, to which we signed up. I admit that we are being asked to compromise; as I said on Second Reading, some of us would have considered STV, but that was not to be. It was more important that we found a system that introduced proportionality into the election of MEPs as the first and foremost principle. Whatever system it was, it had to be an improvement on the awful first-past-the-post system under which people do not participate in the European elections. There are many good reasons why the constitutional changes that are afoot will improve our democratic basis.
      My noble Friend Lord Plant did much good work in terms of electoral reform when he chaired the Plant commission on behalf of the Labour party, which formed a large part of the work that we were able to take into the joint consultative committee with the Liberal Democrats. The Plant commission identified a check list of the measures that would result in a good electoral system. The first on the list was representation. We hope that MEPs will be a different sort of elected representative and will pursue a different role from that pursued in the past because they will play a regional role. That is to be welcomed. This issue is about checks and balances; it is about a system whereby people can be elected in different ways and pursue different roles.
      The second item on the list was the nature of the elected bodies. No one can pretend that the European Parliament is not fundamentally different from this place and from the representation that we shall have at a regional level. The system used to elect those people can strengthen rather than weaken those bodies. The third item on the list is legitimacy. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We want to increase voter participation and we strongly believe that an open list system will result in a higher turnout because people will see the benefit of electing their representatives in that way.
      The fourth point was stability. The system is robust, and whether we come up with an open or a closed list—I argue strongly in favour of an open list—whether by the d'Hondt or the Sainte-Lague method, there will be stability because the system's transparency will increase the electorate's interest and involvement.

      531
      The fifth item on the list is the key principle of proportionality—making votes count. Those of us who have always supported electoral reform feel strongly about that. Under the first-past-the-post system, people build up huge majorities, which may do wonders for their egos, but for those who vote time after time for a party that has no chance of getting to power, the system is disillusioning. Under this system, there is a proper relationship between the votes cast and the seats delegated. If we can achieve that in the European elections as well as in the Welsh and Scottish elections, we shall have proved that we can improve this country democratically.
      We should like to think that the list system would reflect society, and result in the election of more women and people from ethnic minorities. People who would not normally be elected would have a chance to be elected. I support the open list system and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on staying open-minded, despite Opposition Members' taunts that he must come up with this or that system. He has had an opportunity to hear the debate and has allowed hon. Members, including Labour Members, with different opinions to state their case. We think that this is a better system which will lead to a much more representative set of people in the European Parliament.
      Mr. Beith: I warmly commend the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I hope that it has made a strong impression on the Home Secretary, as he made his point very clearly.
      The breadth of the debate under this group of amendments is illustrated by the fact that it started a couple of days ago with a thoughtful speech by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who gave a perceptive analysis of the single transferable vote system and put to bed some of the misconceptions harboured among Conservative Members. His preference for Westminster is the first-past-the-post system, but today we are discussing how we elect MEPs and I share his view that the best system for doing that is the one used and endorsed in Northern Ireland—STV.
      As the hon. Member for Stroud pointed out, we have all had to reach compromises in trying to find a system that will command sufficiently wide support in the House, secure proportionality and ensure that the electorate play a significant role in determining who is elected. The amendment turns on the latter point.
      Amendment No. 4, on the merits of the divisor system, will be dealt with later by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), in a characteristically short and well-informed speech, if he manages to catch your eye, Sir Alan. I hope that you will agree that we can, as I have requested informally, have a separate vote on amendment No. 4 on the d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague systems, unless the Home Secretary says that he has at last realised, following the understandable miscalculations that were made earlier along the line, that this is the better system.
      Amendment No. 79 simply flags up a point about which the Home Secretary may need to think—whether we should have signatures as well as a deposit. We have seen what happened at some by-elections with the Buy
      532
      the Daily Sport party. For example, if there is a free-post delivery, the electoral system and public funds may be commercially abused by people using the ballot paper to promote a product. Having a significant number of signatures would be a way of dealing with that danger. There is provision for six, 10 or 12 signatures, but a significant number—several hundred signatures—would be a barrier against that abuse.
      I do not particularly favour amendment No. 9, but it has a genuine purpose, which is, in a slightly artificial way, to attach a constituency to someone elected under this system. I disagree with its description, an "open regional list system", which is misleading, but I understand what it is getting at. That problem would be resolved informally by candidates in a constituency. It would be in a party's interest to ensure that the candidates whom it put forward came from various parts of the constituency. It would be in the candidates' interest to ensure that they had a strong basis of support in that constituency. If there were several Members of the same party, they would want to agree on some specialisation when attending events and maintaining contacts. It would also be in their interest, whether as the only Member of that party or one of several, to ensure that there were sufficient contact points throughout the large constituency that they represented.
      The key issue is the question of open and closed lists, which can make a big difference to the quality of the system. We welcome the Home Secretary's offer on Second Reading to reconsider the issue. He has taken a long time over that, but I shall not complain if he comes to the right decision. Allowing voters to express a preference for particular candidates is an essential part of the Bill, and ensuring that voters continue to be involved in the choice of individual candidates helps to validate the system.
      Few people like the idea of a closed list of party candidates, but the current system, against which we are judging the proposed system, is a closed list of one. People who do not like a party's candidate have to vote for another party, which most electors do not want to do. That usually happens only extreme circumstances such as those that led to the election of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). Under the current system, people must accept the party's choice or vote for a different philosophy or set of beliefs, which most electors do not want to do.
      Electors could at least be presented with a slate of party candidates, one or more of whom they might like, but our view is that they should be able to influence which of a party's candidates is elected. That is the purpose of our amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and new schedule 1. Voters would be able to choose whether to use their vote as a simple party vote, as many people would. Hon. Members are deceiving themselves if they think that most voters vote for individuals, because the evidence is that they vote for a party.
      Mr. Allan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the detailed work of Dr. Patrick Seyd of Sheffield university's department of politics clearly shows that the vast majority of voters vote for a party and that the personal vote is tiny in all normal electoral circumstances?
      Mr. Beith: All the evidence points in that direction. I take the romantic view that we should encourage people

      533
      to vote for individuals. It is an incentive for Members of this Parliament or of the European Parliament to know that electors see them as individuals. I am strongly in favour enabling people to vote for individuals, but hon. Members must recognise that most electors have a different preference. They want to vote for the party philosophy in which they believe or in line with their party allegiance. The system that we propose would ensure that they have the further option of influencing which candidate is elected.
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If people vote for a party, not a candidate, why does the right hon. Gentleman's party perniciously focus on personal issues, rather than policies, at elections?
      Mr. Beith: Hon. Members of all parties sometimes focus on the personalities of candidates. I have heard extraordinary exchanges at the Dispatch Box in which the personalities of individuals within the parties have been criticised. Reasonable argument about a candidate's views is relevant to an election. It is proper for people to decide whether they want the Euro-sceptic or the pro-European element in the Conservative party to predominate, but they do not have that opportunity. The decision is made through the Conservative party's selection procedures, not by the electorate. Many Conservative voters would prefer to vote for a pro-European rather than for an anti-European candidate, but would not vote for another party. The merit of the system proposed in our amendment is that voters would become involved in that process.
      Mr. Burden: The poll to which I referred was of course dismissed by Conservative Members, but it was undertaken by ICM, the pollsters often used by the Conservative party.
      Mr. Syms: Sack them.
      Mr. Burden: Yes, ICM got it wrong.
      Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that poll showed that, when a large number of voters were presented with the type of ballot paper used in the Belgian list system, three fifths crossed just the party box and two fifths voted for individuals? That bears out his point that, although the majority go with the party line, a significant minority want a choice.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Beith: Exactly. More people would want to influence the choice of individuals if a party nominated a candidate who was extremely unpopular with some voters or did not represent their views and aspirations. We all know of circumstances in which that has happened, or would have happened if people had had the opportunity to exercise a choice.
      The public should be able to influence the range of candidates who are elected to the European Parliament. Under the electoral system in Norway, the ability to influence which candidates are elected by crossing out a candidate from a list has significantly increased the number of women in Norwegian politics. Indeed, it has transformed Norway's political system. We sorely need that in our system. Despite legal complications, parties are at the moment trying to include enough women on the
      534
      voting papers to ensure that more are elected, but why should the voters not be involved in that process? Voters may disagree, but they should be involved in such decisions. The system that we propose would enable them to be so.
      The limited voter choice system which would result if the Bill were amended as we suggest would still require voters to mark only one cross on the ballot paper, which is no more complicated than the system proposed in the Bill. People could vote for a party, a candidate on the list or an independent candidate. By using their vote to strengthen a candidate's chances, people would have a role in the choice of candidates, but the parties would still be able to put their preferred order of candidates before the voters.
      Some people—I know that it is true in the Labour party—think that electors should not be left in total ignorance of who the party thinks are its strongest candidates. I understand that point of view, which is not entirely met by the STV system. One of the reasons we like it is the slightly anarchistic tinge to our thinking, but I understand the view of those who want the parties' preferences on the ballot paper. The system that we propose would allow that. It would make a difference only if there were significant swings of public opinion or a large element of the public was dissatisfied with a party's order of preference.
      We are discussing the first national election in this country to be held under a proportional system. It is vital to use a system that can carry the confidence of the electorate. There is a genuine danger that a closed list system would not have their confidence and would not produce a better turnout than that at the 1994 European Parliament election, when about only a third of the electorate voted. Voting under the closed list system proposed in the Bill would be by party, but, as the mock ballot paper produced by the Home Secretary shows, all the candidates' names would have to be listed.
      Our proposed change would not make the ballot paper more confusing, and our mock ballot paper in new schedule 1 provides a clear layout. The Home Secretary has suggested that our ballot paper would be improved if professional designers refined it by making it simpler. The Home Office's first proposal for the new police caution to be used during an arrest was extraordinarily complicated. I suggested employing two subeditors from The Sun to tighten up the wording. Experienced professionals could probably improve our suggested ballot paper.
      Mr. Tim Collins: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting case which we have heard from both sides of the Chamber. The problems with the turnout at European Parliament elections are not to do with the electoral system. There are much higher turnouts for Westminster elections on exactly the same system. People do not vote in European Parliament elections because, sadly, they find the European Parliament and their representatives distant. Will not huge electoral regions make them seem more distant?
      Mr. Beith: I think that there is a combination of factors; but, if the hon. Gentleman consults the figures relating to the existing Westminster system, he will find

      535
      that the turnout tends to be lower in areas where the outcome is entirely predictable. For instance, Conservatives in County Durham, feeling that their votes will make no difference to the outcome, are less inclined to vote. The system is one of the factors influencing the position. It is clear that all the publicity surrounding national elections and the possibility of a change of Government induces a higher turnout, but we need to look for ways in which we can secure a better turnout in European elections, and I think that this is one of those ways.
      Mr. Martin Linton: The question of whether a list is closed or open does not appear to affect the turnout. In European elections, countries such as Germany and France, which have closed lists, achieve a far higher turnout than this country. The essential difference is that those countries have proportional systems in which every vote counts. To say that we have higher turnouts in Westminster elections is to miss the point. If we compare general elections with general elections, we see that this country has by far the lowest turnout, as it has in European elections. Both low turnouts are caused by the voting system.
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes my point far more eloquently than I did. The key factor is whether the elector feels that his or her vote counts and makes a difference. Proportionality—which is what the Bill is essentially about—gives the elector the message that the vote will count, but to blur that message by saying, "You will be able to vote only for a party, not for an individual," would undermine the value of the change. Let me make it clear that it would not undermine it to the extent that I would prefer the present system to continue—a closed list of one with no proportionality.
      A number of hon. Members have cited evidence from surveys showing support for open lists, and also showing that the system is easy to operate. This month, Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London school of economics published a survey of more than 1,000 people on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree reform trust. It demonstrated that 80 per cent. of respondents required no additional explanation of ballot papers, but understood immediately how the system should operate—and that the majority preferred the open list system.
      Mr. Tim Loughton: The right hon. Gentleman might add that the social group most strongly opposed to that system were the AB s. That may suggest that the managerial and professional classes, who have a better chance of understanding the system, rejected it.
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong: it is the other way around. The AB classes most favoured the open list system, and were keenest to choose between individuals. That reflects a social reality. In much of the country, those categorised by other letters in the social class system—which is a rather uncomfortable part of our history and culture—have tended to vote for the parties that represent their interests rather than for individuals. I should like to change that; I would like more people to be concerned about individuals. As I said earlier, most people are
      536
      concerned with their party preference—but the fact that people who are familiar with making choices of all kinds wanted to make choices about individuals when voting is quite significant.
      There is no evidence that the complexity of our proposals, as opposed to the Bill as it stands, makes them indigestible. They are perfectly manageable. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann made clear, people in Northern Ireland are well used to the STV system, which is slightly more complex from the voter's point of view. They seem to experience no difficulty in using that system—and, moreover, in using it to maximum effect, to ensure that their votes have the maximum value. At a time when the Inland Revenue is telling people that they can fill in self-assessment forms and that they will be fined £100 if they do not get it right, it comes ill for anyone to suggest for a moment that people are incapable of dealing with a ballot paper of this kind to make their votes as effective as possible.
      We urge the Home Secretary to amend the Bill to provide for open lists. After we told the Home Office about its error in calculation, it pointed out a technical defect in amendment No. 5. It was almost tit for tat. We are happy for the Government to include the provision in whatever form they choose, as long as it meets our criteria. The normal procedure would be to do that on Report. Between now and Report, the Home Secretary must reach a decision—a decision on which he has received unanimous advice, from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Opposition Front Benchers have made it clear that they do not like proportional representation or lists, but that, if there are to be lists, they should be open rather than closed. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann made it clear that he wanted the individual to be involved, which is achieved through STV and would be better achieved by open than by closed lists, and other Opposition Members have said the same.
      The message to the Home Secretary is clear, and it is now for him to act on it.
      Mr. Ken Livingstone: I have supported proportional representation since the mid-1970s. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I have also supported the conspiracy theory of history. I know that my right hon. Friend tends to support the cock-up theory. However, I subscribe to the growing consensus in the House of Commons that, in his passion to retain the first-past-the-post system, my right hon. Friend came up with the most appalling system of PR in order to maximise public opposition to it.
      I, too, favour an open list, and—as a Labour Member—I have an additional reason for doing so. We know that, if the proposed system comes to pass, the Conservatives and Liberals will arrange for some form of membership participation—perhaps "one member, one vote"—in the ranking of candidates. We know that, following a meeting of the national executive committee, Labour is consulting members throughout the party on a proposal for us not to allow our members to determine the ranking of candidates. That, I think, makes a much more powerful case for an open list.
      I understand that we have a problem. Given that we won so many European seats last time, given the need to ensure balanced representation of women in the European Parliament in the regions and given the determination to

      537
      get rid of any MEP who signed the clause IV statement a few years ago, there will be a lot of shuffling around, and we cannot trust party members to come up with exactly the list that we would like.
      That is unlikely to happen, as the NEC favoured the proposal by 10 votes to two, with three abstentions. Every Minister was absent, whether because of the pressure of work or because of a general distaste for what was being asked of them. I think that it would be completely unacceptable for a party that is considering saying to its members, "You may make nominations, but you must trust the leadership to sort out the ranking order" then to deny the electorate any influence. I do not know about Belgian or Dutch systems, but this is beginning to sound very much like the old Albanian system, in which public influence was minimised.
      I am glad that the Home Secretary has been open-minded. I genuinely believe that the issue has not yet been determined, and I am not so outraged at this point that I will vote against my party tonight; but, unless the proposals are changed to give the electorate the right to vary the order of election, I shall find it almost impossible to support my party on Third Reading.
      Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to have been called. I also thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for describing me as superwoman, and hope that I can live up to that badge in the fulness of time.
      I have a number of problems with the proposals. I hope that the Home Secretary will comment on amendment No. 9. Perhaps, like many women, he can do two things at once. The amendment does not satisfy the provision in the treaty of Rome—which remains unamended by subsequent treaties—for us eventually to be bound by a uniform electoral system.
      The problem with the system that has been chosen is that it is not in keeping with systems currently in operation in other member states. Therefore, we may have to change it again to meet our obligations under the treaty of Rome. Would it not be better to be more patient and to look at the broader picture? If the Government decide at some time in the future to introduce proportional representation in the House—if we are not to have PR for this House, so much the better—will they choose this system or will they choose a system more in keeping—
      6 pm
      Mr. Beith: The trouble I have with the hon. Lady's argument that we should be patient in case the system does not meet the uniformity requirement is that it was advanced by the Conservative party when it opposed a proportional system when the direct elections were first introduced 20 years ago. I foresee the British electorate being permanently denied an opportunity to achieve a fair outcome to the election on that basis.
      Miss McIntosh: The right hon. Gentleman is strengthening my argument. My argument for the Committee is that, if it was the wish of the House to have a system of proportional representation, the time to have adopted that would have been 1977. However, the House voted by an overwhelming majority to continue to operate elections to the European Parliament on a first-past-the-post system and I see no reason to change that.
      538
      Liberal Democrats and Labour Members have talked about how to increase the number of women on the eventual list. Female Conservative Members are confident that we are mainstream candidates and that we were elected on merit and not because of our gender or anything else. Perhaps that is a challenge that we can throw open to the Labour party and other parties.
      Democracy is all about increasing voter choice. The present system for elections to the European Parliament is heavily constituency based, identifies a clear voter choice and allows candidates to be elected to represent a particular area. It would be a severe blow to democracy if voter choice and the democratic link were lost, as would happen under the system proposed by the Government.
      Closed lists are deeply undemocratic because voters will be presented not with a choice of candidate but with a party label. There will be no named candidate except for independents. It seems curious that independent candidates will be named when mainstream candidates will not. It gives them an advantage over candidates from the three main parties, and perhaps the Green party, who knows? I wonder whether that was the Government's intention.
      Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Miss McIntosh: I should like to make some progress.
      On closed lists, we find ourselves in strange company. Closed lists are common to Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica and Uruguay—perhaps not first-rank European democracies. Perhaps the Government will say why we have aligned ourselves to such a closed list system.
      Having been elected, on merit I believe, to the European Parliament, I am concerned that the voters' choice would be removed from the choice of candidate and that the party list would not provide a possibility for changing the preference or priority of candidates on the list. There are two problems with the closed list system, which I believe amendment No. 9 goes some way towards rectifying. The first problem is the election itself, which I have already explained. The second problem, which has been mentioned by a number of distinguished colleagues, particularly Conservative Members, is what happens after the election. Who takes up the casework under a closed list system? Who will answer the mail, who will take the surgeries and who will take up cases? Removing the constituency link creates a break that is regrettable.
      Seven Members have been allocated under the list in the region of Yorkshire and the Humber. How will those seven Members on, for example, a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat list campaign for voter recognition when their names will not be on the ballot paper that will be outside the election halls on the day?
      I find some comfort in amendment No. 9 and I will certainly vote for it. It allows for an open regional list system. It allows for an open list and revives the constituency link. There are advantages in that from which I hope the Government will take comfort. It provides a recognisable link between a candidate and, subsequently, the elected Member. Amendment No. 9 would allow a candidate to be nominated for a particular constituency. That means that in that constituency an elector could vote for an individual candidate and, having

      539
      identified a candidate with whom they wish to be associated, could change the priority of candidates on the list.
      Mr. Allan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Miss McIntosh: I should like to conclude my argument because I have a short memory span.
      The proposed system would remove the democratic link which would be revived by amendment No. 9. In mother and child terms, with which Labour Members can respond, it would revive the umbilical cord between the elected Member and the candidate and the constituency. I believe that all hon. Members accept that that goes to the heart of democracy.
      The Government's proposal would destroy the electors' choice and remove the power to state a preference for a particular candidate. As I have said, it is not in keeping with the treaty of Rome provision that we should submit a uniform electoral procedure. Also, it is not in keeping with the proportional representation already operating in one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland.
      I have asked the Government—I hope that they will reply today—whether the proposed system of proportional representation would be that chosen in the event that it was decided in future to change the system for general elections.
      The greatest difficulty I have with the Government's proposal is that it confuses the electors and will make them less likely to vote. Those of us who wish to promote democracy would like more people to vote at every election, including European elections. As I have said, it is not in step with the procedures of the majority of member states and, therefore, would require an amendment in the future.
      At the risk of being provocative—I should like to think that I am not known for that, at least not yet—I must say that the greatest danger posed by the system presented is that it smacks of federalism. The one thing that distinguished the Conservative party from the other two main parties at the general election was that we wanted to elect candidates and elected Members to the lowest common denominator. It was said earlier that Conservative Members do not like the regions. I must remind the Committee that it was a Conservative Government who created Government regions for administering policy. We believe that there is a place for the regions. I would prefer that parish councils be given more powers but that we keep borough, district and county councils. The endless drift towards regionalism in the United Kingdom is removing the elector from the elected person. I was delighted that, in presenting to the House the White Paper on regional development agencies, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government would postpone direct elections to those agencies, which they had promised.
      Conservative Members are against federalism. I oppose the electoral system proposed by the Government. I hope that, by supporting and passing amendment No. 9, we can put the Government's proposals to bed.
      Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Miss McIntosh: No; I should like to conclude.
      540
      A closed list system would not only promote federalism but allow the creation of a socialist super-state, and it would give the party hierarchies complete control over which candidates appear on a list.
      Mr. Straw: I hope that, in the light of that final comment by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will reconsider his comments on our system and realise, with the passion of a convert, that there is much in it to commend itself to him.
      I should like to deal with one calumny uttered by my hon. Friend. He suggested that the system proposed in the Bill was introduced by me—whose views on the electoral system for Westminster are well known—as part of a scheme to discredit proportional representation. That is not the case. Moreover, I should like him to know that the Labour party approved that change in forums in which I had absolutely no involvement. The change was recommended by a Labour party committee chaired by my noble Friend, Lord Plant; it was approved by the 1993 Labour party conference; and, subsequently, it was approved by party conferences throughout the previous Parliament. Although I was at those conferences, I did not have a vote on the change, and neither did I participate in any of the debates on it.
      The hon. Member for Vale of York made an interesting speech. I am very grateful to her for saying, right at the end, that the Conservative party created regions. That is a very important statement. We have been accused—quite falsely—by the Opposition of inventing regional boundaries and the regions listed in schedule 1 to the Bill. That is not so. Those regions follow the regional boundaries established by the previous Conservative Government.
      When those boundaries were first announced to the House, on 4 November 1993, by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), he did not say—in the prosaic terms suggested by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—that they were simply for "administrative convenience". The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal elevated the case for regional offices to a very much higher level. He said:
      "He"—
      that is me—
      "will see that we are devolving responsibility from Whitehall"—
      by implementing those changes and establishing those regions. He continued:
      "We are cutting back red tape and bureaucracy. We are making it easier for local people, business men, local authorities and training and enterprise councils to talk to Government … I want the civic and business leaders to get together with their public and private-sector partners to define their vision and to set up what practical steps can be taken to build on the strengths of their areas and on the things that they believe most command their areas."— [Official Report, 4 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 518.]
      The areas that he was talking about were those regions.
      Mr. Clappison: Like the Home Secretary, I enjoy the prose of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and I have spent some time listening to it—[Interruption.] It is very good prose. Surely the important point—which the Home Secretary is missing completely—is the purpose for which the

      541
      administrative regions were established. In the statement that the Home Secretary of State is quoting, did my right hon. Friend say that he wanted regions to be used for electoral purposes?
      Mr. Straw: No, he did not. However, in the passages that I have quoted, he was arguing—this is the point—that they were coherent regions in which people could come together and represent all the interests of those regions. That was the precise point that he was making, and that was the case in favour of those regions.
      This group of amendments takes us to the heart of the Bill. If nothing else, the amendments demonstrate that there is no real unanimity on which system should be adopted. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) wants a system that is similar to that used in Belgium. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) would like us to adopt the single transferable vote; whereas the official Opposition, in amendment No. 9—which I shall, for the elucidation of the Committee, deal with in more detail later in my speech—have produced a system that does not have a name, but which is of such stunning complexity that I can only assume that their intention is entirely to baffle the electorate.
      The hon. Member for Hertsmere and the official Opposition have also tabled amendment No. 51, which seems to be an endorsement of the Liberal Democrats' position on Belgium. It is therefore clear that they have succeeded in baffling themselves in addition to everyone else.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Is there not a real difference between devolving power to regional agencies, as the previous Government did, and taking power from, for example, the rural development commissions, which have their roots in the countryside, and giving it to the Government's regional development agencies, which have their roots in the towns?
      Mr. Straw: Mr. Cook, who is our Chairman at the moment, would very quickly rule me out of order if I were enticed down the path suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, I do not accept for a moment what the hon. Gentleman said. Conservative Members really should look in the minor before speaking about support for the countryside. I remember that, in 1977, my noble Friend Lord Shore—who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, while I was working as his special adviser—published, against Conservative opposition, a policy document to control the siting of hypermarkets outside town and city centres. In the early 1980s, that policy document was torn up by the Conservatives—by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). More than anything else, that is what has destroyed the countryside and led to the flight from the towns.
      Miss McIntosh: The Secretary of State may have been distracted when I asked whether he would answer the point on treaty obligations. As hon. Members will know, the treaty of Rome obliges us to sign up to a uniform electoral system. The majority of member states have
      542
      signed up to an open list. Would it not be better for the United Kingdom to adopt an open list, if that is the wish of the majority of the House?
      Mr. Straw: I had planned on dealing with that point later in my speech. However, I believe that the hon. Lady is misinformed on two matters—first, on the degree to which the treaties to which she referred create an imperative on us to accept a single, uniform system. The treaties talk about common principles and allow considerable variation.
      Secondly—as I was coming on to deal with the Belgian system—it is not the case that a majority of other European countries use so-called open systems. On page 33 of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill research paper, which is in the Library, the hon. Member for Vale of York will see that it is recited in the second paragraph that
      "Germany, Greece, France, Spain and Portugal have party lists where the order cannot be changed by the voter."
      In other words: they have closed lists. If she reads the schedule to that appendix, she will see that the details of the systems within each of the member states vary considerably and, in some cases, by a wider margin than our proposed system will vary from the commonality of mainland European systems.
      Mr. William Cash.: The Home Secretary may recall that, on Second Reading, he and I had an altercation over the wording of the Amsterdam treaty. I made the very point that he has just made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I said that the existing treaties provided for a uniform procedure, but that the Amsterdam treaty contained the additional words:
      "or in accordance with principles common to all Member States."
      From that I argued, as I have no doubt that Lord Shore would have argued, that that would be a perfectly good reason for adopting the first-past-the-post principle, because the common principle to which we are referring, as distinct from the uniform electoral procedure, would be a proper system of democracy, and we regard the first-past-the-post system as a proper system of democracy and as a common principle.
      I now come to the matter on which I should like the Home Secretary to comment. When I made that point, which is the point that he has just made in reply to my hon. Friend, he said:
      "I do not accept that for a moment."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 807.]
      The Home Secretary has just contradicted himself. Will he explain that?
      Mr. Straw: I am always happy to confess errors that I have made, as I have done in respect of the proportionality of the d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague calculations. What I said on 25 November was exactly what I have said now. I said that I did not accept the hon. Gentleman's point and went on:
      "The arrangements that we are putting in place … are extremely similar, and in some cases identical, to those that are in place in the majority of other European countries."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 807.]
      That is exactly the same point; I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say.

      543
      I deal now with the so-called Belgian system. I hope that I have explained to the satisfaction of the Committee, if not to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Hertsmere, how it was that on 25 November I told the House that, although we had proposed the closed list system in the Bill, I was willing to consider representations in favour of the so-called Belgian system. I had not decided to recommend it; it arose because of representations made to us—separately, as it happened—by the Liberal Democrats and by Charter 88, the constitutional group.
      I appreciate that Conservatives find it difficult to cope with our style of government, which is not to go into a huddle, make decisions about the detail of the Bill and then refuse to listen to any representations, however strong they are. That is not our approach. Yes, of course, we are bound to reach reasonably settled conclusions before we come to the House with propositions—that is the duty of the Government—but it is also our duty to listen to representations. I have not yet made up my mind; nor have my colleagues—there is a particular reason for that—and I will not do so until next week. I happen to believe that it is important that we take into account the views of the House and weigh up the balance of argument.
      Mr. Stephen Twigg: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said. Of course, the initial requests were made by the Liberal Democrats and Charter 88, but is he aware that there is substantial support among those on the Government Benches for the adoption of an open list? Many of us who favour electoral reform for the European parliamentary elections and believe that there are significant advantages in greater proportionality nevertheless feel that the reform will have greater legitimacy if it is done according to the Belgian model rather than a closed list system.
      Mr. Straw: I understand what my hon. Friend says and will take note of it. As I said, we have not made up our minds, but will do so in due course.
      The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked what were the advantages of the closed list system. I spelt them out in the debate on 25 November, but I shall summarise them now. First, the system is self-evidently the simplest one. Secondly, we need to take account of the fact that, within the European constituencies, even the existing ones, voters are much less likely to know the candidates by reputation—this is a self-evident truth—than within the smaller, more compact and more personal Westminster constituencies. Therefore, the argument that voters can size up the candidates as well as the party—an argument which favours first past the post and the single-member constituency system—is less strong. Another point that needs to be borne in mind is that an open list system could discriminate between women and members of the ethnic minorities.
      The Conservatives should find two other aspects of the closed list system particularly appealing. The first is that the Conservatives chose the closed list system for the elections to the Northern Ireland peace forum in 1996, a point made eloquently by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. If this plan was without any merit whatsoever, one would assume that the previous
      544
      Government would not have touched it, but there was a serious debate about it. It was not as though they suddenly came across it by chance—they went through all the alternatives and decided to use that system. The hon. Member for Hertsmere may shake his head, but he is as ill-informed about this aspect of the Conservatives' history as he is about so much else. The Conservatives decided in favour of the closed list system and, by the by, they also decided on the d'Hondt rather than the Sainte-Lague system.
      The hon. Member for Hertsmere said that one of the major objections to a closed list was that it would encourage parties to pack the lists with party careerists. It was at that moment that I noticed that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) wince, as did a number of his colleagues. If we consider the albeit relatively short list of new Conservative Members elected in 1997, it is noticeable that their single most common occupation was party apparatchik. That list includes the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for Ashford (Mr. Green), for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and, above all, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The crowning achievement of his career before he entered the House was that he was special adviser to Jonathan Aitken. Whatever the merits of the first-past-the-post system might be, it does prevent parties from packing the Benches with party apparatchiks if they so choose.
      Mr. Clappison: I think the Home Secretary was struggling with that line of argument. I do not know what his background is, but, if I were he, I would tread carefully. For the record, the views that I was putting to the House and the quotation that I used were from the former ambassador to Belgium. They were not mine, but I am happy to endorse them.
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman rather spoilt his comments by that final point. There is no question about my background—people know what it was. It was the hon. Gentleman's point, not mine. [Interruption.] My presence also proves the point. The hon. Gentleman was saying that only a closed regional list would attract apparatchiks, but that is utter nonsense.
      Mr. Mitchell: I do not want to interfere in the contest that my right hon. Friend has just won game, set and match—said he, hoping to get on the party list. My right hon. Friend's mental processes are much faster than mine—said he, with the same motive—but I question whether an open system would discriminate against women and ethnic minorities. In an open system such as the Belgian one, the electorate could make substantial changes to the list's order of candidates and also use their power to vote against women candidates. He is surely wrong.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Straw: I can best explain by reference to ethnic minority candidates. My experience of three-member wards in local elections in my constituency and elsewhere, shows that, if one party puts up two white candidates and one Asian with an obviously Asian name, even if the Asian is higher up the ballot paper in alphabetical order—in a position that would usually benefit the candidate—

      545
      the two with English names are almost always elected and the one with an Asian name is not. I am not saying that that is conclusive, but it needs to be weighed in the ballot. The same may apply to women, although I refute my hon. Friend's point on that less strongly.
      Under the Belgian system, electors would be free to vote for a party list, for an individual candidate from the party list or, of course, for a candidate standing as an independent. As drafted, the Bill provides for votes to be cast either for a party list or for an independent candidate, and does not provide for votes for individual candidates on party lists. The amendments would also provide for the allocation of seats to each party, the system of allocation of those seats between the party's candidates on the list, and the form of ballot paper to be used.
      On Second Reading, I said that I believed in the simplicity and other attributes of the closed-list system. I also pointed out—I reinforce my reply to the hon. Member for Vale of York—that the countries that use the closed list system comprise two thirds of voters in Europe; the system is, in terms of voters, the most commonly used. However, I also said that I was prepared to consider the arguments for adopting a Belgian-type system. This debate, and much else, provides the opportunity for doing so.
      One of the reasons why I do not want to make a decision until next week or the week after is that I have commissioned a small study to find out electors' views on the two systems, the results of which will be available at the end of this week. I shall make a decision in the light of that evidence and all the views that have been expressed.
      The Committee will want to take into account the findings of research that was carried out by the democratic audit, which some hon. Members have been sent by Charter 88 and which my officials have discussed with its authors. Pages 14 to 17 of Library research paper 98/29 contains a useful summary of the results of that research, to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred.
      Mr. Clappison: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that research publicly available?
      Mr. Straw: Yes, of course; I was just about to say that I would.
      Miss McIntosh: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is a complete anomaly that, on a closed list, independent candidates can be named on the ballot paper whereas party candidates cannot?
      Mr. Straw: It would be an anomaly if that were the case, but it is not. The draft ballot papers, which we deposited in the Library, make it clear that individual candidates and the order of ranking will be on the ballot paper as part of the closed list. If we choose the closed list system, it is essential that people should, in making their judgment, see not only the party's name but the candidate's name.
      Mr. Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman did not, I think, say that he would refer to the McDougall Trust research published by the Electoral Reform Society. The trust ran a number of focus groups—I know that he is aware of their value—and concluded that
      546
      "although voters claim to vote on the basis of a party, they react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves."
      Mr. Straw: I am also aware of that research; all those matters will need to be taken into account.
      It has been announced provisionally that the Bill's Report stage will take place not this Thursday, but Thursday week. If that remains the schedule of business, I intend on Tuesday morning to inform hon. Members, and the official spokesmen of all the main parties, of the Government's decision whether to choose the closed list or Belgian system, so that hon. Members have time, if they want, to table amendments.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: May I ask the Home Secretary a favour? He has until Monday or Tuesday week in which to make a judgment. As he knows, if he does not let us know until Tuesday morning, we shall have to work hard to table amendments that would be unstarred by Thursday. As a courtesy, will he let the official spokesmen know his decision on Monday rather than Tuesday?
      Mr. Straw: In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman says, yes.
      The right hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke elegantly and thoughtfully about the single transferable vote. As he rightly pointed out, STV was introduced by the then Conservative Government and endorsed by the Labour Opposition—we cannot disclaim parentage. STV is appropriate for Northern Ireland; because it works well there, we shall not change it. However, we do not think that it is appropriate for Great Britain; we think that the most appropriate system for Great Britain is the one proposed in the Bill, regardless of whether it is modified.
      We have always taken the view that electoral systems should be appropriate to the nature and functions of the body that is being elected, and to the circumstances of the election.
      Northern Ireland is a single region, and its 1.2 million electors return three MEPs. By contrast, the south-east region of England contains some 6 million electors, who will return 11 MEPs. If, in one of England's larger regions—this is not too fanciful to imagine—four parties put up a complete list of candidates and several independents stand, there could be up to 50 candidates. Under the STV system, the electors would be faced with the prospect of having to rank those 50 candidates.
      We must also imagine the counting of the votes. STV is a complex system to count, as candidates drop out, surpluses are transferred and votes are given fractional values. In the larger regions of England—the right hon. Gentleman may say that we should not impose such large regions, but we judge that we should—the process could take up to a week, with all the costs and disruption that would ensue. The regional list system is common in Europe, and we believe that we should choose it in Great Britain, where circumstances are different from those in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Trimble: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's reason for rejecting STV is valid or that the example that he chose is appropriate. We have experience, admittedly only in one election, of STV applying to

      547
      constituencies as large as 10-seaters—under the Government's regional proposals, the largest constituency would be an 11-seater. It is not inevitable that there will be as many candidates as he thinks. An intervention does not give me enough time, but I could explain why the number of candidates would be much smaller than he suggests. In that 1982 election, there was no significant difficulty in running the count in a 10-seat constituency. Counts take a couple of days, but rarely longer. The right hon. Gentleman's argument does not stand up.
      Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree on that. It is my judgment that, during the first election under the STV system in a 10 or 11-vacancy region in Britain, each of the parties would put up nine, 10 or 11 candidates. I understand his point, but I do not agree.
      Amendment No. 9, which was tabled by the official Opposition, is quite remarkable. It purports to create an open list system for the election of MEPs, but does no such thing. The proposed system would destroy the flexibility of the regional list system proposed by the Government.
      I invite right hon. and hon. Members to read the amendment, which is on page 2070 of the amendment paper. It proposes that elected MEPs are allocated a constituency within each region. It states:
      "each candidate shall nominate on the ballot paper one constituency in the relevant region which he will represent, if elected;

      (c) in the event of the same constituency being nominated by more than one successful candidate, the candidate elected first shall represent his nominated constituency;

      (d) successful candidates unable to represent their nominated constituency for the reason given in sub-paragraph (c) shall, in the order of their election, choose another constituency to represent".

      The Conservatives have proposed a quite remarkable arrangement.
      It is fundamental to our democracy that voters choose their constituency and their representative. Under the system proposed in the amendments, the representative would choose the voters, even if the voters would not have chosen that representative. A successful MEP might have to choose a constituency that he or she did not want to represent or might be forced to represent a constituency that he or she might not want. It would be the most extraordinary situation.
      Mr. Beith: Will the Minister explain to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that the amendment does not do the one thing that she thought it would do—provide open lists and give the elector an opportunity to alter the order of the parties' ranking?
      Mr. Straw: It certainly would not do that. Nor would it give the electors choice over the constituency MEP. That choice would not made until after the election on the basis of the choices made by successful MEPs, not by the voters.
      I am conscious of the time, so let me deal with the issue of divisors, which took up a great deal of time in the debate on 25 November. As I have already explained, I inadvertently misled the House about the d'Hondt divisor rather than the Sainte-Lague divisor. I should also explain
      548
      that, even on the basis of accurate calculations, the difference is very limited. It is worth the right hon. Gentleman bearing in mind the fact that d'Hondt is used most widely across Europe. Sainte-Lague, which has been proposed by the Liberal Democrats, is not used in any European state for the election of MEPs. The only state that uses Sainte-Lague is Sweden where, instead of the initial divisor being three, it has been modified to the square root of two, which is 1.4.
      Mr. Clappison: Surrender.
      Mr. Straw: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says and I shall not go on about Sainte-Lague any more except in one respect.
      Mr. Allan: Does the Home Secretary accept that, when making comparisons with other European countries, the critical factor in respect of the divisor is the size of the constituency? As most European countries use whole country constituencies, d'Hondt may be more proportional elsewhere, although it would not be here, given the regional lists and the sizes of the constituencies.
      Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. The Library appendix makes it clear that a number of European countries use regional list systems, and the difference is very small.
      Let me pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. The Liberal Democrats ought to be straightforward about why they want Sainte-Lague, although it is not used anywhere in Europe. They want it because they think that it favours smaller parties. It is not fairer and the fact that we would be the only country to use it in the whole of Europe, given its great diversity, proves our point. If we are to have a divisor, the best system is simply to follow the serial—one, two, three, four, five. That is what the d'Hondt system does, and it was used by the Conservatives in 1996.
      Mr. Linton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in supporting the Sainte-Lague system, the Liberal Democrats are not supporting a system that favours small parties, as they claim? Indeed, the modified Sainte-Lague system that they favour was modified deliberately to exclude small parties. The system that they support favours middle-sized parties, particularly parties that receive 15 to 20 per cent. of the vote. A particular aspect of the Sainte-Lague system is that it rounds up to the nearest number parties that do not have a complete entitlement. That would benefit no party more than the Liberal Democrats.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The two words that he was looking for are self-interest. No one could accuse the Labour party of self-interest in introducing the system. I do not deny that self-interest sometimes plays a part in our decisions and I am glad that the shadow Home Secretary accepts that. However, the system of proportional representation that we are introducing is bound to lead to the loss of a number of seats that the Labour party would otherwise have held.
      The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked whether we used divisors to allocate seats between regions. Those whom the gods wish to make mad they first introduce to

      549
      divisors. I was not the only one to make errors in calculation under d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague. So did Professor Ian Maclean, who wrote a learned letter claiming that the system that we had used to allocate MEPs between the different regions was based on the system of Sainte-Lague divisors. That is wrong. If Professor Maclean or the hon. Member for Hertsmere had consulted page 5 of the Bill, they would have seen that we set out exactly the system to be used for the allocation of those seats. It is a very simple system which does not need divisors.
      We divided the electorate in England by 71, which is the number of English MEPs. That produced an average figure of just over 521,000 electors per MEP. MEPs were then allocated to regions in such a way as to ensure that the sum of the divergences in each of the nine regions—ignoring plus or minus signs—was as low as possible. The minimum divergence is 146,012. Any future changes in the number of MEPs allocated to the different regions will be made automatically according to the arithmetic on page 5 of the Bill and not according to either Mr. d'Hondt or Mr. Sainte-Lague.
      Mr. Syms: The Home Secretary said a moment ago that the system divided up the 71 seats in England and allocated the other seats—in other words, the division was not on a United Kingdom basis.
      Mr. Straw: That is because Scotland and Wales have been treated as separate regions. There was a debate on that the other day, when the matter was dealt with pretty well.
      Let me deal with three further points that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members. The first is registration. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 in the name of the right hon. Member for North—West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) deal with the registration of political parties. The amendments would remove a definition of a registered party and of a party's list of candidates. The Bill would continue to provide that only registered parties could put forward lists of candidates, but there would be no explanation or definition of the terms in the legislation. I cannot honestly see what purpose the amendments would serve.
      We believe that registration is important to ensure that, for example, only votes cast for legitimate party candidates are used in the calculation of the allocation of additional member seats. Registration is also a practical solution to the problem of misleading descriptions on the ballot paper, such as candidates describing themselves, as they did in the 1994 European elections—with quite inappropriate results—as Literal Democrats. In a separate Bill, we are bringing forward proposals for the registration of political parties. Obviously, we shall explain those proposals in greater detail when the Bill comes before the House.
      I want to pick up on the point made in the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on new clause 4. We shall of course review the operation of the 1999 European election, which we hope will be the first to be conducted using a regional list system. Under the new clause, I, as Secretary of State, should, in conducting such a review, speculate on whether there would be any advantage in conducting further European parliamentary elections using what the new
      550
      clause calls "an open list system". Unless two elections are taking place, one using the system proposed in the Bill and the other the system suggested in the new clause, I am afraid that I cannot see how any Secretary of State could be expected to make any useful comparison. There would have been a trial run with only one system. A report such as the new clause would require would therefore be of doubtful value. As I said, there will be a review; I promise that we shall put it before the House. I hope that, in the light of that, my hon. Friend will see fit not to press his new clause.
      The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned amendment No. 79. I understand the point that the Liberal Democrats are making, but, frankly, the amendment is unnecessary. Candidates for election in each parliamentary constituency are required to be supported by the signature of 30 electors in that constituency. The Secretary of State can retain, abandon or amend the provision for future parliamentary elections. It does not need to be included in the Bill. To require registered parties to provide 30 signatures from the new larger regions would therefore seem a rather pointless exercise. However, a requirement to provide a larger number would impose a significant burden on those required to check the signatures.
      Although we have not yet decided to retain in part or abandon altogether the signature requirement for future parliamentary elections—we shall of course consult the parties about this—there is no need for the provision to be inserted in the Bill. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed will consider not pressing his amendment.
      This group of amendments addresses important issues that go to the heart of the Bill. Although I apologise to the Committee for doing so at great length, it is important to put the Government's position clearly on the record. As I have made clear, we believe that the system of election provided for in the Bill is the most suitable for electing Britain's Members of the European Parliament. However, we are prepared to listen—as the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) and I have today—to the arguments for moving to a Belgium-type system. All the arguments that have been made today will be given the most careful consideration. I look forward to the rest of the debate with great interest.
      Mr. Cash: I should like to explain my objection to the whole concept of list systems. I am not terribly concerned about whether the system is closed or open. My objection to it is tied up with the fact that there is a proper link between the constituency and the Member, which we have established over many centuries. Conservative political giants, such as Edmund Burke and others, have set out principles over an extended period on such a link. It has worked and has a great deal of support on both sides of the House and throughout the country. I unambiguously state my objection to the concept of proportional representation in whatever shape or form it appears.
      Having said that, I should point out that, when the Labour party was last in government in 1977, it stated in paragraph 17 of its White Paper on electoral systems:
      "To abandon our traditional method in this way"—
      by going to a list system—
      "would be a major constitutional innovation, the consequences of which are difficult to foresee. It would mean the absence of the sort of constituency link with which we are familiar and could lead to

      551
      changes in Party organisations, including giving the central or regional Party organisations a bigger role in nominating candidates. The electorate might take time to become accustomed to the new system and might be confused by the existence of separate procedures for national and European elections".
      On the principal questions that I am addressing, nothing has changed since those days. The Labour party gave a perfectly convincing reason why a list system was unacceptable. It remains unacceptable—regardless of whether it is closed or open. It is objectionable and would be an abomination of the democratic electoral system which we have become used to and which could serve us well in future.
      I fear that the gradual spreading of the fungus of the Bill's proposals on to the amendment paper in the name of my much respected right hon. Friend the Member for North—West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), the shadow Home Secretary, is a kind of Euro-osmosis, which is entering the House in so many different ways. For the reasons that I shall give, I am concerned that we have adopted a proposal which, in many respects, is similar in principle to the Government's. I fear that the process is growing and that it will cause us more and more difficulties.
      Just because the Government have such a massive majority and times have changed is no reason to go down their route. I can almost hear the Home Secretary, when talking about the open list system, subsequently saying, "Well, after all, the Opposition were rather in favour of it. This is the kind of amendment that they tabled." Therefore, if the Home Secretary changes his mind, which is likely, he can say that there was agreement across the Committee.
      The region is given enhanced stature under the proposals. It is impossible to maintain the constituency link with the tyranny of the party list system, which gives so much power to the centre and the party leadership, as in Germany and France, rather than to local associations. That point needs to be reaffirmed, over and again. The ever-increasing expansion of powers in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers through majority voting and co-decision procedures is eroding the principle of our ability in this House to make decisions. More power is being given to the centre.
      I turn to the brilliant speech that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, made only two days ago in which he dealt with the question of proportional representation. He said:
      "The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty gives the party the political power it needs to govern."
      Before anyone thinks that that is a reference only to the Westminster Parliament, I should remind them that Euro-osmosis, which is spreading into our constitutional arrangements, could so easily end up effecting a transfer of thinking from the European dimension to our own Westminster system.
      The reference that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made to
      "the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty"
      is directly related to the political power which is inherent in this House at the moment, but which is being eroded by the provisions of Maastricht and Amsterdam and the increase of co-decision, which has given the European Parliament power over our institutions. When we add the
      552
      proposals in the Bill for proportional representation and the list system, we can see how our system is being eroded.
      My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the Conservative party would fight the Prime Minister
      "every step of the way. PR is a system of unfair votes. It takes political power away from the electorate and gives it to small parties, who can use their seats in Parliament to make or break Governments."
      We should remember that, in the 1930s, the Weimar republic's system of proportional representation gave enhanced credibility to Adolf Hitler. It is not to be underestimated. Erich Fromm made this point in a book called "Fear of Freedom" and said that the real reason why Hitler came to power was primarily because the politicians refused to take responsibility for their own actions.
      7 pm
      It is absurd to imagine that this system will produce better government. In present-day Germany, the Free Democrats, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, have acted as kingmakers in almost every election since the basic law was introduced, despite the fact that the party has barely 5 per cent. of the vote. The same applies in New Zealand, where the first party has faced similar difficulties following that country's adoption of PR. My right hon. Friend predicts, rightly, that that would happen in the United Kingdom as well.
      This is a matter of fundamental importance, not only to the Conservative party but to the Labour party, and we must reflect on the implications of the Bill. It accompanies a vast increase, under the Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties, in the power of Europe over this House and this country. It is creating regions and an undemocratic system. We should vote against the clause, but, in addition, I would find it impossible to support proposals which included an open list system.
      Mr. Mitchell: I intended to speak in support of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Berwickupon—Tweed (Mr. Beith). It may be boring, like the Liberals, but I was going to opt for Belgium.
      I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on a careful and sustained analysis, which I enjoyed. He was convincing on some of the points that I wanted to raise. He may be coming late—and somewhat reluctantly—to proportional representation, but it is clear that he has a thorough understanding of it.
      My right hon. Friend said that he would listen to the opinion of the House, and that he had an open mind. I rise to express my personal preference for a system which is proportional, but which has an open list—rather than the closed list system originally proposed by the Government. That may be the least of several evils, but then the whole Bill is the least of several evils. My perfect Bill on the European Parliament and European elections would be the "European Parliament (Obliteration and Total Destruction) Miscellaneous Provisions Bill". Since we are not dealing with such an enlightened and far-seeing Bill, but with this one, I have to choose on the basis of what is offered. What is offered is not the most attractive form of proportional representation. A list system, whether regional or national, gives too much power to the party.

      553
      I view this matter in the light of the eternal question we politicians ask: under the first-past-the-post system, it is, "Will I get elected in this constituency?" Under PR, the question is, "Will I get selected in this system?" I fear that, under a party list system, I probably would not be selected. As soon as my application disappeared into the Millbank mixmaster for sanitising, the answer would be sent to the Mitchell family, clustered in our humble dwelling in Grimsby—"Sorry. Application lost in processing. Reapply in 2005."
      The party list system is all that is on offer, and I therefore I welcome it as a major step forward. We can improve it by making it an open list on the Belgian pattern. The most open list is STV in itself, but there is a range of openness in Europe. Perhaps Denmark's system—in which seats are allocated to candidates on the basis of individual preferences—is more desirable and open. It results in more changes in the placings in the list submitted by the party. At the last election, seven of the 16 MEPs elected were changed by the electorate. In Belgium, where there are much tighter restrictions, only one was changed. I would prefer Denmark, but the least of several evils again—Belgium—is all that is on offer from the amendment and the Government. Therefore, we should accept Belgium.
      Why? First, the people would prefer an open list to a closed list. The ICM survey carried out for the Rowntree trust—a survey of 1,130 electors—showed that there was a narrow majority in favour of an open list. When they were asked to choose candidates on the basis of an open list, two fifths opted for the individual candidate. Three fifths plumped—in 18th century poll books, they used to say, "Get a plumper"—for the party. A substantial proportion of electors want to choose on the basis of the candidates.
      The Electoral Reform Society's own survey was based on eight focus groups, and was conducted by NOP. I keep applying to get on one of those focus groups, as I want to be a person of influence in this country and on the Government. My application is constantly rejected. I cannot understand it—it is a form of discrimination that the Home Secretary should investigate. The people in the focus groups preferred an open system, because they resented the restriction on their freedom to choose a candidate if they wanted to, which is implicit in the closed system. It is not that most would choose on that basis, but they want to be free to choose. They feel that anything else is a restriction.
      Moving to an open list, following the Belgian precedent, will not produce drastic changes. People will not totally reverse the order that the party puts down, but the fact that the voters have the ability to make changes is a pressure on the party to present the most acceptable and attractive list of candidates—selecting candidates for voter appeal, rather than for machine appeal. That is an important difference. It would force the parties to offer more women candidates. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary raised a serious doubt in my mind about ethnic candidates, and he was probably right about that. However, the list system would advance the cause of women. Indeed, I do not know why we could not adopt the European zipper system, under which voters must zip from male to female candidates. We seem to prefer our women unzipped in the Labour party. I am digging myself into a hole, so I shall move on quickly. However, the Labour party should think seriously about
      554
      how the open system would require it to adopt a more attractive list, instead of dominating the closed list as currently proposed.
      I have been a longstanding advocate of proportional representation. The first-past-the-post system kept Mrs. Thatcher in power in a minority Government—the dictatorship of the minority. We should change the system as quickly as possible—in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly and in the European elections. I would prefer a better and more popular system for the European elections, but the one proposed is the best that we will get. It is an important advance for the cause of proportional representation, fairness and democracy.
      Mr. Allan: I wish to return to the subject of divisors—the mathematical sort that are infinitely less interesting than the small Wiltshire market town represented by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). When my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked me to talk about d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague, I thought that their most interesting aspect was their pronunciation. As it is not yet time for bed, I do not intend to go into the mathematical calculations, especially as I would probably get them wrong—something of which the Home Secretary has no little experience.
      We do not need to consider the workings of the divisors so much as their outcomes. In particular, we need to examine how proportional the results are. In other words, how accurately do the divisors reflect the votes that were cast? The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) cited the academic support for Sainte-Lague as the more proportional of the two. Indeed, the study by Professor Maclean begins:
      "Mr. Straw's remarks were entertaining and generally well informed."
      That is a good start, but Professor Maclean makes the point that all systems need a rounding procedure and produce lucky and unlucky parties. He states:
      "on average, and by any proportionality index, the Ste-Lague algorithm will always be the one that distributes luck most evenly among the large and the small."
      Contrary to the allegation made by a Labour Member earlier, the professor also states that the Sainte-Lague formula
      "does not 'favour small parties' … it is neutral among parties of all sizes."
      In other words, the Sainte-Lague formula will distribute the luck according to the votes cast. If a party happens to receive a number of votes that falls midway between representatives, it will be lucky in some instances. If it improves vote share or loses votes, the luck will fall elsewhere.
      Our research, based on the 1997 general election results, showed that the d'Hondt formula applied to Wales would have given the Labour party 80 per cent. of the representatives for 55 per cent. of the vote. The Sainte-Lague formula would have given the Labour party 60 per cent. of the representatives for 55 per cent. of the vote. It should be clear to the Committee that the latter is preferable to the former and I ask the Home Secretary to accept the evidence and adopt the fairer divisor. We should not adopt the easy option, but the more proportional option.

      555
      If we are to adopt a proportional system—I am pleased that the Government have accepted that—we should adopt the most proportional system, instead of a divisor that will lead to disproportionate results.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: As the hon. Gentleman point out, proportionality is a relative term, not an absolute term. Will he consider the St. Aubyn system, which says that the first-past-the-post system is a form of proportional representation and gets rid of the need to use divisors?
      Mr. Allan: It is clear, from the comments by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—or the Great Grimsby Member as he is often described in my local media—that the first-past-the-post system gave hugely disproportionate results in the 1980s. The proportionality index between the number of representatives and the number of first-past-the-post votes cast is wider than any of the other systems proposed today.
      The Home Secretary should consider Professor Maclean' s evidence. He should overlook the small technical errors made by both sides and reflect on the fact that Sainte-Lague is significantly more proportional, and therefore fairer, to all parties irrespective of size. It simply distributes the luck evenly, instead of in favour of larger parties.
      7.15 pm
      Mrs. May: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I wish to point out to the Home Secretary that I am a new Conservative Member who has never been a party apparatchik. Moreover, I am a female Member who was not selected from a closed, all-woman shortlist, like so many of his hon. Friends. I was selected on merit from an open list of both men and women. The female Members on the Conservative Benches do not need the patronising attitudes of the Home Secretary and his hon. Friends.
      Mrs. Helen Brinton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. May: I am sorry, but I am limited in the time I have to speak.
      I do not want a system of proportional representation, because it would lead to fragmented and unstable Governments. It would also give increased power to fringe parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is the only Member to have mentioned the danger that a proportional representation system would give power to extreme parties, but I am sure that many hon. Members would not wish to see some of those parties with such power.
      Proportional representation would sever the link between the elected representatives and their constituencies. That is especially true of the system proposed by the Government. PR also gives increased power to the centres of parties. Labour Members have claimed that Members of the European Parliament do not have that link with their constituencies. I refute that and the contrary point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who has experience as a representative of a European parliamentary constituency. I can tell the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who claimed that Members
      556
      of the European Parliament did not have a link with their constituencies, that the Member of the European Parliament for Thames Valley—my European constituency—is well known and active in his constituency. He takes up issues of interest for individual constituents and of general interest for the whole constituency.
      The vital link between elected representatives and their constituencies is the fundamental basis of our parliamentary democracy and our electoral system at all levels. That link means that elected representatives can take up the interests of their constituents and of the constituencies as a whole. That link will be severed under the Government's proposals and our democracy will be the poorer.
      I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to the debate, as he claimed he would. I trust that he will listen to the debate in this Committee and not only to the focus group that he has commissioned to produce proposals by the end of next week. The view has been expressed across the Committee that any list system adopted should be an open system, not a closed system. One of my concerns about the Government's proposals is that they will take power away from the electorate. They will sever the link between the elected representatives and their constituencies. Constituencies will no longer be able to judge how effective their representatives have been and vote on that basis. We know why the Labour party came forward with proposals for the closed regional list—it did that because it wanted to have the power in the centre. We in the Conservative party are ensuring that it is the members who have the democratic right to choose.
      I close my remarks by quoting from the paper by Professor Dunleavy, Dr. Margetts and Stuart Weir, which has been quoted by several hon. Members. What their research showed was not that two thirds of people wanted a regional list system, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) suggested, but that, although people were reasonably happy with the ballot papers, open and closed list, with which they were presented, when they looked closer, a majority of voters would prefer an open list. The paper states:
      "If a closed list system is adopted, then the parties will have to look carefully at the processes by which their candidate lists are created, to ensure that they are seen as legitimate. At present, Labour looks to be most at risk".
      Mr. Syms: I should start with the usual health warning given by Conservative Members, which is that I am very much in favour of first past the post. Having said that, I do not believe that we can completely disaggregate this debate from the one we had on Tuesday, because every excuse for not changing the system is based on the fact that the regions do not suit any change.
      We heard the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) telling us that, if one has to have a proportional system, STV works reasonably well in constituencies of three to five members. However, that would be difficult in the south-east of England, given its size. Several hon. Members have argued in favour of having open lists, yet the Home Secretary himself has said that an open list would be difficult in the south-east of England. Of course it would: in an area containing 5 million or 6 million people, it would be extremely difficult to differentiate between potential candidates.

      557
      The real problem and the crux of the Bill is the size of the regions. We need to marry up the constituency size with the electoral system and take both together if we are to strike the right balance when deciding which electoral system to use. The Bill fails to do that, which is a great pity. I am opposed to the closed list system that has been proposed and I believe that an open list system would be better. However, in terms of the Bill, that would be like trying to turn a pig into a racehorse. The Bill is not well balanced in terms of either the regions or the electoral system proposed.
      Among the points raised in the debate was the allocation of seats between countries. As the Home Secretary said, England was divided into 71 seats and the rest of the seats were allocated. That means that it was not done on a United Kingdom basis and so there is a degree of over representation in Scotland and Wales. That is an important matter.
      On Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann asked the relevant question of how parties purge lists when those on a list or elected on a list system leave that political party. In an earlier intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), I raised the issue of how, when a party has nominated five candidates on a list and four are elected, the fifth has to stay on that list—the list has to remain relevant until the next set of nominations are drawn up. That is four years and a lot can happen in four years. What happens if a vacancy occurs and No. 5 on the list has gone to the Bahamas, or joined another party, or is out of favour within the party? Those matters need to be addressed, or there will be difficulties.
      The passage of time tends to change people's political priorities, but, with a closed list system, we do away with by-elections. One of the advantages of STV is that it allows for by-elections, albeit under an alternative vote system, or sometimes a first-past-the-post vote as they have in southern Ireland. A closed list system means that the next person on the list moves up and the electors do not get the benefit of a by-election, in which they can express their opinion on the political parties of the day.
      Mr. Clappison: The Committee will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to engage in analysis of divisors and so forth. The Home Secretary was fairly brave to go once more down that route, but I prefer to deal with broad propositions which I can make with a reasonable degree of assurance.
      The first of those propositions is that the Government have been proceeding on a mistake—that, seeking proportionality, they have mistakenly chosen a system that is less proportional than another. The Government have got it wrong. I make that proposition with a reasonable degree of assurance. My second proposition is made with complete assurance. It is that the Liberal Democrats will seek a system that benefits the Liberal Democrats' self-interest. I can say that with complete assurance.
      With an equal degree of assurance, I can state that the constituency link is a far better system from the point of view of the interest of electors than the system proposed by the Government. The Government's system was not designed for the benefit of individual electors or of individual MEPs; it was designed for the benefit of the party machine, and we put that on the record. The Bill would be much better if it were amended to reintroduce a constituency link. We are in favour of such a link in principle and we are not persuaded by the Home Secretary's arguments, especially as even he did not go so far as to say that he was against a constituency link in principle.
      558
      We are also deeply worried by the Government's approach to registration and by the way in which they have introduced the subject of registration at this late stage and with three major constitutional Bills on the go. We are concerned about that, especially given that the question of registration comes against the background of a Bill that is becoming increasingly tatty. The Bill shows all the signs of fraying at the edges and of mistakes being made. To be fair to the Home Secretary, I know that he is not the greatest enthusiast for the legislation and, to a certain extent, I acquit him of responsibility for it. Nevertheless, we think that this is a bad Bill and we shall support our amendments.
      Mr. Trimble: It has been an interesting debate. Looking back, what stands out in my mind is the cowardice of the Liberal Democrats in not supporting what they said is their first preference.
      Mr. Beith: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech, he would know that I praised his and said that we strongly supported his passionate commitment to STV.
      Mr. Trimble: This was intended to be a short summing up, but if the right hon. Gentleman comes with that again, I might be tempted to push my amendment to a Division to see whether he will support it. That support should have been shown by signing the amendment and being prepared to vote for it and the Liberal Democrats' failure in that sense is what I was referring to.
      I was astonished by the Conservatives' audacity in attacking a closed regional list system, without explaining why they had changed their minds since introducing such a system in the House less than two years ago. I must commend the Home Secretary on the open-minded approach he has adopted and I hope that he will move toward an open list system before the Bill completes all its stages. I should have liked to have a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom, but it is clear that there is no support for that in the Committee and there is business to be done. Consequently, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 1, line 25, leave out from 'be' to end of line 26 and insert
      'an open regional list system.

      3A. An open regional list system is a system which complies with the following requirements, namely—

      (a) each electoral region shall be divided into a number of constituencies equal to the number of MEPs to be elected for that region in accordance with subsection 2(4) above and Schedule 1;

      (b) each candidate shall nominate on the ballot paper one constituency in the relevant region which he will represent, if elected;

      (c) in the event of the same constituency being nominated by more than one successful candidate, the candidate elected first shall represent his nominated constituency;

      (d) successful candidates unable to represent their nominated constituency for the reason given in sub—paragraph (c) shall, in the order of their election, choose another constituency to represent, and;

      (e) if an elected candidate has nominated a constituency which no candidate elected before him has nominated, he shall represent that constituency even if a candidate elected before him, whose own nominated constituency has been taken, seeks to choose it.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 100, Noes 274.

      Division No. 180]

      7.27 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Arbuthnot, James

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Leigh, Edward

      Bercow, John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Lidington, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Loughton, Tim

      Brady, Graham

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Butterfill, John

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Mates, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Clappison, James

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Norman, Archie

      Collins, Tim

      Ottaway, Richard

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Page, Richard

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Prior, David

      Day, Stephen

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Faber, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fabricant, Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Fallon, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Spring, Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Streeter, Gary

      Fraser, Christopher

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gale, Roger

      Syms, Robert

      Gibb, Nick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Tredinnick, David

      Green, Damian

      Trend, Michael

      Greenway, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Viggers, Peter

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Walter, Robert

      Hammond, Philip

      Wardle, Charles

      Hawkins, Nick

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Heald, Oliver

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Willetts, David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Woodward, Shaun

      Horam, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Hunter, Andrew

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Mr. Nigel Waterson and

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Mr. James Cran.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Battle, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Bayley, Hugh

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Beard, Nigel

      Alexander, Douglas

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Allan, Richard

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Ashton, Joe

      Benton, Joe

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Best, Harold

      Austin, John

      Betts, Clive

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Blizzard, Bob

      Banks, Tony

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Barnes, Harry

      Boateng, Paul

      560

      Borrow, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Hanson, David

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Harvey, Nick

      Brake, Tom

      Healey, John

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Browne, Desmond

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Heppell, John

      Burden, Richard

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Burgon, Colin

      Hill, Keith

      Burstow, Paul

      Hinchliffe, David

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Byers, Stephen

      Hoey, Kate

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hope, Phil

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Caton, Martin

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Chaytor, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Chidgey, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hurst, Alan

      Clapham, Michael

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ingram, Adam

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Jamieson, David

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Coleman, Iain

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Colman, Tony

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Connarty, Michael

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cotter, Brian

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cranston, Ross

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Darvill, Keith

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kidney, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Laxton, Bob

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Lepper, David

      Doran, Frank

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dowd, Jim

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Drew, David

      Linton, Martin

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Livingstone, Ken

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Edwards, Huw

      Love, Andrew

      Efford, Clive

      McAllion, John

      Ennis, Jeff

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McCabe, Steve

      Fatchett, Derek

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Feam, Ronnie

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McDonnell, John

      Flint, Caroline

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Follett, Barbara

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fyfe, Maria

      McNulty, Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      MacShane, Denis

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gerrard, Neil

      McWalter, Tony

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mandelson, Peter

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Grogan, John

      Maxton, John

      Hain, Peter

      Merron, Gillian

      561

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Spellar, John

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mudie, George

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Olner, Bill

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stringer, Graham

      …pik, Lembit

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pearson, Ian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Plaskitt, James

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Timms, Stephen

      Pond, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pound, Stephen

      Touhig, Don

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Trickett, Jon

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Purchase, Ken

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Tyler, Paul

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Vaz, Keith

      Rendel, David

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rooker, Jeff

      Watts, David

      Rooney, Terry

      White, Brian

      Roy, Frank

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Ruane, Chris

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wills, Michael

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wilson, Brian

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Winnick, David

      Sawford, Phil

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wood, Mike

      Sheerman, Barry

      Woolas, Phil

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Worthington, Tony

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wray, James

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Singh, Marsha

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Ms Bridget Prentice.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 2, line 8, leave out from 'number' to end and insert 'shown below.

      Number of seats already allocated

      Divisor

      2

      3

      3

      5

      4

      7

      5

      9

      6

      11

      7

      13

      8

      15

      9

      17

      10

      19.'

      —[Mr. Beith.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 251.

      Division No. 181]

      [7.39 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Baker, Norman

      Harvey, Nick

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Rendel, David

      Brake, Tom

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Burstow, Paul

      Tyler, Paul

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Chidgey, David

      Mr. Brian Cotter and

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Mr. Adrian Sanders.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Darvill, Keith

      Ainger, Nick

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Davidson, Ian

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Ashton, Joe

      Doran, Frank

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Dowd, Jim

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Drew, David

      Austin, John

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Banks, Tony

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Barnes, Harry

      Efford, Clive

      Battle, John

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bayley, Hugh

      Fatchett, Derek

      Beard, Nigel

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Flint, Caroline

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Follett, Barbara

      Benton, Joe

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Best, Harold

      Fyfe, Maria

      Betts, Clive

      Gapes, Mike

      Blizzard, Bob

      Gardiner, Barry

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Boateng, Paul

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Borrow, David

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Grogan, John

      Browne, Desmond

      Hain, Peter

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Burden, Richard

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Burgon, Colin

      Hanson, David

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Healey, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Caton, Martin

      Heppell, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hill, Keith

      Chaytor, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoey, Kate

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Home Robertson, John

      Hope, Phil

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hurst, Alan

      Colman, Tony

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Connarty, Michael

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jamieson, David

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cranston, Ross

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      563

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      (Hamilton S)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooney, Terry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Roy, Frank

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ruane, Chris

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Kidney, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Sawford, Phil

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Laxton, Bob

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Lepper, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      Leslie, Christopher

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Linton, Martin

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Singh, Marsha

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Love, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McAllion, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McCabe, Steve

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McDonnell, John

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Spellar, John

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Stevenson, George

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      McNulty, Tony

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      MacShane, Denis

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Stringer, Graham

      McWalter, Tony

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mandelson, Peter

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Timms, Stephen

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Tipping, Paddy

      Maxton, John

      Touhig, Don

      Merron, Gillian

      Trickett, Jon

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Miller Andrew

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Vaz, Keith

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Watts, David

      Mudie, George

      White, Brian

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Olner, Bill

      O'Neill, Martin

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Wills, Michael

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Wilson, Brian

      Pearson, Ian

      Winnick, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Plaskitt, James

      Wood, Mike

      Pollard, Kerry

      Woolas, Phil

      Pond, Chris

      Worthington, Tony

      Pound, Stephen

      Wray, James

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Wyatt, Derek

      Purchase, Ken

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Raynsford, Nick

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Ms Bridget Prentice.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 2, leave out lines 22 to 24.—[Sir Brian Mawhinney.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 98, Noes 267.

      Division No. 182]

      [7.49 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Amess, David

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Leigh, Edward

      Bercow, John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Loughton, Tim

      Boswell, Tim

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Brady, Graham

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Malins, Humfrey

      Butterfill, John

      Mates, Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Clappison, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Norman, Archie

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Page, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Prior, David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Day, Stephen

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Faber, David

      Shepherd, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Streeter, Gary

      Flight, Howard

      Swayne, Desmond

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Syms, Robert

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Fraser, Christopher

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Gale, Roger

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Gibb, Nick

      Tredinnick, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Trend, Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Green, Damian

      Viggers, Peter

      Greenway, John

      Walter, Robert

      Grieve, Dominic

      Wardle, Charles

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Hammond, Philip

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Hawkins, Nick

      Willetts, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Woodward, Shaun

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Yeo, Tim

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Horam, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hunter, Andrew

      Mr. James Cran and

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Mr. Nigel Waterson.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Battle, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Bayley, Hugh

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Beard, Nigel

      Alexander, Douglas

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Allan, Richard

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Benton, Joe

      Ashton, Joe

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Best, Harold

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Betts, Clive

      Austin, John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Baker, Norman

      Boateng, Paul

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Borrow, David

      Banks, Tony

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Barnes, Harry

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      565

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Healey, John

      Brake, Tom

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Browne, Desmond

      Heppell, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Burden, Richard

      Hill, Keith

      Burgon, Colin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Burnett, John

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Burstow, Paul

      Hoey, Kate

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Home Robertson, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Hope, Phil

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Caton, Martin

      Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hurst, Alan

      Chaytor, David

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Chidgey, David

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Jamieson, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Jenkins, Brian

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Coleman, Iain

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Colman, Tony

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Connarty, Michael

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cooper, Yvette

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Cotter, Brian

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Cranston, Ross

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Kidney, David

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Darvill, Keith

      Laxton, Bob

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Lepper, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Leslie, Christopher

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Linton, Martin

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Livingstone, Ken

      Doran, Frank

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Dowd, Jim

      Love, Andrew

      Drew, David

      McAllion, John

      Drown, Ms Julia

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McCabe, Steve

      Efford, Clive

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Ennis, Jeff

      McDonnell, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Flint, Caroline

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Follett, Barbara

      McNamara, Kevin

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McNulty, Tony

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      MacShane, Denis

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Fyfe, Maria

      McWalter, Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mandelson, Peter

      Gerrard, Neil

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Maxton, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Merron, Gillian

      Grogan, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hain, Peter

      Miller, Andrew

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hanson, David

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Harvey, Nick

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      566

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Spellar, John

      Mudie, George

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stevenson, George

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Oner, Bill

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Öpik, Lembit

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Stringer, Graham

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pearson, Ian

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pond, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Touhig, Don

      Purchase, Ken

      Trickett, Jon

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rendel, David

      Tyler, Paul

      Rooker, Jeff

      Vaz, Keith

      Rooney, Terry

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Roy, Frank

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Ruane, Chris

      Wareing, Robert N

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Watts, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      White, Brian

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sawford, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wills, Michael

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wilson, Brian

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Winnick, David

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wood, Mike

      Singh, Marsha

      Woolas, Phil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wray, James

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Ms Bridget Prentice and

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      8 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 3, line 5, leave out 'at' and insert 'in respect of'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 37.
      Ms Quin: These are simple drafting amendments that make no substantive alteration to the Bill, but ensure that the status quo is not altered as regards an aspect of the franchise.
      As members of the Committee may know, it is quite common for members of the armed services to be registered to vote in the constituency that contained their last civilian address, even though neither they nor any members of their family live there any longer. Such people are, technically, registered not at a specific address but in respect of their previous address, which is why the Bill is being amended.

      567
      I stress that these minor amendments do not change the status quo. Indeed, they confirm it with regard to existing rules on the franchise.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 37, in page 3, line 17, leave out 'at' and insert 'in respect of'.—[Ms Quin.]
      Ms Quin: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 3, line 40, leave out
      'representatives to the European Parliament'
      and insert 'MEPs'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 35.
      Ms Quin: These are also simple drafting amendments, which, again, make no substantive alteration to the Bill.
      Everywhere else in the Bill, MEPs are referred to as just that. However, one rogue reference to the former description of
      "representatives to the European Parliament"
      has crept in. Amendment No. 29 corrects that. I was elected to the European Parliament in 1979 and can remember that various documents referred to us by a variety of names, for example, Member of the European Parliament. I remember getting a letter addressed to Joyce Quin, MEA—Member of the European Assembly. Another was addressed to Joyce Quin, REA—Representative of the European Assembly. That experience was shared by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who was one of my MEP colleagues. Amendment No. 29 will stop such confusion and ensure that the proper title, MEP, is used.
      Amendment No. 35 removes an unnecessary reference. Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, which schedule 2 to the Bill amends, permits regulations to be made on aspects of the conduct of elections. Among the things that it will be possible to do by means of regulation is to prevent individuals from standing more than once. As drafted, the Bill talks about standing more than once at a "general election of MEPs".
      On reflection, and having considered the view of Parliamentary Counsel, we concluded that the last two words are unnecessary, as they are implicit in a measure that deals specifically with the election of MEPs.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 41, after 'State' insert
      ', provided that the poll shall always be held on Thursday.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in page 3, line 41, at end insert 'except a Sunday'.
      No. 13, in page 3, line 42, at beginning insert
      'Subject to subsection (3) below,'.
      No. 15, in page 3, line 43, at end add—
      '(3) An order under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: The effect of the amendment is that elections to the European Parliament under the new
      568
      system will be held on a Thursday, and that the designated date should be subject to affirmative approval by Parliament.
      The amendment is necessary because of the attitude that the Government have taken on the issue. It is clear that new Labour, new Europe, new harmonisation is the agenda. As the Minister knows, most of the countries in the European Union hold their elections on a Sunday. It is clear to Opposition Members that part of the Government's hidden agenda is to harmonise our elections with those of the majority of countries in Europe and to move from our traditional Thursday to a Sunday.
      There is no statutory requirement for general elections or, indeed, European elections, to be held on a Thursday, but in this country they have been held on Thursdays since 1935.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: As my right hon. Friend knows, like the Minister, I was successful in the first direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979. In that year, the elections in the United Kingdom were held on the Thursday and the votes were counted on the Sunday. Is there a way to square that circle?
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. These amendments deal with the electoral process. My understanding of European law is that, although there are four days on which elections can be held, the counting must take place simultaneously. That is why my hon. Friend was elected on the Thursday but did not know it until the Sunday.
      I stress the importance that we attach to continuing the tradition, and our concern that the Government have a hidden agenda to undermine it. Indeed, in our legislation, Sunday has always been excluded from the electoral timetable. Since 1981, Saturday has also been excluded. I am led to believe that to have elections on a Sunday would require primary legislation. No doubt the Minister will be able to tell us whether that is true.
      There is no question but that, were elections to be shifted from Thursday to Sunday, they would become a much more expensive process than at present. Given the money that the Government plan to spend on holding the regional list elections, we see no justification for that expense, as we have made clear, or for the additional expense incurred by requiring people to work from early morning on the Sunday to the later hours of Monday. It would be a huge imposition on all those who had to help to conduct the election.
      We all know from our parliamentary experience the number of people involved in, and the complexity of, organising a parliamentary constituency election with some 60,000 to 70,000 voters. The House has still not come to terms with the complexity that will be involved in running an election for 5 million or 6 million voters in a particular region. The manpower demands will be enormous. The cost consequences of holding an election on a Thursday will be huge, but they will be even worse on a Sunday.
      Many of us have always judged Sundays to be special. We have had many a debate about the importance of separating Sunday from the rest of the week, for religious, workplace and family reasons. If the Minister replies that the Government will not push for elections on Sundays and undertake never to do so, that will satisfy us and

      569
      would be welcomed by the Committee. However, unless she rules out such an option, it would be a grave misjudgment on her part to believe that there might not be a reaction across the country. Even if she says that it will not happen in 1999, that will simply increase the concern of those who will then wonder whether it will happen in subsequent elections. The issue should not be partisan; a commitment to rule out Sunday elections would satisfy the Committee.
      I guess that the Minister will say that she wants to keep open the option of voting on a Sunday, because it might help to increase turnout. In anticipation of that argument, I looked at some statistics. I compared and contrasted the percentage turnout at the most recent general election with that at the most recent European election in 1994. The Minister will probably say that the number of Britons voting in that European election was considerably less than the number of those voting in the general election, and she will be right. The figure for last May was 71.5 per cent., which was a low turnout by our normal general election standards, and it was only 36.4 per cent. in the European election in 1994.
      In Ireland, which also votes on a Thursday, the last general election turnout was 65.9 per cent., but it was only 44 per cent. in 1994. There is a case to be made that voting on Thursdays results in a percentage reduction in the European election turnout, but the same happens when voting is held on Sundays.
      I offer the hon. Lady two countries' statistics. In the 1995 general election in Portugal, 66.5 per cent. of the electorate voted, but in the European election only 35.6 per cent. of the electorate voted. In Germany, which is frequently held up to us as the dynamo or the motor of the European Union—[Interruption.] I select my words carefully—the general election turnout in 1994 was 79 per cent., but in the European election it dropped to 60.1 per cent.
      The point that I seek to make is that in virtually every country there is a drop-off, sometimes a significant drop-off, between general election turnout and European election turnout, irrespective of the day of the week on which the election is held.
      8.15 pm
      Ms Jenny Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with what happens in this country? Because of the rules governing postal votes, people may be unable to vote if they are called away from their constituency at extremely short notice to work on election day, which is a growing trend. Most people still do not work on Sundays, but if we enabled people to vote on Sundays, more of them could vote.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Lady seems to have forgotten that postal vote applications close some two weeks before election day, so the argument that moving to a Sunday would somehow enhance electoral turnout has no validity.
      Mr. Loughton: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the busiest times at polling stations—I have sat outside polling stations during many elections—are when people are on their way to work in the morning and when they return from work in the evening. Most people do not go
      570
      to work on a Sunday, and the incentive for them to go out on a Sunday specifically to vote is less. It is more convenient for them to vote on the way to or from work.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am grateful to him for the clarity with which he made it—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is far too much background noise in the Chamber.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: At the heart of the amendment is our concern that the Government plan, either next year or subsequently, to harmonise policy with the majority of European countries and shift elections from Thursdays to Sundays. I remind the Minister that Sunday legislation has traditionally been given a free vote in this House. If she does not like the way in which our amendment is framed, we should be perfectly content for her to take it away and bring it back on Report appropriately framed, if that would help. Unless we get from her a commitment that European elections will continue to be scheduled to take place on Thursdays, we shall press the amendment to a vote at the appropriate time.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I wish to speak gently and constructively on amendment No. 73. I raised this matter on Second Reading, when it was given a sympathetic response by the Secretary of State, who said that he would look at the issue.
      In two of the European seats in Scotland we do not count, let alone consider voting, on a Sunday. That is in respect for those who hold strong Sabbatarian views. If we move to vote on Sundays, we shall disfranchise a substantial number of people, especially in the highlands and islands and the north-east of Scotland, but also in other areas of the United Kingdom. If we want an inclusive society, we must respect the views of those who would feel that such a move was contrary to their beliefs.
      Having always been involved in the European elections, I know that waiting from 10 o'clock on a Thursday night to a Monday morning when we start the count is not the easiest of weekends to live through. A great deal of nail biting and filling in of time goes on.
      The Committee should treat this as a matter of respect. We should not disfranchise people with strong religious beliefs, which we should respect, irrespective of our own views. I am a member of my Church and a practising Christian. I would have difficulty with voting on a Sunday, as would many of my constituents.
      Mr. Allan: Liberal Democrat Members believe that there should be no automatic presumption that elections should be held on Thursdays. However, some of my hon. Friends, like the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), represent people who hold strong Sabbatarian views, and others have strong views of their own. They expect a free vote on Sunday elections, and my party is committed to such a vote on the Scottish National party amendment. We are less supportive of the proposition that the Bill should specify Thursday as the day on which elections are held. We have no problem with the other four days, and there is a strong case for using Saturday for weekend

      571
      voting. Schoolchildren would benefit from not having their education disrupted by schools becoming polling stations on weekdays.
      Dr. Rudi Vis: I take the point that was made about Scotland, but we should take into account the fact that voting on a Saturday would be wholly unacceptable to Jewish people.
      Mr. Allan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the sensitivities of various groups. Whatever day we choose, there will be problems. We shall hold a free vote on the amendment because people hold strong religious beliefs. I have misgivings about using Thursdays, because people who work or who have family responsibilities have problems voting then.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I oppose the Government's proposal and support amendment No. 12, for two reasons. First, many people have a conscientious objection to voting on a Sunday. I do not, but I would be sad if the Committee, directly or indirectly, put in place a proposal that would have the practical consequence of disfranchising a substantial number of people.
      Secondly, I am against giving Governments the power to make laws without having proper recourse to the House. The Minister will say that an order will have to be laid, I suspect under the negative procedure. There would be no proper debate; only, at best, an hour and a half of discussion of an unamendable order. A debate in the Chamber is unlikely. I am against giving to Governments powers that do not have to be conferred on Governments.
      For those reasons—conscientious objection and the impropriety of the proposal—I support the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney).
      Miss McIntosh: I shall speak against amendment No. 73 and be specific about why European Parliament elections can be held on a limited number of days.
      There is a Council of Ministers agreement that an election must be held within an envelope of days, between Thursday and Sunday. The treaty and regulations govern the handling of elections.
      I support amendment No. 12. My right hon. Friend the Member for North—West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) put powerful arguments in favour of holding elections on Thursdays, not Sundays, because of the additional expense. I fear the consequences of changing the day on which elections are held and caution against that. It would be difficult for the very young and the very old to adapt to such a change. if an election were not held on a Thursday, some people might think that it was of no consequence. If elections in this country are always to be held on a Thursday, that day should also be used for the European Parliament election.
      Mrs. May: I support amendment No. 12, and the comments of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) about religious objections that would prevent people from voting. Her amendment refers to Sundays, and the
      572
      hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) reminded us of the problems with Saturdays. I understand that both days are ruled out because some people are unwilling to vote then.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) seemed to be against voting on Saturdays and Sundays, but appeared not to favour weekdays because people were working. It is inevitable that a weekday will be used because Saturdays and Sundays are unacceptable to some people as polling days. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said, if we are to use a weekday, we should stick with the one that we have always used, because people know that important elections are held on that day.
      The Bill does not state the hours during which polling stations will be open, perhaps because they are specified in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. I assume that the polling hours will be as they are at present.
      We must encourage people to vote and make it easier for them to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) said that many people vote on the way to or from work. The hours during which polling stations are open are crucial to enabling people to vote. What hours will polling stations be open on European election day?
      Mr. Loughton: I want to reinforce the case against voting on Sundays instead of a working day. Just as people may not be available to vote on a Thursday, they may be unavailable on a Sunday for a host of reasons. If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) is concerned about getting a 100 per cent. turnout, she should suggest that polling stations get in line with supermarkets and open 24 hours a day, or open not just on Thursday between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock, but all day on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. People could choose the day on which to vote according to their religious convictions or business and family commitments.
      The Bill does not make such changes, but it changes enough. We are discussing fundamental constitutional changes, the like of which have not been seen since we began electing Members to the European Parliament in 1979. We are not even making these changes to fall in line with the rest of Europe. Much has been said about not only how candidates will be selected differently by different parties, but how countries across the European Union use different electoral systems and vote on different days according to different types of regional government, different party structure and different party list. If Labour Members cannot even agree with that, can we not at least specify Thursdays? In the past, people have known where they are and have been able to make arrangements to vote. That has been the case for many years.
      If people are serious about voting—if they are really interested in a democratic process—and, in this instance, if they are interested in electing MEPs, they will find a way of voting on a Thursday. Can we at least keep that link with the past?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Lansley: I did not intend to speak, but, having read the amendments and listened to the debate on them, I feel that they point compellingly to the argument

      573
      presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). I also think that the argument has developed during the debate.
      We should be grateful to the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) for reminding us that it is incumbent on us to respect the views of minorities, and minority faiths in particular, whatever may be our personal view. I share the feeling of my right hon. Friend: although I am a practising member of the Church of England, I would not have any difficulty in voting on a Sunday, but I know and respect others who would. I also think that people with different faiths—Jewish or Muslim—might not want to vote on a Saturday. We should strain not to impinge on the views and interests of minorities. After all, as the debate has made clear, it is far from obvious that there is any benefit to be derived from holding elections at weekends.
      Moreover, leaving aside the objections to which I have referred, weekend elections would be a significant constitutional innovation. Such an innovation should not be entered into lightly or ill-advisedly, and—as my right hon. Friend said—it should certainly not be entered into on the basis of an order laid by the Secretary of State without debate in the House and an affirmative resolution. I stand to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong, but I think that my right hon. Friend was right in saying that, under the Bill, the order would be made under the negative resolution procedure.
      If the election is not to be held on a Saturday or a Sunday, I see no reason to give Ministers discretion to choose a day other than Thursday. I do not think that anyone has argued today that one weekday is better than, or different from, another. I think that we are all accustomed to voting on Thursdays. Returning officers, party organisations and, indeed, voters probably consider it normal to vote on Thursdays, and would think it abnormal and unconventional to do so on any other day. We are all creatures of habit, and I suspect that, as voters, we are all very much the same. I think that we might see a lower turnout on a weekday other than Thursday. If Saturdays and Sundays are excluded, therefore, there is everything to be said for accepting the proposal to specify Thursdays.
      I dare say that any order presented by the Secretary of State will refer to a day within the normal confines of the election of MEPs on a Europewide basis. That has already been mentioned. Nevertheless, I feel that any discretion used by Ministers should involve an affirmative resolution of the House. It should be customary in the House for electoral matters to proceed as far as possible by way of consensus between parties, and as little as possible by dictate of the majority party. I hope that no Government would want to feel that they were contriving an electoral process—including election day—that was advantageous to that Government rather than to democracy.
      Ms Quin: This short debate has raised a number of issues.
      The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), the shadow Home Secretary, seemed to want to be North-West Cambridgeshire's Mystic Meg. He tried to predict what I would say, and I am not sure whether he will be disappointed.
      All the amendments deal with the day on which European general elections are held. Let me provide some background information about how the day is selected.
      574
      As I suspect the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) knew, the key document is the one entitled "Act concerning the election of representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage annexed to the decision of the Council of the European Communities dated the 20 September 1976". It provides that a European parliamentary general election must be held five years after the last election; but, should it prove impossible to hold an election on that exact day, the Council is empowered—if there is unanimous agreement—to vary the date by one month in either direction.
      As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, the election period runs from the Thursday morning to the following Sunday. Under the legislation, each member state is free to pick the day within that period on which it wishes to hold its election. It is possible, therefore, to vary the day now, although we have no plans to do so.
      Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and some of my hon. Friends, pointed out that it was theoretically possible to vary the day. The pros and cons of holding elections on Saturdays were discussed. Elections to the European Parliament are generally held on Sundays in many of our partner countries, but the Government have no plans to switch from our traditional Thursday polling day, and we certainly intend the 1999 elections to be held on a Thursday.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked me to rule out other days for all time, but, as we all know, Parliament cannot bind its successors, and it would be very foolish of me, as a junior Minister, to try to bind my successors for all time. I can only offer the right hon. Gentleman the reasonable proposition that we have no present plans to change.
      Mr. Hogg: If that is the case, why not include it in the Bill?
      Ms Quin: What is being suggested is no different from the arrangements that obtained during the 18 years for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party was in power. The Conservatives saw no need to change the arrangements in this way. I have said what the legal position is, in terms of all parties being able to vary the day, but I have also made it clear that we do not intend to do so.
      The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said he did not feel that the voting day was a partisan matter, and there is considerable merit in that view, in regard to our own general elections as well. We are, however, dealing in this debate with the European elections and their legal base. I accept that, if we were tempted to go down such a route, there would be difficulties. Hon. Members have commented on that. Certainly, people in Britain are used to voting on Thursdays. As for the European elections, I think that the combination of a new voting system and a new voting day would be unfortunate. We hope and believe that the new voting system will encourage more people to vote in European elections, for many of the reasons that have been advanced during our debates. If we changed the voting day at the same time as we changed the electoral system, it would be extremely difficult to know what contribution each of the two innovations had made to the change in turnout.

      575
      As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has pointed out, there would be problems in certain parts of Scotland and, no doubt, in other parts of Britain where there would be strong religious objections to trying to introduce Sunday voting. I am tempted to say that Scotland pioneered Sunday trading, which I voted against, but the hon. Lady's points were well made in terms of the area to which she referred. As I have said, the Government have no plans to introduce Sunday voting for elections to the European Parliament and, because of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Moray will recognise that her amendment is unnecessary.
      I hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will see that the first of his amendments is unnecessary and that it could cause problems in the future. As I have already outlined, member states do not have a free hand in setting election dates. The election has to be held in a Thursday-to-Sunday period. It is possible—I accept that it is highly unlikely—that, at some time in the future, that could be changed to a Sunday-to-Wednesday period. In that case, the right hon. Gentleman's amendment would cause real problems and I urge him to withdraw it.
      The right hon. Member referred to turnout. I listened to everything he had to say, but he seemed basically to be saying that turnout in the European elections tends to be lower than in national elections—we all know that. We hope and believe that the system we are introducing will encourage people to vote. Whatever the merits or demerits of our present first-past-the-post system, many votes do not count towards the final total. That will not be the case in the system that we are introducing for the European elections. We hope that the turnout for the next European election will be higher than in the past.
      Mr. Syms: If the turnout is lower, will the Government reconsider their future position?
      Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that after the elections we will look at what has happened and evaluate it. That was in response to a suggested amendment from a Labour Member. Obviously, we will look at the result of the elections and I hope that we will look at all the factors that obtained in the European parliamentary election period.
      The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire began with a few snide comments about new Labour, new harmonisation. In case there is any doubt, let me make it clear that the Government have no interest in harmonisation for harmonisation's sake. I am more than happy to celebrate the diversity of the regions and the member states of the European Union.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I will not detain the Committee because I think that we should draw this issue to a conclusion.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said that we could vote either at the weekend or during the week. For reasons that many hon. Members have adduced, voting at the weekend creates real difficulties. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) made a valid point which helped to
      576
      strengthen the argument about religious diversity in our country. This issue is important not only to Christians but to a whole variety of religious groups who hold their beliefs strongly and whose lives and life behaviour are influenced by those religious beliefs. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).
      8.45 pm
      All were offering me encouragement for my point when I stressed that the House advances any issues involving Sunday activity on the basis of a free vote because it recognises that there are employment, family and religious consequences at weekends. It would be a sad day if the House, which is the ultimate defender of our freedoms, should seek to impinge on religious freedom.
      The speech made by the Minister of State, was disappointing. I say that not in a partisan spirit but because she was not able to sense the mood of the points being made to her. The Minister said that no Government or House can bind its successors. She is right, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, that is not an argument for not putting this in the Bill. All it means is that some future Government or Parliament would have to change the legislation. That is a more major step.
      The Minister said that the previous Government did not do this and implied that, because of that, we have no right to make an issue of it now. We did not introduce this sort of legislation. We did not introduce legislation that was designed to produce a degree of harmonisation with the other countries in Europe in this electoral process.
      What most concerned me about the Minister's speech was that she talked about two sets of innovations—the new system and the possibility of moving to Sunday voting. She said that the two changes would not take place in 1999 because we would not know which innovation had affected the turnout. That is slightly chilling. It seems to indicate that there was, in Government, a consideration of moving to Sunday right now and that there is certainly active consideration to look at that for a subsequent election.
      The Minister has made her position clear, and she is not going to change. She has made it clear that she does not think that she has the freedom to change. The mood of the House and the mood of the debate has been quite clear. We think that there should be a clear commitment in the Bill that elections will continue to be held on a Thursday and a clear commitment that they will not be on a Sunday. The Minister will not give us that commitment on behalf of the Government so we will have to press the amendment to a Division.
      Mrs. Ewing: In light of what has been said, the speech of the right hon. Member for North—West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) was rather depressing because it was ungracious. I respect the points made on behalf of the Jewish faith. There are other minority faiths in the United Kingdom that we should consider, because we are an inclusive society. Given the good-natured and sensible response from the Minister, I wonder whether it would be possible to ensure that, on Report, it could be written into the Bill that the next elections will be held on a Thursday.
      Ms Quin: I am grateful for the tone in which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) put her question. I am

      577
      happy to take advice, but I believe that that would not keep us in line with the original legal base on which the European parliamentary elections are founded. I have said that there is to be no change for these elections and that we have no plans to change the day and I would have hoped that that would be sufficient reassurance for the hon. Lady.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 95, Noes 223.

      Division No. 183]

      [8.48 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Amess, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Arbuthnot, James

      Lansley, Andrew

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Leigh, Edward

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bercow, John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Body, Sir Richard

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Loughton, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Butterfill, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cash, William

      Maples, John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Mates, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Clappison, James

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Norman, Archie

      Collins, Tim

      Page, Richard

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Prior, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Faber, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fabricant, Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Fallon, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Spring, Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Streeter, Gary

      Fraser, Christopher

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gale, Roger

      Syms, Robert

      Gibb, Nick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Green, Damian

      Trend, Michael

      Greenway, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Walter, Robert

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Wardle, Charles

      Hammond, Philip

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Hawkins, Nick

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Hayes, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Woodward, Shaun

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Yeo, Tim

      Horam, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Mr. James Cran and

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Mr. Nigel Waterson.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Banks, Tony

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Barnes, Harry

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bayley, Hugh

      Allan, Richard

      Beard, Nigel

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Austin, John

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Baker, Norman

      Be ningham, Gerald

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Betts, Clive

      578

      Blizzard, Bob

      Hinchliffe, David

      Boateng, Paul

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Borrow, David

      Home Robertson, John

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Hope, Phil

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Browne, Desmond

      Hurst, Alan

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Burden, Richard

      Jenkins, Brian

      Burnett, John

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Burstow, Paul

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Byers, Stephen

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selfy Oak)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Chaytor, David

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Chidgey, David

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Kidney, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Laxton, Bob

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Lepper, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Linton, Martin

      Coleman, Iain

      Livingstone, Ken

      Colman, Tony

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Connarty, Michael

      Love, Andrew

      Cooper, Yvette

      McAllion, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cotter, Brian

      McCabe, Steve

      Cranston, Ross

      McDonnell, John

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Darvill, Keith

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      McNulty, Tony

      Dawson, Hilton

      MacShane, Denis

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Doran, Frank

      McWalter, Tony

      Dowd, Jim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Drew, David

      Mandelson, Peter

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Efford, Clive

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Maxton, John

      Flint, Caroline

      Merron, Gillian

      Follett, Barbara

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Miller, Andrew

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Gapes, Mike

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mudie, George

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Godsiff, Roger

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Olner, Bill

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      O'Neill, Martin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Grogan, John

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hain, Peter

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hanson, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Harvey, Nick

      Plaskitt, James

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Pond, Chris

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Pope, Greg

      Heppell, John

      Pound, Stephen

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hill, Keith

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      579

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Raynsford, Nick

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rooker, Jeff

      Touhig, Don

      Roy, Frank

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tyler, Paul

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Vaz, Keith

      Sanders, Adrian

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sawford, Phil

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sedgemore, Brian

      White, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wood, Mike

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wray, James

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stevenson, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Janet Anderson and

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      9 pm
      Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 43, at end add—
      '3E.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe the form of the ballot paper to be used at the poll for the election of representatives to the European Parliament.
      (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the ballot paper shall include, separately from the list of candidates, a brief explanatory statement describing the method of election and the procedure to be followed by each elector in casting his vote or votes.'.
      I do not think that I should be courting too much controversy if I said that the simplicity which has been alleged on behalf of the new electoral system for the European elections is not invincibly self-evident to everyone. If the Committee has at times struggled with divisors, proportionality and so on, the electors will have even more of a struggle when confronted with the system.
      We owe it to the electors to explain to them what is happening. We should not just present to them the choices that they are offered, but explain how the system works and what will happen after they have cast their votes. That is a fairly simple proposition which ought to be adhered to in a democracy.
      We hope that the Government will welcome the amendment. It requires the ballot paper to include, separately from the list of candidates,
      "a brief explanatory statement describing the method of election and the procedure to he followed by each elector in casting his vote or votes."
      That would be helpful to electors.
      There are grounds for suspecting that the Government themselves feel that the system needs more explanation. There has been talk of expensive advertising campaigns. Apparently, there is an internal debate in the Government
      580
      about how best to explain the system to the public. The amendment provides one way of doing just that. Perhaps the Government should think carefully about providing reading rooms or something similar where electors could go to study the new system and see how to go about casting their vote.
      The amendment is intended to be constructive. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on how the Government intend to explain the new system to the electorate and whether the names of the candidates will appear separately on the ballot as the amendment suggests.
      Mr. Hogg: I agree with the spirit of the amendment, but not with the precise form. The real issue is the complexity that flows from the changes that the Committee is considering. I do not think that the problem can be addressed by an explanatory statement attached to the ballot paper—if only because people going to a polling station do not expect to have to sit around for a long time reading an explanatory statement—but that we need an explanatory statement to be sent to the electorate is self-evident.
      My suggestion is that the Minister agree to the principle set out in the amendment and agree further that an explanatory statement should be sent to all electors in good time for the relevant election. That would be most desirable and helpful.
      Mr. Paul Burstow: The amendment provides the opportunity to raise the question of access to voting stations for blind and partially sighted people, a matter which I am sure concerns many hon. Members. I have raised this issue in debates on other Bills that will change our voting system. I should be interested to hear what plans the Government have to ensure that, when the new system of voting is introduced for the European elections, the maximum opportunity is provided to blind and partially sighted people to enable them to exercise their right to vote unaided and in person at the polling station.
      Mr. John Hayes: I had not intended to speak to this amendment, but I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman says and would like to extend the discussion to include access for people with a range of disabilities, not just those that he mentioned. It is a matter I have raised in the all-party disablement group. The European elections provide us with an opportunity to consider the question of access. I could not miss the chance to say that, because it is such an important matter.
      Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have attended meetings of the all-party disablement group at which "Polls Apart 2", the report published by Scope, has been discussed. That report highlights concern about access to polling stations during the most recent general election. Several of Scope's recommendations should be considered so that we increase the turnout at the next European parliamentary elections.
      I want to find out how the Government will ensure that blind and partially sighted people can vote unaided and in person at the polling station. They are often expected to

      581
      use a postal vote instead, but I want to disabuse people of the idea that that is acceptable. Blind and partially sighted people have a fundamental right to exercise their vote on the same day as everyone else. Will the Government experiment with braille templates and larger print formats, so that more people can exercise their vote in person in future European elections?
      Miss McIntosh: The arguments for the amendment are self-evident and have been sufficiently rehearsed. My concern is that the local elections will be held on one system, but, within a month, the electors will be asked to vote under a novel and rather complicated system. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, what efforts will they make to explain the new procedures before electors enter the polling booth?
      Ms Quin: I have listened carefully to hon. Members' comments in this brief debate. I shall respond in the spirit of the concerns that have been expressed, although I do not believe that the amendment is necessary or entirely helpful. On the aim and spirit of what has been said, there is little between the Opposition and the Government—I particularly endorse the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
      I assure the Committee that the form of the ballot paper will be set out in regulations which will be made by the Secretary of State and subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Government firmly intend that the names of all the people included on party lists should appear on the ballot paper. The Committee will know that we arranged for four sample ballot papers to be placed in the Library. Those hon. Members—including, I presume, Opposition Front Benchers—who have examined the sample will have seen clearly that candidates' names appear. I hope that there are no doubts about the Government's intentions on that.
      Obviously, as happens currently, a ballot paper will contain straightforward instructions to the elector about how to fill it in. The new system will continue to be simple—the instruction will be "Place one cross on the ballot paper". No doubt we can consider whether that wording could be improved or amplified, but there will certainly be something of that nature on the ballot paper.
      The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) suggested that the ballot paper should contain a description of how the electoral system works. Such a move would be unprecedented; it is a surprising proposal from a party that has argued against electoral reform. We do not believe, for the reasons given by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is particularly helpful.
      We do not have a description of the method of election on the ballot paper. 1 do not accept that there is less need to do so for elections conducted by the first-past-the-post system, as everyone, including first-time voters, is assumed to understand how it works.
      Plenty of first-time voters may be unclear about the mechanics of the existing system. Equally, EU citizens can vote in local elections here, although they may not be familiar with the system. However, we do not provide them with explanations on the ballot paper, and with good reason. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, the design of a ballot paper
      582
      should be as simple and clear as possible, with no information that might confuse voters or cause unnecessary delay in the voting process. It is significant that in Northern Ireland, where the more complicated STV system is used for all elections other than parliamentary ones, the ballot paper merely gives directions on how to vote, without further explanation of the system.
      The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) raised an important point. Other hon. Members also referred to the importance of explaining to the electorate in the immediate run-up to the election how the system works. I am sure that there will be great interest in and discussion about the new voting system. The media, too, will play a part in explaining how the new system works. The Government will explore ways of explaining the new system to the electorate and everything will be done to ensure that there is no shortage of information detailing the mechanics of the new electoral system.
      The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) made some interesting points with which I have great sympathy although they were not directly relevant to the amendment. As he knows, because he has raised the issue in Adjournment debates, a working party under the chairmanship of the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), is examining the issues, which are important, as I know from my own constituency. I am sure that all hon. Members are aware of the difficulties faced by blind, partially sighted and disabled people in gaining access to polling booths and participating properly in elections.
      In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Clappison: I have listened to the Minister's response and I can assure her and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that my suggestion that reading rooms be set aside was slightly tongue in cheek. However, I am still concerned about the complexity of the new system which will be presented to the electorate. I share my right hon. and learned Friend's concern that it should be properly explained to the electorate. He made an important suggestion in that regard.
      I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which she framed her reply. I listened carefully, but I did not hear a great deal about how the Government proposed to explain the system to the electorate. It is all very well for the electorate to be invited to vote, but people will want to know what happens next. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) is concerned about that, I can assure him that the same issue perplexed the Home Secretary, who suggested that we embark on an expensive publicity campaign. The amendment would be one way to avoid that.
      We still have not heard exactly how the Government propose to explain the new system to the electorate, but, in view of the lateness of the hour, although I am disappointed in some respects, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      9.15 pm
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: We have spent a long time debating this clause because it is at the very heart of this rather unacceptable Bill.
      Thus far, under the Government's leadership, we have deprived the people of Gibraltar of a vote and created regions that are neither recognisable nor manageable. We are to have a voting system, but the Government do not know what it will be. We are to have registered parties, but the Government have no idea what sort of registration there will be. The Government are setting aside the boundary commission and will not consult.
      That is a brief but accurate summary of clause 1. It is for that reason that we shall vote against its standing part of the Bill.
      Mr. Hogg: I have been in the House for 19 years, or thereabouts, and this is the most objectionable constitutional Bill that I can recall. There are four reasons for that.
      The first is this: there is no convincing reason why we should make any change whatever. The only reason which has been given is that some other European states want us to make a change. I do not regard that as either a good or a sufficient reason. I have heard no other sustainable reason why we should make a change.
      The second and different point is this: I regard a constituency-based form of election as essential to our democratic system. It has huge advantages. It provides for real accountability. Members of Parliament know precisely to whom they are accountable—first and foremost, their constituents. That will not be so under the proposed system. Under our system, electors know precisely to whom they can go for advice and representation, but under the proposed system for the European Parliament, they will have not a clue. There will be a very large list, and electors will not know to whom to look.
      There is another point, too. Under the regional system, we are talking about large, complicated areas. The probability is that large urban areas will dominate the regional selection, with the result that particular issues, such as rural interests, will not be properly represented. Members of any elected representative body get to have a speciality because they are closely identified with the interests of a particular locality. That will not happen under the regional list system. We will be diminishing the accountability, knowledge and authority of the representatives. That is thoroughly bad news.
      The last point is the one about which I feel most strongly. We should not give to the central institutions of any political party the right to govern so precisely the character and identity of the people who are to be elected. Be sure about this: nobody will be able to stand for any length of time, far less survive, in the European Parliament unless his or her views are accepted and compatible with those of his or her central political institutions. That cannot be right.
      Where will be the free thinkers? Where will be the people who vote according to their conscience? Where, indeed, will be the eccentrics? They make a contribution. We can be certain that nobody will be adopted who does not share the dull conformity that for one moment
      584
      happens to be the accepted wisdom in their party. If they happen to be adopted, they will not be readopted. That will create a Parliament of clones.
      Mr. Beith: I reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I am absolutely confident that, in the Liberal Democrat party, some people whose views do not correspond to those of the central party organisation will be elected, because it will be for ordinary party members to vote for whom they choose. I understood that his party was seeking, through the hustings, to make a similar arrangement. Although I welcome his support for open lists, I hope that he will pay some respect to the internal democracy that his party is cultivating.
      Mr. Hogg: It is perfectly true that the Conservative party—and, to be fair, the Liberal Democrats—will choose from the membership, but that can change; the system will be what the Front Benchers of the time wish it to be. The Labour party is explicitly giving the power to its central institution, which will choose the representatives. I believe that that is a derogation from democracy. Once we start with the European Parliament, we may find that, by precedent, we move to other institutions, and ultimately to this House. I regard this as one of the worst Bills I have seen in 19 years in the House, and the clause encapsulates why it is so bad. I very much hope that the Committee votes against it.
      Mr. Lansley: We have had debates in which we have won the arguments, but the Government have won the votes. One thing has arisen from our debate on Tuesday. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) was wont to criticise my recommendation of the local Member of the European Parliament for Cambridgeshire. She fell into a trap, because I found that, on Monday evening, the MEP was in the hon. Lady's constituency, meeting his constituents. When she said, "We do not see him," she meant that she did not see him—his constituents do.
      Mr. Ian Cawsey: The MEP may have shot his own fox, because that proves that no one recognises him.
      Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is clearly ignorant of the facts.
      There has been no reflection on the impact of the Bill on incumbent MEPs. In respect of the incumbent MEP for my area, there would be a differential vote in his favour under a first-past-the-post system or an open list system because he is an excellent MEP. The Government are pursuing a closed list system, designed to make it an irrelevance to the electorate whether one is an incumbent MEP or not.
      The first-past-the-post system—and particularly the open list system—should benefit incumbents, yet the Government do not go down that path. There are two reasons why that is so. First, they do not believe that incumbent MEPs from the Labour party would attract any preferential vote in their favour. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly—I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—Labour wants to control who are presented to the electorate and in what order they are presented.

      585
      Labour wants to censor and censure its MEPs for ideological or other reasons. That highlights the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about the damage that will be done by the Government's proposal to put party control before democratic control.
      Ms Quin: As the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) pointed out, we have had an extensive debate on what is the heart of the Bill. Because we have had that extensive debate, I can be brief.
      Some strange claims have been made in this brief debate. The Conservatives claimed that the Government were introducing the system only because some other countries wanted us to make the change. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out on Second Reading and earlier this evening, there are clear reasons why the Government are making the change, including the work of the Plant commission and decisions at Labour party conferences from 1993 onwards. It was also a manifesto commitment.
      There is a real basis for making the change in the Bill and carrying it out for the next European parliamentary elections. Some of the comments suggest that the electorate are somehow clueless and could not cope with change. I have a higher opinion of the electorate—they will cope successfully with the change. They will be able to understand and grapple with the Bill. They will do so not just because of the Government's explanations, but because our media—which are organised regionally—will help to provide a clear exposition to voters in the run-up to the election.
      It is odd that, during the debate, Opposition Members have run down the very regional structure that they created. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that it would be impossible for eccentrics to be elected under the proposed system. As I am sure the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will agree, even though most European countries use a list system we are not short of eccentric Members in the European Parliament.
      I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he would consider arguments advanced by hon. Members about the system that operates in Belgium—the open list, as opposed to the closed list—and then make an announcement. The Home Secretary, both on Second Reading and today, has listened carefully to the arguments, as have my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), and I. We will consider them carefully and, in the meantime, I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
      Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 210, Noes 94.

      Division No. 184]

      [9.25 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Banks, Tony

      Alexander, Douglas

      Barnes, Harry

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Beard, Nigel

      Austin, John

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      586

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Hill, Keith

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hinchliffe, David

      Betts, Clive

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Blizzard, Bob

      Home Robertson, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Hope, Phil

      Borrow, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Hurst, Alan

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Browne, Desmond

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Burden, Richard

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Burstow, Paul

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Byers, Stephen

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Caplin Ivor

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cawsey, Ian

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Keen, Alan (Feltnam & Heston)

      Chaytor, David

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Laxton, Bob

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Lepper, David

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Linton, Martin

      Coaker, Vernon

      Livingstone, Ken

      Coleman, Iain

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Colman, Tony

      Love, Andrew

      Connarty, Michael

      McAllion, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Corston, Ms Jean

      McCabe, Steve

      Cranston, Ross

      McDonnell, John

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Darvill, Keith

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      McNulty, Tony

      Dawson, Hilton

      MacShane, Denis

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Doran, Frank

      McWalter, Tony

      Dowd, Jim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Drew, David

      Mandelson, Peter

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Efford, Clive

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Maxton, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Miller, Andrew

      Flint, Caroline

      Mitchell, Austin

      Follett, Barbara

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Gapes, Mike

      Mudie, George

      Gardiner, Barry

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Olner, Bill

      Godsiff, Roger

      O'Neill, Martin

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Öpik, Lembit

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Pearson, Ian

      Grogan, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hain, Peter

      Plaskitt, James

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hanson, David

      Pond, Chris

      Harvey, Nick

      Pope, Greg

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Pound, Stephen

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Heppell, John

      Prosser, Gwyn

      587

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Rooker, Jeff

      Tipping, Paddy

      Roy, Frank

      Touhig, Don

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Tyler, Paul

      Sanders, Adrian

      Vaz, Keith

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Sawford, Phil

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wareing, Robert N

      Shaw, Jonathan

      White, Brian

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wills, Michael

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wood, Mike

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Woolas, Phil

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wray, James

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stevenson, George

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Janet Anderson and

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Amess, David

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Bercow, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Leigh, Edward

      Boswell, Tim

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Butterfill, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Cash, William

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Clappison, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Maples, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Mates, Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Day, Stephen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Norman, Archie

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Page, Richard

      Faber, David

      Prior, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fallon, Michael

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Flight, Howard

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fraser, Christopher

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gale, Roger

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gibb, Nick

      Spring, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Streeter, Gary

      Green, Damian

      Swayne, Desmond

      Greenway, John

      Syms, Robert

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hawkins, Nick

      Trend, Michael

      Hayes, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Heald, Oliver

      Walter, Robert

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Wardle, Charles

      Horam, John

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Whittingdale, John

      588

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Wilkinson, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Woodward, Shaun

      Mr. James Cran and

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Nigel Waterson.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      ELECTORAL REGIONS IN ENGLAND
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. John Greenway: Clause 2 sweeps away the existing European constituencies and imposes instead the European electoral regions, which we shall discuss again in the debate on schedule 1. There has been no public consultation on the matter, and no reference to, or consideration by, the boundary commission, in spite of the Prime Minister's expression of such strong support for its doing so.
      My reason for rising at this point is to say that the Bill, and certainly clause 2, provides no real mechanism for reviewing the regional electoral boundaries on which constituencies are based. As people were not consulted, it would not be surprising if people in future wanted to change the boundaries. There is in schedule 1 a small reference to local government changes, but we should like to ask the Minister how the electoral regions can be changed. The Bill makes absolutely no provision for it.
      Mr. Hogg: I support what my hon. Friend has said. Lincolnshire has been grouped with the East Midlands. It has much more affinity with the Eastern region. There has been no recent consultation on the grouping of Lincolnshire with the East Midlands. Lincolnshire is essentially a rural county. Its interests are not likely to be represented by grouping it in the East Midlands, where there are many large urban concentrations and the representatives ultimately elected are likely to have much more to do with those urban areas than with the rural areas of Lincolnshire.
      The point that I make is similar to the point that I made in the debate on clause 1 stand part. The specific interests—in this case of rural areas—will be prejudiced. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that it is important that a system is in place whereby the House and other bodies can reconsider the groupings so that if one grouping is seen to prejudice the position of any county, that matter can be looked at and dealt with. I see no mechanism in the Bill to do that. I ask the Minister to be good enough to tell us what she has in mind.
      Mr. Beith: There should be a boundary commission or a standing electoral commission to examine those matters after the first elections, but the Bill is so constructed to ensure that the next European elections, relatively soon, can be fought by a fair system. Therefore, we think that the Bill should proceed in its present form and that the clause should stand part of the Bill, but that we should return to the matter after those elections.
      Ms Quin: The effect of clause 2 is merely technical. It provides for schedule 2 to the European Parliamentary

      589
      Elections Act 1978 to be replaced with schedule 1, to which the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) referred. We shall discuss the provisions of schedule 1 later in our proceedings. Some of the matters that were raised by Opposition Members relate to amendments that we have already discussed in our debates on the regions, the regional structure of the Bill and the role of the boundary commission, or to subsequent amendments referring to a referendum and other aspects relating to schedule 1.
      I am grateful for the comments of the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith). He seemed to understand that this was simply a technical amendment to make sure that the elections could take place as foreseen.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
      Ms Quin: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 4, line 5, after 'enactments' insert 'and instrument'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 39, 43 and 44.
      Ms Quin: These are minor drafting amendments, like those that I moved earlier, which make no substantive change to the Bill.
      Amendment No. 43 removes a reference to consent to nomination, which reflects the fact that, under the new list-based system, an individual standing for election does not consent to nomination in the traditional way.
      Amendment No. 44 adds the statutory instrument relating to consent to nomination to the list of repeals. Statutory instruments are technically instruments rather than enactments, and are revoked rather than repealed, which explains the words used in amendments Nos. 38 and 39. The amendments together make no substantive change to the Bill.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her explanation, but I am still slightly perplexed about amendment No. 38. It refers to an instrument, but I look at schedule 4 and I cannot find an instrument. To what instrument is the amendment directed?
      Ms Quin: I do not immediately have an answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I am advised that the drafting amendment does not make a substantive change. I am happy to write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but we are being asked to amend the Bill. The premise of the amendment is that there is an instrument in the schedule. There is not an instrument in the schedule. That being so, why are we being asked to amend the Bill?
      Ms Quin: Inspiration has just struck me. The regulation referred to is the regulation to which amendment No. 44 relates.
      Mr. Hogg: With respect, that is not right. We are told that amendment No. 38 relates to clause 3. Subsection (3) of that clause reads:
      "The enactments listed in Schedule 4 are hereby repealed to the extent specified."
      The Committee is referred to schedule 4. I see in schedule 4 only enactments, no orders. To what does the word "instrument" relate?
      Ms Quin: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at amendment No. 44, he will find the answer to his question. It refers to a change in schedule 4. The amendments are taken together as a group—I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to appreciate that fact.
      Mr. Hogg: That is not good enough. We are talking about a particular amendment. Amendment No. 38 amends clause 3. Clause 3 relates to enactments in schedule 4. It can make sense only if there is an instrument in schedule 4, but there is no such reference in that schedule.
      Mr. Beith: Amendment No. 44 inserts an instrument into schedule 4.
      9.45 pm
      Ms Quin: I think that the penny has dropped and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has realised that amendment No. 44 refers to schedule 4. I alluded to amendment No. 44 and the change that it makes to schedule 4 very clearly in my remarks.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 39, in page 4, line 5, after 'repealed' insert 'or revoked'.—[Ms Quin.]
      Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      COMMENCEMENT
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 22, at end add—
      '(3) An order under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 53, in page 4, line 22, at end add—

      '(3) No order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless such an enactment as is mentioned in section 3(8)(a) of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 for the registering of political parties has come into effect which—

      (a) takes account of any relevant report from the non—statutory Committee on Standards in Public Life; and

      (b) requires the democratic approval at regional level of party lists and of the order in which names appear on such lists by members of the registered party concerned.'.

      591
      No. 70, in page 4, line 22, at end add—

      '(3) No Order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless—

      (a) a draft Order under section 2(6)(c) of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament; and

      (b) the report of the non—statutory Independent Commission on the Voting System, established on 1st December 1997, has been published.'.

      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Before dealing with the amendments, I must inform the hon. Lady that we shall not reach tonight the selection of amendments made by the Chair concerning election expenses. As a courtesy, I must inform her that, when we consider those amendments next Thursday, we should be grateful to hear from her or the Home Secretary at the beginning of the debate regarding the Government's reaction to the Bowman decision recently announced by the European Court of Human Rights. That decision is absolutely central to the discussion that we shall have about election expenses. I hope that that will help the hon. Lady.
      First, the amendments represent our concern that several activities running parallel to our consideration of the Bill should conclude and that the House should have time to debate and consider those conclusions before a commencement order is put in place with respect to this legislation. We have already agreed that the Bill represents a fundamental change. I agree very much with the point made earlier by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that Parliament, and not the Government, should make a judgment about the commencement of the electoral process.
      Secondly, this is a complicated process. We shall be focusing on new and extensive training measures that must be put in place for handling the legislation. We believe that the Government should report back to Parliament when those measures are in place and that both Houses of Parliament should decide on the commencement.
      In addition, the Committee on Standards in Public Life is undertaking a review. The Government have also established an inquiry under Lord Jenkins of Hillhead as part of the secret Lib-Lab deal to change out of all recognition the constitution of this country. If anyone doubted that the inquiry was part of the Lib-Lab deal, the choice of Lord Jenkins to chair it would have laid those doubts to rest. It would be hard to find a former Member of this place—now a member of the other place—who had a more flexible constitutional interpretation at the heart of his political career than Lord Jenkins.
      Mr. Beith: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the deal was not in the least secret; it was public from the day that it was concluded.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Oh no. What was public from the day that it was concluded was that there was a deal. The terms of the deal are slowly coming to light, and the more we see of them, the less we like them.
      The third element of the amendments relates to our belief that there should be democratic accountability within the parties at a regional level before the election
      592
      can proceed. As has been made clear, the Conservative party will choose its regional candidates democratically, as will the Liberal Democrats, but the Labour party will not. I am grateful to someone, who will remain un-named, for letting me have a copy of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy's response to the Labour party's consultation paper on European parliamentary selections. It is absolutely relevant to the amendment before us, because it makes clear the opposition of many Labour party members to the fact that, although local members will be able to select one man and one woman, party apparatchiks will determine the candidates. That is typical of new Labour: new Labour, new control.
      I tabled the amendments to ensure that voters throughout the country can have confidence in the democratic nature of the selection of candidates in all the parties. I commend them to the Committee.
      Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). One of the most objectionable features—there are many—of the Bill is that it potentially gives control over the selection of candidates to the central institutions of the party. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats are not falling victim to the temptation to do that, but the Labour party is. It is reserving to the central institutions of the Labour party the power to adopt and re-adopt candidates. That is profoundly undemocratic. The advantage of my right hon. Friend's amendment is that it enables the Committee to consider the desirability of putting into commencement the Bill. It may sound improbable, but the Labour party will repent of its folly. At least it should be given the opportunity to do so. That is the great charm of my right hon. Friend's amendment.
      Ms Quin: Amendment No. 16 would require both Houses of Parliament to affirm that legislation, which both would have passed, should come into force. If either House is not content with the provisions in the Bill, it can refuse to approve and enact them.
      I accept that there are precedents, although they are few, for the affirmative resolution procedure to be used to bring Acts, or parts of Acts, into force. That procedure is usually reserved for situations where the commencement of the provision is contingent on some other event and Parliament needs to be satisfied that the contingent event had taken place.
      There are no contingent events relating to the Bill that would justify the use of the affirmative resolution procedure for commencement and transitional procedure orders.
      Amendment No. 53 would prevent the Secretary of State from bringing into force the provisions of the Bill until Lord Neill' s Committee on Standards in Public Life has produced a report. That Committee is not looking at issues relating to elections to the European Parliament; its main concern at the moment, as we know, is party funding. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that would include regulations to limit the national expenditure of political parties in relation to European elections.
      That is necessary because, with the elections proposed for the European Parliament, candidates would campaign not on their behalf but on behalf of their parties and the

      593
      party list on which they are represented. It is therefore necessary to provide for expenditure limits on parties as well as on independent candidates. Those regulations could take account of any recommendations that Lord Neill's committee might make in relation to the national expenditure of political parties during elections.
      Amendment No. 53 would also impose a condition on political parties requiring democratic approval at regional level of the party lists and the order in which names appear on such lists. Although, on several occasions during our debates, we have welcomed the Conservative party's conversion to party democracy, it is not for the Government to interfere in political parties' internal affairs.
      It was interesting that, during our debate on Tuesday, a Conservative Member complained bitterly about his party's approach to organising the European elections and said that it would disadvantage his party. He referred to the meetings arrangements for which the Conservative party was responsible. However, each party must decide for itself how, within the limits of its constitution, it selects candidates for public office. However, the electorate will take account of how parties determine their lists when they vote.
      Amendment No. 70 introduces two further conditions before the Secretary of State can bring into force the provisions of the Bill. The first relates to a report of the boundary commission. However, as we discussed on Tuesday, there is simply no need to involve the boundary commissions in the dividing of the country into established regions—the Conservative party is familiar with those, as it established them—which can be adopted with little amendment. The amendment is therefore simply a delaying tactic on behalf of the Conservative party. Why else would the Secretary of State have to wait a further four months after the boundary commissions complete their task before making the relevant order giving effect to their work?
      The Opposition now want us to wait for the outcome of the independent commission on voting reform for this Parliament as well, before we introduce the new system for the European elections. We have always made it clear that there should be different systems of elections for different public bodies, and that each electoral system should be appropriate to the body concerned. As has been said many times, unlike this Parliament, the European Parliament does not determine a Government, so the issues that we need to consider are different from those of the Westminster Parliament.
      The Government considered this issue carefully in bringing before the House a system based on regional lists, so I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: We shall not withdraw the amendment. The contingent event to which the Minister refers is the complicated nature of this Bill. The electorate will have confidence in a centralised regional list system only if they can be sure that the people have been chosen democratically. For that reason, we shall press the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 93, Noes 215.

      Division No. 185]

      [9.58 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Amess, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Arbuthnot, James

      Letwin, Oliver

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bercow, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Loughton, Tim

      Boswell, Tim

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Malins, Humfrey

      Butterfill, John

      Maples, John

      Cash, William

      Mates, Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Clappison, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Norman, Archie

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Page, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Prior, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Faber, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fabricant, Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Fallon, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Spring, Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Streeter, Gary

      Fraser, Christopher

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gale, Roger

      Syms, Robert

      Gibb, Nick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Green, Damian

      Trend, Michael

      Greenway, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Walter, Robert

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Wardle, Charles

      Hammond, Philip

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Hawkins, Nick

      Whittingdale, John

      Hayes, John

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Heald, Oliver

      Wilkinson, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Woodward, Shaun

      Horam, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Mr. James Cran and

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Mr. Nigel Waterson.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Alexander, Douglas

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Browne, Desmond

      Austin, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Baker, Norman

      Burden, Richard

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Burnett, John

      Banks, Tony

      Burstow, Paul

      Barnes, Harry

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Bayley, Hugh

      Byers, Stephen

      Beard, Nigel

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Caplin, Ivor

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Cawsey, Ian

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Chaytor, David

      Betts, Clive

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Boateng, Paul

      Borrow, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      595

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hope, Phil

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Colman, Tony

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hurst, Alan

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jenkins, Brian

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cranston, Ross

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Darvill, Keith

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dowd, Jim

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Drew, David

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Ganston)

      Laxton, Bob

      Efford, Clive

      Lepper, David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Linton, Martin

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Livingstone, Ken

      Flint, Caroline

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Follett, Barbara

      Love, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McAllion, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fyfe, Maria

      McCabe, Steve

      Galloway, George

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Gapes, Mike

      McDonnell, John

      Gardiner, Barry

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gerrard, Neil

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Godsiff, Roger

      McNamara, Kevin

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McNulty, Tony

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      MacShane, Denis

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Grogan, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Hain, Peter

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Hanson, David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Harvey, Nick

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Maxton, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Heppell, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hill, Keith

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Home Robertson, John

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      596

      Mudie, George

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Olner, Bill

      Stevenson, George

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pearson, Ian

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Plaskitt, James

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbuty)

      Pond, Chris

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Timms, Stephen

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Touhig, Don

      Raynsford, Nick

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Tyler, Paul

      Vaz, Keith

      Rooker, Jeff

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Roy, Frank

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      White, Brian

      Sanders, Adrian

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Wills, Michael

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wilson, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Winnick, David

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wood, Mike

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Woolas, Phil

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wray, James

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Janet Anderson and

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Jane Kennedy.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

      BROADCASTING
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Mike Wood be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Barry Gardiner be added to the Committee.—[Jane Kennedy.]

      Local Government Finance (Devon and Cornwall)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
      10.9 pm
      Mr. Nick Harvey: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important matter of this year's local government settlement for Devon and Cornwall. The settlement will impact on the lives of all my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in the Chamber and every other person living in Devon and Cornwall.
      It is worth noting that, although local authorities in many parts of the country have faced a tough financial settlement this year and have had to raise council taxes above the rate of inflation, the people of Devon and Cornwall are living in the two poorest counties in England and are, therefore, the least able to afford that. For example, in the newly shrunken Devon county council—after reorganisation it will no longer include Plymouth and Torbay—the increases will average about 20 per cent.
      There is plenty of evidence that people are happy to pay more either in local government taxation or national taxation if they are getting better services and better value for money. However, no such compensation can be offered to them when receiving their bills this year. The fact is made worse by the cuts that will have to take place in many local government services throughout the two counties. Devon has had to make reductions in its service budgets of £8.5 million and Cornwall has had to make reductions of £7 million.
      Devon has had the additional complication of having to cope with the reorganisation—slimming down after the loss of Torbay and Plymouth. Many of its problems in setting its budget for the coming year are in no small part due to the costs incurred through that reorganisation process. That is highlighted by the disaggregation of last year's spending in Devon being considerably different from the disaggregation of the coming year's standard spending assessment. That has left a £13 million shortfall which, shared out between the council tax payers in Devon, means that they will each be paying an extra £52—that is just to cope with the reorganisation.
      One of the biggest regrets that I have is that there has not been a transitional relief programme such as that provided for Scotland when it went through its local government reorganisation, to cope with the costs that the county council has had.
      The Government have allowed the capping limit this year to rise by £817,000 because they accept that the education administration costs should be based on the number of schools, not on the number of pupils. That is an important point which should be borne in mind for the future in terms of any review of the formulae used to divide funds being allocated to local authorities.
      Mr. John Burnett: I wonder if my hon. Friend has considered whether it would assist the funding for Devon and Cornwall if the formulae for apportioning central Government funds between different county councils were made more equitable. I am referring specifically to a sparsity factor
      598
      as it affects school transport. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that were added to the formulae, it would assist Devon and Cornwall county councils?
      Mr. Harvey: I have no doubt that further work needs to be done in reviewing the formulae used for the distribution of funds. I am grateful that the Government have acknowledged some of the difficulties, but there is no doubt that there is a need for further significant work to be done in revising the formulae used. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said that there will be further work in this area and I am convinced that it is necessary.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) mentioned school transport. It would be a very good thing if the cost of school transport were to come to local authorities through their highways and transportation budgets and not to be seen as a function of education. Doing so would enable transport and highway authorities far better to plan the transportation that they must provide across many different service areas and the costs incurred and tasks involved in managing their highways network.
      Education costs are a particular problem in two counties that have so many small schools. Costs are much higher, for example, in keeping 300 pupils in six different small schools than in having them in one larger school. In Cornwall, one in 10 primary schools has fewer than 50 pupils, and two thirds of them have fewer than 200 pupils.
      The discretionary parts of the education budget will suffer in both counties. In Devon, post-16 transport will start costing more because it is a discretionary part of the budget. Transport to denominational schools also will suffer. That issue has been cropping up not only in my postbag but in those of other hon. Members.
      Other services also will be affected by the rurality factor mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon—such as maintaining fire services that are able to reach people across the many miles of our road network, and road maintenance. In the county of Cornwall, traffic volume has increased annually by an average of 3 per cent., yet spending on highway maintenance has fallen in real terms by 14 per cent. Moreover, the impact of tourism, particularly in Cornwall, has not been considered adequately.
      Mr. Adrian Sanders: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the sparsity factor in the formula. However, one other aspect of the formula has impacted very heavily on some resort towns in Devon and Cornwall—the part that recognises bed nights and people who move into one area from another. That part of the formula has gone. The review has therefore begun already, as decisions have been taken that have adversely affected constituencies such as mine. The remaining part of the review, which has not yet been conducted, will have to re-examine that matter in the light of the sparsity factor. It has affected severely our ability to meet discretionary spending, although we are spending up to cap and will have the lowest council tax in Devon. We still suffer from cuts.
      Mr. Harvey: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I do not think that many hon. Members will weep about the affect that that change in the formula has had on the city of Westminster—not even hon. Members who pay council tax on flats in London that we use so that we can attend to our parliamentary duties. In—quite rightly—doing something about the situation in the City of Westminster, the Government have caused a knock-on effect in areas such as those of my hon. Friend. The matter will be another priority for any review. I very much hope that the tourism element of the economies of Devon and Cornwall will be given due weight, and that the point that he raised will receive the recognition that it deserves.
      The issue of rural deprivation also is in need of serious attention. There is deprivation in both rural and urban areas, and one certainly would not want to suggest that the rural deprivation problem is qualitatively or quantitatively different from that of urban deprivation. Nevertheless, some of the criteria that are used in assessing deprivation fail to recognise the differences between living in the countryside and living in towns. Although some of the measurements used appear to be appropriate, they are not when considering people who dwell in rural areas.
      For many years, we have been bedevilled, for example, by the use of car ownership as a measure of deprivation. If people live in particularly remote rural areas, it does not matter how poor they are, because they will simply have to have some type of car. People may not have a particularly elegant or modern car, but they will have a car of some description, as it is the only way of getting around. Simplistic measures of deprivation can therefore distort the emerging picture. That is not unique to local government finance. It is astonishing that although the south-west region has 9 per cent. of the population, it gets only 3 per cent. of the total national spend under the single regeneration budget. That is because of exactly the sort of problems that have bedevilled the local government formula. It is the same in the health service. We need a review whose impact will be felt across all public services, not only those delivered by local government.
      Many of the other problems that have to be dealt with have been inherited from the previous Conservative Government and, indeed, from the Conservative administrations of many shire counties. For years, they failed to see the necessity, and still fail to see the necessity, of providing adequate services in shire areas. Perhaps some Conservative Members would be here to participate in the debate if—
      Mr. David Drew: Look behind you.
      Mr. Harvey: Oh, I am delighted that there is one Conservative here, but I regret that he does not represent Devon or Cornwall.
      The record of Conservatives in running counties shows that they have not spent adequately. Part of the funding formula is based on the historic spending pattern. By the time more enlightened administrations, whether Liberal Democrat, Independent, Labour or a mixture, finally won control of some of those authorities, it was against a background of central Government by clamping down and not allowing them the latitude that their predecessors had. That simply perpetuated the failure of local Conservative administrations to provide proper local services.
      600
      This year, central Government's contribution to Devon's overall spend has fallen from 73 to 67 per cent. That reduction is equivalent to £27 million, slightly more than the increase in council tax receipts. In other words, if the Government's support this year had been sustained at the same level, the council tax would not have had to go up at all, and band D tax payers would have been saved increases of £92.
      We quite understand the Government's position. We have heard in this context, as in many other contexts, about the need for responsible stewardship of the public finances and the need to avoid boom and bust. I am sure that we shall have the benefit of hearing those points again this evening. No one is calling for reckless spending, but it was with great interest that I heard the Prime Minister acknowledge during Prime Minister's questions last Wednesday that the Conservative's spending plans had been wholly unrealistic. It seems highly unlikely that, had they won the general election last year, they would have stuck to them, so I implore the new Government not to feel that they should do so.
      Last year, the new Government set in train various tax measures in the Budget which, as this Parliament unfolds, will result in a huge improvement in public finances. I am sure—at least, I hope—that the local government settlements made later in this Parliament will be very much more generous and that that will result in council tax payers getting much better value for money. However, for children receiving their education now, there is but one chance. It will be too late to hear that the education system in the two counties has been much better funded in years to come. One hesitates to say it, but, for those at the other end of the age spectrum who rely on social services, it will literally be too late if the improvements come in two or three years' time.
      On Sunday, perhaps as many as 30,000 people are expected to come up from Devon and Cornwall to take part in the countryside march. I understand only too well that some of them are motivated by the hunting debate, while the farmers, quite rightly, will want to highlight the plight of their industry, but many of the people taking part in the demonstration will do so out of a sense of frustration with the lot of the country dweller. Despite the hopes of the Conservative party, they will not for one moment think that all the problems started on 1 May last year.
      Many people to whom I have spoken understand only too clearly that the problems are the legacy of 18 years of disastrous policies which stripped the countryside of many of the services on which country dwellers depend. People have seen rural transport fall away, the number of village schools decline and so on. 1 hope that the new Government will listen to what is being said and not believe that the marchers are concerned only about hunting. I hope, too, that the Government will recognise the plea from the heart of many who live in rural areas that something absolutely has to be done to improve their lot. All councils face problems, not only because of the Conservative Government's legacy, but because of the new Government's stance on public finances. People did not elect Labour to carry out the Tory spending cuts, and people in Devon and Cornwall should not be expected to pay so dearly in the coming year for an even lower level of service than they were offered last year.
      10.26 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) on securing the debate and on taking the opportunity to plead most effectively the case of his county and the adjoining county of Cornwall. Before I come to specific issues that he raised, it would be appropriate to make a few general points about the Government's approach to relations between central and local government—indeed, the hon. Gentleman anticipated that I would make a few such remarks.
      The Government have a new agenda for Britain's future, and a vision for local government's place in that future. We want to reinvigorate local government in ways that encourage increased democracy, so that local people can have more of a say in their council's affairs. We want increased autonomy, so that authorities have more freedom to take their own decisions, and increased accountability, whereby elected representatives are more visibly accountable for their actions. We also want increased emphasis on partnership, not only between central and local government, but between local authorities and local people, businesses and groups.
      As part of the process to achieve our aims, a review of local government finance is being carried out by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which is working closely with local government, business and other representative organisations. Consultation papers on possible changes to aspects of the local government finance system will be issued over the next month or so, as part of the wider consultation on the modernisation of local government.
      We have already published the first of our consultation papers, "Local Democracy and Community Leadership", which sets out proposals covering four broad themes. The first is the importance of modernising electoral arrangements to improve councils' accountability and to increase participation in local elections. We explore options such as annual elections, electronic voting, rolling registers and the use of new days and ways of voting.
      Secondly, we suggest a number of new ways in which councils can listen to their communities and involve local people in their decisions, policy planning and policy review, through, for example, citizens juries, focus groups, referendums and the rather unattractively named techno-democracy.
      Thirdly, we have encouraged new ways in which councils can work, giving them clearer political and management structures. We have, for example, explored the possibilities of executive mayors, cabinet systems, lead member systems and single-party executive committees.
      Fourthly, we have set out the case for strengthening councils' roles as leaders of their local communities and for giving councils the powers that they need to meet community priorities and aspirations. For example, we have considered community planning, whether to impose a new duty on councils to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas, and the option of developing a scrutiny role. Follow-up consultation papers will cover best value in service delivery, a new ethical framework for local government, and the reform of local government finance.
      602
      I come to the specific issue of local government funding. All public expenditure programmes have to be examined rigorously each year—local government spending, which accounts for a quarter of all public expenditure, is no exception. Decisions on local government spending must look not only at the pressure on local authorities, but at the scope for greater efficiency and effectiveness within local authorities.
      As the hon. Gentleman stressed, we are committed to sticking to the public expenditure plans. Although we shall keep within existing spending targets, we have reorganised priorities. The hon. Gentleman rightly stressed the educational needs of Devon and Cornwall and the importance of prompt action; he said that we could not put off for several years dealing with the educational needs of the current generation of schoolchildren. He will recognise that we have put an extra £853 million into education, every penny of which will be covered by this year's revenue support grant. It is a better, fairer, more flexible settlement than in previous years, although it has been agreed within a framework of tight control on public finances. We have increased total standard spending by 3.8 per cent. and provided an extra £350 million for community care. We have also provided £1.3 billion to improve the state of school buildings through the new deal for schools.
      In addition, although not within the general ambit of local government spending, we have released £800 million of additional capital spending power for housing through the capital receipts initiative—£174 million to be released in 1997–98 and a further £569 million plus £41 million in revenue support in 1998–99. Of course, part of the money will go to Devon and Cornwall. We have already released more than £10.5 million in additional expenditure in those two counties, for housing and housing-related regeneration.
      Mr. Sanders: The Minister is talking about approvals to borrow more money, not cash in hand. The problem that the authorities face is that they need cash in hand for services that they are not under a statutory obligation to provide. That is where the funding gap exists for local authorities in Devon and Cornwall.
      Mr. Raynsford: With respect, I have been talking about a range of different issues, including education. I made the point that the £835 million of additional spending was covered entirely by revenue support grant. I have also touched on other developments, including the capital receipts initiative, which has been warmly welcomed by authorities all over the country, as they were asking for additional borrowing capacity to meet important housing needs.
      Standard spending assessments are the basis for the distribution of revenue support grant. They are based on measures of spending need that apply to all local authorities and are discussed with local government representatives. The SSAs for 1998–99 were debated in the House on 5 February, and the local government finance settlement has now been agreed.
      Having said that, we are committed to a fair distribution of Government grant among authorities, and we believe that there is scope for improvement in the arrangements in future years.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: I appreciate that this is a short debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to make one simple point. Does he agree

      603
      with a number of his distinguished colleagues that, at the end of the day, Ministers have to make decisions and that even when we improve the formulae to near perfection, they will not be perfect? One of the current problems in Devon and Cornwall is that we are still suffering from the backlog of many years of inadequate formulae, so the cumulative effect on all authorities in Devon and Cornwall, whatever their political control, is that there is a formidable backlog in terms of capital expenditure and revenue support. Does the Minister agree that, at the end of the day, there must be a political decision to assist us?
      Mr. Raynsford: I accept readily two of the hon. Gentleman's propositions: first, that Ministers must take decisions, and secondly, that there is a problem inherited from the previous Government, which we cannot expect to overcome immediately, but which we are seeking step by step to improve.
      The standard spending assessment review this year was designed to make some changes. In respect of tourism, there was a general view that it was correct, despite the knock-on consequences for authorities that have been highlighted in tonight's debate. We have already said that we shall be looking at other indicators for the forthcoming year, as we believe that there is scope for improvement. There should be proper and full discussion with local authorities to assess the impact of changes before decisions are taken, but I accept absolutely the hon. Gentleman's point that Ministers have to take decisions in the last analysis, and we shall do so.
      Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have already moved quite a long way in that direction, as this year Devon has received an increase in funding that is above inflation and above the national average? Despite that, the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council is imposing cuts and a 20 per cent. increase in the council tax. By contrast, the Labour-controlled local authority in Exeter received a far smaller increase in funding, yet services are being maintained and there is a zero increase in council tax.
      Mr. Raynsford: I congratulate my hon. Friend and, indeed, Exeter council on its achievement. I am delighted to know that the council is able to manage so well with the resources available to it. I shall deal with the wider issues of funding for Devon and Cornwall in a moment.
      We shall look further at the standard spending assessment system. We shall listen to local government views on how SSAs might be improved, both for 1999–2000 and in the longer term. If the hon. Member for North Devon feels that the SSA system does not treat Devon and Cornwall fairly, I should be happy to examine any proposals that he has for different methods of calculation.
      I noted the hon. Gentleman's comments about the number of small schools in the counties, which is a particular concern. That issue might be looked at if he feels that we should do so. Any system of this nature has to be universal, and any changes must apply to all authorities equally. When making changes, we must therefore be sure that they produce a fair impact across the whole country and that there is a sound assessment of needs.
      I shall say a brief word on capping. We again gave clear signals that, although we propose to replace the current crude capping system, capping will continue in
      604
      1998–99. The Deputy Prime Minister restated his provisional capping principles to the House on 5 February. They allow authorities, on average, to increase budgets by 4 per cent., compared with 2.4 per cent. in 1997–98. It is now up to authorities to set their budgets in the light of all the circumstances, including the provisional capping guidelines. Authorities are aware of the procedure for seeking a redetermination of their cap if they set budgets above the provisional limit. We would consider their cases carefully, but in the event of an authority not getting everything that it asked for, it would have to bear the costs of re-billing council tax payers.
      The particular circumstances of rural counties such as Devon and Cornwall are recognised in SSAs, which include allowances for sparsity. I realise that some authorities have anxieties about the area cost adjustment and the possible implementation of the findings of the Elliott review. That is why we did not implement the proposals this year. We felt that greater agreement should be achieved on the issue, and have therefore commissioned further research, which we intend to look at carefully before taking the matter forward.
      Devon county council has seen its 1997–98 SSA increase by £13.2 million, or 3.1 per cent., for 1998–99. That is the figure arrived at after adjustments for changes in function were made. The adjusted increase in the SSA for education is higher, at £13.448 million. Those figures compare with the class average increase in SSAs for shire counties of 2.9 per cent. Therefore, Devon has not been treated unfairly in relation to other counties. It has received an increase slightly ahead of the national average.
      The provisional cap for Devon for 1998-99 has been set at £440.104 million. That means that the county council will be able to spend up to £16.932 million above base budget—a permitted increase in budget of 4 per cent., compared with only 2.5 per cent. for last year and the county average of 3.7 per cent. Again, Devon's outcome is slightly better than the average for all counties across the country.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned reorganisation. I accept entirely that Devon is affected by reorganisation as Plymouth and Torbay become unitary authorities. Devon made representations to us on that, principally over the council tax increase as a result of the reorganisation and the disaggregation of its 1997–98 budget for education administration between itself and the new unitaries. We estimate that, as a direct result of reorganisation, the council tax increase in the new Devon will be £40 at band D.
      The hon. Gentleman was not correct in saying that there is no transitional relief. There is a transitional relief scheme, but it comes into effect only when the increase is more than £52 at band D. Devon, of course, falls below that threshold. We feel that an increase of less than £1 a week is not unreasonable, and it is important to recognise just what we mean when we refer to a council tax increase as a direct result of reorganisation. In Devon, it has come about because the county council had previously, quite legitimately, been spending more in the remainder of the county than it had in Plymouth and Torbay.
      The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Data and Video Network
  Parliamentary Data and Video Network
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Officers (Suspensions)
  Police Officers (Suspensions)
  Fleming Case
  Fleming Case
  Police Authorities (Investigations)
  Police Authorities (Investigations)
  PA Consulting
  PA Consulting
  Cosmetic Surgery
  Cosmetic Surgery
  Young Offender Teams
  Young Offender Teams
  Water Cannons
  Water Cannons
  Spray
  Spray
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken
  Football World Cup
  Football World Cup
  Firearms Compensation Scheme
  Firearms Compensation Scheme
  Money Laundering
  Money Laundering
PRIME MINISTER
  Official Entertainment
  Official Entertainment
  Cabinet Committees
  Cabinet Committees
  Economic Advisers
  Economic Advisers
  Computer Systems
  Computer Systems
  Bishops of Liverpool and Southwark
  Bishops of Liverpool and Southwark
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Iraq
  Iraq
  General Affairs Council
  General Affairs Council
  Visa Applications
  Visa Applications
  Immigration
  Immigration
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Products
  Milk Products
  EU Food Surpluses
  EU Food Surpluses
  Slaughter Process (Public Health)
  Slaughter Process (Public Health)
  Agricultural Prices
  Agricultural Prices
  Milk
  Milk
  Food Research Director
  Food Research Director
  Forestry
  Forestry
WALES
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Inward Investment
  Inward Investment
  Health Promotion
  Health Promotion
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Mid-Wales Hospital, Talgarth
  Mid-Wales Hospital, Talgarth
  Conferences
  Conferences
  Ministerial Meetings
  Ministerial Meetings
  Ambulance NHS Trusts
  Ambulance NHS Trusts
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  Sport (Governing Bodies)
  Sport (Governing Bodies)
  Sport (Funding)
  Sport (Funding)
  PE (National Curriculum)
  PE (National Curriculum)
  Advertising Contracts
  Advertising Contracts
ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  Diabetics
  Diabetics
  Hydrofluorocarbon Emissions
  Hydrofluorocarbon Emissions
  Brown-field Development
  Brown-field Development
  Association of Train Operating Companies
  Association of Train Operating Companies
  Air Transport Operators Licence Fund
  Air Transport Operators Licence Fund
  Ramp Checks
  Ramp Checks
  Child Safety Seats
  Child Safety Seats
  Care of the Elderly
  Care of the Elderly
  Trams and Trolley Buses
  Trams and Trolley Buses
  Military Heritage
  Military Heritage
  Passenger Rail Services
  Passenger Rail Services
  Piper Alpha
  Piper Alpha
  Road Accidents (Medicinal Drugs)
  Road Accidents (Medicinal Drugs)
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Social Housing
  Social Housing
  Council Housing Stocks
  Council Housing Stocks
  Housing (Stevenage)
  Housing (Stevenage)
  Housing (West Surrey)
  Housing (West Surrey)
  Record Industry
  Record Industry
  Queensway Hall, Dunstable
  Queensway Hall, Dunstable
  Lee Valley Regional Park
  Lee Valley Regional Park
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Contaminated Land
  Contaminated Land
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
DEFENCE
  Agency Newsletters
  Agency Newsletters
  Official Entertainment
  Official Entertainment
  Water Cannons
  Water Cannons
  Conferences
  Conferences
  Discipline Acts
  Discipline Acts
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
  Life Sentence Review Board
  Life Sentence Review Board
  Scheduled Offences
  Scheduled Offences
  New Deal Environmental Task Force
  New Deal Environmental Task Force
  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights
  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights
  Decommissioning Body
  Decommissioning Body
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Mirror Group
  Mirror Group
  Conferences
  Conferences
  Kuwait
  Kuwait
  Surplus Property and Land
  Surplus Property and Land
  Ministerial Transport
  Ministerial Transport
  Parental Leave Directive
  Parental Leave Directive
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Millennium Compliance
  Millennium Compliance
  Fairness At Work
  Fairness At Work
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Communications
  Communications
  Scientific Research
  Scientific Research
HEALTH
  NHS Trusts and Health Authority Boards
  NHS Trusts and Health Authority Boards
  Pilot Health Care Schemes
  Pilot Health Care Schemes
  Care of the Elderly
  Care of the Elderly
  Occupational Therapists
  Occupational Therapists
  London Hospitals
  London Hospitals
  Cannabis
  Cannabis
  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Millennium Compliance
  Millennium Compliance
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Child Care
  Child Care
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Residential Care Allowance
  Residential Care Allowance
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Millennium Compliance
  Millennium Compliance
MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Experience
  Millennium Experience
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Retirement Ages
  Retirement Ages
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  Land Registration
  Land Registration
SCOTLAND
  Health Inequalities
  Health Inequalities
  Contaminated Land
  Contaminated Land
  Council Tax
  Council Tax
  Pre-school Voucher Scheme
  Pre-school Voucher Scheme
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
TREASURY
  Ministerial Travel
  Ministerial Travel
  EU Economic and Finance Council
  EU Economic and Finance Council
  Public Corporations (Borrowing)
  Public Corporations (Borrowing)
  Tax Self-assessment
  Tax Self-assessment
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  VAT
  VAT
  Ministerial Meetings
  Ministerial Meetings
  Conferences
  Conferences
  Young Enterprise Initiative
  Young Enterprise Initiative
  Warranties
  Warranties
  Windfall Tax
  Windfall Tax
  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Taylor Task Force
  Taylor Task Force
  In-work Benefits
  In-work Benefits
  Official Entertainment
  Official Entertainment
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  New Deal
  New Deal
  Sandye Place School
  Sandye Place School
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Child Care
  Child Care
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Oxford and Cambridge (Financing)
  Oxford and Cambridge (Financing)
  Minimum Space Standards (Schools)
  Minimum Space Standards (Schools)
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Welfare to Work (Costs)
  Welfare to Work (Costs)
  Primary School League Tables
  Primary School League Tables
  British Beef
  British Beef
  Pupil Expenditure (Worcestershire)
  Pupil Expenditure (Worcestershire)
  Age Discrimination
  Age Discrimination
  Unemployed Asylum Seekers
  Unemployed Asylum Seekers
  Pilot Employment Zones
  Pilot Employment Zones
  Small Primary Schools
  Small Primary Schools
  Higher Education Students
  Higher Education Students
  Assisted Places
  Assisted Places
  Surplus School Places
  Surplus School Places
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon): The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Air Traffic Control: New Centre
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
When the new air traffic control centre due to replace the centre at West Drayton will be completed and in operation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government expect National Air Traffic Services Ltd. to bring the new en route centre at Swanwick in Hampshire into operation in the winter of 1999–2000.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Responding to similar Questions of mine in 1989 and 1995, my noble friends Lord Brabazon and Lord Goschen supplied helpful information including reference to the new centre to be established at Swanwick, which at that time was thought to be only a few weeks' away. Are recent reports correct that the computers are giving serious trouble and that the centre cannot be ready at the time the noble Baroness has mentioned because they have faults? As the general public is concerned about growing congestion and near-misses in the air, are there any interim measures in prospect?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in the past few weeks there have been various reports in the media suggesting that the Swanwick centre was experiencing severe technical problems and that the opening would have to be delayed beyond the current target opening date. The reports seem to derive from a letter which the chief executive sent to staff about difficulties with the training and development unit at the centre. However, the difficulties about which the department have been informed by NATS are not as serious as has been reported. NATS has built five months' flexibility into the programme. The noble Lord raises concerns about safety. Safety considerations are paramount. I share the noble Lord's concern that there have been reports of "air prox" incidents (near-misses). However, the CAA, who is in the lead in handling these matters, has assured me that there has not been an increase in such incidents.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the existing control centre at West Drayton has coped with an enormous increase in air traffic over the past 10 to 30 years. Can the Minister explain how the new centre at Swanwick will be different in its means of operation and in the services that it can provide for the air industry?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the new system will be able to handle the much larger
788
volume of air traffic that will fly across England and Wales following the new centre coming on stream. That will be followed with a new centre which will be built in Scotland. That will cover traffic over the north of the country and Northern Ireland.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I find myself spending an increasing amount of time in the air going round and round in circles in company with large numbers of Members from all parts of this House? Is she aware that nearly 25 per cent. of the time taken, especially in the summer, on the flight from Edinburgh to London, is spent circling overhead waiting for permission to land? As the Minister mentioned safety, can she give the House any figures relating to the number of reports of near-misses that have occurred over the London area in the past year or two?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if he is going round in circles. I assume that he is not doing so politically. The levels of traffic will lead to delays from time to time. National Air Traffic Services will not do anything to compromise safety. If over the coming months West Drayton cannot handle traffic loads, then there will be delays in the air. We look forward to the new centre operating and thus allowing the noble Lord to arrive directly rather than to circle in.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can the Minister say what measures have been taken to alleviate the stress on air traffic controllers at the moment as a result of the pressure on them until the new centre comes into action?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not aware of any specific training programmes to deal with stress for people working at the air traffic control centre. However, I shall make inquiries to see if there are any such programmes and I shall inform the noble Lord.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, as regards the reports on near-misses and, very importantly, the reported exhaustion of air traffic controllers, does my noble friend agree that any delays in the delivery of this system will result in threats to the safety of the public?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the original operational date for the Swanwick centre was November 1996, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, indicated. There have been two delays to the operational date. I have given noble Lords the current target date. The major causes of the delay were problems with the integration of 23 software sub-systems and the need for additional functions in the system, which were identified following testing of it by air traffic controllers. As regards the degree of stress, I have undertaken to write to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, and I shall send my noble friend a copy of my letter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that she did not appear to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood? Can she leave a note in the Library or something, so that we may know the answer?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Certainly, my Lords.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that responsibility for the new Scottish air traffic control centre will not be devolved to a Scottish parliament?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the functions of the Civil Aviation Authority and related matters, which include the provision of air traffic services, are to be reserved to the UK Parliament and the Government. Aviation regulations and safety are also to be reserved areas. It is sensible in practical terms that the functions of the CAA and aviation should be reserved in order to achieve consistent standards across the whole of the UK and to work in co-operation with Europe.

MAFF and DoH Advisory Bodies: Independence
3.9 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the independence of the advisory and other scientific committees reporting to the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the extent of the links which their members have with the various industries concerned.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the noble Earl is right to be vigilant about specialist advisory committees. The Government have every confidence in the independence of the advisory and scientific committees reporting to the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There are well established procedures under which any member with a commercial interest in a matter under discussion declares that interest; he or she may, if necessary, abstain from the discussion.
We recognise that the very fact that many members of advisory committees are highly regarded in their fields makes them attractive to commercial organisations. It is therefore no surprise that high calibre people on advisory committees receive funding from commercial organisations. This was one of the key messages contained in guidelines, The Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making, published last year and delivered to the previous administration by Sir Robert May, the Chief Scientific Officer, which the Government have accepted.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for the reply. She will remember that I asked a similar Question in December on the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, which revealed a preponderance of interests from the side of industry, and that through a subsequent Written Question I obtained
790
details of the financial interests of members of a further 14 of the key scientific committees. Is she aware that analysis of those figures shows a similar pattern to that of COT, with links to the food and chemical industries averaging over 60 per cent. and, in the case of one or two committees, exceeding 80 per cent.? Does she feel that that is a healthy state of affairs?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Earl rightly reminds the House of his previous inquiries on this subject when I replied that the Government have some concerns about the balance of interests on such committees and that that was one of the reasons why we were exploring, and why we are currently exploring, lay representation on the specific committee, COT, to which the noble Earl refers, and why we are seeking to include observers from relevant interest groups on the ad hoc group on vitamins and mineral supplements which is being set up. In addition, we have issued a consultation paper on opening up quangos. That is now out for consultation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister's Answer gives a great deal of satisfaction. However, can she tell us whether any register of those involved in such positions is available to the public so that the public can know how great their financial interest is, bearing in mind some of the excesses that occurred under the last government which went totally unpunished?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the interests of those serving on independent advisory committees are published regularly. As I have explained previously in relation specifically to COT, that information has been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. This is one of the issues that we are considering as part of our consultation paper on opening up quangos. The consultation exercise is particularly interested in the availability of public minutes of such meetings and in the question of whether or not such meetings should be open to the public.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, although there is much to be said for continuity and experience, does the Minister agree that the adage "Familiarity breeds contempt"—and perhaps even "complacency"—may be relevant here, given that some members of those committees have served for a very long time and there appears to be a hard core of about 25 individuals who circulate between the committees? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to ensure that there is decent rotation so that new opinions come in from time to time?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, those of us who are involved in public life in one way or another are well aware of what is sometimes referred to as the "Establishment stage army." We all need to be well aware of the potential for the sort of difficulties to which the noble Countess refers. Appointment procedures for those expert advisory committees are supervised and maintained under the Nolan procedures. There is also regular reappraisal of members of the committees and regular reviews of appointments.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, is the advice given by such committees and particularly by the scientific committees always, or ever, subject to peer review?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, what the noble Lord, I think, wishes to know is whether reports of. for example, COT—I know that that has been controversial—are subject to consultation. The answer is that if such a report recommended regulations under the parliamentary procedure, it would be open for consultation. On the point about peer review, one of the operations of such scientific committees is precisely to carry out peer review of the papers and advice put forward by other members of the scientific community.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in our deliberations last December on the committee on toxicity, the noble Baroness was good enough to agree with me that the attendance of outside experts in a particular area of discussion could well assist the committee from time to time. Does she further agree that that principle could usefully he extended to all advisory committees and, if so, will she seek to bring that point to the attention of committee chairmen?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl is well aware that many such committees do not fall specifically under the organisation or auspices of the Department of Health. In fact, COT reports to both departments—to MAFF and to the DoH. It is worth remembering that our consultation exercise on opening up quangos is looking at many such issues. As I said in my earlier answers to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, this is a subject of some concern. We are concerned that, for example, some of these committees have no lay or consumer representation. We are looking closely at that. The noble Earl's point should be drawn to the attention of those conducting the review.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not only a question of the independent advice that is offered to the Government and the Ministry by these independent committees; it is also important to maintain the independence of the permanent Civil Service, to which they give their advice? Although it is inevitable that a close relationship must exist between officials and the food production companies concerned, is it not necessary that there should be a degree of aloofness by the Ministry, as a ministry, and an ever-increasing awareness of the needs of consumers?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as so often, my noble friend draws attention to the narrow tightrope of the balance of interests which government departments have to walk in this area. As I said, we are striving to maintain the independence of the science together with a proper representation of consumer interests and an arm's length relationship with government departments.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that members of the public will not
792
really be satisfied unless there is full transparency, particularly of those serving on the new food safety advisory committee?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the consultation paper on opening up quangos makes a number of proposals in that area which will further strengthen independence by progressively opening up those quangos to scrutiny and making them more accountable to the public. As I said earlier, such proposals may well include publishing annual reports and reports of meetings, and the holding of open meetings which the public may attend.

House of Lords Reform
3.17 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the answers given by the Lord Privy Seal on 27th January (HL Deb, cols. 97–101), whether they will publish the minutes of meetings of the Ministerial Sub-Committee on House of Lords Reform (CRP (HL)).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. my Lords. As a former Minister of the Crown, the noble Lord will be well aware that the proceedings of Cabinet committees have always been and remain confidential. To do otherwise would inhibit frank discussion and effective decision-making, and undermine collective responsibility.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, although I find it hard to see why the "top secret" label should be attached to those minutes. Can the noble Lord tell us when we can expect from the Government,
"a clear statement of principle on how the House of Lords should be composed and what its powers should be"?
I quote precisely the words used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his interview in the New Statesman on 8th February. Can the noble Lord use his influence to ensure that a general statement is added on how the Government see their pieces of constitutional reform being put together, as otherwise surely we are in danger of examining this very important matter brick by brick without any idea of what the final building will look like?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there will be full public consultation in the widest sense when the sub-committee has completed its procedures. As and when that will be is a matter for the sub-committee, and it has not yet been determined. As to the issue of whether our constitutional reform proposals will be seen as a whole, they already have been seen as a whole—in our election manifesto.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to full public consultation, but most noble Lords are concerned that there should be adequate

793
opportunities to discuss the matter in this House. Will the noble Lord confirm that it is still the Government's intention to introduce a Bill in the next Session? If that is the case, will the noble Lord ensure that between now and the end of this Session there is a full debate in this House, not only on the general principles, but also on the specific proposals that might be embodied in legislation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as a former Minister of the Crown the noble Lord will understand that I cannot anticipate the contents of the next Queen's Speech. As to the matter of full discussion in this House, that is for the usual channels, but I am sure that they will look sympathetically on the idea of a full discussion once the recommendations of the sub-committee have been made public.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we on this side of the House are grateful for the noble Lord's last reply. We very much look forward to a constructive discussion through the usual channels to see whether the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, which I also expressed some weeks ago in your Lordships' House, can be fulfilled. First, will the noble Lord consider yet again whether such a debate, which I believe to be generally desired in all quarters of your Lordships' House at the moment, can be satisfied by the provision of government time? Secondly, will the noble Lord reinforce the sympathy with which he greeted the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Renton by recognising that since we are dealing with the future of one of the two Houses of Parliament and the relationship of the two Houses is necessarily complementary it will be extremely useful for this House and the general public to have an extended debate on the matter? Will the Government at least publish some options if not clear conclusions of what they have in mind in good time for that debate to take place before everyone goes away on their summer holidays?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal appreciates the force of what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition and that he will wish to discuss it personally with him on his return from duties abroad. As to the nature of the full debate which will be necessary in due course, I am sure that my noble friend will pay great attention to what has just been said. We very much appreciate the shift in attitude that has been evident in the Conservative Party. In particular we agree with the six principles of reform that the Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr. William Hague, set out in his article in the Sunday Express at the weekend.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, provided the appropriate carrots and sticks are put in place, any proposed changes or reforms to the House of Lords should emerge from the House of Lords, just as is to happen with local authorities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend. The composition of the House of Lords is a matter for Parliament and the people as a whole rather than Members of this House.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is there any truth in the rumour that consideration is being given to retiring Life Peers at the age of 75? If so, will I have a case for an action for damages having been assured that I would be able to stay here till death us do part?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord paraphrases his Writ of Summons. In answering a comparable question, my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal withdrew from any commitment on this issue.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the guidance he has proffered—that one should look to the party manifesto to understand the intentions of the Government—will not be treated with wholehearted rapture?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is true that there is no provision in legislation for party manifestos to have universal assent. But it was the noble Lord's own party which introduced the Salisbury convention by which, at least in this House, party manifestos have some effect.
The Earl of Haisbury: My Lords, surely it is wrong to play hopscotch in this matter. Political parties are here today and gone tomorrow. The Government become the Opposition and the Opposition become the Government in due course. Should we not have a proper intellectual appreciation of the problems of constitutional government by a Royal Commission?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am fascinated by the remarks of the noble Earl. I remind him that this issue is not Johnnie-come-lately as it was in the preamble to the 1911 Parliament Act, in which it was acknowledged that reform of the House of Lords was necessary and it would involve the removal of the hereditary peerage.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, we who sit on these Benches have listened with interest to what has been said. Can we be assured that we shall be included in these discussions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course.

Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings
3.26 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifiethasked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they are having with the broadcasting authorities regarding the adequacy of the reporting of the proceedings in Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, while I recognise that the noble Lord's Question refers to broadcasting authorities generally I have taken his focus in raising this matter to be the BBC's current consultation on its proposals to alter arrangements for its parliamentary programming. Noble Lords may have noted that the BBC has been examined on the proposals this morning by the Select Committee in another place. The BBC consultation has been copied to the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have taken part in previous discussions on this matter. There is no direct role for the Government as such in regulating matters of broadcasting content, and the Government are not discussing the proposals with the BBC. However, parliamentarians will be given a number of opportunities to question the BBC on its proposals which have already been influenced by previous parliamentary debate before they are finalised in mid-March. The BBC chairman will make himself available to discuss them with noble Lords and Members of another place on 12th March, and the All-Party Media Group will also question the BBC on this matter on 10th March.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his very full reply, does he recall the outrage before Christmas when the BBC made proposals to stop "Yesterday in Parliament" and downgrade its reporting of Parliament? Is he aware that the consultation paper to which he refers, while recording a retreat on those proposals, is still quite inadequate? Is he aware they would mean that "Yesterday in Parliament" would be available only to those who listened on long wave? Is he also aware that instead of "A Week in Parliament" being broadcast at prime time on Saturday morning it is to be broadcast on Thursday evening? A week in Parliament seems to end mid-week as far as Broadcasting House is concerned. Does the Minister agree that the BBC, with its Royal Charter obligations in respect of the reporting of Parliament and its licence fee that we all have to pay, has a moral duty to report Parliament adequately, as distinct from commercial broadcasters, and should fulfil those responsibilities without one eye on ratings? Finally, given that the parliamentary cable channel which gives total coverage of Parliament appears to be facing extinction, will the Government use its influence so that the BBC carries on the parliamentary cable channel as part of its public service responsibilities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already made it clear that as a parliamentarian and a distinguished expert in this area the noble Lord will have ample opportunity to make known his views to the BBC. As to changes in parliamentary coverage, the noble Lord accurately reflects what the consultation paper says, but the final result of this is a net increase in parliamentary coverage of 55 hours a year on radio and 24 hours a year on television.
796
As regards the cable parliamentary channel, the consultation paper makes it clear that the BBC is considering taking the channel on its own services.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in view of the fact that the Government tend to make announcements outside Parliament rather than inside and that Parliament has less control and the European authorities have more over the affairs of the people of this country, perhaps the BBC are merely getting with it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, while I disagree with both premises of the noble Lord's question, I must adhere to my previous answer that in the end it is a matter for the BBC.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the consultation paper suggests that there should be a radio broadcast fairly early on a Thursday evening on the week in Parliament? However, in both Houses important decisions are sometimes made late on a Thursday evening. Therefore, should not the consultation paper be taken with a grain of salt and pushed into a more suitable state later?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has ample opportunity to make those views known to the BBC.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposed extension of "Yesterday in Parliament" on long wave from 14 to 23 minutes is a good idea, but that it would be an error to discontinue the broadcast on FM? Surely, it is in the public interest to give serious daily coverage of Parliament, especially as so few newspapers no longer carry a parliamentary column? Could the Minister encourage Sir Christopher Bland to maintain the reporting of Parliament on both bands?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, as a parliamentarian, has an opportunity to do that just as I do.

Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Statutory interest]:
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis)The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis) moved Amendment No. 1
Page 1, line 8, after ("interest") insert ("subject to and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No.1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21 and 22.
A query from a business representative organisation has prompted us to reconsider terms such as "qualifying debt" and "the debt" as used in the Bill. As currently

797
drafted, the Bill might not adequately cover the rare instance where a contract debt is owed partly for a sum which carries interest under the Bill and partly for a sum which is excluded from the Bill.
I apologise that, in revising the wording to ensure such contract debts are caught, it has been necessary to lay so many drafting amendments. I wish to assure the House that these do not change the policy intent of the Bill. The substantial amendment is No. 3, which rewrites Clause 3. From that amendment, the others follow. The result of the amendments is that any part of a debt which qualifies for statutory interest will be subject to the Bill, regardless of whether some other part of the debt is excluded from the Bill.
I have written to a number of noble Lords who have been interested and involved in the Bill, explaining the reasons for these and later amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having written to explain the reasons for the amendments. I find them acceptable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Contracts to which Act applies]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 22, leave out first ("or") and insert ("of goods. a contract for the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18, 19 and 20. These are drafting amendments which simply tidy up the Bill. None is substantial. The Government have chosen to lay them now so that the Bill is in as good a shape as possible before it enters the other place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Qualifying debts]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause—
QUALIFYING DEBTS
(" .—(1) A debt created by virtue of an obligation under a contract to which this Act applies to pay the whole or any part of the contract price is a "qualifying debt" for the purposes of this Act, unless (when created) the whole of the debt is prevented from carrying statutory interest by this section.
(2) A debt does not carry statutory interest if or to the extent that it consists of a sum to which a right to interest or to charge interest applies by virtue of any enactment (other than section 1 of this Act).
This subsection does not prevent a sum from carrying statutory interest by reason of the fact that a court, arbitrator or arbiter would, apart from this Act, have power to award interest on it.
(3) A debt does not carry (and shall be treated as never having carried) statutory interest if or to the extent that a right to demand interest on it, which exists by virtue of any rule of law, is exercised.
(4) A debt does not carry statutory interest if or to the extent that it is of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(5) Such an order may specify a description of debt by reference to any feature of the debt (including the parties or any other feature of the contract by which it is created).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Period for which statutory interest runs]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 8:
Page 2, line 31, at beginning insert—
("() Statutory interest runs in relation to a qualifying debt in accordance with this section (unless section 6 applies).").
Page 2. line 31, leave out ("on a qualifying debt").
Page 2, line 32, after ("day") insert ("for the debt,").
Page 3. line 10, leave out ("on a debt").
Page 3 line 12, leave out from first ("payment."') to end of line 14 and insert ("has the same meaning as in section 11").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Rate of statutory interest]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 9:
Transpose Clause 5 to after Clause 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Remission of statutory interest]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("on") and insert ("in relation to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Purpose of Part II]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 1, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 2 and insert ("when a qualifying debt created by the contract (in this Part referred to as "the debt") is not paid.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Circumstances where statutory interest may be ousted or varied]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 18:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("on") and insert ("in relation to").
Page 4, line 9, at end insert ("of the debt").
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("on") and insert ("by").
Page 4, line 13, after ("interest") insert ("in relation to the debt").
Page 4, line 17, at end insert ("for late payment of the debt").
Page 4, line 20, at end insert ("for late payment of the debt").
Page 4, line 21, leave out second ("the").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 [Meaning of "substantial remedy"]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, leave out line 31 and insert ("that would otherwise apply in relation to the debt.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 22:
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("for late payment").
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("a qualifying") and insert ("the").
Page 5, line 16, at end insert—
("(3) In this Part a reference to late payment of the debt is a reference to late payment of the sum due when the debt is created (excluding any part of that sum which is prevented from carrying statutory interest by section 3).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [The General Teaching Council]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved No. 3A:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("() pupils in schools,
() the parents of pupils in schools,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3A was ably moved in Committee in my absence by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Together with other amendments in the group, it relates to the question of whose interests should be reflected in the membership of the general teaching council. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are not talking about who should be represented on the council, but whose interests should be reflected on it.
I ask myself what the word "interest" means in this case. I assume that it means the same as in the phrase "vested interest" or the interest which your Lordships are obliged to disclose in your Lordships' House. If that is what "interest" means, it seems to me that the category of persons who par excellence has the greatest interest in the success of the GTC is the pupils.
It is stating the obvious to say that if teachers are less good than they should be the pupils suffer. They suffer currently from boredom and in later life from unemployment. In that case, pupils are the customers and their interests should be taken into account. The Bill directs the Secretary of State to have,
"regard to the desirability of the Council's membership reflecting the interests of … teachers, employers of teachers, providers of teacher-training".
There is then a reference to the general public, but there is no focused reference to the customers. If the Bill stands as it is there is a guarantee that the interests of providers will be reflected in the composition of the council, but there is none in respect of consumers.
I do not suggest that pupils should be represented on the council and should stand for election or otherwise. I suggest only that the Secretary of State should be directed by the Bill to ensure that there are plenty of voices on the council to reflect the interests of pupils. I do not intend to object to the Minister's Amendment No. 6 because I am confident and fully accept that most teachers will want to reflect the interests of pupils even ahead of their own interests. But some will not. Therefore, I urge the Government to accept Amendment No. 3A so that the Secretary of State will be clearly directed by the Bill to have regard to the importance of appointing members to the GTC, whether they be
800
teachers or not, who will be prepared to speak out when necessary for the interests of the consumers; that is to say, the pupils and their parents. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 5A, 6, 7, 79 and 80.
I listened carefully to the points raised in Committee about the need to provide further detail on the face of the Bill about the composition of the general teaching council. The council must bring together and reflect the interests of all those with a stake in ensuring high standards in teaching—parents, employers, higher education and the wider public as well as teachers. It must be able to speak with authority on behalf of the profession and command the respect of the public.
We will be consulting on the composition of the council to ensure that we have a clear understanding of the views of all those in the system so that we can take forward the establishment of the council on a firm and agreed basis. We do not want to close off options for that consultation. However, equally, we accept the case for offering the clearest possible statement of our intentions at this stage, and for allowing an early opportunity for further discussion on the proposed detail.
I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 79 and 80. I have reflected on the points made during our previous debate. After careful consideration, I agree that both Houses should have an opportunity to debate the regulations governing the composition of the council. I am persuaded that we should take the opportunity to ensure that the Government's proposals have the support of both Houses. I have therefore brought forward Amendment No. 79 which will require the regulations on the composition of the council to be subject to the approval of each House of Parliament on the first occasion they are made. That will ensure that we are able to have a full debate taking into account the results of our consultation before the final arrangements are put in place.
I do not, however, see a need for regulations made thereafter to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Any subsequent revisions are likely to be of a minor or technical nature. I would not wish valuable parliamentary time to be used to examine minor changes. I have, however, brought forward Amendment No. 80 which will require the Secretary of State to consult the council, once established, before making regulations under any of the powers in this chapter of the Bill.
Let me take the opportunity to clarify a misunderstanding which arose in Committee. I am advised that the reference to the "constitution" of the council in Clause 1(3) should be taken to refer to the membership of the council. The regulation-making power in Clause 1(3) will probably be used in conjunction with that in paragraph 3 of Schedule I which governs the election or appointment of council members. We envisage that the membership will be established through a combination of direct teacher

801
elections, nominations from third parties, including major educational interests, and appointments by the Secretary of State.
I turn now to Amendment No. 6. During our previous debate there was strong support in all parts of your Lordships' House for us to look again at the representation of serving teachers on the council. This will be the professional body for teachers and it must speak with authority on behalf of the teaching profession. But it must also reflect the input of those from outside the profession who share a common interest in securing high professional standards for teachers. The council's work will also benefit if the council includes some members who can bring valuable experience and fresh perspectives from other walks of life.
I considered the points raised and tabled Amendment No. 6 which requires that at least half the membership of the council should be serving and qualified teachers. That reflects the wording of the amendments moved in Committee by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Maddock. However, since tabling the amendment, I have had the opportunity to reflect further on Amendment No. 4, which we shall consider later, which provides that teachers would form a majority of the council. There may not be a great deal of practical difference between "at least half' and "a majority", but I recognise an important difference of emphasis. I am therefore happy to accept in principle that serving, qualified teachers should form a majority on the council. That clearly signals our intention that serving teachers will be the major force on the council properly balanced by other interests within the educational world and "lay" members to represent the wider public.
I believe it is right, however, that the teachers on the council should be qualified teachers with recent experience of teaching. The council will benefit from their experience of teaching in the classroom and they will be able to command the respect of their colleagues. With your Lordships' leave, I shall therefore not proceed with Amendment No. 6 and will return to the House at Third Reading with an appropriate amendment which sets out that teachers should form a majority of the council but that those teachers should be serving and qualified teachers. Amendment No. 4 does not provide for that so I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will be content with my proposed approach and will be prepared to withdraw his amendment too.
I move on to Amendment No. 5, which provides for the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of the council's membership reflecting the interests of commerce and industry and those with special educational needs. There was, I think, strong support for these interests being included when we debated these issues earlier and I am happy to reflect the mood of the House in bringing forward this amendment.
On Amendment No. 5A, however, I agree that it is important that the interests of the Churches who provide training for teachers should be represented on the council. I know that they are committed to ensuring high standards among the teaching profession and that they would provide a valuable contribution and perspective
802
to the work of the council. I am not, however, totally convinced that an amendment is necessary to achieve that.
Subsection (4) of Clause 1 lists employers of teachers and providers of teacher training as interests to which the Secretary of State must have regard when making regulations on the composition of the council. Denominational schools and teacher training institutions employ and train large numbers of our teachers. The Secretary of State will certainly have regard to representation on the council of the Churches in these various guises.
Having heard the debate today, however. I am willing to commit the Government to consult on the composition of the council on the basis that we are committed to ensuring that the interests of the Churches are represented on the council and that we wish to invite views on how this can best be achieved. There might be several ways. One would be for the Churches, who have substantial numbers of denominational schools and teacher training institutions, to make nominations to the council. Another might be for the Secretary of State to make appropriate appointments to the council. There could be other ways. We shall be interested to see what results from the consultation. But I am anxious not to tie our hands at this stage as to precisely how we can best ensure that the range of Church interests are properly reflected in the composition of the council. I hope that what I have said will be welcome to the noble Baroness and she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 3A, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the council must always have the needs of pupils and parents foremost in its mind. Putting the consumer first is the essence of professionalism. I agree that it is important for consumers of education to be represented on the council. They will bring an important perspective to the work of the council and ensure that the council is focused ultimately on promoting high standards of teaching and learning in the interests of the wider public. I am not sure how practical it would be for the pupils themselves to be represented on the council. I would be interested to hear the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on how that might be done and we can certainly invite views in our consultation document. But I agree that it is essential for the voice of parents to be represented in some way on the council. Subsection (4) of Clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of the general public being represented on the council. It has always been our intention that this should allow for parents as well as other interests to be represented.
We intend to consult on the basis that the interests of parents must be represented on the council and invite views on how that might best be achieved. There may be several ways to do this, so, again, I would not like to close off any options before we have had a response to the consultation exercise. It may be possible to consider nominations by national bodies, such as the National Council of Parent Teacher Associations. It may also be possible to look at ways of recognising the valuable contribution that parents make as governors of schools,

803
possibly through bodies such as the National Governor's Council. Alternatively, the Secretary of State could seek to make a number of appointments which can be seen to represent the parent voice. We intend to invite views in our consultation paper on the best approach. However, I should not like to settle on a particular approach at this stage.
The House has already accepted the Government's aim at Committee stage which set out that the council must perform its functions in the interests of the public. The council must not be a talking shop for teachers. It must be outward looking and have the right balance of interests to ensure that it does not lose that focus. I believe, above all, that that should be our intention and that the current drafting of Clause 1, as amended, secures that aim. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will not wish to press his amendment.
Amendment No. 7 is a technical amendment to paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 and relates to the regulations which will make provision for the methods of appointment or election of members of the council and the chairman of the council. As I said earlier, this power is likely to be used in conjunction with that in Clause 1(3) in establishing the composition of the council. The paragraph currently provides that the regulations may enable the council to make those arrangements. We envisage that the regulations might set a broad framework, within which the GTC could fill in the detail.
The amendment is necessary to enable the Secretary of State to make such arrangements in the first instance before the GTC is established. That will avoid the need for such matters to be prescribed in excessive detail in the regulations themselves. It would, for example, allow for an electoral scheme to be drawn up to cover the first teacher elections to the council. I understand that other professional bodies draw up such schemes to govern their elections, and that they go into the sort of detail that would not be appropriate in a statutory instrument. I must emphasise that this amendment only affects those arrangements which will need to be made in order to elect or appoint the initial council membership. Thereafter, the GTC can be empowered to make its own arrangements and set them out as council rules.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in regard to the observations made by my noble friend the Minister about Amendment No. 5A, could she bear in mind the rather more embracing phrase of "religious denominations" rather than the word "Churches"?
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, Amendment No. 5A is tabled in my name. I am grateful to the Minister for her reassuring words about the Government's intentions in that regard. I know that the consultation that she and her colleagues have given to the Churches during the passage of this Bill, and that which is passing through the other place, has been most welcome.
Nevertheless, I am slightly nervous about accepting that the consultation and the regulations would be the only guarantee of the interests of the Churches being represented on the GTC. I am sure that I do not need to
804
rehearse in this House the enormous importance of the contribution of the Churches to the development of education historically in this country; indeed, not only historically but, today, I believe that it is the case that about one-quarter of all teachers teaching in our schools were trained in one of the Churches' colleges. So their contribution as teacher trainers is still very substantial and that also applies as regards their role as providers of education in the Church schools. As the Minister has acknowledged, the standards that the Churches have set are very high and very popular with parents.
Therefore, I should very much like to see on the face of the Bill a permanent assurance that future Secretaries of State—not only the present Secretary of State—would bear in mind the interests of the Churches in appointments to the GTC. I have no intention of pressing my amendment today. Nevertheless, when we reach the Third Reading stage, I hope that we shall have some assurance that the interests of the Churches as trainers of teachers will remain on the face of the Bill.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the co-operative style of today's debate and for the way in which she has approached our many worries. Indeed, in view of the storms of the past, we have moved into pastoral idylls—and long may it remain so! I am glad to note that the Minister agrees to affirmative resolutions for when these regulations and the composition of the council is decided. However, I would fail in my duty, standing at this Dispatch Box for Her Majesty's Opposition, if I did not say that, although these details are helpful and I welcome the co-operation, I should like a little more flesh on the bones before the legislation goes to the other place.
Perhaps I may give the House one example. A rather important point is that the different styles of school should be represented. By that I mean, primary, junior, comprehensive, grammar and, indeed, some from the independent sector. I support my noble friend's views about the importance of Church representation. In the constructive mode in which we have begun our debates this afternoon, I should say that I believe the passage of the Bill would be helped in the other place if the department could find it in its heart to give those further details and even go as far as to outline some methods of selection that it is suggesting.
I know that the Minister is just as aware as I am that the consultation has very nearly reached the end of its process. Indeed, the amount of documentation that I have received, and the amount which must have gone to the Minister, makes the Koran and the Bible look like novelettes. To make the passage of the Bill easier and to ease the controversy which inevitably arises—as, indeed, happened during the discussions on the composition of a general teaching council which were bedevilled by such controversy in the early 1980s—the more detail the Government can give the more helpful it will be to them. Therefore, what the Minister has said is welcome, but I should like the Government to make the carcass a little fatter.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I, too, should like to express my pleasure and gratitude to the Minister

805
for introducing Amendment No. 79, which I believe is welcomed by all sides of the House. In the light of her comments about the council having a majority of qualified teachers among its membership, I imagine that it is likely that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and others may decide not to move Amendment No. 4.
However, before that issue arises, perhaps I may point out to the House an aspect of the wording in Amendment No. 6, which the Minister confirmed, by way of the assurances that she gave, she will now modify. The amendment refers to persons,
"appointed or elected to the Council as qualified teachers within the meaning of section 218(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988, who are employed, or otherwise engaged to provide their services, as teachers".
I raised this important point on Second Reading. I believe that that wording would preclude the employment of teachers—qualified, senior and experienced—who have recently retired from employment. Past experience with other regulatory authorities has shown that the demands upon members of such bodies become extremely arduous at times.
It has proved to be a great advantage in, for example, the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council, and other bodies, to have as members some of those who may have taken retirement at the age of 60 or thereabouts but who are still well within the age limits prescribed and who could in fact make a very effective contribution. Hence, if I may say so, I believe that it would be right to suggest that the wording of the amendment should be modified to refer to persons,
"who are employed, or who have recently been employed, as qualified teachers".
That is an important issue relating to future membership.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness for Amendment No. 5, which I believe will be the first reference in this Bill to persons with special educational needs. The reason there are no amendments to this Bill concerning such persons is that we had a constructive meeting with the Minister, Estelle Morris, on 21st January, attended by my noble friend Lady Blatch and Dr. Berry, Member of Parliament and chairman of the all-party disability group— the meeting was supported by all sides of this House—concerning what is to be done about children with special educational needs. The two main issues concerned whether the rights of the child, which were removed by the 1993 Act, should be restored, and whether the SEN regulations should be amended so as to ensure that the child had a right to be heard or represented. As I said, it was a most constructive discussion. On that basis, no amendments were sought to be tabled to this Bill, but the hope is that in due course—nothing can be done at once—when parliamentary time is available, these matters will receive attention in another Bill. I reiterate my gratitude
806
to the noble Baroness for having at least recognised in this Bill the existence of persons with special educational needs.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 5A of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and apologise to the Minister for not being present when she began her speech. I was in consultation with one of her ministerial colleagues. I shall read what she has said in Hansard with great interest. Having listened to the debate since then, and having gathered that, after consultation, the membership of the GTC will be reflected in regulations, I support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry.
As we commented in Committee, the involvement of the Churches in the whole educational system is huge. It would be surprising—whatever form the general teaching council takes—if there were not representatives of the Churches on the council under one or more heads, probably that of teachers, employers, and many of the other categories that are mentioned. Nevertheless there is no explicit mention of the Churches. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, refers to,
"those Churches which provide training for teachers".
There are 19 colleges which belong to the Church and Associated Colleges Group, and almost all of those are church related colleges. They are now colleges of higher education rather than teacher training colleges, but they still provide a large number of teachers. The most recent figure I have been given of those who are at present being prepared for initial teacher training in the primary sector and who are trained in such colleges is 27 per cent. This, of course, reflects also the massive involvement of those Churches at the school level and not just at the initial teacher training level. I hope that the Minister will be able to give positive encouragement to those of us who feel that somewhere on the face of the Bill there needs to be recognition of this huge involvement of the Churches. This needs to be reflected in the membership of the GTC.
Baroness Young: My Lords. I wish to intervene briefly. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for what she has said about Amendment No. 6. I recognise that she will withdraw it. but the important point about qualified teachers has been taken by the Government and I am grateful for that. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has said. He made a practical and realistic suggestion. The idea that teachers could give up much time during the course of a term to work on the council seems to me to be rather unrealistic. That is a point that needs to be considered.
I also support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. I declare an interest as a governor of Westminster College, Oxford. The comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon are quite right. I think that we all believe in the dual system of education. We know the major role that the Churches play in the provision of education, which has been so much a part of the educational world right from the early 19th century. It was established by statute in 1944. There ought to be some provision on the face of the Bill to recognise that. However, we may be told that

807
the wording of the provision is not quite right. Nevertheless I believe, from her remarks, that the Minister was sympathetic to this point. Such a provision on the face of the Bill would give a real assurance that this major part of the educational system is recognised.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I join in the gratitude and praise that are being heaped upon the Minister this afternoon. Like the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, I believe we have had a positive start to these proceedings. That is a welcome change from what occurred earlier in the week. I welcome what the Minister had to say with reference to her Amendment No. 6 and my Amendment No. 4, which I shall not move in view of what she has said. She has recognised that there is a difference between the phrase, "not less than half" and the phrase, "a majority". That may be a semantic difference in some respects, but it is not necessarily so. The phrase, "not less than half' means what it says. If we are talking about half the council, and the chair has the casting vote, that is not a majority. Therefore I believe that there is an important difference between the two phrases. I certainly would have pressed Amendment No. 4 if the Minister had not said that the Government intend the majority membership of the GTC to comprise teachers, and that an amendment will be forthcoming at Third Reading. As I have said, in the light of that assurance I shall not move my amendment.
I echo the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on the time that people can spare. However, the only reservation I have is that the experience of those teachers who may no longer be employed as teachers needs to be relatively recent. As we all know, it is a fast-changing world, not least in schools, and experience can rapidly become out of date. I am sure that when the Minister frames the amendment on Third Reading she will bear that in mind. I repeat that I shall not move my Amendment No. 4. That seems to be something I am saying too often this week.
I turn to the other amendments we are discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, may speak again in a moment, but I understood him to say that he was not proposing that pupils themselves should be members of the GTC, nor indeed parents of pupils, which might possibly be more practicable, but rather that their interests should be recognised. I believe that is not quite what the amendment states. However, the intention of the amendment is one that we wholeheartedly support, as I believe does the Minister. Perhaps a further amendment could be framed more accurately to reflect that interest.
I welcome Amendment No. 5 in the name of the Minister and the recognition of the teaching,
"of persons with special educational needs".
That is an important matter for my party and the Minister's amendment is welcome. I am pleased that the Minister has included that matter on the face of the Bill. I also welcome the recognition of the interests of commerce and industry. That, again, reflects part of an amendment which 1 and my noble friends moved in Committee. I am pleased that the Minister has recognised the importance of what we said in that regard.
808
As regards Amendment No. 5A, again I have a sense of the positive proceedings that have taken place this afternoon. As has already been said, it is important that we recognise the role the Churches play in providing training for teachers, and in our schools. It is important that that role is properly recognised on the GTC. I am not exactly sure how that is best done but it is important that it is done. We certainly support the amendment.
I again welcome Amendments Nos. 79 and 80. At Committee stage we made much—and I think rightly—of the unsatisfactory nature of this Bill and of how much was left to regulation. Therefore it is important that the House has an opportunity to examine and debate those regulations. I am pleased that the Minister has recognised those genuine and important concerns and has tabled these amendments at this stage.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am in the happy position of being able to tear up my notes on Amendment No. 4, as we are not now going to have an issue over that one. I no longer need to make a number of points, but will reinforce the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I join him in saying that at least half is not quite the same thing as a majority. I am glad that the noble Baroness accepted that point, and I join the chorus of congratulations on the flexibility that she is showing on this, as in respect of Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 and affirmative resolutions. We are very grateful.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant. His remarks reminded me that I was a serving teacher at a comprehensive school when I first became, technically, a Member of this House. There was not a ghostly chance of my getting time off to spend any period here. I imagine the same would be true of the general teaching council. That point ought to be borne in mind.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my only contribution to discussion on Clause 1 in Committee was that teachers should have the majority on the council. I do not think that it is even slightly different to have it being not less than half. They will in theory control their own council and that is an important point. I am sure that the Government are doing the right thing. I am wondering whether those teachers will have to be registered teachers. It would be slightly strange if the council is controlled by people who are not on the register that they keep. That points out the anomalies in the Bill, which makes it not actually essential to be on a register to teach at a school. I understand from the Association of Head Teachers in Scotland that only teachers in state schools will have to be registered. There is a slightly awkward anomaly here that the Government ought perhaps to address.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I much agree with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord. Lord Walton of Detchant, but there is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew attention. It would be helpful if the words "religious denominations" were used rather than "Churches". I am sure that our non-conformist colleagues and those in the Society of Friends would not

809
object terribly to being called a Church but it is important for other faiths that they should not be designated in that particular way.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about Amendment No. 3A.
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, may speak at the end. I begin by saying how grateful I am to Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken in the debate. We are moving towards a very constructive discussion.
As to Amendment No. 3A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, the interests of parents and pupils are central to the setting up of the GTC, which is about the raising of the professional standards of teachers. We will of course consult further about the possible representation of parents on the council. in light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
On Amendment No. 5, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his remarks about his discussions with my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State. There is widespread support in the House for the desirability of the council's membership reflecting persons who have knowledge and understanding of pupils with special educational needs. I am very glad that that amendment has been welcomed.
With regard to Amendment No. 5A, I will pick up the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Annan. Of course I take the point that we are not just talking about churches but also religious denominations—religious interests, indeed—and will take that into account. I support also the remarks of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the major role that the Churches in particular but other denominations also play in the provision of education. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the interests of the Churches are represented. We will be consulting on the membership of the council and shall listen closely to any suggestions from the Churches on how best to ensure that denominational interests are well represented.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, thought that something ought to be on the face of the Bill, and I undertake to consider further how we could make our intentions clearer and whether an amendment might be appropriate. I think that would have to be done in another place.
The GTC will be working to raise the quality of teaching and learning in our schools for the benefit of a wide range of people. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, was supported by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, on the issue of whether we could ensure that some teachers on the council were recently retired. It is important that any teachers on the
810
GTC should have recent classroom experience, but I recognise the noble Earl's point about the contribution that newly retired teachers might be able to make. I would be happy to consider that matter further and whether the Government can bring forward an appropriate amendment at a later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, referred to the importance of different types of schools—primary and secondary. I am not sure that he mentioned the nursery schools but they also should be included. We will certainly consult on how to involve different types of schools but I am reluctant to put more detail on the face of the Bill, so that we do not constrain consultation. Your Lordships will of course have the opportunity to debate the regulations before they are made.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his comments about Amendment No. 4, which he intends to withdraw, and Amendment No. 6. I hope that we are able to come forward with something on which we all agree.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Baroness sits down, she did not answer my question. I was not inquiring about retired teachers but questioning whether teachers would have to be registered.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, some retired teachers might not be registered, so I linked the noble Baroness's point with that. Perhaps she was also referring to teachers in independent schools. All state school teachers must be registered under the legislation. I hope that as many teachers as possible in independent schools would want to register. I think that it is important that they do. We ought to be able to draw from registered teachers in independent schools representatives for the GTC. Again, that is something on which we shall consult.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I confirm the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I definitely said in my introductory remarks that I was not suggesting that representatives of pupils should sit on the council.
This leads to an important point. In our discussions we are confusing the words "reflecting the interest of" with the word "representation". That difference needs some consideration. I shall read carefully in the Official Report what the noble Baroness said. However, I had the impression that she was prepared to look again at the ways in which the interests of consumers will be reflected in the provision.
It is important that the wrong message is not on the face of the Bill. I think that the noble Baroness's heart is in the right place but the Bill does not reflect that position accurately. Perhaps she will be prepared to discuss the matter. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, Amendment No. 5A comes next. The Marshalled List is wrong.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness said about Amendment No. 5A. I am slightly concerned—
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. If she wishes to make a speech, as she is perfectly entitled to do, will she please move the amendment? We are on Amendment No. 5A. I have called the name of the noble Baroness.
[Amendment No. 5A not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 10, after ("training,") insert—
("() persons concerned with the teaching of persons with special educational needs,
() commerce and industry,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [General Teaching Council]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 25, line 33, leave out from ("Regulations") to end of line 34 and insert ("made under this paragraph before the establishment of the Council may enable the Secretary of State to make provision with respect to any of the matters referred to in sub-paragraph (1): but regulations made under this paragraph after the Council have been established may authorise the Council to make rules with respect to any such matters.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 8:
Before Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL
(" .—(1) The Council shall be responsible for determining the following matters—

(a) standards of teaching;

(b) standards of conduct for teachers: and

(c) medical fitness to teach.

(2) The Council may be required to seek advice from—

(a) the Secretary of State; or

(b) such other persons or bodies that he may from time to time designate, on matters falling within subsection (1).

(3) This section has effect in relation to regulations made under subsections (2), (3) and (6) of section 218 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (regulations relating to schools, etc.) as they apply to teachers at schools.
(4) The Secretary of State shall make provision in such regulations for a determination or direction under those regulations to be made by the Council.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment falls into a rather different category from those to which we have been speaking. It refers to the general teaching council. The point at issue is what kind of council we want. The purpose of the council should be to give real responsibility. At Second Reading and in Committee comparisons were made with both the Law Society and the General Medical Council. There is anxiety that if the council does not have the power to do certain things it
812
will be seen as a second class council, and certainly second class in relation to other professional bodies. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon made an important point. He said that if the council were not seen in the same class as other professional bodies it would not attract the same able people. That in itself would be damaging.
I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said about teachers at Second Reading. I think that we would all agree. At col. 253 of the Official Report of 11th December 1997, she said:
"Teachers are our greatest educational resource. Teachers, in particular head teachers, are at the heart of our drive to raise standards".
She went on:
"This Government listen to teachers and we intend to work in partnership with them".
Later, at col. 255, she said:
"This Government are determined to restore pride and professionalism to the teaching profession".
The noble Baroness made various comments on the White Paper, Excellence in Schools. I believe that there is not one person in your Lordships' House who would not entirely support all those statements. It was disappointing therefore that when we discussed this matter in Committee the teachers who had been referred to in such glowing terms were not described in the same way. If one looks, for instance, at the crucial matter of debarring teachers, the noble Baroness said at col. 1449 of the Official Report of 20th January 1997:
"The public have a right to expect that the protection of children will he governed by a coherent, consistent and rigorous barring regime".
I entirely agree with that statement. But if we do not think that teachers are capable of carrying out that aim. it suggests that we do not think that they have full responsibility. We cannot have one without the other.
The noble Baroness spoke about the registry of teachers and barring them from the profession. Again, the suggestion is that teachers cannot he trusted to undertake those important tasks. I ask myself why. I ask particularly because I understand that teachers seem perfectly capable of undertaking them in Scotland. I am second to none in my admiration of the Scots, and Scots teachers. But it seems strange that north of the border responsibility should reign, but not south of it. It is a serious question.
Furthermore, the noble Baroness said that the proposals were to be evolutionary; that we would start off with this provision and move at a later stage to something else. Perhaps I may again quote the noble Baroness. At col. 1447, she stated:
"I assume that they are intended to give the GTC full responsibility to decide whom to register and whom to deregister. This may seem an admirable aim and it is possible that in the fullness of time the GTC will be able to develop in that direction. I am most sympathetic to that happening in the longer term. But it would be premature at this stage".
That suggests that within the lifetime of this Parliament, or a measured time, it would all come to pass. But we now know that it will require primary legislation. Once that is recognised we are looking into the indefinite future. All of us, certainly any who have been in

813
government, know how difficult it is to get any Bill before Parliament. The idea that we would have another Bill to deal with this issue in the immediate five years or so is unlikely. So whatever goes into the Bill is there for the foreseeable future.
I fear that the measure will be seen as second rate. I fear that it will not therefore attract the best. I believe that if we want to encourage real responsibility among people we have to give them responsibility. On serious matters such as the debarment of teachers, I cannot imagine a general teaching council not taking the strictest of views and having the highest of standards on the debarring of teachers who would fall under Section 99; and one knows how extremely serious that matter is.
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Walton, made the point that it is a task that the General Medical Council undertakes. He can speak with more knowledge on that subject than I can. But the two situations are somewhat similar although not identical because we are talking exclusively about children and that makes it more serious.
I hope that the Government will consider the matter again. One should either have something that is really worthwhile, or one should decide not to have it. For my part I should like to have a measure that is really worthwhile. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. There are two possibilities for the general teaching council: on the one hand, that it will simply be a body which acts when the Secretary of State requests, responding to whatever he or she may ask it to do; or on the other, that it may from the very beginning have the possibility of initiating and making independent recommendations.
I understand entirely the point that is being made, not least by the Minister, about evolution. However, it seems to me that the starting-point from which this body is to evolve is very important. If it begins merely as a body which responds to the Secretary of State, it will have a very difficult start. It is important that it has a clear start, with responsibilities which it is able to undertake on its own initiative.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the General Teaching Council in Scotland. It has a duty to keep under review the standards of education, training and fitness to teach of persons entering the teaching profession—the phraseology echoes some of the elements in this amendment—and to make to the Secretary of State from time to time such recommendations with respect to those standards "as they think fit". It is those words, "as they think fit", which are so important. They place upon that body responsibility to initiate and undertake such work as it thinks it right to do. It is important that the general
814
teaching council should have similar powers to undertake work which is its own responsibility and not merely in response to others.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, if this body is to be called a general teaching council yet does not have the responsibilities set out in the amendment, it will be rather a fraud on the public. When the idea of a general teaching council was first mooted—and it has been discussed again and again over a long period of time—it was always the intention of those who supported the idea that it should be roughly analogous (obviously there are differences) to the General Medical Council. It would be inconceivable for the General Medical Council to have the role that is seemingly to be allocated to the general teaching council under the Bill. It is a waste of time, energy and money to set up a body called a general teaching council if it does not have the power and responsibility to determine the standards and conduct of teachers, their medical fitness to teach and the other elements set out in the amendment. If those powers are not to be allocated, the Government ought seriously to consider changing the name of this body; teachers and the general public are being misled by its being so called, without its being allocated the relevant powers.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I support the principles set out in this amendment, so eloquently proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The noble Baroness referred to the General Medical Council and the principles that govern its performance and activities. But it is not merely a question of the General Medical Council. There are now a considerable number of statutory authorities concerned with the regulation of the professions. The noble Baroness referred to the Law Society, but there is in addition the General Dental Council; the United Kingdom Council for Nursing, Health Visiting and Midwifery; there are also now on the statute book laws governing the General Chiropractic Council and the General Osteopathic Council. Every one of those bodies has the authority to remove or suspend from the register individuals practising those professions who may have been guilty of professional misconduct or of inadequate performance.
Let us look, for example, at the General Medical Council. I had the privilege of being its president for a period of seven years after serving beforehand on several of its committees. One of those committees, the Preliminary Proceedings Committee, examines the question as to whether in effect there is a case to answer. If there is, then the doctor who may be accused of serious professional misconduct then comes before the Conduct Committee, which has a full judicial hearing with the advice of a legal assessor, a QC, before deciding whether or not, at the end of the day, to deal with that particular registered member of the medical profession by admonition, suspension or erasure from the register—suspension being for a finite period; or, for a doctor whose behaviour may under certain circumstances demand it, the council has the power to impose restrictions upon that individual's practice.

815
But, of course, if it is a question of medical fitness to practice, then the procedures through a health committee are more compassionate. There is no power to erase, because the individual requires treatment. Therefore, there is a power to suspend or to impose conditions. Similarly, if the doctor in question has demonstrated an inadequate professional performance, there is a power to require that individual to undergo remedial training before being enabled to return to practice. So the issue is a very complicated one. But the principle remains that each of those regulatory bodies, at the end of the day, has the authority to take action in relation to a professional who has by reason of professional performance, behaviour or ill-health not come up to an appropriate standard.
It is wrong in principle for a regulatory authority being established in this form as a general teaching council not to have the final authority over such action and to leave that by reference to the Secretary of State. Of course, this amendment makes clear that the council will be guided by advice from the Secretary of State. That is absolutely correct. But for the final authority to discipline or suspend, or to act in the case of a teacher whose health is putting students at risk, to be reserved powers of the Secretary of State, is quite wrong in principle. The general teaching council should, in the ultimate, have that authority-
I appreciate that the noble Baroness may suggest, as she did in Committee, that this matter could be introduced later into primary legislation. But the General Medical Council has at least five issues upon which it is seeking amendment to its primary legislation in the Medical Act; the General Dental Council has for four years been seeking amendments to the Dentists Act because there are issues that it wishes to have amended—and they are being told repeatedly by government that there is no chance of primary legislation being introduced. It is therefore now that the decisions need to be taken to give this general teaching council teeth and the authority to deal with the needs of the teaching profession—bearing in mind that there may be some who are concerned as to whether the elected members of the teaching profession will have the full authority and the right qualities to take such action. All the experience of the other regulatory authorities has been that, provided the committees of the council have an adequate balance of professional and lay members and of those representing a wide field of interests—about which we shall learn when the regulations are published—we have to give this council confidence. We have to express our confidence in its ability to act in the way the other professional regulatory authorities have. For that reason, I strongly support the principle underlying this amendment.
Lord Annan: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, how are the operations of the General Medical
816
Council and all the other subsidiary councils that he mentioned funded? Does the money come from public funds?
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, they are financed from fees, and from an annual retention fee paid by all registered medical practitioners.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I wish to give my support to the amendment, knowing full well how difficult Secretaries of State, government departments and civil servants find it to relinquish control over such fundamental issues. Nevertheless, it is well known among social scientists that the definition of a profession includes that it shall have control over its own registration, and indeed deregistration, of members. It is very much our wish on all sides of this House to enhance the professionalism of teachers and their standing, and their sense of themselves as a profession, which is recognised by the general public and by Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, on those grounds alone, I would urge that the general teaching council is permitted to have control over such matters.
It was some years ago, when I was involved in an OECD education project, that 1 learnt from our Scandinavian friends a very important truth—namely, if we learn to trust the teachers, then the teachers will in every sense fulfil the best of our expectations. This is a prime occasion when we should learn to trust the teachers.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I described at Second Reading the powers of the General Teaching Council for Scotland. I have since discussed with a number of practising teachers what they value most in the council's work on their behalf. Virtually always their view is that the most important thing they want to pay for in the General Teaching Council is the overseeing of the register.
In Scotland you cannot teach unless you are on the register, so it is very important to be registered. It is highly valued by teachers that the General Teaching Council decides who should be on the register and who has to come off the register, for whatever reason. It operates an extremely successful and firm appeal system for people who are taken off the register. It also decides who should go on to the register after a probationary period, on the recommendation of the school where the person teaches. That, too, is greatly valued.
Some of the other powers are reflected in my noble friend Lady Young's amendments. The noble Baroness is making proposals which, I think she will agree, follow the practices of the Scottish General Teaching Council.
I found in discussions with teachers that the council's advisory role is considered of less value. They feel that there are a number of bodies which advise the Government through which they could put their ideas forward, not least what they now call their unions—bodies which they used to call their professional associations. They can do it that way, and in many other ways. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, who is not here today, made the point that there are many people who can advise the Government.

817
At Committee stage the Minister made a series of quite complicated arguments as to why she did not feel that the time had come for this measure. She should think hard about this. It is not a party political point. The Government will probably set up a body which will be a huge disappointment to teachers and be counter-productive from the point of view of the Government and the department. Merely to advise what other people are doing is not very satisfactory.
I noted what my noble friend Lady Perry said about people who have a power often being reluctant to relinquish it. It may well be that the Minister's advisers quite enjoy their work—it is important—and they will be allowed to go on doing it. The Government have been in office since May; they should take a grip on this issue and consider whether they should alter the kind of council they are setting up. It cannot be exactly like the BMA at this stage—and, anyway, the need is somewhat different—although the information that has been provided is very useful.
The noble Baroness should reflect and not stick to her guns on this matter as the Bill goes through Parliament.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I rise to support the intentions behind Amendment No. 8. It sets out very worthwhile functions which the majority of your Lordships' House believe the general teaching council should have if it is to do everything we hope that it will, particularly in raising the status of teachers and encouraging more teachers into the profession.
Other amendments in this group deal with the responsibility of the general teaching council to look after the register and decide who should be a qualified teacher. We welcome that but, as many of your Lordships know, in earlier debates we on these Benches set out wider provisions for the general teaching council. We would like to go further, but we certainly support what the noble Baroness has so eloquently put before us today.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, we very much support the noble Baroness in this matter. No one disagrees that at some stage the teachers ought to be given powers; certainly over the register and possibly more powers later. That is agreed by everyone.
Secondly, although I have had no experience in Government I know that everyone agrees that the department would face enormous difficulties in passing primary legislation to award this body control over the register.
My noble friend proposes that the Government should find it in their hearts at least to give this body power over the register. I repeat again, at the risk of boring but it needs to be said, that everyone agrees that it ought to have that power—the noble Baroness, all her noble friends and people in the other place. The argument is about time, and everyone agrees that to pass primary legislation would be hard.
818
Why are the Government not prepared to concede this point? It would be easy to accept my noble friend's amendment. It would please the teaching profession, who will get very annoyed when, in the next Parliament, the department cannot find the time for the legislation. This will increase their frustration. As the noble Baroness knows, those teachers who are prepared to wait expect that in the first Session of the next Parliament the noble Baroness or her successors will put this forward. They will be very annoyed when it does not happen.
As anyone who studies history knows, bodies which are consultative but without power in the end become discontented bodies. The constitutional history of many countries bears this out. As the noble Baroness agrees with me and my noble friend that this body is important and ought to have and will have some power, why not swallow one clause and give it some power now?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the House comes to consider this question, I hope your Lordships will forgive a pedantic lawyer if he raises a point arising from the words of this amendment. I assure your Lordships that he is doing it to help and for no other reason.
Under the wording of this amendment, are we deciding that the council should have powers to do things which are unqualified, or are we saying that those powers should be qualified? I say that because subsection (2) of the amendment says that
"The council may be required to seek advice from the Secretary of State; or such other persons or bodies that he may from time to time designate".
If I may refer to that latter wording, are we saying that the council is bound to consult any person or body that the Secretary of State designates and has to follow that advice, or are we saying that it shall seek that advice?
That happens to be rather important because the first person whom the council may have to consult or take advice from is the Secretary of State. Are we saying under this amendment that if the Secretary of State advises something the advice has to be followed, or are we saying merely that the council has to take advice? That would not be so important were it not for the other power that the Secretary of State has, which is to designate anyone or any body. Is the council bound to take that advice, or not? Should the wording be, "to seek and follow advice", if that is the intention; or should it be just, "to seek advice", with the council having the power to refuse to accept that advice? One often hears a judge in a criminal court saying to an accused person, "I think you should seek advice". That does not mean that the accused, having sought that advice, is bound to follow it. What does the amendment mean?
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, perhaps I might strike a slightly discordant note. There seems to have been a tremendous love feast in favour of the amendment, but I confess that it leaves considerable doubts in my mind, particularly the words,
"The Council shall be responsible for determining the … standards of teaching".

819
I hear from the Conservative Benches everybody advocating that, but in the 1970s and 1980s our education system got in such a frightful mess because the standards of teaching were being determined by the schools and the teachers. The Conservative Government had to introduce an elaborate structure, including Ofsted and the national curriculum, in order to regulate the standards of teaching. Perhaps the Minister could explain that when she responds.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young will respond to all the questions posed to her. Perhaps I may come in behind the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I have practically sat at his feet and accepted his views on almost anything. He is such a wise counsel in this House.
I hope that the principle of the amendment will be accepted. From the first round of consultation an unequivocal voice has come from the Minister and others in the department that if there is to be a general teaching council, it should have responsibility for standards of professionalism, teaching and the other matters set out in the amendment. Subsection (1) of the amendment gives responsibility to that body for those matters. As I understand subsection (2)—again it would be helpful to be advised on this point—it will be important for the council to seek advice (as I see it, advice is advice; it is no more than that) from the Secretary of State in order to carry out its duties properly.
If one takes the General Medical Council model, to which we have referred in the course of speaking to the amendment both on this occasion and on a previous occasion—this may partly be an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—the body that will represent teaching professionalism and the professional standards of teaching, when it is transparent and has that responsibility, (a) it will behave responsibly and (b) it will act in the interests of the profession as a whole. It is that which we are trying to get at, rather than leaving it to holes in corners and behind closed doors in classrooms, where things went very wrong in the 1960s and 1970s.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and the House will expect me to reply in detail. I therefore apologise for the length of my response. At the risk of abandoning the idyllic pastures—or pastoral idylls—I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment.
Clearly the aim of these amendments, in essence, is to give the general teaching council, instead of the Secretary of State, full and final responsibility to decide who to register and who to deregister. I repeat the arguments made by my noble friend Lady Blackstone at earlier stages that, though this may be a desirable ultimate objective and may well be a target to aim for once the council is up and running, we do not consider it sensible to make provision for that at this point. The difference between us therefore is not one of principle but of timing. Nor is it a question, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, suggested, of people being reluctant to relinquish powers. It is a question of when the optimum moment to change the responsibilities will be.
820
We outlined a number of reasons in Committee why the time is not yet right. The noble Baroness and others argued that this Bill should leave more room for the GTC's role to expand without the need for further primary legislation. We envisage the GTC's role evolving over time, and that approach had some support in the House during the Committee and earlier stages. However, it would be wrong to include such an intention on the face of this Bill before we have some real experience of the GTC in operation.
Reference was made to this being a matter for the next Parliament. I remind the House of the timescale. The GTC will not be in operation under this legislation, however good a wind this House and another place give it, before the year 2000. Without disclosing the date of the next general election, by the time of the next Parliament the GTC will have been in operation for less than two years. It is therefore for the next Parliament to assess its effectiveness and its ability to take on additional roles, as envisaged by the amendment.
The amendments essentially deal with two separate issues—the entry to the profession and the issue of barring. In relation to entry to the profession, this Government were clearly elected on a platform of raising standards in schools, and therefore the standards of the profession are essential to that strategy. It remains our view that regulating the quality of teaching in the maintained sector—schools paid for by the public through their taxes—in the immediate period should ultimately be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. He is accountable to Parliament and to the electorate in a way in which the GTC, as envisaged, would not be.
However, I agree that the GTC must and will have a major role, and a role which will develop over time. The intention clearly is that the Secretary of State will look for advice from the GTC on how the standards for entry are working and the case for any change. He will look to the GTC in that area to work in strong partnership with the Teacher Training Agency. which has not been referred to a great deal in this debate but which already has statutory and administrative powers in this area. We believe that in moving to set up the GTC we are already giving a measure of self-regulation to the teaching profession—something that teachers have been denied for so long. The council's role will grow over time.
Reference was made to the General Medical Council. But the General Medical Council has been in existence for over 150 years and there was no state regulation of the medical profession before that time. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to other professional bodies. They are dealing with much smaller professions than the teaching profession. We are talking of over 500,000 people. Before the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, refers to dinosaur stages of evolution, as he did the other day, we are not saying that it will take 150 years, but it will take a couple of years before we can be sure that the general teaching council will be able to take on these serious responsibilities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I might ask the noble Lord, on the basis that there is no disagreement in principle and it is therefore only a matter of timing. to consider taking the

821
matter away and reflecting on it. He can come back with an answer before Third Reading and perhaps consider the possibility of adding a regulation-making power to the Bill which will allow a power to be added, as opposed to a power to be advised to be added. That would dispense totally with the time factor and also with the need to come back to Parliament under primary rather than secondary legislation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think not. We are dealing with both timing and the time that it takes to make a proper assessment of whether the GTC is operating in a way that allows it to take on additional responsibilities. That assessment can only be made by the next Parliament, which will provide for primary legislation to extend it in that way.
We believe that we have a balance of responsibility between the GTC, the Teacher Training Agency, which is important in this area, and the Secretary of State's direct powers. We would not be happy to see the new standards that we have brought in relating to qualified teacher status, and which come into effect for the first time in May this year, undermined by the development of a separate procedure under the GTC. We have only recently revised those standards. The regulations on registration may allow the GTC to make its own arrangements on many issues. They will set a framework within which the GTC will be able to make its own more detailed rules. But I think this strikes the right balance between maintaining effective statutory regulation and moving towards, at this stage, greater self-regulation of the teaching profession. I believe that the amendments would take us too far, too fast and upset that balance.
Nevertheless, having listened to the strength of feeling in the debate, we are prepared to consider whether we should tilt the balance a little further towards the GTC; for example, by bringing forward an amendment at a later stage to place the Secretary of State under a very clear duty to ensure that the GTC is fully consulted on standards for qualified teacher training, teacher status and entry to the profession. I hope that that would offer at least some further assurance that we are moving in the right direction and that it is clear what eventual role we envisage for the council on such matters.
Possibly more serious even than the evolutionary way in which we view the GTC on entry to the profession is the question of excluding teachers from the profession. We understand that Amendment No. 8 is intended to allow the GTC to take decisions on those barring cases which arise under Section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988. I understand why many of your Lordships feel that the GTC should be in charge of this process. But perhaps I may explain why the Government believe that our alternative view is right. This relates to the important and sensitive issue of child protection.
The teaching profession differs significantly from other professions that have self-regulatory bodies in that it is almost entirely composed of people whose jobs involve them in regular contact with children. Sadly, a small minority of teachers abuse children
822
psychologically, physically or sexually. We absolutely must have the ability to exclude such people from the profession. Tragically, too, there are a small minority of teachers who develop medical conditions that could make them dangerous to children. They also have to be excluded from the profession.
Moreover, it is not a question of not trusting teachers to make these assessments—teachers who will be involved in the GTC—because this whole issue of child protection goes beyond teaching. Regrettably, those few people who are determined to abuse children are cunning. They will take advantage of any gaps and loopholes that we leave them. It is not nowadays enough to say that if we bar someone as a teacher it is the end of the matter. They can come back as classroom assistants, they may seek to come back as volunteers, or they may seek to work for a firm that regularly drives children to school in taxis and so on.
I must draw attention to the fact that the previous government rightly increased substantially the provisions on child protection. They were extended to cover staff in schools who have regular contact beyond the teaching profession, such as classroom assistants; they were then extended to the independent schools: and they were extended to cover agency teachers and volunteers and to cover others who provide regular services to schoolchildren. The whole child protection system goes beyond the teaching profession.
5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank the Minister very much for giving way. Does he appreciate that all these circumstances prevail in Scotland and that it has been done by the General Teaching Council in Scotland for 35 years? So these arguments are not valid.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not as familiar as the noble Baroness with the situation in Scotland, but I am advised that both the remit of the GTC and the child protection arrangements in Scotland are somewhat different from those in England and Wales. Therefore, there is not a direct analogy. No one is suggesting that the GTC's responsibilities should extend to classroom assistants and others who come in contact with children. There would be a problem if we shifted the balance from a direct Secretary of State responsibility for child protection that these loopholes would become usable by people who, unfortunately, might be in a position to abuse children. As I understand it, the situation in Scotland is somewhat different on both sides of that argument both in terms of what we envisage for the GTC and the existing child protection provisions.
On the child protection issue, we believe that it is important to maintain a consistent and coherent system of child protection and that that should remain in the hands of the Secretary of State as far as concerns children in schools. I have undertaken today that we should look again at whether we can give the GTC a clearer statutory role in relation to the standards required for entry to the profession by including on the face of the Bill a provision that ensures that the GTC is consulted on such standards. I have also explained the

823
difficult situation in regard to child protection aspects. Even if we were otherwise convinced of the arguments of the noble Baroness and others, I think that my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, have raised problems about the wording of the amendment. In the light of that, and on the understanding that there is no difference in principle here, I hope that the arguments that we have put to explain the Government's position will allow the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank all those noble Lords who have supported me on this amendment. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton. It was a recognition of all parts of the House being concerned about this matter.
Perhaps I may deal, first, with the two specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I always enjoy the noble Lord's interventions. He has a wonderfully seductive way of speaking. One of the troubles I find is that I am so busy listening to his voice that it is quite difficult sometimes to remember what exactly he has said. It is all very nice and one rather longs for it to go on, but I shall not take up more of the time of the House on that matter.
He referred to the drafting of the amendment and whether or not subsection (1) of the amendment was qualified by subsection (2). Perhaps I may explain how I see the two subsections operating. The first point is that subsection (1) (a), (b) and (c) would have the effect of making the GTC primarily responsible for determining standards of teaching, standards of conduct for teachers and medical fitness to teach. But in doing so the Secretary of State would have the power, under subsection (2), to require the GTC to seek his advice or the advice of bodies designated by him on these matters. However, I would not wish to have a great legal argument with the noble Lord about the wording of the amendment. If it is not clear, I should look at it again.
On the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I think he misunderstands what I mean by the term "standards of teaching". In that context, I mean standards against which a general teaching council could judge issues of incompetence and once a matter has been dealt with in employment terms by the teacher's appropriate employer. I think he would accept that teachers probably know more than anyone else in the school who is an incompetent teacher. This is a quite difficult area of employment but it is one of importance.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will not take it amiss if I say to him that I think he made the very best of a rather bad case. We are all agreed on the principle of this. It is a question of timing, as he said. I must read Hansard very carefully in the morning. I think he said that the department was not reluctant to relinquish but was looking for the optimum time. I felt that that was one of those quotes which must have been taken from Mr. Mandelson and one which I must work into the next speech I make. However, I shall check the wording to
824
get it right. We all agree with him on the importance of raising standards. That is what this is all about. But I cannot accept some of the arguments that he adduced.
When we debated this matter in Committee I recognised the role of the teacher training agency. I do not believe that these proposals would necessarily cut across it. Nobody wants qualified teacher status to be undermined. I accept everything that has been said, both on unqualified teacher status and on the very important issue of the exclusion of teachers, about whose seriousness there is no disagreement. I suspect that teachers would be much tougher on other teachers than outsiders would be. It would reflect very badly on them. Using a perhaps unhappy analogy, one can usually recognise the rotten apple in the barrel of those with whom one is working. The last thing people want to do is to work with someone like that. Therefore, I shall not be afraid on that score.
I should like to reflect on the point that the general teaching council might not be able to exercise powers on people like caretakers or agency teachers. I should like to seek advice on that point. But I do not believe that there is any reason in principle why teachers cannot be trusted to look at exclusion and standards. Indeed, if we believe in raising standards, I believe that teachers would do it better.
I am sorely tempted to press this amendment this evening, but a point has been raised that I should like to consider. I shall reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said. I do not believe that he has gone as far as I should like because ultimately what really matters is whether we give teachers the responsibility for managing their own affairs. I fear that, if we do not, they will be seen by themselves and outsiders—even worse, by parents and pupils—as a second-class group. There are one or two points that need to be looked at again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 not moved.]
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE COUNCIL
(" .—(1) The Council shall prepare and from time to time publish a code of practice ("the code")—

(a) laying down standards of conduct expected of registered teachers; and

(b) giving advice in relation to the practice of teaching.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Council to keep the code under review and to vary its provisions whenever the Council consider it appropriate to do so.
(3) Before issuing the code or varying it, the Council shall consult its registered members and such representatives of practising teachers as they consider appropriate.
(4) Where any person is alleged to have failed to comply with any provision of the code, that failure—

(a) shall not be taken, of itself, to constitute unacceptable conduct on his part; but

(b) shall be taken into account in any proceedings against him under this Act.

(5) Any person who asks the Council for a copy of the code shall be entitled to have one on payment of such reasonable fee as the Council may determine.
(6) Subsection (5) is not to be taken as preventing the Council from providing copies of the code free of charge whenever they consider it appropriate to do so.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the previous debates are a very useful lead-in to this clause which we wish to add to the Bill. Other professional bodies have codes of practice. I do not believe that it is particularly easy to achieve that for the teaching profession. The purpose of our amendment is to pursue how to get some measure of codification for the professional ethics of teaching.
The wording of our new clause is based on the Osteopaths Act 1993. We believe that it introduces for the first time the idea of a code of practice for the teaching profession. It would give the council a great deal of additional standing and influence. It suggests that teachers themselves, constituted into a legal body, will define how teachers behave and will advise on best practice.
One of the problems that there has been with the teaching profession in recent years is that everyone who is not a teacher professes to know how to teach and everything else about the profession. As regards doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other professions, people do not pretend to know better all the time in quite the same way. That is why it is particularly important that we look to this matter in relation to the teaching profession.
Our aim must be to produce a code which will help teachers to promote a shared understanding of their professional ethics. It also needs to inform them of what conduct their profession expects of them in particular situations. That can be of particular benefit to teachers if they are being encouraged, maybe by their clients or their employers, to indulge in unprofessional behaviour. Having a code of practice is an important part of encouraging public support and trust in the teaching profession.
That is not without danger because it could become a very rigid set of rules and a straitjacket, which would not be helpful to teachers, their employers, students and families. By its very nature, teaching is a highly responsible, socially important and very demanding profession personally. That must be the starting point for any debate on its ethical nature and on consequent demands that that might place on teachers.
There are also moral imperatives surrounding these matters. They are not the only factors that must be taken into account when judging teachers. They can find their ability to accept their professional responsibilities heavily circumscribed by the conditions which surround teaching. I am thinking particularly of financial matters: many people, and not only teachers, believe that there has been considerable under-funding of education in this country. We have already had discussions during the passage of this Bill about the problems of inadequate leadership or management in schools. That also affects the ability of teachers to carry out their job. It is clear that the altruistic ideals of professionalism are therefore related in a very complex way to political, economic and structural issues.
I have briefly demonstrated how difficult this issue is, but I hope that the discussions that we have had today have shown its importance. It is a very cautious amendment. It is girded round with advice on legal safeguards. I am not a lawyer and never have been. I have always taken advice on these matters. The amendment is intended to probe the Government about reaching some kind of recognised code of practice for teachers. I look forward to the Minister's response, which I hope will be positive towards the intentions of the amendment. I hope too that other noble Lords will contribute their views on what I believe is a very important matter. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I support this amendment. It has very much the right feeling about the aims of the teaching profession. I am a little anxious about the complexities that might arise under subsection (4)(k) as regards which an enormous amount of work is taking place concerning syllabuses, the curriculum, examinations and testing. The amendment is very nicely covered by those moving the amendment that,
"The Council may from time to time designate, on matters falling within [that] subsection as they [see] fit".
If things are going well, then presumably it will not be necessary to delve too deeply into that. Examination and testing problems arise each year as each cohort of young people go through their various exams. That might be a burden if it got out of hand. Overall, I say to those proposing this amendment that I am personally strongly in favour of it.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I support the principle underlying this amendment. Having said that, I have some slight anxiety about the wording of the amendment as phrased. In response to a point made a little while ago by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the last series of amendments, he spoke about the medical profession having been regulated for 150 years. He said that most of the other professional regulatory organisations related to a much smaller profession. I remind him that the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visitors and the teaching profession have almost identical numbers of members. However, to be as specific as the provisions contained in this proposed clause is perhaps potentially dangerous because it could be regarded ultimately as imposing on the profession advice in a sense laid out in tablets of stone. If I may say so. it would be much simpler to advise that, "The council should prepare and from time to time publish advice upon professional standards and the practice of teaching", and to leave the other paragraphs rather less specific.
It would not be the usual policy of any other regulatory authority before issuing advice upon professional standards and standards of practice to consult its registered members because that is a massive task that would involve an enormous amount of correspondence and expense. It is important to make it clear that in issuing such advice the council should be advised to consult widely and appropriately in order to have the opinions of those upon whose advice it would depend.

827
My concern is not so much that it would not be useful to have such a provision in the Bill, but that specifying this degree of detail might be counterproductive in the long term. With an amendment simply advising the council, "to prepare and from time to time publish advice on the standards of conduct expected of registered teachers and advice in relation to the practice of teaching", the remaining provisions of the new clause might be inappropriate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise for not having been in my place earlier, but I had intended to speak on this amendment. I wholly support what the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has just said. There are some technical problems in having a code of practice. We have to ask: what is the status of the code? If failure to comply does not constitute unacceptable conduct, but is,
"taken into account in any proceedings … under this Act",
what are those "proceedings … under this Act"? There is no way of discerning that from the Bill as it stands.
There are to be regulations under the Act: under Clause 9, on registration; under Clause 10, on the deduction of fees from salaries; and under Clause 13, on induction periods. However, those provisions import no civil or criminal liability. There are also regulations under Clauses 16 and 17 with regard to financial support.
We are in a sort of miasma, a fog. We do not know what the regulations will say. Let the regulations be clearly drawn; let the sanction for breach be clearly defined and stated; and then let us consider, as a House, whether we approve or whether we do not. A code of practice such as this has no legal efficacy and is most unusual. I suggest, with respect to the House—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way—I always call him "the noble and learned Lord", quite properly, but not in accordance with the custom of the House—but is he speaking to this amendment or to the next amendment? I understand that we are now dealing with Amendment No. 12.
Noble Lords: No, Amendment No. 13!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am so sorry.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, for that relief, more than many thanks. I was speaking to Amendment No. 13. I gather that that is at least the right amendment. So far, so good.
I have said what I have to say about this amendment. I did not know what the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, was going to say, but I wholeheartedly support it. There are problems with this amendment. The matter is best left to consideration when the regulations are drafted.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, dare I suggest to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that this debate embodies the problem of a body without power? I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that a code of conduct or a code of practice is an excellent thing. We would all support
828
such a code, but I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has put his finger on the sore that will tarnish this Bill. All our worthy thoughts are totally without power. My noble friend Lord Campbell has pointed out the dangers facing the Government. If an advisory body claims for itself the powers to do all these things, which we all agree are absolutely right, that will land the Government in enormous trouble. It is the department's wish to avoid handing over powers that are possessed in Scotland but which it is not prepared to give here. The Government are refusing the suggestion of my noble friend Lady B latch to include a regulation on this—and Lord knows, one more regulation would not break the camels back of this Bill—so I ask the Government why they do not include a little regulation now. We are asking for a regulation. The Government could do all these noble things if they truly were the exponents of educational progress and they could be loved and canonised by the teaching profession. I say to them, "Your opportunities are immense and I am surprised that you reject them".
Earl Russell: My Lords, my name is to this amendment, which makes a rather important point of principle. It creates—at least, it moves a lot closer to creating—a self-governing profession. The power to make rules for one's own society is an essential power of self-government. It is because that is what we are doing that we are running into all the problems about how to draft legislation which we have discussed many times previously in this Chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made an extremely interesting speech about which I have been thinking for some while. As the noble Lord said, there is obviously a problem of flexibility if the rules are drafted in too detailed a manner. There are two possible answers to the genuine problem which the noble Lord raised. One is that which the noble Lord took. The other is that which has been defended in another context by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, which is allowing the code or the law to be drafted in fairly general terms so that the tablets are not of stone and the law can evolve as cases are considered. That is an alternative method to that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and it is an alternative method which sits comfortably with this amendment. I hope that noble Lords will agree with that point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may in all amity and humility ask him whether he will take on board the way in which the provisions are drafted. Amendment No. 13 refers to,
"in any proceedings … under this Act".
What are those proceedings? If certain behaviour does not "constitute unacceptable conduct" but is taken into account as a failure to comply,
"in any proceedings … under this Act",
where are we getting to? What is it all about? I wonder whether the noble Earl will consider that point.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that point, which I accept. Further consultation on this point would be useful and I thank the noble Lord for suggesting it.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it would have been appropriate to include that wording if the earlier amendments allowing the GTC to remove from the register had been accepted, but, as they were not accepted, I believe that it would be inappropriate to include such provisions.
In accordance with the advice given by other professions, I suggested that the provisions should simply read, "The council shall prepare and from time to time publish advice upon standards of conduct expected of registered teachers and in relation to the practice of teaching, departure from which could in certain circumstances raise an issue of unacceptable professional conduct". That is the kind of wording for which one would be looking.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Yes, my Lords
5.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have some sympathy with the views expressed in this debate, but not enough to achieve the accolade from the teaching profession to which the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, referred. I should say immediately that we are entirely in favour, as are most teachers, of the GTC developing advice and a code approximately along the lines described by the noble Baroness. However, there is an interrelationship between this and the previous debate. We see the council as having a key role in representing professional standards—rightly, I think—and Clause 2 already gives the GTC the power to advise the Secretary of State on such a code as is envisaged by this amendment. I also know that the GTC for Scotland is about to issue for consultation a draft professional code for teachers. However, we are concerned with aspects that are almost the opposite of those raised in this debate. The proposed clause would tie the council's hands too much; it would commit it to preparing and publishing such a code rather than determining for itself whether it believed that such a code was the best way to promote the highest standards in the profession.
In this and preceding debates we have heard a good deal about respecting the independence of the general teaching council. We want to leave the council free to consider the best way forward in consultation with the profession and then make proposals to advise the Secretary of State. For example, the amendment does not make clear whether such a code should cover both standards of conduct and advice in relation to teaching. I believe it would be better to allow the council to make its own proposals about how and when to produce such a code and what it might cover. I am sure that the council would want to consult among the profession and more widely, but it should be free to make its own arrangements.
Equally importantly, we believe that it is right for the council's role to be advisory in this respect. That fits in with our philosophy in relation to the previous
830
amendment. Such a code could have fundamental implications for the whole operation of the public education service. Under our approach the Secretary of State will be able to consider the council's proposals within the context of education policy overall. As I believe the proposed subsection (4) recognises, it is also important that such a code is wholly consistent with the system of barring teachers on the grounds of misconduct. I covered that at length in my comments on the previous amendment.
We are sympathetic. We do not consider that it is sensible to put this on the face of the Bill because it will tie the council's hands too much. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Baroness understands the position of the Government and is prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. I also thank other noble Lords for their very helpful comments, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who I understand is an expert on codes of practice. I bow to his expertise. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, and my noble friend Lord Russell. In moving the amendment I said that I was aware that this was not a perfect amendment but I wanted to get a debate going on the principle. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Registration of teachers]
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("() The Council shall have the power to remove from the register the name of any person who, as it decides after due inquiry, has fallen short of appropriate professional standards.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 deals with an issue that has cropped up at various points at Second Reading and in Committee. However, so far it has not been the subject of an amendment. We have also had a very good run at it this afternoon in relation to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The issue of the deregistering of teachers became a major feature of our debate. In Committee I asked the Minister whether she felt that there was a lack of symmetry in the GTC being empowered to register teachers but not to deregister them. She said that she did not. A little later in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, the Minister described such a measure as premature, while expressing sympathy for the longer term. We have heard that argument again this afternoon.
The matter comes down to timing. I believe that I am in good company in wishing to see this particular provision written into the Bill from the start: the noble

831
Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and my noble friend Lord Walton—quite a wide spectrum of opinions—all have said at various stages that the new council should have this power. My noble friend Lord Walton reminded us that the National Commission on Education, which he chaired, had reported that, whatever the eventual and more extensive powers of a GTC, its initial functions should include this one. Without it the new council would be a toothless creature. I believe that it would start off on the wrong foot, with lack of esteem on the part of both the public and the profession, which would be highly undesirable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, who is not in her place, said that any fear that the council would be too lenient on errant or incompetent teachers was misplaced because a new body which was keen to prove itself with the eyes of the world upon it would be particularly careful in this respect. At an earlier stage my noble friend Lord Walton described it as illogical not to have this power. I believe that that is right. Clause 3 deals with just the register, not some of the wider functions like training, recruitment or some of the matters put forward in the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. This is a quite narrow point, although an important one, and I do not believe that it would be too hard to accept. If the council is to be responsible for the register, surely it should be responsible for it in all its aspects.
This is logical and normal, and it is a desirable first step for a responsible professional body. Even the newly-arrived professions of chiropractic and osteopathy enjoy it. This is not intended to deny the parallel role of the Secretary of State who has existing power under the Education Reform Act to bar teachers. In Committee one example given by the Minister was child abuse. This was touched on recently by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. In moving this amendment I look, as the wording makes clear, to the question of professional standards and classroom issues that would never reach Whitehall. I believe that that is an area of which the profession should have ownership, to use the Minister's own words. If it is not to lack standing with the public and its own constituency I believe that it should have it now. This is an integral part of the Minister's aim expressed in Amendment No. 2 that the council should maintain and improve standards of professional conduct. I believe that she would be tying one hand behind the back of the council if she refused to grant it the power, however rarely it may be used in practice, to remove a teacher from the register for unprofessional behaviour. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I and my colleagues believe that this is a key amendment that has been much saluted by many professional teachers, unions and associations. As we have already heard in debate this afternoon, if the GTC is to be a professional body
832
this is a key amendment. On that basis we support the amendment and we are grateful to the noble Earl for moving it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps the noble Earl is prepared to say whether he is of the view that there should be a right of appeal.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I believe that that is a very fair point. That is a quite separate point from the amendment as drafted, and I do not believe that it is in any way fatal to the amendment. However, it may be worth considering that point at a later stage.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue because it is based upon a principle that we have debated in extenso this afternoon. I believe that if the general teaching council is to fulfil its functions this particular authority should be vested in that council.
I wholly appreciate from earlier discussions that this will not commend itself to the Minister on the Front Bench. However, in answer to the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in all of the other statutory authorities concerned with the regulation of the professions there is a statutory right of appeal on points of law to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. At Second Reading I urged the Government to accept in principle that this council should be answerable not to the Secretary of State but to the Privy Council. That was not accepted. I wholly agree with the noble Lord that if this amendment or something like it is accepted there must be a statutory right of appeal on a point of law, if not on the issue of professional conduct or behaviour. Certainly in respect of the General Medical Council and other medical bodies the Privy Council, in its judicial committee, has invariably ruled that it is not qualified to comment upon professional matters but only on points of law.
If a similar amendment were accepted it should be qualified because the council should have the power to suspend or remove from the register, or attach conditions to the registration of, any person who, it decides after due inquiry, has fallen short of appropriate standards of conduct and professional practice. Those are important changes because the power to erase would be draconian. Other conditions should be inserted in any such amendment in order to qualify its power.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I agree that there must be a right of appeal. In the medical profession there is a right of appeal to the council. Other professions also have a right of appeal to the professional body. The spirit of the proposal is right, but it needs fining down. One needs the power of suspension and the discretion of the tribunal to impose conditions. I have appeared before the GMC on several occasions. It uses its discretion magnificently in order to enable it fairly to do justice on the facts of each case. I wholly support the concept and ask those who propose it whether they are prepared to take it back and redraft it in order to take on board a more suitable form.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, subject to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who

833
speaks with great experience, I support the amendment. In view of what I said earlier today, the council is a body without teeth, hands or arms unless we give it some power. Subject to appeal, I support the amendment and shall advise my noble friends to do so. It is what the council is all about.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in principle but wish to clarify one matter. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said that any powers given to the GTC under the amendment would not affect the existing powers of the Secretary of State. Is that correct?
I understand that the role of the Secretary of State in such matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—that is, child abuse—would not be affected by the amendment. As was said by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, it relates to matters of professional conduct. It would also be the case that the role of the Secretary of State in relation to other employees of a school would not be affected. However, we are talking about a power, in addition to the existing role of the Secretary of State, which would not be affected by the amendment. I should be grateful for clarification that that is the case.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are covering ground which we went over in relation to amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The amendment would give the GTC power to remove a person from the register of teachers and therefore from the profession. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. indicated that he saw that coexisting to some extent with the Secretary of State's powers, particularly in relation to child protection. While I understand that that is the intention, I am not sure that the wording makes it clear and whether it subsumes any of the Secretary of State's existing powers in relation to professional standards or misconduct.
The amendment does not set out the circumstances which would enable the council to remove a teacher from the register. Nor does it show the process which would have to be taken in order for that to stand up. Points have been made in relation to an appeal. As regards professional standards and competence, my difficulty would not be with the objective of ensuring that incompetent teachers are removed. Clearly, we are all committed to that. However, at this stage we do not envisage the GTC having that role in dealing with individual cases.
At earlier stages we accepted that it may be appropriate to give the GTC a clear advisory role in relation to the circumstances in which teachers might be suspended or dismissed. On Monday, when we discussed Amendment No. 12 of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, my noble friend Lady Blackstone undertook to reconsider bringing forward an amendment to achieve that. Earlier today, I undertook to look again at aspects raised in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, as to whether we could strengthen the advisory role of the council in this area.
834
I repeat that although the noble Earl indicated that his intention is that the GTC will deal only with debarring or deregistration cases about professional standards, and that child protection would continue to be safeguarded by the Secretary of State, the amendment as worded does not make the distinction sufficiently clear.
Perhaps I may address the intention of the amendment. Coexistence in this way is an interesting suggestion. We are not confident that it can work in practice. Even if a clear distinction can be made between one kind of case and another, it is possible that it could run into the difficulty of fragmenting what is currently an effective and coherent system for dealing with cases of misconduct. We believe that it is right to maintain a single system which has been proved to work and which commands the confidence of both the public and the teaching profession.
We believe that we should see how the GTC discharges the advisory function envisaged in Clause 2(4), which is a significant innovation in its own right. For reasons spelt out earlier today, let us first see how that works and how it settles down and then consider the case for any further change. For the time being we consider that the Secretary of State should retain the ultimate responsibility for a single coherent barring regime to deal with misconduct by teachers and others who have contact with children. Despite what the noble Earl said, we believe that the amendment as drafted would lay us open to confusion, apart from the absence of detail on establishing fair processes for dealing with professional standards and debarring from the profession for that reason.
I hope that the noble Earl and those who support the intention of the amendment understand some of those arguments and that even those who wish to support the noble Earl's principle will recognise that the amendment does not achieve the objective they are seeking. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate and for the contributions made. I listened very carefully to what was said by my noble friend Lord Walton and in particular by the Minister. I am not as anxious as he is about whether the wording would achieve what we set out to achieve. I believe that it would and that some of his objections are not valid in terms of deficiency.
I came to the amendment with every intention of pressing it because I thought that it had logic and very many things on its side. I have had to re-think, having heard one or two of the comments of my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant and the two noble Lords who put legal points. My conclusion is that, dearly though I would like to press the amendment, it is more important to get it right. I have every intention of bringing it back at the next stage, but I shall certainly take into account what the Minister said and consult with others. I shall take my noble friend's views into account. The notion of suspension is worthwhile and important to include. Therefore, with every intention of bringing the amendment back at the next stage, at this point I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Regulations relating to registration]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Additional and ancillary functions]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Deduction of fees from salaries, etc.]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 16, after ("fees,") insert—
("() the administration charges which may be deducted from any fees remitted to the relevant Council,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which clarifies what has been our intention from the start—that teachers' employers should have the additional costs they incur in collecting GTC registration fees covered by allowing them to retain a portion of the money collected.
I hope there is broad support in your Lordships' House for our overall approach. The GTC should use the most efficient and effective way of collecting its registration fee from teachers. Clause 10 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to make regulations which will require employers to deduct the registration fee for the GTC from teachers' salaries and pay it to the GTC. That is a much more efficient approach than requiring teachers to make individual payments to the council. It is the method used by the GTC for Scotland. There are over half a million teachers who will be required to register with the GTC and many more who will wish to join on a voluntary basis. It would be an expensive administrative exercise, and excessively bureaucratic, if each teacher was expected to make a separate payment to the council, all the more so, given that the registration fee is likely to be set at a modest level. The GTC will set the fees, with the approval of the Secretary of State, but I have every reason to believe that they will look to set a fee at a similar level to the £20 per year levied by the GTC for Scotland. We have spoken to the Local Government Association and it believes that this approach is workable. We will continue to work with it and will, of course, consult more widely before making regulations.
I wish to move this amendment because I think it is right that teachers' employers should be reimbursed for any reasonable costs they incur in undertaking the collection of teachers' registration fees on behalf of the GTC. That has been our intention from the outset, but I am advised that the wording in the clause is not sufficiently clear on this point. Amendment No. 19 puts the matter beyond doubt.
The details of how this will work will be set out in the regulations made under Clause 10. We will consult on these matters, but our intention is that the regulations will cover the level of administrative charges which employers may make for conducting the work. We understand that administration is likely to take up between 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. of the fees collected. The regulations may allow for different levels of administrative charge, if consultation shows that that is necessary. For example, a big city LEA with thousands
836
of teachers may benefit from considerable economies of scale. For teachers in a foundation school, within the new school framework being considered in another place, the employer will be the governing body. Although many governing bodies contract in their payroll services from the LEA or from commercial providers, that requirement may nonetheless represent a greater proportionate burden. Where that is the case, the regulations could allow for some employers to make larger administrative charges. Similar consideration may apply to supply teachers or teachers working for supply agencies.
In all cases, we would expect the administrative charges to reflect a reasonable level of costs, which should only be a very small fraction of the sums collected. We will work with the local authority associations and others to ensure that employers use the most efficient administrative systems to deduct the registration fees. I beg to move.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I accept the necessity for this amendment. I shall not go into detail but I should point out that even the Garrick Club gives me a vote. Although the administrative costs are to be covered, I prophesy that there will be resentment about the charge even of £20 for a body which is purely advisory. The bursars or administrators dealing with it will say, "What a waste of time", even though the costs are to be covered.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am just pondering on what the noble Lord does with his vote at the Garrick Club and whether that has any bearing on similar votes that the MCC has conducted this week.
I welcome this amendment and the statement made by the Minister. I do so as leader of a council which employs several thousand teachers. While, as the Minister said, I believed that would be the case, I welcome the clarification which is given here on the face of the Bill and in the words of the Minister. Like the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, I cannot go into the detail of the matter today. I welcome the Minister's recognition of the different levels of employer, if I may express the matter in those terms. We shall certainly look at the detail with much interest. However, the principle is welcome and I am pleased to see this amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it may be of interest to noble Lords that I belong to a well-known club in Edinburgh and I do not have a vote because I am a woman.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am sure that this is a wise amendment. However, I should point out that it underlines the fact that this council will be a drain on teachers' salaries. People are talking about more and more duties and abilities for the council. That means that fees will rise unless they are kept under control.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have supported the amendment. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, does not believe that

837
teachers want a GTC of the kind that we are proposing. I beg to differ. I believe that many teachers will welcome the decision, after so long, to establish a GTC. I believe that they well understand the evolutionary approach which the noble Lord has supported.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that our attention is not to allow the registration fee for the GTC to rise unduly. It is very important that the costs of the GTC should be kept at a reasonable level and that we should not require teachers to pay enormous sums of money. Indeed, we have no intention of doing so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I intervene on a point of clarification. What mechanisms are the Government planning to use to curtail the activities of this body? As I understand it from previous speeches that the noble Baroness has made, it can have conferences, commission research and advise on all the functions set out in Clause 2. People will attend, work and report to it. It will make publications. What mechanism will the Government use to curtail its activities and keep it within cost?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we shall not need a mechanism. Everything that has been said in this House this afternoon has argued in favour of a GTC which gives teachers responsibilities and which is expected to behave responsibly. Everything that has been said implies that. I am sure that is what the GTC will do. In any event, were it to spend huge sums of money on things that were not of interest to teachers, they would very soon complain and that would affect their future decisions and behaviour.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Qualifications of head teachers]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 18, at end insert—
("() After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The Secretary of State shall not make regulations under subsection (1)(ab) above until he is satisfied that a sufficient number of head teachers have obtained a professional headship qualification to meet the demand for head teachers so qualified that is likely to exist once such regulations have come into force."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again, I repeat at the outset that this is a measure with which we agree in principle but we are extremely concerned about its compulsory nature and the wholesale inflexibility as regards the way it will work. We tried to persuade the Minister to consider some flexibility and that was rejected. Therefore, it is important to reflect some of the concerns that teachers have about this particular measure.
As the Bill is well on its way through both Houses, perhaps the Minister could at this stage give us an outline prediction as to when this clause will in fact be implemented. In other words, can she say by what date it is likely that it would be a requirement for any teacher appointed to any school within the state system to have such a qualification?
There are a number of questions which have still not been properly answered and which concern teachers. For example, who will select the teachers for training and
838
on what basis? What will be the geographical spread of teachers becoming available with the qualification? To what extent will the number of trainees—that is, the potential candidates—match the uneven turnover of heads around the country? Finally, when will the pool of teachers with this qualification be large enough to provide a healthy choice of applicants for all schools in the country?
If this qualification should become a requirement, there would be a danger of there not being enough people in the pool of teachers and, therefore, schools would have no choice. They would have to take teachers from a very inadequately qualified pool. As this becomes a requirement, it really will not be good enough not to recognise the fact that teachers will wish to see provision for cover at school. At present, it is a voluntary scheme. It is working quite well, although it is not without its problems. Indeed, it already shows that one of the tensions that has been manifest is that schools are reluctant to let teachers go to take up such training. Moreover, teachers are being invited to undertake such training at weekends. That is fine at present while it is a voluntary scheme. However, if it becomes a requirement that they must have such a qualification, then teachers will inevitably ask for cover; schools will expect such cover to be paid for by the local authority; and, indeed, teachers will be much more reluctant to undertake the training, which is a requirement under the law, so as to gain promotion to headships. They will, of course, be more reluctant to undertake such training in their own time.
6 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I keep in touch with the Teacher Training Agency. Indeed, I have met the civil servants who are involved in the matter, and this is one of the points that I have raised. As the noble Baroness said, we are discussing a most important point. We cannot have teachers taking time off from school, especially when there are shortages, and so on. I believe that the noble Baroness recognised in her speech that we are actually talking about weekend training. I know that intentions may not always be followed up, but the intention is to keep it that way so that there will be an absolute minimum of disruption in the schools while teachers take such courses.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. That is indeed the case. However, I should point out to him that that will discriminate against those teachers who find it very difficult to get away at weekends. Some teachers simply cannot, over a period of one, two or three years—which is what we are talking about—undertake such training on a regular basis; therefore, those teachers who are free and who do not have family responsibilities because their children have grown up, will have an advantage over others who may be just as ambitious. It is just another of those issues about which I know the National Association of Head Teachers is concerned. Indeed, it is just another issue which needs to be resolved before this becomes a requirement, making it compulsory for all head teachers to have such a qualification before they can be made heads of schools.

839
As I have said, there is a world of difference between the scheme which is voluntary, which encourages participation and, indeed, which encourages people to give up their weekends and holidays in order to gain such a qualification and a scheme which is compulsory and has no flexibility. I believe that to be most unfortunate. When replying to the amendment, it would be helpful if the Minister were to hint that some flexibility in terms of the requirement could be considered on Third Reading, albeit the last stage in this House.
For all of those reasons, I believe that my amendment ought to be on the face of the Bill, if only because I believe it is what the Government will argue is the case; namely, that they are unlikely and it is not their intention—indeed, I would be most surprised if they said that it was—to bring this in as a requirement until they have an adequate pool of teachers to provide healthy choice for schools from which to choose their heads. If my amendment were on the face of the Bill, it would take up very little space. It would hold the Government to no more than I believe is their general intention. However, it would be a huge reassurance to potential candidates for headships for our schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I support the amendment. I entirely support the general principle of a professional qualification for head teachers. Indeed, when I was a Minister in the then DES I discussed this matter on several occasions. The points raised by my noble friend are most serious. I was interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, regarding his discussions with the TTA.
One has to be realistic about the life of a teacher. Let us take, for example, a teacher in a primary school. Of course, such teachers have their hours of teaching and they have their lessons to prepare. However, these days, teachers have endless parent meetings and, possibly, governors' meetings. There are also meetings regarding their professional qualifications and discussions as regards training days. My impression of teachers is that not only do they work all day but also that most of them work five evenings a week. Now we are asking them to work at the weekend.
Again, one has to be realistic. I do not quite know what age we are thinking about as regards those who will apply to take this course, but it is really quite difficult for women with families to give up weekends. Indeed, it would be impossible for them to do so. The matter needs to be thought through most carefully to ensure that we have a scheme that will work.
My argument is entirely based on my knowledge of the lives that young teachers lead today. We are probably talking about men and women in their late thirties who are thinking about promotion, with all the attendant pressures of family, and so on, that arise. The whole scheme needs to be thought through most carefully. I believe that the rather slower pace suggested by my noble friend as regards the introduction of the scheme to enable us to see how it will work out and
840
whether there are suitable teachers available would be helpful and sensible. I very much hope that the Minister will consider that suggestion.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I believe that I made clear in Committee that we are perhaps a little more enthusiastic than the other Opposition party about the head teacher qualification and, indeed, compulsion in that respect. Indeed, I believe that it is long overdue and most necessary. Therefore, as I said, we support its compulsory nature. I give way.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I should like to remind him that it was my party which introduced the professional qualification requirement for head teachers. Indeed, the pilot schemes that are running at present were implemented by my party when it was in office.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I recognise that fact. I was about to say that we certainly support this amendment and believe that it is necessary to introduce the compulsory nature of the scheme in order to make it work. Your Lordships may recall my suggesting in Committee that, over a proper period of time, it should also apply to people who currently hold headships. However, I have not returned to that issue today.
Nevertheless, I have much sympathy for the amendment. As I have said many times in this House, I happen to be married to a primary school teacher and can certainly endorse all that noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. I can assure her with, perhaps, greater personal knowledge that what she said applies not only to the evenings of the week but also to the weekends. Indeed, when I am working so is my wife. Therefore, I believe that those concerns are right and proper.
The amendment before us raises proper concerns and I say that from the point of view of an enthusiastic supporter of the scheme; indeed, it is one which I wish to see implemented as quickly as possible. As I said, this amendment raises proper concerns. However, I do not know whether it needs to be included on the face of the Bill. I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it will not take up much space, although I am not sure that that is the strongest argument I have ever heard for an amendment. This is an important issue. I shall listen with care to the Minister's reply. I hope that she will be able to give us the reassurances that we all seek.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, reiterated his support both for the professional qualification—I think all noble Lords support that—and the need to make it mandatory at some point. That is certainly the strategy of the Government. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that her comments did not quite reflect the substance of the amendment. Surely we should be talking about a sufficient number of potential applicants, not a sufficient number of head teachers. We wish to improve the supply of potential applicants who will in due course acquire this qualification.

841
My noble friend Lady Blackstone has already said on the record—this is contained in the note we have placed in the Library—that our intention is that, subject to further development, the NPQH will be the mandatory qualification. However, we still need some positive feedback from piloting. We shall give sufficient notice of our intention to designate NPQH in this way, and of the intended date for implementation of the qualification requirement. At this stage it is not sensible for us to give a precise date. However, we have indicated that we hope that this will become mandatory for applicants, as distinct from serving head teachers, during the course of this Parliament. But obviously we have to consider the effectiveness of the qualification and the supply in different types of school and different parts of the country.
We have no intention of introducing the requirement until we can be confident that we have a sufficient pool of qualified candidates from which employers can choose. We have taken practical steps to encourage potential aspiring heads to apply for the qualification. As there is a problem in relation to primary and special school heads, LEAs will be able to fund, in appropriate cases, supply cover to release those potential NPQH participants who wish to apply for headships. They will also have greater flexibility to fund supply cover in the case of secondary head candidates. I believe that that goes some way to meet the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in relation to the impracticality of achieving this qualification through weekend study.
We have made clear our intention in the debate and in the documentation. We do not believe it is necessary to write on to the face of the Bill our intention that we shall ensure that there is a sufficient supply of applicants. I offer every assurance to the House and to the noble Baroness that we have no intention of introducing the requirement until we have a clear picture of the timetable, the effectiveness of the qualification and the feed-through of qualified candidates. It would be extremely shortsighted and foolish for us to impose a requirement which might risk limiting the supply of candidates. I can assure the noble Baroness that that is not our intention and it will not happen. I hope therefore that with those assurances she will not press her amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does he recall that on the previous occasion when teachers had to enhance their status through additional training—the Open University offered courses to teachers to acquire graduate status—they responded magnificently to that requirement and made enormous sacrifices and gave up their time to acquire graduate status? When teachers can see that the route to promotion and success in their profession lies in achieving this qualification, they are bound to respond with the greatest enthusiasm, and the timescale
842
we are discussing will be much shorter than may have been suggested by some of the more pessimistic voices this afternoon.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that contribution was out of order under the rules of the House. No one is arguing about the desirability of this aim. However, the Minister has talked of introducing the requirement within this Parliament. That emphasises the fears of those teachers who discussed this matter with me. They said their worst fear was that the Government would establish this requirement within this Parliament and there would be no flexibility. We know there is no flexibility in this regard by the way the matter is set out in the Bill. We know that this requirement will be implemented. We now know that it will probably be implemented within this Parliament.
This Bill will not complete all its parliamentary stages until the summer. The courses that are to be established are still not satisfactory; we know that from the evaluation report. We know that schools would like a good deal more money to cover the enormous future expansion of this scheme. At the moment it is a modest scheme but it will have to be expanded considerably. The noble Lord said nothing in response to my point about geographical areas. He did not respond either to the point that I made about unevenness of funding throughout the country; namely, in one part of the country there may be a high turnover of head teachers—for example, London—but in another part of the country—for example, Cumbria—the turnover of head teachers may be much smaller. That will result in uneven funding as between different local authorities.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope I may correct the noble Baroness. I referred to a sufficient pool of candidates with reference to different kinds of school and different geographical areas. We shall not set a date for the implementation of this provision until we are satisfied that there is a sufficient pool of applicants, taking account of those factors. I hope that we can set a date within this Parliament, but the key point is that we shall not do so until we are satisfied that there is a sufficient pool of candidates.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I continue, with the leave of the House. The noble Lord has not said how that geographical spread can be achieved, as one may have to select more teachers in one part of the country than in another part. At the moment local authorities have not received any instructions on that. As things stand, the provision applies to teachers from any part of the country who wish to aspire to headships. There are parts of the country where turnover may be low and teachers may not be selected for the training simply because the turnover of head teachers in their area is not high. However, they may wish to aspire to a headship and will want the training to enable them to be more mobile and to apply for headships in other parts of the country. London not only has a high turnover of head teachers but it also draws candidates for those headships from many other parts of the country.

843
The noble Lord said that the Government sought to impose this provision within this Parliament. Therefore an absolute guarantee is required that this part of the Bill will not be introduced as an inflexible requirement for all candidates who will have to acquire this qualification in order to gain a headship. All these points need to be met. I shall discuss that point on the next amendment too. If the noble Lord really means what he says, the next amendment ought to be accepted. For the moment I shall withdraw this amendment but I hope that the noble Lord can give us an assurance on this matter. If he does not do so, we shall return to this matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section shall provide that the period of training for a professional headship qualification shall be of not less than one year's, and not more than three years', duration.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I make no apologies for moving a similar amendment to one that we discussed in Committee. I do so partly because of the reply that we received from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—I believe that we were discussing the amendment rather late at night—at col. 1486 of Hansard. This amendment concerns the length of time that teachers take to achieve the head teachers' qualification. We are all agreed that that is an extremely important qualification, as the quality of a head in a school makes all the difference to what happens in that school.
When we discussed this matter previously I emphasised that we wanted to make sure that head teachers are not allowed to spend too many years trying to achieve this qualification. We are also concerned that this qualification should not be rushed and that people are not "parachuted in" from other professions, as we have seen happen in other walks of life.
When the Minister replied, he said:
"We wish to examine ways of fast tracking for headships potential candidates who have shown the kind of flair referred to in the earlier debate".—[Official Report, 20/1/98; col. 1486.]
I hope that I am giving the Minister the opportunity to enlarge on that point, because it was last discussed late at night. It is precisely that kind of parachuting-in that concerns us, which is why we tabled the amendments.
I expect that other Members of your Lordships' House have, like me, had briefings from head teachers who are concerned about how the Government see headship qualifications. I do not imagine that they will understand the situation any better from the debate this afternoon and evening. I hope that the proposed amendment will give the Minister the opportunity to dispel our worst fears about individuals being allowed to attain a headship qualification without proper training.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I support most strongly the amendment, although it adds to the disquiet that I know teachers have. There is a loud rumour going through the teaching profession on the back of the reference to fast tracking—that the courses will be such
844
that they will simply achieve the policy. The Government can say that teachers have the headship qualification but the quality of courses will not be so good, the qualification will be devalued as a result and, over time, the quality and improvement that the policy is deemed to bring about will not be achieved.
My only reservation about the amendment is what is meant by one year. We raised that point in the last debate. What is absolutely essential is the number of hours of study or the commitment to study. One can have a course lasting a year that requires attendance only one morning a month, or one can have a three-month attachment requiring more concentrated effort over a shorter period. What matters at the end of the day is quality. The point made by the noble Baroness's amendment is one that I strongly support. No attempt to fast track should result in the qualification being reduced in quality and its currency devalued.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Whitty said in Committee, in response to a similar amendment, that there is absolutely no merit in making prospective head teachers serve time for its own sake. The Teacher Training Agency has, in close consultation with the profession, developed the national standards for headship, which, together with information about headship training, have been available in the Library since Committee stage. I hope that information is reassuring. The Government well recognise the crucial importance of effective and well-trained teachers. The last thing we want is to devise head teacher training that in some way devalues the standards that ought to be required and the quality of the people trained, who are to take such important jobs as the headships of our schools.
The purpose of the National Professional Qualification for Headship—which is a modern, practical and professional preparation—is to bring all prospective head teachers up to rigorous standards. But as candidates may be starting from different points, their training needs will inevitably differ and there can be no one-for-all fit. The training that an individual aspiring head teacher undergoes must be tailored to his or her needs. That is consistent with the national vocational qualification system of work-based training that was developed under the previous Government in which the noble Baroness served.
Deputy heads, for example, who have extensive leadership experience—perhaps in a big school—and who may have completed relevant management qualifications at higher education institutions, will need less development than individuals newly promoted to middle or senior management posts. There will be people in the profession who already have a master's degree in school management and will obviously need less additional preparation than individuals who have no formal qualification other than their initial teacher qualification of years before.
At present the NPQH can take between two terms and three years, so it is already the case that the qualification can take less than one year. In recognising that some candidates may already be well qualified, the TTA is considering accelerated routes to the NPQH that may take less than two terms. The noble Baroness,

845
Lady Blatch, recognises that the issue is not the length of additional training that candidates may need on the basis of individual assessments but the standards represented by the NPQH, which must be absolute and represent a clear benchmark for entry into headship in future.
I am sure your Lordships agree that there is absolutely no value in forcing already highly skilled people to leap unnecessary hurdles to demonstrate their fitness for headships. I am sure that the TTA would not want people who are asked to leap such hurdles to be allowed to go ahead on some fast track system. The proposal aims at securing training and development that is fit for the purpose in the case of each participant. For that reason, considerable emphasis has been placed on the initial process of needs assessment. There is no question of limiting the training available or of short cuts to headship. Equally, where someone is already close to the headship standard, that should be recognised. At no time will we be prepared to compromise the rigour or standards of the NPQH—and I know that would be the case for the TTA. In light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her full reply, which was rather more informative than the last debate on the issue. We all agree that the needs of teachers seeking a headship qualification will be different. Of concern is the possibility that people who have not been involved in education could come forward and somehow obtain a headship qualification. I believe that the Minister was reassuring me that that would not be the case. I feel certain that the important issue of a headship qualification will be discussed further as the Bill progresses. People are excited about it and believe in it, so getting it right will be important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
QUALIFICATIONS OF HEAD TEACHERS: REGULATIONS
(".—(1) Section 232 of the Education Reform Act 1988 (orders and regulations) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 218(1)(ab) shall be laid in draft before Parliament for approval by resolution of each House."
(3) In subsection (4)(b), after the word "216,", there shall be inserted the word "218(1)(ab),".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be brief. The debate that we have just concluded and that on my Amendment No. 20 at least placed on record a large number of our concerns about what is, at the end of the day, a good policy aim. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to use the affirmative resolution procedure by putting regulations before both Houses for approval, so that we may be absolutely certain that the arrangements made are consistent with the wishes of this House.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not believe that our proposals are novel enough or contentious enough—despite what the noble Baroness said—to warrant the degree of parliamentary scrutiny that the affirmative resolution would involve. It may be helpful if I recap the important issues to be covered in regulations. The clause will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring that head teachers taking up their first appointment in maintained schools and non-maintained special schools should hold a professional headship qualification. There is provision to make some exceptions to the requirement—such as for holders of the prospective Scottish headship qualification. I have already made clear in our earlier debates that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would not wish to seek to bring the mandatory qualification into force until he can be certain that we shall have a sufficiently large pool of qualified candidates available. Moreover, we shall give good notice of the intention to bring this requirement into force.
Additionally, regulations will set out the nature of the professional headship qualification. I have already placed on the record our intention that, subject to further development and continued positive feedback, we intend that NPQH should be the mandatory qualification; and we have placed a wealth of background information in the Library of the House. So we anticipate that there will be nothing new to debate when we come to confirm that decision in regulations.
Nonetheless, the Secretary of State will be consulting widely before laying regulations on the mandatory qualification for headship. We shall consider carefully the issues which arise during consultation with a view to reaching a clear consensus before we proceed. All the key interest groups will have an opportunity at that stage to comment on the provisions.
We have accepted the case for following the affirmative resolution procedure in relation to other significant parts of the Bill in order to allow the House fully to debate significant details underpinning policy implementation. I cannot agree that there is sufficient further detail to be prescribed in regulations under Clause 12 to justify this. I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, the noble Baroness believes that if it is not contentious in her book, it is not contentious in anyone's book. I regard the definition of contention to be when people are concerned about the issue. Having spoken to many teachers, they think that the aim is laudable; that it is a good practical policy; and that it will be materially important in raising the standards of head teachers in our schools which in turn will raise the standard of education in our schools. However, there is much disquiet about the way in which it will be introduced. If the provision is brought in too quickly, if attempts are made to take shortcuts in order artificially to boost numbers where they are needed, it will be understood that the Government are doing so for all the wrong reasons.

847
There is disquiet about the matter. It is an issue to which I shall return. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Requirement to serve induction period]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 17, at end insert (", which shall not be less than one year in total").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that the Government will be helpful. The amendment answers a problem raised in Committee. We were told that our amendment could not be accepted at Committee stage because the training of a teacher might be suspended through part of a year. The insertion of the phrase "in total" overcomes the criticism made of the original amendment. I need say no more. In the light of that, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, when we debated the length of the induction period in Committee I made clear that it was our intention that the period should normally be one academic year. Amendment No. 24 as drafted would imply a full 12-month calendar year induction period. But no doubt the noble Baroness's intention is the same as the Government's. So there is, I think, nothing between us. I argued in Committee that given our intention to consult on the detailed operation of the new induction arrangements it would not be appropriate to prescribe the intended length of the induction period on the face of the Bill. But having listened to the noble Baroness today we are prepared to agree to bring forward a government amendment making clear that the induction period should not be less than one academic year. However, I do not accept the precise wording of the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw the amendment. I hope that I can bring forward the government amendment during proceedings in this House.
I was not entirely clear whether the noble Baroness also referred to Amendment No. 25. Perhaps she will clarify that.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, no, I did not. I was so carried away by the fact that there was no reason why the Minister could not agree to the amendment that I forgot to speak to Amendment No. 25. I apologise.
On Amendment No. 24, while it is not good practice to talk about what one did in another place, the situation reminds me of the many times I have spent in committees in another place. People will do anything but accept an amendment. They will take away one word, and reword the provision. Nevertheless, I am grateful that the Minister recognises the point we make. That is the most important consideration.
Before withdrawing the amendment, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 25. We are not clear what "the appropriate body" means at line 24 on page 8. It could refer to Ofsted, the local education authority, or the Department for Education. If it referred to the school there might be considerable variation on the standard when deciding who had completed the
848
induction year satisfactorily. If the general teaching council has the right to monitor the position we shall have a satisfactory standard across the board. That is in line with what we have said about the role of the general teaching council.
I may have messed up the procedure by speaking to Amendment No. 25, and I may need to give the Minister time to reply to that amendment before I withdraw Amendment No. 24.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I wish to raise two points on Amendment No. 25. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them.
The noble Baroness has already raised the matter of the appropriate body. I had understood that the TTA might be an appropriate body. I do not think she referred to it. If there were some tension between the TTA and the GTC, it would bring us back to matters we discussed previously.
What weight will be given to the recommendation of the head teacher in reaching any assessment? If a poor assessment is received, the head teacher may be part of the context within which the teacher undergoing the induction period may be performing badly. Practical factors could include the size of classes or the number of difficult pupils within a class. Those matters within a head teacher's control may affect a teacher's induction performance. More generally, the ethos of the school—the support given in the staff room and by the head teacher—may determine the outcome of the induction period. What weight is to be given to the recommendation of the head teacher?
Will the induction period be a once only opportunity? Let us suppose that a teacher fails an induction period. Will there be a further opportunity? I am thinking of similar arrangements in the Church of England for training periods for clergy. We have a year in which clergy are ordained deacons, at the end of which a recommendation is made about whether they should be ordained priests. Very often, if there is under-performance on the part of clergy in that preparatory period, it is as a result of the poor relationship between vicar and curate—in other words between the person doing the training and the person being trained. Sometimes, taking a person out of that context and putting him into a different one produces a different kind of outcome. Will it be the case that those who may fail a particular induction period will be given a second opportunity?
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, the weakness of Clause 13 is that the only mention of the general teaching council is to say that it should be told after the event who has passed the induction year. For a body whose principal aims include, in the words of Amendment No. 2 to Clause 1, contributing to,
"improving the standards of teaching",
that seems to me a little bit strange. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are to engage in a further period of consultation on the whole process of

849
induction. We shall produce a consultation document which will set out many of these arrangements and the options. In relation to both the question of an "appropriate body" and the role of the headmaster—I am sorry, I should say head teacher; I am falling into the habits of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington—we envisage that the head teacher of the school where the new teacher is employed will be required at the end of the induction period to make a recommendation to the appropriate body as to whether the new teacher has met the standards; and it will be for the appropriate body to make the final decision, though the head teacher's view will be very important. We are still consulting on this matter, but we envisage that the local education authority will normally act as the appropriate body for staff in maintained schools.
Regarding the idea of a further opportunity when a person has failed an induction period, again it is a matter for consultation. However, we should not normally be looking at a second approach unless there were a serious reason in terms of illness or some other factor accounting for failure the first time.
On the question of consultation with the GTC, there is a problem of respective timings. Our intention is that the new induction arrangements will start in September 1999; and of course the council will not be established until the year 2000. Therefore it would not in the first stage be practicable to consult with the GTC before determining these arrangements. We shall expect to look to the council in future as to its view on the effective operation of those induction arrangements. I hope that in the light of that response the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I do not think it is appropriate for me to say anything else, having messed up the procedure, other than that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Clause 14 [Inspection of institutions training teachers for schools]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 9, after ("so") insert ("by the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32.
In Committee I undertook to consider bringing forward government amendments to address the various issues raised by the debate. These amendments fulfil that commitment and further clarify the Government's intentions. These amendments have been discussed in outline with representatives of the HE sector and I am pleased to say they have broadly welcomed the action we have taken.
I shall take the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 26 makes clear what was already implicit; namely, that it is the Secretary of State who may ask the chief
850
inspector to give advice to the Secretary of State on teacher training matters falling within this clause of the Bill and to carry out inspections.
Amendment No. 28 concerns HMCI's rights to inspect and take copies of documents under this clause. We believed it was implicit in the wording of subsection (5) of the clause that, when it referred to the chief inspector exercising his functions, it meant only his functions under this clause. Nonetheless, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was concerned at the width of the powers conferred on the chief inspector and wanted to ensure that institutions will have to provide only such documentation as is relevant to the inspection. Amendment No. 28 makes explicit that the chief inspector's right to inspect and take copies of any records and documents under subsection (5) relates to the chief inspector's functions under this clause only; namely, the inspection of any initial training of teachers, or of specialist teaching assistants for schools, or any in-service training of such teachers or assistants which is provided by a relevant institution.
The question of documentation needed for inspection is currently being discussed at the joint Ofsted/HE sector working group on inspection costs and procedures with a view to producing an agreed list of relevant documents. I believe that that is the right way to handle such issues rather than by seeking to write in amendments to the general powers and duties set out on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 29 is similar to Amendment No. 28. It seeks to make explicit that the institution's duty to provide assistance under subsection (6) relates to the chief inspector's functions under this clause only.
I undertook to consider the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that a period of notice should be given to institutions before an inspection of teacher training provisions takes place. Amendment No. 30 requires the chief inspector to give an institution at least eight weeks' written notice of his intention to inspect its teacher training. This requirement will apply to the inspection of in-service training as well as initial teacher training carried out at the chief inspector's instigation. The Secretary of State will have the power to ask the chief inspector to carry out an inspection at shorter notice. We believe it appropriate to retain that power. It may be exercised, for example, where an institution is causing particular concern, although I very much hope that it would never have to be used.
The amendment also sets out how the notice may be given and to whom. It provides that where the training is being provided by a partnership or association of eligible institutions, notice need only be given to one of those institutions. For example, in the case of school-centred initial teacher training, if the training is provided by a group of schools the notice need only be given to one of those schools; in the case of initial teacher training provided by a higher education institution in which partner schools provide teaching practice, notice need only be given, for example, to the higher education institution.
Amendment No. 31 explicitly limits the powers of the chief inspector to inspect only those elements of a course dealing with teacher training. The noble

851
Baroness, Lady Blatch, was concerned that the clause as drafted might be taken to allow Ofsted to inspect general higher education courses; for example, French lectures given to students who were studying for a French degree, simply because students undertaking an initial teacher training course and majoring in French would also be in attendance. Amendment No. 31 makes clear that this clause does not relate to instruction given wholly or mainly for purposes other than are set out in subsection (1).
We intend to bring forward a similar government amendment at a later date in relation to Clause 15 of the Bill on the arrangements for the inspection of teacher training in Scotland.
Amendment No. 32 addresses another concern of the noble Baroness. The amendment clarifies that the chief inspector's right to inspect teacher training extends only to bodies which are in receipt of public funding in respect of the provision of that training. The amendment will prevent Ofsted from inspecting private training institutions or in-service training providers who are not in receipt of public funds and which teachers are paying for from their own resources. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness told us the glad news that the Government are paying attention to Scotland in this respect as well and intend to bring forward, as it were, an amendment replicating Amendment No. 31 to Clause 15. Is that correct? Is the Minister also referring to Clause 30? Do the Government intend to amend Clause 15 in relation to Clause 30?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am informed by the noble Lord the Minister that the circumstances in Scotland are somewhat different in respect of giving notice of inspection. He tells me that there is no problem about that. Until I am advised otherwise by somebody, I shall of course accept what the Minister says on that point. Perhaps when we debate Clause 15 I may, with the leave of the House, return to the matter and ask the Scottish Office Minister a further question.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for coming back with those amendments. They will be welcomed. There remains some disquiet among higher education personnel who are still concerned about the documentation which could be made available for inspection. For some reason the universities are still disquieted by the possibility of misinterpretation of this clause, even with the new wording contained in Amendment No. 28.
Is the Minister prepared to continue discussions, in particular with CVCP, to find ways of refining the matter until it is beyond doubt? No one questions the intention of the Government to meet the anxieties, but I hope that that work between the higher education interests and the noble Baroness could continue until the
852
clause is sufficiently defined to put all fears to rest. Otherwise, I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has done.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I too give a general welcome to this group of amendments. Amendment No. 30 is welcome, but it is very prescriptive about how the notice should be given, when, and the length of time. I began to wonder whether the chief inspector might be planning dawn raids on schools.
I am being waved at furiously from the Government Bench. I am not entirely sure whether I should wave back.
My other point concerns Amendment No. 26, which makes clear that the Secretary of State may ask the Chief Inspector for advice. I would have been happier if it had said "the General Teaching Council and/or the Secretary of State" because that is a power I would like the GTC to have also. Subject to those comments, and the gestures from the Front Bench which were less than clear to me, I give the amendment a general welcome.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that these amendments have received. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that discussions are going on between Ofsted and the higher education sector on the issues that she mentioned, and I am sure that they will be resolved.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 9, line 27, at end insert—
("() The Chief Inspector, in carrying out his inspection and making his report, shall have proper regard to the demands made on teacher training institutions by changes to the curriculum.").
The noble Lord said: We are in confusion on this Bench. My noble friend Lady Maddock and I both thought that the other was moving the amendment. Under those circumstances all I can do is formally move the amendment and hear what the Minister will say about what one of us would have said. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the problem is that I am also in some confusion as to what the noble Lord means and whether the curriculum he mentions refers to initial teacher training or primary schools. Either way, this issue is under discussion between Ofsted, the Teacher Training Agency and the higher education sector. Assuming that it is the primary curriculum, we would not wish to do anything unreasonable. Any change in the burden on teacher training institutions would need to be taken into account in the ongoing discussions between the three parties. Certainly it is the intention of the department and Ofsted that that should be so. I hope, in the light of that, that whoever is moving the amendment will withdraw it.
Lord Tope: My Lords, with that assurance and under the circumstances I am only too happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9, line 36, at end insert ("under this section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 9, line 45, after ("functions") insert ("under this section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 10, line 2, at end insert—
("(6A) The Chief Inspector shall not carry out any inspection under subsection (1) unless—

(a) at least eight weeks previously, he has given notice of his intention to carry out the inspection—

(i) to the relevant institution concerned, or

(ii) where that institution is a partnership or association of eligible institutions, to one of those institutions; or

(b) with the agreement of that institution or (as the case may be) one of those institutions, he has given it shorter notice of that intention.

(6B) Any notice under subsection (6A)—

(a) shall be given in writing, and

(b) may be sent by post;
and any such notice may (without prejudice to any other lawful method of giving it) be addressed to an institution at any address which the institution has notified to a funding agency as its address.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 10, line 3, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) Nothing in this section confers any right or imposes any duty, whether as regards the carrying out of any inspection or otherwise, in relation to any course which consists of instruction given wholly or mainly for purposes other than training falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 10, line 18, after first ("or) insert ("public").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Inspection of institutions training teachers for schools: Scotland]:
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 10, line 39, leave out from ("made") to end of line 41 and insert ("only by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education or by persons with substantial experience in higher education."").
The noble Baroness said: At Committee stage I raised the question of whether the arrangements for the inspection of higher education courses in Scotland, as outlined in Clause 15, are appropriate.
Clause 15 mirrors the type of inspection proposed in Clause 14 for England and Wales, yet the circumstances and the role of Her Majesty's Inspectorate are very different in Scotland. I shall not reiterate the differences,
854
but the short debate we had on this clause is recorded at columns 1498 to 1504 of the Official Report for 20th January.
At that time the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the Scottish Office Minister, gave a full and helpful reply, for which I was very grateful. Having discussed the matter again with the Association of University Teachers in Scotland, I have put down this further amendment in order to seek additional clarification.
The AUT still has two anxieties about this clause. One of those is addressed by this amendment. The association feels strongly that quality assessment of teacher training in Scotland should be led by people qualified in the area of teacher education. Amendment No. 35 would achieve that.
There would be no objection to Her Majesty's Inspectorate having an input in filling the gap which the Government perceive to exist in their ability to ensure that their ends are being fulfilled in this area of higher education institutions. Nor would there be any objection to the other professionals mentioned in the Bill having an input.
Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are firm in their intention to place this lead role on Her Majesty's Inspectorate or whether they have reconsidered the matter, and can she elucidate further than the noble Lord did in Committee on who the other professionals will be?
That is one anxiety. I mentioned the other anxiety when we discussed Clause 14, and I welcome the news that the noble Baroness gave us. I had laid down amendments to attempt to limit the scope of inspections in Scottish higher education institutions in the way that the noble Baroness intends. I have withdrawn those, but I should be grateful if the Minister could enlarge slightly on the Government's intentions. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution this evening. Amendment No. 35, as it is presently worded, would remove Her Majesty's Inspectorate as the instrument of inspection and substitute the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. That is fundamentally flawed and ill conceived. It ignores the expertise of Her Majesty's Inspectorate and suggests that the Quality Assurance Agency is capable of acting as an instrument of inspection. By definition it cannot because the QAA is a private body, owned by the higher education institutions, and therefore the Secretary of State would be unable to direct it to inspect teacher education on his behalf. The link between the Secretary of State and the inspection would be broken, and that is an ill-conceived development.
I firmly believe that only Her Majesty's Inspectorate has the information and expertise necessary to ensure that teacher education produces the teachers that Scotland's schools need and it would not be appropriate to ask a body or person whose primary focus was higher education, not school education, to carry out this particular line. That is why we are persisting with our position.

855
On the business of the other professionals, perhaps I may indicate that the other professionals involved in the inspection could well be, for example, senior and experienced teachers and head teachers and they would benefit enormously from the inspection process, in addition to the members of the inspectorate.
On the second point raised by the noble Baroness, I repeat what my noble friend Lady Blackstone said. It is our intention to move amendments to the clause either at a later stage or in another place which will have the effect of putting the position in Scotland on the limitation of the inspection on all fours with the case in England and Wales. I hope that I have said sufficient to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. The Association of University Teachers will be grateful for the trouble the Minister has taken in responding to their pleas. The amendments to be introduced will be welcomed by them and by the universities in Scotland. They will clarify matters and greatly improve the Bill. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as consideration on the Bill has now been concluded, the Unstarred Question is no longer restricted to the one hour that would have been allowed in the Dinner Break. The one-and-a-half hour limit now applies. That will allow all speakers 12 minutes each rather than the seven minutes specified on the Speakers' List. As not all noble Lords who wish to take part in the debate are present, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 7.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.2 to 7.30 p.m.]

Disability Benefits
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration has been given to the levels of disability benefits.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the time has come for as full and frank discussion of disability benefits as we can manage within a one-hour debate. We need a constructive debate with clear explanations and sound arguments because millions of disabled people throughout Britain are alarmed, fearful and angry. They feel degraded and demoralised by assaults on their benefits and their honesty.
The initial anxiety was caused by Ministers complaining about the cost of disability benefits and comparing them adversely with education and health.
856
Disability suddenly became unworthy and benefits something to be cut and cauterized like a festering wound. The alarm bells really sounded when the memorandum from Harriet Harman's department was leaked with the fateful message that "substantial" cuts were being considered. The bells became very loud when David Blunkett's letter was revealed expressing his "grave anxiety" about some of the proposals being considered.
Just in case some Tories try to make political capital out of that, and pose as friends of disabled people, I remind them that Peter Lilley, the then Social Security Minister, spoke in his 1993 MAIS Lecture of the "unsustainable growth in benefits spending". He proceeded to provide for a staggering £2.2 billion cut from disabled people's benefits.
Instead of considering cuts, we should be proud of supporting those incapable of work and helping disabled people with the extra costs of disability. We need to remind Ministers of the diversity, dignity and individuality of disabled people. For decades they have been isolated, patronised and ignored—and kept in poverty. The Labour Party, in opposition, was delighted by the widening of benefits and the improved take-up. In fact, it had an honourable role in extending this take-up. But now some Ministers, far from being delighted, are considering cuts.
In fact, the only thing that should be cut is fraud. But much nonsense is spoken about fraud. Even though my noble friend Lady Hollis has said that no evidence of fraud was found after the Benefit Integrity Project checked 33,000 cases of disability living allowance, some sections of the media kept on headlining welfare fraud. One of them said "£1 billion fraud"; another said "£2 billion fraud"; and they went on trying to outdo each other all the while with strident, glaring and inaccurate headlines. Naturally disabled people felt that they had been labelled as cheats.
We hear many snide comments that some disabled people are seen as crippled one day and cleaning windows the next. This is a grotesque distortion and a serious challenge not to disabled people but to the competence and honesty of doctors, who certify every person receiving incapacity benefit. If people are concerned about the honesty or otherwise of the awards, they should take the matter up with the BMA. In fact I wrote to the BMA a little while ago and asked what it thought of this. I wrote to the chairman. All I had was a letter from one of his juniors saying, "The chairman has asked me to look into this matter for you". I think that is a disgraceful response. I have written to the person who wrote to me to say, "Very well, thank you for your letter, but I should have thought that the chairman of the BMA himself would respond to such an important allegation against the integrity of the medical profession."
Many people welcomed the Benefit Integrity Project objective of checking that payments of the disability living allowance were accurate. Regrettably, the project has been a disaster. Disabled people have been unjustly deprived of vital benefits or had them severely cut. The Benefits Agency, incredibly, relied on a complex

857
33-page form. I have to ask my wife to fill in the income tax form. I cannot bear to look at it. I could not really handle a 33-page form. God knows how she manages the income tax form, but I cannot deal with it. How can severely disabled people be asked to fill in a 33-page form when they have not been notified in advance about how important the form may be, on which their whole income could depend? There is no warning—just a questionnaire. In some cases all they had was a brief examination and in other cases simply a telephone call. How can you expect cool, rational explanations of a person's condition, given that situation?
Some disabled people were included who were supposed to be exempt such as those very severely disabled people or terminally ill people. The Benefits Agency has admitted that some mistakes have been made, so it is official that mistakes have been made by this project. I believe that the Government should order a moratorium. They should suspend the Benefit Integrity Project until this shambles has been clarified. That is all I am asking—not the ending of it but a suspension of it until sense and order can be brought to bear in the project.
I also believe that those who have been denied benefit or those whose benefit has been cut should keep their benefit until their appeals have been heard. There are tremendous delays with the appeals. Why should a person wrongly judged lose his benefit until this cumbersome appeals machinery gets into action? Natural justice dictates that people should retain their benefits until the appeal has been heard. I hope that my noble friend will take that point on board, although I know that she herself cannot wave a magic wand to solve all these problems.
However, there is no magic wand about the business of getting disabled people back to work. We know that the Government are anxious to get disabled people to work where possible. Disabled people want to work when they can. They want it for their dignity and better income because they are living on a very low income. The benefits are far too low for any enjoyment of the so-called "benefits dependency". That is a publicly peddled myth as regards disabled people. No one in their right mind believes in benefits dependency on the few quid a week that people get for their benefits.
As I say, the Government should retain a sense of perspective about getting disabled people back to work because 5 million out of the 6.5 million disabled people are either pensioners or unable to work. Therefore, the welfare-to-work scheme is not going to work for them. At most 1 million of them would be able to work if there were jobs and no discrimination. In some places there are no jobs and there is a great deal of discrimination.
I welcome any proposals to improve a system that helps disabled people to work as long as it supports those who cannot work. What disabled people do not want and should not have to face, or fear facing, are "substantial" cuts in major benefits. For those on incapacity benefit facing years, if not a lifetime, of being unable to work, financial support is essential. As I have said, today's levels of support are not generous. Those
858
receiving the disability living allowance are acknowledged to have the extra costs of disability. Those costs cannot be wished away. They will remain. To cut these major benefits would be a betrayal and certainly bitterly opposed. No one should underestimate the extent of public support for disability benefits.
I conclude with a quick 10-point plan which I recommend to the Government. First, the Government should move quickly to reassure disabled people that they are not planning cuts in major disability benefits. That would draw the poison from the atmosphere. Secondly, there should be a moratorium on the Benefit Integrity project announced in order to provide the opportunity of improving its procedures without injustice and damage to innocent people. Thirdly, sensitive but stringent measures should be taken against any fraud on disability benefits. Fourthly, benefit rules which penalise disabled people who move between benefits and work and back should be changed. Fifthly, there should be established a more effective benefit for partial incapacity. The majority of disabled people do not fit neatly into the two categories of being fully capable or fully incapable of work. Sixthly, the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act which tackle discrimination at work and provide new opportunities should be implemented and enforced. Seven: the £195 million allocated to the New Deal for disabled people, which is a tiny proportion of the windfall tax, should be substantially increased. The eighth point is that the Government should emphasise that no disabled person will be compelled to work by threats or reduced or no benefit. The ninth point is that it should be made clear that the Government have no intention of substituting local government care for cash benefits, thereby removing substantial fears. Finally, the tenth point is that the Government should consult the disability organisations and listen to them, because they know what they are talking about.
If these proposals are adopted, I have no doubt that a creative partnership between the Government and disabled people is possible and a disastrous clash can be avoided. That should benefit the Government, the nation and disabled people themselves.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for tabling this most important and interesting question. We all know that he has been a doughty campaigner on behalf of disabled people since he first came into Parliament many years ago.
The Government's election manifesto pledged support for comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. It would appear to me, however, that they are to reduce the financial benefits paid to those same people. The manifesto pledge will ring hollow if they take away the means enabling disabled people to exercise such rights.
I am a patron of the Disablement Income Group. It has advised me that it has evidence showing that the highest rate of disability living allowance, which is £84.10 a week, falls far short of meeting the extra cost

859
of disability. Do the Government base their calculations on what disabled people actually spend or on what they need to spend? There is, of course, a difference, because people can only spend what they have.
Anyone with a severe disability will need additional goods and services such as extra heating; special baths or beds; extra laundry; microwave ovens for ease of cooking; food processors to liquidise food for those on special diets or computers to facilitate communication and some of the independence that the rest of us take for granted. They may need to pay for help with dressing, washing, using the lavatory, cooking, gardening, cleaning and property maintenance.
Will the Government undertake research into what is needed to be bought in and not just on what a disabled person can afford? Will they ensure that the research covers the capital cost of equipment and its maintenance and eventual replacement as well as the equipment's running costs?
I believe that I am right in saying that the level of benefit in the United Kingdom is higher than in any other member state of the EC. As a Euro-sceptic, I wonder whether the Government are proposing to lower benefits here in order to produce an EC-wide level playing field on benefits for disabled people.
The calculations that the Disablement Income Group has given me for someone with a severe disability works out as additional expenses of £261.77 a week, while the allowances he or she receives are only £84.10 a week. An example that DIG has given of typical costs of assessment is for a wheelchair user who is incontinent and who therefore generates extra loads of laundry and who needs to replace clothing and bedding frequently. In the example that I have been given there is provision for five hours of daily personal assistance, which is purchased by the individual, in addition to the care provided by the local authority. That, of course, is insufficient to meet the individual's needs. Other costs include fuel and electricity, Motability payments, medical and chemist's items, and so on.
In view of the announcement by the Social Security Minister that there is to be an independent level of review for claimants whose entitlement to the disabled living allowance has either stopped or been reduced, can the Minister advise the House what arrangements are in hand to review the entitlement of those recipients of the disabled living allowance whose entitlement has already been stopped or reduced prior to the Minister's announcement? Is the disability living allowance to be included as part of the Government's overall review of disability benefits and, if so, why has the benefits integrity programme been allowed to proceed prior to the recommendations which may arise from the review?
How many recipients of the disability living allowance does the Minister envisage will lose their entitlement, and how much a year does she forecast that that will save? Has the Department of Social Security set a target for net savings on DLA and, if so, does not that indicate that the benefits integrity programme is cost-led?
860
I have one final question. What has been the Minister's response to the many representations that she has received calling for the suspension of the benefits integrity programme, and will she please advise the House on what basis that response has been justified?
7.50 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for introducing this timely debate. During the past 20 years there seems to have been a massive change of attitude among people with disabilities to which the noble Lord has contributed both by argument and by example. It is something very much like the change that happened among women about 100 years ago—a sudden refusal to accept second-class status. When something like that happens, it is a tidal wave and any politician is very unwise to stand in the way of it. Mr. Asquith learnt that the hard way. It is one point on which I hope that Mr. Blair will not follow Mr. Asquith's example.
We hear a great deal at the moment about the costs of disability. The Minister knows that I am an enthusiast for what her predecessor described as "netting my costs." Therefore, she will not be surprised to know that I should like to hear that the costs have been got completely right. This means that in addition to hearing about an increase in social security spending, I should like to know how many people with disabilities are not in residential care but, without state benefits, might have been, thereby saving a lot of money, and how many are earning perhaps quite substantial sums but who, without help, could not have been.
Recently I received a letter from one of my oldest undergraduate friends, protesting against the threat to means-test the disability living allowance. She said that for most of her life she had been a high earner but that without the disability living allowance—without the means to convert her car, without the disabled parking badge and a great deal else—she would never have been able to enter employment and the Exchequer would have been the poorer. It is a fair point.
How many people have had the weight taken off oppressed carers within their own families, perhaps to the point where they, too, can start earning? Any costing should take such points into account, as well as the direct costs of the social security budget.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said about the benefits integrity programme. It reminds me of the remark of the first Lord Burghley on the Court of High Commission,
"Rather a device to seek for offenders than to reform any".
I also share the misgivings about campaigning over fraud. Everyone thinks that fraud should stop. I am delighted to read in an article by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in today's Times that the figure of £4.5 billion in relation to fraud in the disability budget has been abandoned. It should never have been put forward. When people start talking about fraud, I sometimes wonder whether we are in danger of getting something like the culture of disbelief about which both the Minister and I talked in relation to asylum seekers. That would worry me very much indeed.

861
The objective of stopping fraud is a good one, but so is the objective of enhancing the dignity of those on benefit. Like the parallel objectives in the European Convention on Human Rights, the two need to be held in balance. We cannot pursue either at the expense of the other.
I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said about costs. We know—most of us from among our own acquaintance—that the more help that people with disabilities get, the more they can do, the more they can achieve and the more they can earn. That is something from which we all benefit. The OPCS figures on the costs of disability have been questioned for some time and I think that that questioning needs to continue.
Finally, on the subject of welfare to work, I should like to congratulate the Minister on some of the things she has achieved. I must, of course, wait to see the small print, but what has come out so far has been a great deal better than I might have anticipated. The first achievement is that this should not be a matter of compulsion for disabled people. There is, of course, a spectrum of the fully able-bodied and the fully disabled. Both comprise quite small proportions of the population. Most of us can do some things some of the time and, in that situation, the jobs that people with disabilities can do must depend on the help that they get and must, in the end, be a matter for their own judgment. One helps those who would like to work to do so, but this is an area where compulsion cannot be appropriate.
The second matter on which I congratulate the Minister is the recognition that welfare to work for disabled people and civil rights are matters between which there must be a connection. Giving people the opportunity to work is a matter of changing opportunities, transport and the attitudes of employers quite as much as it can ever be a matter of changing attitudes among disabled people themselves. One needs to show them that the opportunities are there, but one needs to create the opportunities first. I congratulate the Minister on what she has done already and I hope that she will be able to do more.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, to discuss briefly in the wake of the uprating debates the issue of disability benefits, and I welcome his 10-point plan for the Government. I hope that when the Government have come forward with the proposals for change, about which we have heard so many worrying rumours and so little reassuring information, there will be an extended opportunity for parliamentary debate and that those 10 points will be well remembered. The Government might like to consider through the usual channels setting up a special committee of both Houses to take evidence in public.
I believe that it was the journalist Katharine Whitehorn who wrote:
"A good listener is not someone who has nothing to say. A good listener is a good talker with a sore throat".
862
I may not be a good talker, but I certainly have a sore throat, so I should like to restrict my remarks to four points.
Perhaps I may begin by illustrating the seriousness of the issues with a personal story. A man with learning disabilities—I believe that he is known to the Minister—whose sole income is income from benefits, and whose benefits have been threatened by what I take to be the starter to the Government's broader review, had been a loyal supporter of the Minister's party. He remarked recently that he no longer believed that the Government cared. I hope that they do care, but I have to confess that if they do, they have a funny way of showing it.
My first point is that in the majority of cases we are not talking about additional income, we are talking about total income—about people who have only one source of funding for their survival in the community, their income from social security. It is hardly surprising that people whose sole income is threatened should feel threatened themselves. To talk about community care without social security is like talking about breathing without oxygen or swimming without water.
My second point is that we are talking about a level of income which provides for a week the sort of sum that many of us would not think it unusual to spend on a single meal with friends. That is an income designed to cover both basic needs and extra disability-related costs—and I emphasise again that we are not talking about transitional benefits between job and job, but about benefits which in reality will sustain someone throughout their adult life.
Thirdly, there is very little room for manoeuvre in the reform of benefits but there is room for improvement. There is a possibility of cutting benefits to make life easier for the taxpayer, but a scheme that does not recognise basic maintenance costs, additional care costs and mobility costs is one that ignores the realities of disablement. I am suspicious of a desire for simplicity that puts simplicity before adequacy. No doubt the desert is simple but it is not a place where most of us would choose to live.
My last point is that publicity—which sometimes appears to be orchestrated—has been concentrated on the increased number of people who claim disability benefits. The problem is that people do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled. Council tax rebates that may be described as benefits, since they have a cash value, and MENCAP's report published this week on the council tax carer's disregard, show that very many families with a disabled member lose out because they are not being advised that they can claim. I am aware that Ministers are anxious that older people, who include the majority of disabled people, should claim their benefit rights. Can one assume that the same is true for all disabled people and that the Benefits Agency will address this?
I am sure that we all extol the New Deal. I am equally sure that the idea that benefits are out and work is in for disabled people is to expect too much from work as an answer to the problems of a group the majority of whom are over pension age but few of whom are without extra costs and lower incomes. Surely, the New Deal is not

863
intended to follow the advice of the Second Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, chapter 3, verse 10:
"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should be eat".
What kind of new deal is that?
8.2 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is one of those debates in which I have the familiar feeling in winding up that everything has gone before me. On a night when beacons are being lit for the countryside lobby all over the place I feel like someone who has shot every available fox. These foxes are rather fat and have been moving rather slowly across open ground. Nonetheless, they have lots of holes in them. I may fire the odd shot myself but I have a nagging suspicion that I shall not be the last one to do so in this debate.
The Minister has already received praise for the work that she has done in trying to calm down the amount of panic that appears to have been created over this issue. We have heard a great deal in the press about the fact that people may not be left with anything on which to live and may not be able to meet their basic needs. It is also said that every other disabled person is probably a fraudster. One feels that a second miraculous coming must be near because a good number of people have been picking up their beds, wheelchairs and disabled cars and walking or running around the place; in other words, a lot of rubbish has been said by a lot of people, many of whom are half-briefed. I hope that this opportunity will be taken to put a brake on this, even if we cannot stop it. Very little that is constructive has come out of it.
The Government's leaked announcements led to a ferocious backlash on the part of disability groups. I cannot blame them. Many of them felt that their lives had been threatened by those who represented them. Very few of these people live rich, happy benefit-dependent lives. Most struggle to get by. That reaction was not because people had been given the perception of privilege but because disabled people were worried about being unable to cope.
Reference has been made to the fact that an attempt is being made to give people full civil rights. I put to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, a supplementary question to a Starred Question. It was agreed that the two matters were inextricably linked. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government's new attitude to disability benefits will include a greater degree of pump-priming (if that is not too mechanical an expression) to ensure that the disabled can deal with their transport, communication and other problems and get into the workplace and thus play a greater part in society. This may not mean just getting a job, although that is ultimately where one wants to place them so that they can pay back the Exchequer by way of taxes— surely that is something that is worth investing in—but ensuring that they are not trapped at home and that their quality of life is enhanced, for the very simple reason that that is the sign of a civilised society.
864
It is to be hoped that the steps that we have taken so far will be guaranteed and that further attention is paid to this process. As my noble friend, with his keen eye for the historical anecdote, has pointed out, people must be able to take their place in society as full members. If we adopt the same historical anecdote, it is worth remembering that over 20 years ago the last legal bar to women's equality in the workplace was removed. For as many years as I can remember it has been said that women need greater support to achieve equality. It never stops. We must be on our guard in areas like this. If it does stop it probably will not happen in the lifetime of anyone in Parliament today. The Government have an opportunity today to state clearly their true position and how they propose to make progress and to kill off some of these very unhelpful rumours.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, in the short time that I have been in this House I have learnt that it is a good idea to be modest when speaking from the Front Bench because of the great expertise to be found on the Back Benches. However on this occasion in particular one speaks with great diffidence because those who have spoken are not merely very expert but have made tremendous contributions to the lives of disabled people.
It is appropriate that this debate should be initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who for many years has passionately pursued the cause of the disabled and done a great deal to help them. That is also true to a very large degree of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in MENCAP and the work of my noble friend Lord Swinfen in the Disablement Income Group. For all those reasons I believe that this has been an extremely helpful debate. Among others who have made a major contribution in this field is the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, who I understand is not able to be here this evening. Nonetheless, he wrote a fascinating article in today's issue of The Times, to which I shall refer in a moment.
The theme of this debate is that the Government's review has generated a real sense of fear and alarm among many of those who are on social security benefits, particularly the disabled. To take just one example, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, in a briefing, has expressed concern that the review of disability benefit appears to be solely—I stress that word—motivated by the need to seek reductions in current expenditure. Rather to my surprise, it goes on to seek an assurance from the Government that they will stick to the previous Government's proposals for public expenditure in this field; namely, a 2 per cent. real increase in social security expenditure in 1998–99 and a 1.8 per cent. increase in 1999–2000. Perhaps the Minister can give that assurance, which would help to convince people that this is not simply a Treasury-driven exercise.
However, it is not surprising that that impression is created. In the Social Security Bill, which we shall debate later in Committee, we had the proposals for restrictions on backdating. We have also experienced the

865
effect on pensions of the change in ACT provisions, the pensions rebate to which I referred earlier this week and the issue of lone parents' benefits.
In recent weeks, I have spent much time watching skating on television. The Government seem to have made an initial U-turn, reneging on their original assurances in Opposition. Yesterday morning we had a second U-turn, and in the afternoon a third when the Prime Minister denied the whole thing. There is no record of a woman skater managing a quadruple jump of that kind. However, we must wait to see whether that applies in the case of the Secretary of State. I do not suggest that in conjunction with her partner she will go into that well-known skating exercise, a death spiral. We are facing a real problem and I hope that tonight the Minister will give some reassurance.
I read in today's newspaper a quotation from Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, at another well-known road show. We now know that in no sense are these national debates but serious party political meetings designed to reassure Labour voters. Surprisingly, he stated that the previous government spent an extra £44 billion in real terms on social security, which was an increase of 67 per cent. He somehow seems to believe that that was a bad thing. I am puzzled as to why the Home Secretary should have taken that view. However, it reinforces the opinion that this is an expenditure-cutting exercise, which is of real concern.
I turn to the article written by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. He quoted the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, but I am not sure that he quoted her correctly. No doubt she will be able to tell us. He wrote in his article:
"We have, so far, in the 35 per cent. of cases we have examined, not found a single case of confirmed fraud".
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, referred to 35,000 cases, which I believe is the correct figure. At all events, if that were so it would radically change the views held by the previous government, which we understood to be right, that we must carefully consider the whole issue of fraud. If the results are as dramatic as the noble Baroness stated in her previous remarks, we must consider whether the cost of the exercise is worth while. It is a dramatic finding, indeed.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us why, if the massive increase in expenditure is not due to an increase in fraud, she believes that the increase has been so dramatic. There can be no doubt that it has been a dramatic increase. One of the reasons is that in 1992 there was an extension of categories. Clearly, there has been a better take-up, which Members on all sides of the House would welcome. Furthermore, there has been a shift from the number of people in hospital to the number in the community who are dependent on benefit. It would be ironic if, people having moved into the community, benefits were cut and the expenditure went back into the health service to be spent on some other group. It looks as though that will happen if we are not careful.
Noble Lords rightly stressed the problems of means testing or taxing disability benefits. The crucial point is whether any reduction in absolute terms would
866
significantly reduce the ability of those on such benefits to engage in work. It must be inconsistent with the Government's fundamental welfare to work programme to make cuts which would reduce the number of those in work, resulting in a net loss to the Exchequer. That would not be a desirable change and the issue needs to be analysed most carefully.
As the debate is time limited, I shall make only one further point. Considerable concern has been expressed about the way in which the so-called benefit integrity project has been operated. I understand that the Secretary of State has said that where a reduction in benefit is likely to result there will be an extra check to ensure that it is appropriate. Against the figures which the noble Baroness quoted for fraud, it is difficult to understand that exactly. However, it would seem to be a matter of reducing the benefit rather than arguing that it is fraudulent. I am pleased to see the Minister indicating that that is the position.
A little while ago I saw on television the second half of a programme examining the issue. However, I saw it when I was abroad and therefore I am not sure of its entire content. Certainly, it suggested that the way in which the benefit integrity project was working was not wholly satisfactory. If there is to be an appeal against those decisions I believe that all of us in the House would support it.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for initiating the debate. Reassurance is needed and I hope that the Minister can give it tonight. Perhaps she can also indicate why she believes that the disabled budget has expanded and what further plans the Government may have with regard to reforms in this area.
8.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashley, who for many years has been so eloquent an advocate for disabled people, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the important issue of disability benefits. We have all listened to tonight's speakers with intense interest.
We are determined to review and reform social security, to promote work incentives, to reduce poverty, to strengthen family life and to extend opportunity and security to all. Reform, particularly in the area of disability benefits, will not, cannot and should not happen overnight. The Government are committed to ensuring a full consultation with disability organisations on any proposals for change that we may bring forward. My noble friend Lord Morris—he greatly wanted to attend tonight, but due to a hospital appointment was unable to do so—raised with me the idea of a seminar with disability organisations to discuss benefits, in particular the disability living allowance. I shall pursue that idea with my noble friend. Such a seminar could allow us to discuss in greater detail than is possible tonight some of the questions raised by my noble friend

867
Lord Ashley. He had a list of 10 questions, some of which I hope to answer, but others need fuller exploration than we can give tonight. It is important that we all own the issues, the difficulties, the problems and the concerns which can be associated with DLA.
However, I can reassure the House that those in need, such as those with an illness, disability or caring responsibilities, will always be supported by this Government. Our review of sickness and disability benefits will be judged on the two clear objectives that we have set; namely, getting the right support for people who want to work and getting the right mix of cash and services to people who cannot work in order to enable them to live independently and with dignity.
So what is our strategy? As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me to do, I should like to make it clear again that our strategy is not a cost-cutting, Treasury-driven exercise. As your Lordships will know, there are two basic benefits—earnings replacement benefit, such as incapacity benefit and the extra cost benefit, DLA and attendance allowance. I shall deal with each of these in turn.
I deal first with incapacity benefit. We inherited a benefit regime which focuses heavily on people's incapacities rather than their capacities. And yet, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said so wisely, the majority of disabled people do not fit neatly into categories of fully capable or fully incapable of work. Many claimants are capable of some work and may want to support themselves through work but find the current system both confusing and frustrating. Efforts by disabled people themselves to manage their disability and re-enter part time or full time work are often discouraged by the benefit system. This cannot be right for them and it cannot be good for society, which loses their talents and their initiative. We cannot afford to lose either.
We are now considering carefully the appropriateness of the all work test as we develop our proposals on a fairer benefits system for disabled people—one focused on work and capacity rather than worklessness and incapacity. We need to regard IB as a benefit which fulfils a range of needs—supporting disabled people who have recently left or lost their jobs until they are ready and able to return to the labour market, as well as those who are unlikely ever to work again. While they are unable to work we need to help sick and disabled people to develop their "rehabilitation package" and, importantly, to work with employers to keep their job open and to make reasonable adjustments for a planned return to work.
We also need to provide a new deal for disabled people who have been out of the labour market for some time, and we have had encouraging words, for which we are grateful, from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on that aspect. It has been mentioned positively tonight and more widely; it has received a very supportive response.
There are more than 1 million disabled people of working age without jobs who tell us they want to work and £195 million available under the New Deal will finance pilot schemes and personal advisers for people with a disability or long-term illness, so that we learn
868
how best to help them on a voluntary basis to move into or remain in work. And we are working closely with disabled people and the organisations that represent them. We recently met around 200 disability and other groups who recently attended briefings as potential bidders under the innovative schemes strand of the New Deal.
We are also developing plans for a personal adviser service to help and encourage disabled people who want to work. We are working with them in order to encourage employers to bring them back into the labour market.
We must also review the benefit system to ensure that disabled people are not discouraged from seeking part-time, full-time or voluntary work by the working of the benefit system itself. We need, in other words, stepping stones—the opportunities for some work within welfare without loss of benefit; imaginative welfare to work proposals as outlined for the New Deal; and, thirdly, welfare in work—helping people retain or regain their jobs, giving support to employers to help disabled people to do so and, as many noble Lords have said, backing this with clear, explicit, enforceable civil rights.
For those who are unable to come back into work by reason of their age or their degree of impairment we must, as the Prime Minister has stated, ensure that disability benefits are set at a level which provides them with the proper help and support they need. I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in that regard.
If incapacity benefit is one strand of benefit, the other is the extra costs benefit—DLA. DLA is the second major benefit available to disabled people. That benefit helps towards the extra costs of disability, assessed on someone's care and mobility needs. It is a valuable and highly valued benefit, but it is often misunderstood. It is not an earnings top-up benefit, nor is it compensation for the disability. It is designed to help with the additional costs arising out of the disability which often result in the need to pay for care or mobility solutions and other costs of managing their disability. This may mean that one person with, say, a moderate mental health disability could have higher care needs and higher DLA as a result than someone with a severe physical disability.
It means that two people with much the same disability could nonetheless have different care needs. As your Lordships will know, there is no automatic read across from the severity of the disability to the degree of need and costs for DLA purposes. If someone's disability improves and their care needs reduced—they no longer need frequent night-time attention, for example—then the DLA will properly reduce, even if the original award was a life award, because it was for life only while the original condition and the original needs it generated remained unchanged. Disabled people are rightly free to spend their DLA on carers or taxis, but they may also spend it on a piece of IT equipment or on the mortgage for a ground-floor extension so that they can continue to live at home. It is a vital benefit

869
which goes some way to ensuring that the extra costs of disability are shared with society and not shouldered by the disabled person alone.
I turn now to the benefit Integrity Project of Disability Living Allowance. As your Lordships have mentioned, there was a great deal of misinformed media coverage since just before Christmas which may have frightened some disabled people quite unnecessarily. I share the concerns of noble Lords about the way the work of this project has been misrepresented.
I want to set the record straight and to reassure your Lordships, disabled people and their organisations that the Government are acting responsibly and sensitively in carrying out this exercise. First, I want to make it clear that the benefit integrity project is nothing to do with the wider review of disability benefit, nor is it about fraud. It is about checking that payments of DLA are being made correctly under the current rules. None of the rules has changed. The conditions of entitlement remain exactly the same.
The exercise involves gathering up-to-date information about the care and mobility needs of people receiving DLA. People are contacted either by home visit or by post—not, I believe, by telephone—and asked to complete a detailed questionnaire based on the current DLA claim form. The BIP covers people receiving the DLA higher rate mobility component with either the middle or highest rate of the DLA care component, plus people in these groups who are seeking a renewal of their claim. That will involve contacting over 400,000 people. My noble friend Lord Ashley referred to that matter. I am delighted to confirm and correct the misrepresentation that was in The Times today. There is absolutely no suggestion that disabled people are claiming fraudulently. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Ashley are right to emphasise that.
Up to the end of December, more than 40,000 cases of DLA had been examined. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked me how many people might be affected in the future. I should tell him that 400,000 people fall within those categories, and the noble Lord will understand what the implication of the statistics might be. Of those 40,000 that we have looked at, the majority—about 80 per cent.—required no change whatever in their DLA award. We were able to confirm that benefit is being paid correctly. Of the remaining 21 per cent. or so, 7,500 have seen a reduction because their care needs have reduced. But equally, almost 1,000 people had their benefit increased. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is right that that is an issue which continues to be addressed.
I do not believe anyone here disagrees with the principle that benefits should be paid to those who are entitled to them and not paid to those who are not. The project is all about making sure that we are paying DLA correctly. But we know that with DLA in particular awards are vulnerable to changes over time. That is simply because the health of disabled people and their care needs may improve or they may deteriorate. That is the nature of their disability or long-term sickness.
870
If someone is incorrectly receiving DLA and receiving more now than they should because their care needs have changed, it is right to stop those payments. However, in some cases, we are not getting the project right. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security acted to introduce an extra safeguard to help us get it right. From 9th February—I hope that this will answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—no decision taken by the project resulting in reduction or removal of entitlement to DLA will be made solely on the evidence provided by the claimant. There will always be additional evidence to support the decision.
Some people unintentionally understate their needs. One of the most frequent examples is that disabled people asserting their independence tend to underestimate their needs for night-time care. If they do so, they may find themselves moving down from a higher rate to only a middle rate level of care under DLA. However, where someone has unintentionally understated their needs, we will be able to ensure, before we reduce their benefit accordingly, that the statement is full and complete; in other words, it will be amplified with further information from, say, a carer or from his or her own doctor. We want to get the award right and we need the fullest information possible to do so. It is clear that we have not always had the fullest and clearest information. As a result, in some cases, the award has been reduced but then reinstated when we received the additional information.
That example shows that the Government take their responsibilities very seriously. Disabled people have nothing to fear from the benefit integrity project. We are also carefully considering what else can be done, and I hope that the disability organisations will help us to identify further measures by which we can ensure that BIP does what we want it to do; namely, to ensure that the right level of benefit goes to disabled people. Obviously, tonight's debate will make an important contribution to that extent.
I was asked a number of questions during the debate. I should now like to address those points that I have so far not been able to mention in my reply. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked whether DLA was based on what people really need as opposed to what they currently spend on the cost of disability and whether we would embark upon research and seek further evidence. I am well aware of the additional cost that disability or long-term illness can bring. DLA is designed to help towards the extra costs arising from disablement. There is of course further help from the premiums in income support for those who are on lower incomes, which is worth up to another £37 a week for a single person.
We are also very dependent upon research and well aware of the sterling work that the Disability Income Group has carried out, especially the research of Ann Kestenbaum on the cost of disability. We are clearly taking that research into account as we review disability benefits.
The noble Lord also asked what would happen to people who have already had a decision made to reduce or alter their level of benefit. On the information that

871
we have received, we are satisfied that we have acted correctly up until now. All decision notices carry information about claimants' rights of review and appeal. If it is the belief of anyone—or, indeed, if his or her carer, friends or family believe—that a decision made in a case was incorrect by virtue of incomplete information being given to us, they should contact the Benefits Agency in the normal way. We shall of course be more than happy to take the matter forward.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked several questions. For example, he asked about those in residential care and those who otherwise would be were it not for disability benefits. He asked about those earning substantial sums who would not be able to work but for disability benefits. He asked about the implication for carers and what the implications would be of reducing those benefits. The noble Earl will know that these are essentially qualitative questions, but they are no less real for being qualitative rather than quantitative. However, the noble Earl went on to ask me to confirm the figure of £4 billion a year quoted by my noble friend Lord Morris from yesterday's issue of The Times. I am not sure exactly where my noble friend found that figure, but I think that it represents the total level of estimated fraud within the social security system. It is certainly not a figure that I am aware of as ever having been attributed to disability benefits. We are looking into the matter to ascertain whether that figure is an accurate one. Certainly, anyone who has seen the recent television programmes focusing on housing benefit and Lambeth Council may feel perhaps that the previous government underestimated the amount of fraud that there may be in some areas of benefit. However, it is certainly not a figure associated with disability benefits.
I am happy to confirm that of those people who have had their awards checked for DLA no one has had a case of confirmed fraud established, although something like 40 cases have been referred for further investigation where there is a serious question about the authenticity of the award.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked what we are doing about publicity for reductions in council tax liability for disabled people. Local authorities are responsible for the billing of council tax and the relevant forms will generally explain how to claim a reduced liability. I have a personal interest in the matter, as I was one of those responsible for moving the amendment when it went through this House which abolished the poll tax and put the council tax in its place. Therefore, I have a particular interest in ensuring that disabled people and their carers claim what they are entitled to. It may be
872
appropriate for us to revise the wording of the leaflets to make that eligibility for a reduced council tax more clear and obvious.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me to explain why there had been an increase in disability benefits and why that has taken place if we do not attribute it to fraud. The noble Lord himself gave us some of the answers. I do not think that this is, in any sense, a point-scoring exercise. There is no simple answer. As the noble Lord said, we know that there were major increases in claims following the introduction of DLA in 1992. We know that expenditure far outstripped expectations, perhaps because of the degree of unmet need. Again, we accept the noble Lord's point that some of the costs arose because of the move to care in the community, which meant that we were switching money across budget headings. We know that people are living longer and, as many noble Lords mentioned tonight, disability is particularly associated with frailty in old age.
As a result of both government's efforts as well as the work of the disability organisations, we know that there is a wider knowledge of benefit entitlement available. We also know—and this is something about which we are concerned—that it is not so much that more people are going on to benefits like 113 but that they are failing to come off them and are staying on them for longer. That is why we have taken the response in terms of welfare-to-work measures to try to be active in encouraging people not to linger on with benefit which is perhaps no longer appropriate for them.
Further, we also know that in some cases the courts may have extended the policy intentions of the framers of those benefits beyond the original intent. I have given the House some explanations in that respect. However, according to what the information coming from the current disability survey on the extent of disability shows, we may be able to arrive at clearer findings in that respect.
In conclusion, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. We have had a short but most valuable debate. In this, the 50th anniversary year of the welfare state, it is worth reminding ourselves that one of the tests of a civilised society and a decent welfare state is one which recognises and values the contribution that all disabled people bring to society. I hope and believe that all the speakers in tonight's debate have done just that. I thank all noble Lords.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty two minutes before nine o'clock.

  UN Commission on Human Rights: Prompt Issue of Reports
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will propose that the reports of the Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights will be published immediately in the original languages of their authors, instead of waiting until all the translations have been done, as is now the practice. [HL637]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  We encourage the UN Secretariat to issue such reports as soon as practicable and welcome recent efforts to disseminate them more widely using the Internet. But changes to procedures involving the UN's official languages would be certain to be resisted by member states which consider themselves thereby disadvantaged.

  Gibraltar: Right of Self-Determination
  Baroness Hooper
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the position concerning self-determination in relation to Gibraltar. [HL754]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  We support the right or principle of self-determination reflecting the wishes of the people concerned. It should be exercised in accordance with the other principles and rights in the UN Charter and with other treaty obligations. In Gibraltar's case that includes Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht. This has been the long-standing position of successive British Governments.

  General Affairs Council, 23 February
  Lord Bruce of Donington
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will announce the outcome of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 23 February. [HL806]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  The Council adopted the 20 A Points in document 6146/98 and noted the resolution adopted by the European Parliament in documents 5191/98 and 5188/98. Copies of both documents will be placed in the Libraries of the House as soon as they are available.

  There was a brief report from the Commission on negotiations with South Africa on the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. This followed the recent talks with the South African Trade Minister. Further negotiations are scheduled for March.
  WA 108
  The Council discussed progress on the negotiations between the EU and Switzerland aimed at reaching agreement on a package covering six sectors, including free movement of people, agriculture and transport issues. Ministers noted that progress was being made and expressed the hope that the Transport Council on 17 March could resolve outstanding issues on transport.

  The Council welcomed the plan for a high-level EU-China meeting in the margins of ASEM 2. It agreed to continue and expand its human rights dialogue with China by holding at least one meeting per Presidency. Within that dialogue it agreed to continue to raise the cases of individuals, encourage Chinese engagement with the UN's human rights instruments and develop and expand the EU-China co-operation programme. It looked forward to an early and fruitful visit to China by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In view of the first encouraging results of the EU/China human rights dialogue, the Council decided that neither the Presidency nor member states should table or co-sponsor a draft Resolution at the next UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The EU's opening statement at CHR will refer to the human rights situation in China. If the situation arose, the Council agreed that EU delegations should vote against a no-action motion. The Council agreed to continue to make public its concerns regarding the human rights situation in China and to raise these matters as part of its wider dialogue with China. The EU will keep this policy under regular review.

  As agreed at the General Affairs Council in January, Ministers reviewed EU policy towards Iran. The Council agreed that a number of recent developments in Iran were encouraging and that the EU should respond by increasing the level of political contact with Iran, including by lifting the ban on official bilateral ministerial visits. The Council invited the Political Committee to submit further recommendations on how political contacts between the EU and Iran—covering both areas of EU concern and issues of mutual interest—might develop. The Council also reviewed progress in the areas of concern to the EU, namely weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, Iran's attitude to the Middle East Peace Process and human rights, including the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. The Council reaffirmed the importance of fully implementing its existing security measures and of its continued vigilance in these matters. Ministers agreed that Iran's willingness to address EU concerns would greatly enhance the success of the EU's political contacts with Iran.

  My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary updated colleagues on the Presidency's plans for handling enlargement during the UK Presidency and on thinking concerning the substance of the European Conference.

  The Council welcomed the announcement of an agreement between the UNSG and Iraq and stressed that the EU wanted a diplomatic solution. The Council also expressed thanks to the Secretary General for his efforts, but noted that agreement was only secured because of the firm resolve shown by the United Nations and the international community. The Council insisted that

  WA 109
  UNSCOM must be able to resume effective inspections. It also recorded concern at the humanitarian situation in Baghdad and therefore welcomed the recent UN resolution (1153) doubling the oil-for-food programme.

  There was a brief discussion about Ukraine. The Commission noted that the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement was due to come into force on 1 March and that there would be parliamentary elections at the end of March.

  The Council discussed the EU' s role in the Middle East Peace Process and its future economic assistance on the basis of a communication from the Commission and a report by President Santer on his recent visit to the region. The Council expressed its grave concern at the serious decline in the Palestinian economy, despite the efforts of international donors. It reiterated its views that economic development is a prerequisite for political stability and that the removal of obstacles to Palestinian economic development, including closures, is in the long-term security interests of Israel.

  The Council agreed that the EU should demonstrate its continued commitment to the peace process through a renewal of its financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority, and requested the Commission to submit proposals to provide a basis for continued assistance after the expiry of the current regulation at the end of 1998. It also agreed on a wide-ranging strategy aimed at improving the effectiveness of EU assistance to the Palestinians, including:

  an evaluation by the Commission of aid provided under the current programme so that lessons learned may be taken into account in the implementation of future assistance;

  intensification of the EU/Israel dialogue on the removal of obstacles to Palestinian economic development:

  full and rapid implementation of the EC-PLO Interim Association Agreement;

  exploring ways of improving the effectiveness of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee in tackling the problems faced by the Palestinian economy;

  continued efforts to encourage the Palestinian Authority to fulfil commitments made on transparency and accountability;

  a constructive and effective EU contribution to international efforts to restore confidence in the peace process and establish a firm basis for a resumption of negotiations, including through improved consultation with the United States;

  continued development of the Barcelona Process in parallel to the peace process as a long-term strategy for the stability and economic development of the region.

  The Council discussed its growing concern at the situation in Kosovo. It called on all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from all acts of violence. The Council called on the authorities in Belgrade and the leadership of the Kosovo Albanian community urgently to begin a full and constructive dialogue. The Council endorsed in principle the Commission proposals to improve aid procedures for Bosnia. This will permit quicker and more
  WA 110
  effective disbursement of EC assistance, including down to local municipality level, to those supporting the Dayton Accord. It looked forward to the European Parliament's Opinion on this.

  My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary chaired successful inaugural meetings of the EU/Estonia, EU/Latvia and EU/Lithuania Association Councils. Formal sessions focused on each associate's preparations for accession. Over dinner, Ministers discussed a range of political issues.

  Scottish Judges: Removal from Office
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by Lord Sewel on 9 February (WA 134), whether there is any statutory or other binding rule preventing Scottish judges from being removed from office without the approval of Parliament. [HL613]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)
  Scottish judges are appointed by Her Majesty The Queen and there are no statutory powers to remove them from office. Although there is no recorded incidence of any Government attempting removal of a Scottish judge, it is thought that such a judge could be removed by Her Majesty The Queen on an address passed by both Houses of Parliament. The Scotland Bill, which will come before this House in due course, includes a provision on the future procedure for removal of a Scottish judge from office.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Refinancing
  Lord Grenfell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Following the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in another place on 28 January, (Official Report cols. 461–74), what response they have had from London and Continental Railways in respect of revised financing proposals for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [HL828]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman)
  We have held discussions with Bechtel, representing the shareholders of London & Continental Railways, and Railtrack for whom the shareholders envisage a future role. These discussions have resulted in a framework proposal, but one which still needs to be further developed. London & Continental Railways have consequently asked for more time. In light of the complex nature of the framework proposals and the amount of further work that needs to be done, we have decided that time should be allowed to establish whether there is an acceptable way forward; an extension to 31 March 1998 has therefore been authorised.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Assurances
  Lord Thomson of Monifieth
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether in any new arrangements regarding contractors for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link they will ensure that the environmental undertakings relating to the vertical alignment of the Link and noise abatement measures in the Westwell Leacon section of the line are adhered to. [HL725]

  Baroness Hayman
  During the course of Parliament's consideration of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, nearly 600 assurances were given in response to concerns about the construction or operation of the new railway. Compliance with those assurances is a minimum requirement of the Development Agreement for the Rail Link which was awarded to London & Continental Railways. The Secretary of State hopes that London & Continental Railways will soon bring forward acceptable financing proposals to enable it to proceed with the scheme, but compliance with Bill assurances will continue to be a minimum requirement in any event.

  Radioactively Contaminated Land
  Viscount Hanworth
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they will launch the consultation on radioactively contaminated land. [HL830]

  Baroness Hayman
  We are today launching a consultation on radioactively contaminated land, jointly with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  We are seeking views on the structure and principles that should underlie a regulatory regime for radioactively contaminated land. Copies of the consultation paper have been sent to the Chief Executives and Chief Environmental Health Officers of all local authorities, and to other interested parties, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Responses to the consultation are requested by 1 June 1998.

  New Prisons: Planning Provision
  Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they will publish guidance to local planning authorities on the need for them to make adequate provision for prisons in their development plans. [HL829]

  Baroness Hayman
  We have today published a circular entitled Planning for Future Prison Development. This circular provides advice to local planning authorities on the need to make adequate provision through the planning system for new prison developments. It considers the issues which need to be
  WA 112
  taken into account in selecting suitable locations for prisons and sets out the approach whereby the provision of sites can be taken forward through the development plans system. Given that the ongoing programme of prison development is a matter of national importance, this circular constitutes guidance of the sort envisaged in paragraph 11 of the recently published Policy Statement Modernising Planning.

  This circular recognises that there will be a continuing need for new prison development in the foreseeable future and encourages local planning authorities to recognise that the provision of land for the secure accommodation of prisoners is an obligation the Prison Service shares with society at large. However, the circular does not impose any new duties on local planning authorities or others: it simply sets out how the Prison Service and individual authorities may best work together for the common good.

  Conservative Hereditary Peers: Voting Pattern
  Lord Tebbit
  asked the Leader of the House:

  Whether he will publish the statistics upon which he based his claim that Conservative hereditary peers "invariably end up voting with the Conservative Party" (H.L. Deb., 27 January, col. 100).

  The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard)
  Since the general election on 1 May 1997, there have been 36 divisions in the House. 1,204 Conservative hereditary peers' votes have been cast against the Government: and, as the noble Lord's Chief Whip will doubtless be relieved to know, only 18 Conservative hereditary peers' votes (1.5 per cent.) have been cast against their own front bench, by 10 individuals.

  Under the circumstances of the somewhat brisk rhetorical exchange during Starred Questions to which the noble Lord refers, I consider that these figures justify my remark.

  General Teaching Council: Costs
  Lord Tope
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What the estimated costs to the Exchequer will be in setting up the general teaching council as outlined in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]. [HL715]

  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone)
  The Teaching and Higher Education Bill, currently before Parliament, provides for the council to be self-financing, through the levying of registration fees on all serving teachers. The Government may, however, fund the initial costs of the council when first established, before the arrangements for registration fees come into force. It is not possible to offer a clear indication of the expected costs to the Exchequer at this stage.

  Government Reviews: Reports
  Lord Chesham
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 12 February (WA 232), how they intend to report to Parliament the results of the 113 reviews and 37 task forces. [HL704]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  Decisions and arrangements for reporting the outcome of reviews they have commissioned are a matter for the Ministers concerned.

  Guards' Memorial
  Lord Harris of Greenwich
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When the Guards' Memorial in St. James's Park was last cleaned. [HL642]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  Responsibility for the subject of this Question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter to Lord Harris of Greenwich from the Chief Executive of the Royal Parks Agency, Mr. David Welch, dated 26 February 1998.

  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking when the Guards' Memorial was last cleaned.

  The Guards' Memorial was last cleaned in 1996. It is cleaned every two years and is due to be cleaned again this year before the Trooping of the Colour ceremony.

  The memorial suffers from algal growth in certain weather conditions and we are seeking a solution to this problem.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Order: Pilot Schemes
  Lord Islwyn
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Which areas have been chosen to pilot the proposal in the Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.] to introduce a drug treatment and testing order.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
  My honourable Friend the Member for Gateshead East and Washington West (Joyce Quin) announced in a speech to a conference in York organised by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation on 25 February 1998 that the pilots will take place under the management of Merseyside, South-East London and Gloucestershire Probation Services.
  WA 114
  Thirty-six probation areas expressed an interest in managing the pilot of the drug treatment and testing order. All the proposals were well thought-out and enthusiastic and the choice was therefore far from clear cut.

  Asylum Applications
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the number of applicants for asylum whose applications have not yet been decided and who have not yet been called for interview—(a) who applied prior to 1 January 1990; and (b) who applied during each successive calendar year since that date. [HL643]

  Lord Williams of Mostyn
  As at 31 January 1998, there were 51,445 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, awaiting an initial decision. The available breakdown of these cases, by year of application, is given in the table. I regret that it is not possible to determine, within the statistics, those who are awaiting an initial interview.

  It is estimated that around 10,000 of those applications awaiting an initial decision were lodged prior to the introduction of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. I regret, however, that a detailed breakdown of these cases, by year of application, is not available.

  Asylum applications awaiting an initial decision as at 31 January 1998, by year of application1

  Year of application

  Percentage

  Pre 1994

  20

  1994

  15

  1995

  25

  1996

  15

  1997

  20

  1998

  5

  Total

  51,445 (100%)

  1 Estimates rounded to the nearest 5 per cent.

  Roe v. Wade
  Lord Braine of Wheatley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will obtain from the United States Congress the testimony submitted to the United States Congress Judiciary Committee hearing in the case Roe v. Wade together with a transcript of the hearing held in January. [HL650]

  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington)
  No. The testimony would add nothing to the Government's approach to abortion matters which are clearly established within the 1967 Abortion Act. The cost incurred would therefore be unjustified.

  Delayed Hospital Discharges
  Lord Hamilton of Dalzell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the impact on hospital waiting lists of beds occupied by medically fit people awaiting discharge who cannot leave because there is no one to look after them. [HL702]

  Baroness Jay of Paddington
  The importance of effective hospital discharge arrangements cannot be over emphasised. It is crucial that hospitals and social services departments work together to ensure that integrated and sensitive hospital discharge arrangements are in place for people with long-term care needs and to WA 116
  ensure that the impact of delayed discharges on hospital waiting lists is kept to a minimum. Much hard work has already gone into improving joint working in this area but there are still improvements that can be made in most places. When we announced the extra £300 million we were making available to ease the pressures on the health and social care system during the winter period, we made it clear that some of the money should be used to tackle delayed discharges. The information we have for England indicates that the position on delayed discharges of elderly patients is improving. However it is not possible to quantify the impact of this on hospital waiting lists.

  Information on delayed discharges is not routinely collected in the rest of the United Kingdom.