Sitting of 20 January 1998

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

    Health Inequalities
    Mr. O'Neill: What plans he has for tackling inequalities in health in Scotland. [21712]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): The priorities and planning guidance for 1998–99, issued in August 1997, to the national health service in Scotland includes tackling inequalities in health. In addition, a Green Paper will be published shortly, seeking views on our proposals for improving health in Scotland and for tackling inequalities.
    Mr. O'Neill: I congratulate my hon. Friend on announcing the publication of the long-awaited Green Paper. It is 18 years since the Black report was published, showing clearly the link between inequality and poor health throughout the United Kingdom. Could my hon. Friend also find the means to make the Black report available again? He will recall that it was available for only a short period before it was suppressed by Mrs. Thatcher's last Government.
    Mr. Galbraith: I very much regret that the Black report was not published extensively and in full. The last Government's failure to recognise the link between deprivation and ill health has greatly held back the progress of the nation's health. We are currently involved in updating much of the information contained in the Black report, although the basic premises will remain the same and will be reflected in our forthcoming Green Paper.
    Mr. Moore: In reviewing funding formulae for the health service in Scotland, will the Minister ensure that deprivation in rural areas receives as much priority as any other factors that he may take into account?
    Mr. Galbraith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a specialist group is reviewing the SHARE—Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation—allocation formula, which has been around since the late 1970s and needs to be updated. One of the areas that it is considering for the distribution of funds is what is known as the
    800
    "rurality" index. I make no judgments about it. We are waiting for good scientific advice, which is what we expect from the committee.
    Mr. Maxton: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest inequalities in health in Scotland is the appalling difference between the dental health of young people in deprived areas and in better-off areas? Does he agree that the most effective and cheapest way to solve that problem once and for all is to introduce fluoride into the public water supply?
    Mr. Galbraith: Yes, we often forget the importance of dental health in this debate. Like all ill health, it is directly related to deprivation in society. We can tackle poor dental health by cutting down sugar intake and by regular brushing of teeth, but the best and most effective way to improve dental health in deprived communities is to include fluoride in the water supply.

    Locate in Scotland
    Mr. Fallon: What representations he has received about the future of Locate in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [21713]
    The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend has received representations from a number of individuals and organisations. We have made it clear, in response to such representations, that Locate in Scotland is and will remain an outstandingly effective inward investment agency.
    Mr. Fallon: If there is no concern about Locate in Scotland's ability to compete fairly with the United Kingdom's other inward investment agencies, why is the Department of Trade and Industry negotiating a concordat between them all?
    Mr. Wilson: I am more than confident of Locate in Scotland's ability to compete effectively. In the past two weeks, I have had the privilege of making a couple of announcements about substantial successes for Locate in Scotland. I am pleased to announce today another success, which is the attraction of 30 new jobs to Arbroath through Alps Electric (Scotland) Ltd., which is investing £350,000. I expect to make many more such announcements. All of that is a tribute to Locate in Scotland. Everybody who takes a serious interest in those matters knows that the last thing that Locate in Scotland wants is a free for all involving other agencies and prospective agencies in the United Kingdom putting up the bidding for the creation and attraction of jobs. It therefore makes sense to have a concordat involving all parts of the United Kingdom to deal particularly with expressions of interest from potential inward investors where initially the interest is generic to the whole of the UK.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome the past successes of Locate in Scotland, but does my hon. Friend agree with Labour Members that, in the context of the Scottish Parliament, Locate in Scotland will have a pivotal role in attracting significant investment, as it has had over many years?
    Mr. Wilson: I agree with my hon. Friend. Locate in Scotland will be accountable to the Scottish Parliament,

    801
    and that is entirely as it should be. It will be an important part of its devolved functions. I have no doubt that Locate in Scotland will continue to be successful. Since the general election, it has been clear that all the scare stories from the Tories about either the change of Government or the constitutional settlement in the United Kingdom that we proposed were just that—scare stories. Inward investment decisions have continued to increase rather than diminish.
    Mr. Kirkwood: In any review of Locate in Scotland's work, will the Minister consider the balance between investment in areas that already have access to regional development assistance and investment in the more rural areas that do not? I acknowledge the good work that Locate in Scotland has done in the past, but does he accept that it makes it much more difficult for Ministers to give any assistance to communities furth of the central industrial belt, in towns such as Hawick, in which the Minister has taken an interest recently?
    Mr. Wilson: The regional selective assistance map will be reviewed, and I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are taken into account. What comes through repeatedly in discussions with inward investors to Scotland is that, although money is an important part of the package, it is far from being the only factor. There may be overriding reasons to go to a part of Scotland that is not blessed in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. The skills of the labour force, the availability of workers and the environment are factors on which the Borders would rate favourably. My constituency has not done very well out of inward investment decisions in recent years, but it has the advantages to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That can work both ways, as many factors are taken into account. However, his comments will be noted and considered.
    Mrs. McKenna: Does my hon. Friend agree that Locate in Scotland is one of the most successful inward investment agencies in Europe? The expansion a couple of weeks ago of the German company Isola Werke in my constituency to include another 300 jobs is one of its successes.
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, that was the second announcement of the new year, and it was excellent. I would go further than my hon. Friend and say that I do not think that it is one of the most successful development agencies in Europe; it is the most successful. There is no doubt that a combination of the United Kingdom's overseas presence and what it does for inward investment, and the enormous value that is added by the activities of Locate in Scotland, give us a two-track approach that works extremely well in Scotland's interest and in the interests of the United Kingdom economy.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: In his discussions on the concordat, will the Minister take into account the recent report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry? Does he agree that any further restrictions on the activities of Locate in Scotland would be at the cost of jobs in Scotland?
    Mr. Wilson: I was delighted with the Select Committee's report on inward investment. It bore out
    802
    what I have been saying in recent months. There has been a lot of over-excited chatter about threats to Locate in Scotland, and a great deal of nonsense talked about its alleged poaching activities. The report was extremely encouraging on both grounds.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman and anyone else that there is no conspiracy against Locate in Scotland. Everyone recognises that its work is good for Scotland and for the whole of the United Kingdom. In that spirit, Locate in Scotland will go forward, and a concordat makes sense. No one who takes a serious interest in this matter—as opposed to making silly nationalistic points—thinks that there is anything in it for Scotland to have a free for all in which agencies have an unfettered right to bid against one another, the result of which is that jobs cost more, not least to Scotland, and we lose rather than gain investors.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Swinney: When he last met representatives of the Scottish farming industry to discuss farm income levels. [21714]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): Ministers meet the National Farmers Union of Scotland on a regular basis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met representatives of the union on 16 December. My noble Friend Lord Sewel last met them on 5 January, when farm incomes, among other issues of concern, were discussed.
    Mr. Swinney: I welcome the Minister to his post. He will be aware of the TSB agricultural study, which was published yesterday and which shows that 94 per cent. of farmers believe themselves to be less prosperous this year than last year, that there has been a collapse in agricultural investment and that there is poor confidence in the hill and livestock sectors.
    What measures is the Minister taking to secure European Union support for the lifting of the export ban, either through the computerised traceability scheme or through the date-based scheme? When does he expect the first beef from Scotland to be sold in Europe, alongside beef from Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Macdonald: I acknowledge that farmers are going through a very difficult period in comparison with earlier years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the lifting of the export ban is being pursued in a number of ways. There is the certified herd scheme—the work on computerisation is proceeding as fast as possible—and there is the new date-based scheme, which we are pursuing in parallel with the European Commission.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I welcome my hon. Friend—who represents the most rural constituency in Britain—to his important responsibilities.
    When my hon. Friend meets representatives of farmers in Scotland, will he explain that the blockade at Stranraer carried out by people such as John Cameron is likely to make it rather more difficult to resist similar blockades against Scottish food exports in the future? Will he join me in paying tribute to Sandy Mole for his excellent record of responsible leadership of the National Farmers Union of Scotland in recent years? As a member of that

    803
    union, may I also pay tribute to the Government for their excellent initiatives to restore public confidence in Scottish beef, both at home and abroad, and to support the vital hill farming sector?
    Mr. Macdonald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I entirely agree with him about the unfortunate nature of the events in Stranraer and elsewhere, which did not help the case at all. I also associate myself with my hon. Friend's remarks about Mr. Sandy Mole, with whom we had a very good working relationship. I hope that we shall continue to have that good working relationship with his successors.
    Mr. Ancram: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his appointment, and wish him well in his responsibilities. I am, however, surprised and somewhat disappointed that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not responding to this question. Does he really not appreciate the seriousness of the crisis facing farming, and the damage that is now being done to agriculture by the high rate of sterling and the green pound? Will he disown his noble Friend Lord Sewel because of his view that farmers have been treated generously in the past, and should stop complaining now? Will he also take action urgently to rescue an industry that is vital to Scotland's rural economy, but is currently in danger of going to the wall?
    Mr. Macdonald: I certainly agree that the industry is vital, and that it faces difficult pressures. That is why the Government have indeed taken action. We have announced an £85 million package, a full third of which will go to Scottish farmers who—as the right hon. Gentleman knows—are facing a particularly difficult time
    Mr. Ancram: That simply is not good enough. Such complacency is endemic in the Minister's Government at present, and does no service to agriculture in Scotland.
    Does the Minister not understand that financial help is now urgently needed, as is compensation for the high value of the green pound? The help that was given earlier has already been overtaken by extra charges. No other country in Europe would not have triggered the compensation mechanism in such circumstances. Will the Minister and his colleagues wake up and do something for the farmers of Scotland?
    Mr. Macdonald: Let me directly compare the assistance that we have provided with the assistance provided last year. Last year, the right hon. Gentleman's Government provided £60 million of extra assistance to deal with the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy crisis, but they made no further provision for the following year. We have provided £85 million to respond to farmers' current difficulties.

    University Applications
    Mr. David Davis: How many applications have been made to Scottish universities for the 1998–99 academic year; and how many were made in the comparable period for the 1997–98 and 1996–97 academic years. [21716]
    Mr. Wilson: Figures for Scottish higher education institutions have not yet been published by the universities central admissions system. However, provisional United
    804
    Kingdom figures show that, by 15 December 1997, the universities and colleges admissions service had received 326,220 applications for entry to higher education in 1998. That compares with 347,037 at the same point in 1996 and 340,711 at the same point in 1995.
    Mr. Davis: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is always regrettable when the number of applicants for higher education goes down, particularly when, as in this case, those applicants are not helped by an immoral policy that discriminates against all UK students who are not Scots. More Northern Ireland students apply to Scotland than to anywhere else in the UK. When we are in every other way helping Northern Ireland to remain a part of the Union, what is he doing to end that immoral discrimination?
    Mr. Wilson: I would caution anyone against placing too much importance on applications because there is a big difference between applications and admissions. In quoting any of these figures, hon. Members have to remember that, in the current academic year, admissions to Scottish universities went up by 5 per cent. as people moved, understandably, to pre-empt the changes in student funding.
    On the point about non-Scottish students, again, the right hon. Gentleman should consider some of the statistics. For instance, in an Adjournment debate last Thursday, I pointed out that, in marked contrast with the near hysterical comments at the last Scottish Question Time about the prospects for St. Andrews university and about the cataclysmic implications for the Scottish economy, applications to the university from non-Scottish students within the UK are up 6 per cent. for next year. The problem of Northern Irish students is a funding problem for the Northern Ireland Office. It has to decide how to fund students who go to universities in other parts of the UK, as the Scottish Office has to determine how Scottish students are funded.
    Mr. Dalyell: How long can a system be sustained whereby students on the same course pay different fees simply because they come from different parts of the UK?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend knows that his question is disingenuous. It is not simply because students come from different parts of the UK; it is also because they hold different entry qualifications. If he wants perfect symmetry in the UK education system, that is a big argument, but at present Scottish school-leaving qualifications are geared to the Scottish four-year honours degree course and students who hold A-levels may in many cases enter in the second year of a four-year course. In making a judgment about which university to go to, any student will take into account whether he wants to enter a four-year course in the first year or whether he should take advantage of the possibility of entering a four-year course in the second year, if his qualifications are appropriate.
    Mr. Wallace: For students entering university in 1998–99, in subsequent academic years, what will the position be with regard to supplementary allowances? Does the Minister accept that that is of considerable importance to students throughout Scotland, particularly those from

    805
    more remote areas, who are worried about their travel allowances? For example, a student from Shetland attending Dundee university may face travel costs of £360. It is important that students entering a course should know what the financial implications are throughout their period at university. Those who enter in the coming academic year should have the same supplementary allowance arrangements throughout their stay at university.
    Mr. Wilson: The existing arrangements do not disadvantage students in terms of travel costs, but that is all part of the consultation on the Dearing and Garrick reports. I would be pleased to hear any additional point that the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to make to me on the matter, but there is no such proposal.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Some people might think that the Minister's answers have been disingenuous. Northern Ireland students have travelled to Scotland since long before the Act of Union 1801. I therefore ask that the matter be given further consideration. Can the Minister tell us, for example, the difference in academic standards? Northern Ireland students have met the Scottish standards and come through with flying colours—not only to the betterment of Northern Ireland students but to the credit of Scottish universities.
    Mr. Wilson: Northern Ireland students, and students from all other parts of the United Kingdom, are very welcome and valuable components of the Scottish higher education system, and they will continue to be so. The debate is very narrow, because 40 per cent. of all students—irrespective of where they come from—will pay no tuition fees, and only a relatively small minority of students will pay the full amount.
    Whether fees should be met for paying students from other parts of the United Kingdom who are on Scottish four-year degree courses is a question for the relevant territorial Department—for the Department for Education and Employment, for English students, and for the Northern Ireland Office, for Northern Ireland students. Those Departments have their own considerations in answering that question. I have responsibility for Scottish students in higher education. I realise—as the Garrick report realised—the anomaly in Scotland of the four-year degree being the normal course linked to school leaving qualifications, and I have dealt with that anomaly.
    Dr. Fox: In the fiasco over non-Scottish UK students and over student fees generally, two matters are clear. First, the Minister has absolutely no appetite for the changes that he is introducing. Secondly, the changes are utterly Treasury-driven. Will the Minister tell us whether the Treasury's inability to recognise the different funding requirements for Scottish and English higher education provision is—to use the words of No. 10 Downing street—one of the Chancellor's "psychological flaws"?
    Mr. Wilson: I have an appetite for annually putting £140 million extra into Scottish higher and further education. The Tory legacy was to pile on the numbers and to cut the money.

    Kincardine Bridge
    Ms Squire: What representations he has received on the replacement of the Kincardine bridge. [21717]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): Since taking office, we have received 11 letters on issues related to the replacement of the Kincardine bridge. I am also aware of the meeting in July between my hon. Friend, supported by members and officials of Fife council, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm), during his period as Minister responsible for local government and transport at the Scottish Office.
    Ms Squire: Does my hon. Friend agree that replacement of the Kincardine bridge has widespread support, and that replacing it is a matter of urgent priority in assisting inward investment, in easing traffic congestion and in reducing pollution at Kincardine? Given the years of delay and indecision by the previous Government, is the Minister able to announce any early action that he intends to take to secure the bridge's early replacement?
    Mr. McLeish: I am very conscious of my hon. Friend's active pursuit of the matter, which is a very important transport issue. A review of the options at Kincardine is now being finalised by officials—whose advice I expect to receive shortly—and a decision will be taken as soon as is reasonably practicable. Because of the matter's importance, we have accelerated the options review.
    Consideration of Kincardine must also be set against some very important strategic transport issues in the central belt. I will therefore be seeking at an early stage to have a meeting with all the councils around the Forth estuary, to examine not only the matter of the Kincardine bridge but other matters. I intend to create a more comprehensive, strategic and important forum for pursuing those important matters, and I look forward to an early meeting with my hon. Friend to go over some of the issues, including that of Kincardine bridge.

    Scottish Parliament Elections
    Mr. McAllion: What assessment he has made of the advantages of holding the first elections to a Scottish Parliament in 1999 on the same day as local government elections in Scotland. [21718]
    The Secretary of State for Scotlnd (Mr. Donald Dewar): I believe that a joint poll will increase interest in the local government elections and lead to a higher turnout with lower overall costs. It also avoids voters having to go to the polls three times in quick succession.
    Mr. McAllion: First, may I wish my right hon. Friend every success in his bid to become a candidate at one of those elections? I hope that we are given the stamp of approval by what has already been called the people's panel. Is not the real link between the two elections that the outcome of both will have a huge impact on the future structure and financing of the water and sewerage industry in Scotland? Therefore, may I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that between now and the elections he will prevent the unelected water quangos from entering into

    807
    any private finance initiative contracts which will effectively tie the hands of Members of the Scottish Parliament and prevent local councillors from fulfilling their manifesto commitment to bring the water and sewerage industry back under local democratic control
    Mr. Dewar: I can give my hon. Friend two assurances. First, I shall not be shopping in Dundee with regard to any of the elections and secondly, I congratulate him on his ingenuity in referring to unelected water boards. I must also disappoint him by saying that I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks. I expect the water boards to address the problem of getting much-needed investment into the industry and achieving the standards that people in Scotland deserve.
    Mrs. Laing: Can the Secretary of State please explain why he considers it important to achieve a so-called gender balance in the elections to the new Scottish Parliament and how he intends to do so?
    Mr. Dewar: That again is ingenious. I hope that the hon. Lady does not imagine that by standing in her place she is convincing me that there are arguments against women in Parliament. We are all anxious—including, I am sure, the hon. Lady—that we have a fair representation of women so that the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament and local government look a little more like the community that they seek to represent.
    Mr. David Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to have the widest possible pool of talented candidates for the Scottish Parliament? Does he further agree that it is important to allow local government staff—who number more than 25,000 and are currently restricted from standing—the opportunity to stand for the Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. Dewar: Of course I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making and we are keeping the matter under review. However, very recently the Nolan committee stressed how important it is that councils and the public can rely on a politically impartial service from senior local government officials. That also has to be weighed in the balance. The number who are currently excluded under the rules is around 2 per cent. of those who work in local government in Scotland, but I recognise that there are strong feelings on the issue and we try to keep it under review.
    Mr. Salmond: But one substantial difference between the two elections is that the elections to the Scottish Parliament will be carried out by proportional representation, while the local elections are still planned to be decided by the first-past-the-post system. Does the Secretary of State not agree that it would be a splendid opportunity to introduce proportional representation in local government elections in Scotland? Would not such action be the strongest single step towards ending one-party domination and the various problems that beset the Labour party in councils in central Scotland?
    Mr. Dewar: I take that remark as a rather touching tribute to the speed with which we have addressed problems of constitutional change in Scotland. However, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that his suggestion is
    808
    somewhat impractical. He will know, however, that an independent commission will be set up shortly on which his party is likely to be represented to look at the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and local government and the ways in which we can strengthen local democracy in Scotland. Obviously, the matter has to be considered carefully, but there may well be people who will try to argue that case, if not in the commission, more generally.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does my righ hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat unfortunate that some Opposition Members show such total ignorance of the workings of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which for many years now has been committed to equal representation of men and women in the Scottish Parliament and which represents Scottish views somewhat more successfully than the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing)?
    Mr. Dewar: I would not want to pass judgment on the capacity of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) as a representative. That is a matter for her electorate and I congratulate her on having survived and being here, which may be some sort of tribute. So far as I am concerned, the Government and many hon. Members across the range of parties in the House are committed to positive ways of encouraging women into public life.
    Mr. Ancram: Given that so few of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends are prepared to give up the comforts of Westminster to stand for the Scottish Parliament and that, consequently, if Millbank tower and the Minister without Portfolio permit, most of the Labour candidates will be drawn from the tired old ranks of Scottish Labour councillors, would it not be fairer if the elections were held on separate days so that they could at least remember which they were standing for?
    Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman should not be proud of that question as an example of his intellectual rigour. He may be consumed with envy. The Conservative party in Scotland does not have ranks of any sort—tired, old, young or innovative—to draw on.

    National Health Service Beds
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: What is the number of NHS beds per head of population in Scotland; and what assessment he has made of the per capita provision of NHS beds in Scotland relative to the United Kingdom average. [21719]
    Mr. Galbraith: There were 3.3 national health service beds available in the acute sector in Scotland per 1,000 population in 1996–97. The equivalent number for the United Kingdom was 2.5 beds.
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Does he accept that that favourable percentage is due to the financial arrangements that Scotland has had in the United Kingdom? Will those arrangements be sustainable when Scotland has its own Parliament?
    Mr. Galbraith: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the financial arrangements are supported by those on the Conservative Front Bench. The figures reflect the

    809
    differences between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, including the greater prevalence of disease and the geographical differences. It is proper that such matters should be taken into account anywhere in the country.
    Mr. David Marshall: Does the Minister agree that, far from trying to claim credit for the figures, the Opposition should be blamed for the fact that they are necessary? After 18 years of Tory government, the health of the people of Scotland is in a much worse state than before because of the Tories' harsh economic policies and their failure to deal with the damp housing conditions that have resulted in Glasgow having the poorest health statistics in the United Kingdom. If anything, there is a need for more NHS beds, not fewer.
    Mr. Galbraith: The problem of the past 18 years was that the previous Government failed to recognise the link between deprivation and ill health, because they found it politically difficult to do so. We recognise that link, we shall tackle it and we shall significantly improve the health of the nation.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In his reply to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), the Minister underscored his understanding of the fact that the per capita provision of hospital beds has to take account of geographical factors as well as other social and economic factors. Will he bear in mind the assurance that he gave me by letter about the continuing provision of full-time surgical services at Broadford hospital on the Isle of Skye? Only this morning, the Highland health board announced its intention to withdraw full-time surgical provision for the Isle of Skye and to replace it with a locum service operating out of, I think, Fort William and Inverness. Given the climate and—as the Minister knows better than most—the number of people who visit the Isle of Skye for climbing and other outdoor pursuits, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue needs to be considered very carefully before any precipitate decisions are taken?
    Mr. Galbraith: I certainly do. I know the hospital very well, not just from climbing on Skye, but because I was one of the locum surgeons there for some time. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the review is all about having the highest-quality services for patients. That is what I demand from any changes and that will be the only motivating factor in our decisions.

    Water Services
    Mr. Canavan: If he will return Scotland's water services to local authority control. [21720]
    Mr. Macdonald: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement to the House on Tuesday 16 December 1997 on the future of the Scottish water industry. It dealt with the issue of local authority control and provided for stronger and better links between local authorities and water boards under the overall democratic supervision of the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Canavan: When will the Government deliver the Labour party manifesto commitment to return Scotland's water services to local democratic control, instead of
    810
    playing musical chairs with the quangos left to us by the Tory Government? In the Falkirk area, for example, when water services were in the ownership and management of local government, we had good, forward-looking investment programmes, combined with the lowest water charges in western Europe. Will the Government intervene to prevent the East of Scotland water quango from imposing a 58 per cent. increase in domestic water charges, which would mean an even more exorbitant increase of 144 per cent. over two years?
    Mr. Macdonald: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the existence of 32 local authorities after the previous Government's reorganisation means that it is simply not possible or practical to have the kind of direct local authority control that he would like. However, we have increased accountability to local authorities through better links between them and water boards. As for possible price increases, they are a matter for negotiation between the water boards and the customer councils. If there is no agreement, the matter will go to the Secretary of State for arbitration, so I cannot comment further.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Consumers in Tayside face a 38 per cent. increase in water charges in the near future. That is a swingeing increase—the highest in the whole of the North of Scotland area. In view of the Government's pre-election promises, can the Minister not understand the disenchantment of people in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies with both the North of Scotland Water Authority and the Government on that matter?
    Mr. Macdonald: For the reason that I have just explained, I cannot comment on particular price rises. However, speaking generally, we have always said that water services will cost more. There are many years of underfunding and under-investment to make up for; that will have to be done through a combination of public and private investment, but also through price increases.

    Ferry Services
    Mr. Godman: What recent representations he has received concerning the ferry services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne. [21721]
    Mr. McLeish: My right hon. Friend has received a number of recent representations concerning ferry services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne. The main subject of representations received recently from my hon. Friend's constituents has been the future of Caledonian MacBrayne's ferry service between Gourock and Dunoon.
    Mr. Godman: May I tell the Minister that it is hugely important that Caledonian MacBrayne run an efficient and reliable service, an integral part of which is a well-motivated work force? I do not believe that there would be any problems hanging over the Ballycastle to Campbeltown service had not that odd-job lot on the Opposition Benches, when they were in office, given it to Caledonian MacBrayne to run.
    Mr. McLeish: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his involvement in the issue, and for the discussions that we have already had on those matters. As he is probably aware, the Scottish Office, together with CalMac and Western Ferries, commissioned the consultants Deloitte and Touche to examine future options for the provision of ferry services between Gourock and Dunoon. The consultants are finalising their work in discussion with CalMac and Western Ferries, and the study is expected to be completed in February. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, a meeting was set up recently, but we had to postpone it. I look forward to an early meeting with him and his trade union colleagues to discuss the matter, and others relating to the ferry services in that area.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: I thank the Minister for his swift response to my queries about the Portavadie to Tarbert ferry, which was much appreciated by all the bodies involved. I congratulate him on managing to understand the Caledonian brief fairly quickly, considering that he was dropped in at the deep end. Can he say today whether a decision has been made about the connection between Mull, Coll and Tiree—a subject that we discussed recently at St. Andrew's house?
    Mr. McLeish: I certainly welcomed the meeting with the hon. Lady; it was part of my fast learning curve on the brief. As I promised her at that time, we are finalising a response to that issue, and I shall have an early meeting with her before any decision is finally arrived at.

    School Standards
    Miss Begg: What plans he has for raising standards in Scottish schools. [21722]
    Mr. Dewar: All our policies on school education are designed to raise standards. I attach particular importance to the action group on standards in Scottish schools which I established last July and which is developing a framework of targets for improvement in schools.
    Miss Begg: I welcome that reply. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the keys to improving standards in schools is encouraging young people to learn to read, write and count at an early age? If they can crack the codes of numeracy and literacy at an early age, they can take advantage of the rest of their school careers. Are there any plans to encourage, develop, improve or extend early intervention schemes of the kind piloted in Lothian?
    Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; we are extremely interested in the idea. There is a consensus in the House and in the education world to the effect that early intervention is extremely valuable, and that action taken in the early stages of a school career can bring great rewards later. That is why we have provided more than £20 million for early intervention in respect of numeracy and literacy, and why we have launched a number of other initiatives, such as alternatives to school exclusion. I hope that they will help and support children who might otherwise fail at school and thus find themselves ill equipped to compete later in life.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The Leader of the House was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Modernisation Plans
    Dr. Tony Wright: What plans she has to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons on legislative procedures in respect of Bills in the current session. [21742]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The House has agreed the first programme motions on Government Bills in relation to the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill. These reflect the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee. A number of Bills are also to be published in draft form, and I hope that some of them will be examined by Select Committees.
    Dr. Wright: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I congratulate her on the leadership that she is showing in modernising our procedures. Until we get some serious Bills exposed to the sort of scrutiny that the Modernisation Committee has recommended, however, we shall not be sure that the process is working. I know that my right hon. Friend wants that to happen, but I suspect that there may be Ministers, civil servants and possibly even party managers who do not look kindly on the idea of better scrutiny. But the country wants it and the House wants it, and I urge the Leader of the House to make sure that we get it.
    Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. The Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill are important. Significantly, we managed to get agreement on dealing with them in this way. Everyone who serves on the Modernisation Committee is aware that there are differing opinions in the House on how best to go about the scrutiny of other legislation, but we are making progress. I hope that, by publishing several Bills in draft form and allowing Select Committees or some new Committee to examine them, we shall improve the quality of legislation.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: When it comes to publishing Bills, the right hon. Lady will know that the Government receive a lot of correspondence to which Departments are supposed to respond within, at most, 20 working days. On 23 October, a constituent of mine wrote to the Government about nursery education; I opened the very simple answer from the Minister today, 20 January. What can the Leader of the House do to ensure that Departments respond to hon. Members' letters in good time—in other words, while the legislation in question is still going through the House?
    Mrs. Taylor: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in getting in that question as a supplementary at this point.
    I acknowledge that there has been a problem with some Departments—it has been raised with me during business questions. I have invited hon. Members to give me precise details, and on a few occasions I have been given them and have been able to try to get things moving. I am

    813
    embarking on a survey in respect of the time taken to answer parliamentary questions and to answer correspondence.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Illegal Drug Use
    Mr. Bayley: If she will make a statement about the Government's strategy against illegal drug use. [21743]
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What are her priorities in the co-ordination of strategies to deal with drug misuse. [21745]
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Keith Hellawell, the United Kingdom's anti-drugs co-ordinator, took up his post full time on 5 January. He will be submitting proposals for a new anti-drugs strategy to me by March, following an extensive consultation process and in the light of a comprehensive spending review. The priorities are likely to be to help young people realise their own potential, protect communities from drug-related crime, provide effective services for drug addicts and restrict the availability of illegal drugs. Once agreed by Ministers, a report on the new strategy will be published as soon as possible.
    Mr. Bayley: May I tell my right hon. Friend how much I support the decision taken by the Government to appoint 300 extra customs officers to prevent illegal drug shipments from entering this country? How sharply that decision contrasts with the policy of the previous Government, who cut the number of customs officers at just the time they were accepting a £1 million donation from a foreign secret source closely connected to the drugs trade. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the Leader of the Opposition to give that dirty money back?
    Mrs. Taylor: The fact that we reversed the proposed cut in the posts of 300 customs officers shows how seriously we take the drugs problem and how alarmed we are about the amount of drugs coming into the country, which is one reason why hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the recent seizures and the disruption of drug supplies into this country by the enforcement agencies. All of us have been somewhat concerned, to put it mildly, about the reports that have just emerged about the sources of some of the Conservative party's funding.
    Mr. Winterton: I thank the right hon. Lady for her full response. I wish the new drugs tsar every success in the vital and critical work that he is undertaking. Will the right hon. Lady accept that my right hon. and now ennobled Friend, Tony Newton—as we knew him in the House—did a superb job in co-ordinating the response of all Government Departments to the problems of drugs and drug abuse? He brought the Department of Health, the Home Office, the Department for Education and Employment, as well as the Treasury—because of its
    814
    responsibility for Customs and Excise—together to co-ordinate their policy on drugs. Will the co-ordination that Tony Newton introduced continue?
    Mrs. Taylor: When the previous Government introduced their new approach and the document "Tackling Drugs Together", I was the first on the Opposition Benches to welcome the moves taken by Tony Newton and outlined by the hon. Gentleman. We are trying to build on that strategy and take it several stages further, which is why we are auditing what is spent on drug work in every Department, undertaking proper evaluations and trying to co-ordinate. The big difference is that we are trying to ensure that the causes of drug taking, in particular the early signs of difficulty such as truancy, exclusion from school and joblessness, are tackled as part of the problem.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that her job of controlling drug abuse and educating young people has been made 10 times more difficult due to the fact that—as we now know and as I forecast three months ago—Ma Ching-kwan handed over £1 million to the Tory party? He comes from a family who are recognised drug and heroin dealers in Hong Kong. The family did that because they wanted the father, who had escaped to Taiwan, to be brought back to Hong Kong. They used the offices of David Mellor and of Chris Patten, and they handed over the money in the presence of the former Prime Minister. The Tory party has now got the money, although people say it should hand it back. I am not so sure that that is the brightest of ideas because it would be going back to a known drug dealer. It ought to go to charity.
    Mrs. Taylor: I should first congratulate my hon. Friend on raising that point several months ago. Having that information confirmed today proves that the House is right to listen to him on many occasions. He is right to say that it does not make it any easier to get the message across about the dangers of drugs. Although I have heard people saying, even this afternoon, that the money should be given back, I believe that it would not be appropriate to give it back to the donor in this instance. The money should be given to a drug-related charity.
    Mr. Loughton: I applaud the President of the Council's firm words on the campaign that we need against drug misuse, but will she acknowledge that the budget of only £300,000 that has been allocated to the drugs tsar, of which his salary and that of his deputy will take up more than half, smacks of tokenism at its worst? What will she promise the House in terms of real resources and policies to tackle this very real menace?
    Mr. Bayley: Give us £1 million.
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend's point is well made.
    The hon. Gentleman seems to be operating under a misapprehension: it is not the job of the so-called drugs tsar to spend money fighting drugs; his job is to advise Government on the proper co-ordination of policy, so that we can make sure that the money spent by the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment and the Home Office is spent in the most productive way.

    815
    The current auditing and evaluation process will be extremely important in helping us to tackle drugs more effectively.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The Leader of the House was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Government Announcements
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What steps she is taking to uphold the rights and privileges of the House in respect of Government announcements. [21744]
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Government seek to make all announcements about major changes of policy to the House.
    Mrs. Bottomley: There has scarcely been a major Government announcement that has not first been widely leaked and trailed in the press. Is that part of a deliberate policy to erode the rights and privileges of the House and to diminish Parliament? Now that the Budget date has been announced, what specific action has the President of the Council taken to remind Ministers that they are accountable to Parliament and not to the media?
    Mrs. Taylor: I often think that Conservative Members, and especially former Cabinet Ministers, have short memories about what they did in government. The situation regarding the number of statements to the House is similar to that which existed under the previous Administration; indeed, I remember that we made complaints from the Opposition Benches about the Department of Health, and I am sure that, if the right hon. Lady casts her mind back, she will also recall that. I doubt whether Ministers need to be reminded of their responsibilities regarding Budget day.
    Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend promise the House that, when the Government make a firm decision to take legislative action to oblige all political parties represented in the House to identify the source of donations—certainly those above £5,000—an early announcement will be made in the House first of all? Is it not absolutely essential that such action should be taken, and that we should deal with all the latest Tory sleaze, including, one should not forget, the stolen money that was received from Asil Nadir and never returned to anybody?
    Mrs. Taylor: Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in getting in that point as a supplementary question. When we are ready to act on the public funding
    816
    of political parties, announcements will, of course, be made in the normal way, but we have to await the outcome of the Neill inquiry.
    Mr. Beith: There is a serious point at the heart of the question. Ought not the Government, in their own interests, to make a more serious distinction between their official statements and the comments of press officers, people who use mobile telephones in pubs in Whitehall and friends of various parties in the Cabinet? Is it not becoming increasingly difficult for the public to distinguish the Government's voice from the unauthorised comments that expose their divisions?
    Mrs. Taylor: I suspect that even Liberal Democrats have mobile phones, even if they do not have that many friends. There is great press interest in what is or is not said in various pubs around Westminster, and I would caution everyone to be extremely careful in what they say.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: May I—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where is your tie?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I am not wearing a tie because, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not have a brass neck.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has just come out of hospital after an operation and has apologised to me because it was not possible for him to wear a tie today. I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to make that announcement.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    Although I exempt the Leader of the House from criticism, it is not good enough for her to fob off my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) as she did. I have been in the House for almost 28 years and I have never before known a time in which more announcements have been leaked to the "Today" programme and other media sources. That is not good enough. Will the Leader of the House, based on her excellent example, circulate all her ministerial colleagues and ask them to ensure that every ministerial announcement is made to the House first?
    Mrs. Taylor: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place and I am glad that he exempts me from the charges that he makes. However, I take issue with him because I do not think that the situation now is very different from previous times. People are always anxious to try to find out what is going on in the Government. People speculate and sometimes obtain leaks, but there is no systematic leaking in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I remind him that the last time a significant complaint about a leak was made, we found out that the Minister had given a written answer to the question at 3.30 pm, although someone from his party complained when the information was available at 4 pm. We should not always believe all we are told in allegations about leaks.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is not there an understanding in the House—although it is not enshrined in "Erskine May"—that before there is any prospect of British service men being committed to military action, the House of Commons has a chance to discuss the merits or otherwise of such action? Against that background—and the carriers going through the Suez canal—I ask whether any Minister has suggested that a statement might be made today on the critical talks between Mr. Richard Butler, who has described them as "the defining moment", and the Iraqi authorities. I know that you have given my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) an Adjournment debate tomorrow on the position of the children of Iraq, but the situation warrants an early statement from a senior Minister.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I take a different point of view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but the point that he made should be carefully considered.
A statement should be made to the House as soon as possible, because then we could have an exchange of opinions, as we have had on previous occasions—including my private notice question on the situation in Iraq. Many of us believe that it is necessary to ensure that we do not give in to the blackmail of the Iraqi dictator and notorious mass murderer. In those circumstances, I would welcome an early statement.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed, as the House knows, that the Government have sought to make a statement on that matter today. The House will notice that the Leader of the House is present on the Front Bench, and has no doubt heard the points of order that have been put to me on the matter.
Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is the normal expectation in the House that Members who expect to make a financial gain from legislation make a declaration during the passage of that legislation. In the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill, no limits are set on the income of those who may seek to have a dual mandate by sitting in this House and one of the other bodies, or in one of the other bodies alone. I wonder whether you could give us guidance, before Committee stage, that those who seek such a dual mandate should declare their interest before making a speech in the House.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tease the House. When we reach an appropriate stage in the Committee proceedings, he might care to raise the matter so that it can be considered

Parliamentary Boundary Commissions (Amendment)
3.33 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.
The Bill stems from my natural care, concern and compassion for my fellow Members of Parliament. The House will remember that, on 1 May, despite the Government of the day having given the country the best set of economic circumstances for decades, the public decided to give a large number of Conservative Members the opportunity to spend more time with their families. That did not happen to me, but from me were taken my red boxes, which I do not much regret, and my ministerial car, which I miss greatly.
When I settled into the spacious green Benches on this side of the Chamber, I looked across and saw an horrific sight: Labour Members—new Labour, old Labour, new Members, old Members—crammed together, cheek by jowl, hip to hip, thigh to thigh, in a most unsatisfactory sardine-like condition. My concern grew when I learned—not many people know this—that 50 Labour Members are sent home every week to spend more time with their families and constituencies because they are not needed in Parliament.
That made me think even more. The conditions on the Labour Benches are sometimes such that, if this was an industry and we had a visit from a health and safety officer, he would not hesitate to close the whole lot down on the ground of unsanitary or unsafe conditions. It is time to start considering reducing the number of Members of Parliament, because the situation has changed.
So much European Union legislation is now done by the Commission or the Council of Ministers that the House just does some rubber-stamping. There is an argument for reconsidering how we handle European legislation. The Scottish Parliament is working its way down the track; it will take time and powers away from the House. The same is true of the Welsh assembly; our next business will remove powers from this House and give them to the Welsh assembly. The various regional bodies that are to be set up will again take power from the House. The amount of legislative work is not as great as it used to be.
Under schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, we cannot have fewer than 613 Members of Parliament. The way that it is set up, with minimum numbers of Members for Scotland and Wales, predicates to the boundary commissioners that every review must mean that the number of seats goes up. We are now at the large number of 659. Over the next four or five Parliaments, it should be reduced to about 400 to 450, with 100,000 people per Member of Parliament.
People will argue that turkeys will not vote for Christmas, but I believe that my Bill would make the job of an MP easier. How many hon. Members have come to the Chamber to demand statements or ask questions and not been called? How many have prepared speeches that have gone undelivered? With fewer colleagues, individual Members would be more satisfied and much more effective. Commensurate efforts would have to be made to ensure that secretarial allowances and Members' salaries were increased because of the extra work.

819
The overall savings to the House would be about £100,000 per MP, if we consider salary, secretarial allowance and the allowance for living away from the constituency, leading to a total saving of some £23 million. The big saving would be that 200 MPs' offices would no longer be necessary. The strain on the Palace's infrastructure would be reduced. That would lead to much more efficient operation. If we add the reduction in the number of questions that flow through the Table Office to Government Departments, further tens of millions of pounds would be saved.
With changing circumstances, we do not need as many MPs as we have now. There should be about 200 fewer. The Bill would enable the House of Commons to operate much more effectively. I have much pleasure in introducing the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Page, Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Quentin Davies and Mr. Richard Shepherd.

Parliamentary Boundary Commissions (Amendment)
  PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Richard Page accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 February, and to be printed [Bill 111].

GOVERNMENT OF WALES BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the Report [19 January] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. McFall.]
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Mr. McFall.]
Following is the report of the Business Committee [19th January]:
820
That the seven days allotted under the Order [15th January] to proceedings in Committee shall be allotted in the manner shown in the following Table and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order) at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in the third column of the Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1 and Clauses 3 to 20

—

Second day

Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1 and Clauses 3 to 20, so far as not disposed of

7.00 p.m.

Clauses 21 and 22, Schedule 2, Clauses 23 to 29, Schedule 3 and Clauses 30 to 44

—

Third day

Clauses 21 and 22, Schedule 2, Clauses 23 to 29, Schedule 3 and Clauses 30 to 44, so far as not disposed of

10.00 p.m.

Fourth day

Clauses 45 to 73, Schedule 4 and Clauses 74 to 79

10.00 p.m.

Fifth day

Clauses 80 to 104 and Schedule 5

7.00 p.m.

Clauses 105 to 108, Schedule 6, Clauses 109 and 110, Schedule 7, Clauses 111 to 117 and Schedule 8

10.00 p.m.

Sixth day

Clauses 118 and 119, Schedule 9, Clause 120, Schedule 10, Clause 121, Schedule 11, Clause 122 to 132, Schedule 12, Clauses 133 to 136, Schedule 13 and Clauses 137 to 140

10.00 p.m.

Seventh day

Remaining proceedings

10.00 p.m.

Orders of the Day

  Government of Wales Bill
  [[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Government of Wales Bill
    Clause 1

      THE ASSEMBLY
      3.41 pm
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move amendment No. 52,in page 1, line 8, leave out 'an' and insert 'a legislative'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'National Assembly for Wales' and insert 'Welsh Assembly'.
      No. 2, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'Assembly' and insert 'Senedd'.
      No. 142, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'for' and insert 'of'.
      No. 19, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'Cynulliad Cenedlaethol' and insert 'Senedd Genedlaethol'.
      New clause 3—Power of Assembly to make primary legislation—

      '.— (1) Where a function has been transferred to the Assembly under section 22, Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide that the power to make laws in respect of that function shall be exercisable by the Assembly.

      (2) Laws made under subsection (1) shall be known as Acts of the Assembly.

      (3) An Act of the Assembly is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Assembly.

      (4) A provision is outside that competence so far as any of the following paragraphs apply—

      (a) it would form part of the law of a country or territory other than Wales.

      (b) its effect would be to modify any provision of this Act,

      (c) it relates to a function in respect of which Her Majesty has not made an Order in Council under subsection (1), or

      (d) it is incompatible with any of the Convention rights or with Community law.

      (5) An Act of the Assembly may modify a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament, whenever passed or made, if the modification is otherwise within its legislative competence.

      (6) Any provision of an Act of the Assembly is to be read, so far as possible, so as to be within the legislative competence of the Assembly and is to have effect accordingly.

      (7) Proposed Acts of the Assembly shall be known as Bills; and a Bill shall become an Act of the Assembly when it has been passed by the Assembly and has received Royal Assent.

      (8) The Assembly shall make standing orders setting out the procedures to which a Bill shall be subject.

      (9) The validity of any proceedings leading to the enactment of an Act of the Assembly shall not be called into question in any legal proceedings.

      (10) Every Act of the Assembly shall be judicially noticed.

      822

      (11) This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Wales.

      (12) An Order in Council under this section may contain any appropriate consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions or savings (including provisions in the form of amendments or repeals or enactments).

      (13) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under this section—

      (a) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament, and

      (b) in the case of an Order in Council varying or revoking a previous Order in Council, unless such a draft has also been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.'.

      New clause 4—Secretary of State to bring forward tax varying proposals—

      '(1) Subject to section (Power of Assembly to make primary legislation), the Secretary of State shall, before making an order under section 148(1) of this Act, lay before Parliament proposals to put in place an income tax varying power for the Assembly.

      (2) The tax varying power under subsection (1) shall be limited to a maximum variation of three per cent above or below the prevailing basic rate of income tax for the United Kingdom.'.

      Mr. Wigley: It is a great pleasure to move the first bank of amendments in the Committee stage of this very important Bill. The Government of Wales Bill will, I hope, provide a new structure of government in Wales, which will enhance democracy and enable the people of Wales to take decisions for themselves in those areas that are committed to the National Assembly Wales; they hope that those decision-taking powers will be adequate to make a difference in their everyday lives.
      The amendment in my name and those of my hon. Friends, amendment No. 52, refers to our feeling that the assembly should be known as a legislative assembly. Legislative power is a very important power indeed in giving the national assembly the ability to make the difference to which I referred in areas within its competence.
      Several other amendments linked with amendment No. 52 deal with the name of the assembly and associated matters, but I shall refer in these opening remarks to the need for legislative powers. In creating a National Assembly for Wales, we are creating a body which I hope will be able to get to grips with issues in Wales on which we need a different policy from that which exists for the United Kingdom as a whole or for England and Wales, within the context of this Chamber.
      The logic of creating a national assembly is that, where circumstances are different in Wales, there is a need to be able to follow policies that are different. Under the Bill, the extent of the powers of the assembly will be tied in one direction by financial constraints, in that it will work within a block grant and will have no tax-varying powers. It will be tied in another direction by the legislative framework that has been laid down by Westminster. If it is impossible to move in either direction, the assembly's freedom of action will be very limited indeed.
      The areas of competence of the assembly are matters of great importance, such as education, health, local government, language and culture, and many matters in which we in Wales have our own needs and our own characteristics and priorities.

      823
      Those differences were recognised by the establishment of the Welsh Office in 1964 and by subsequent policy developments of successive Governments. Since then, legislation has been passed by the House that has been deliberately tabled to deal with the needs of Wales alone. I should like the assembly to have legislative powers of that sort, so I hope that the Bill will be interpreted along those lines. I hope that Ministers will be able to tell us about the extent of the assembly's powers to deal with legislative questions.
      The White Paper and the earlier debates on the referendum acknowledged that the assembly will have some legislative functions, for example, to deal with orders—secondary legislation, as it is generally called. It is possible that the Bill's functions relating to, for example, the Welsh Development Agency will, in effect, be equivalent to amending primary legislation. To say the least, such a function requires clarification, so that we know the extent to which that power can be developed. In order to discover exactly what the assembly can do, we need to know the precise role of that legislative capacity. Provision for that exists in the Bill, but we need to know how far that goes.
      Four years ago, a Bill was put through the House that dealt exclusively with the local government needs of Wales. The assembly should have the power to deal with such legislation in the future. There may be several ways of doing so, which we can explore. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) will deal with that, should he catch your eye, Sir Alan.
      We should consider how the assembly could be linked with the existing legislative process of Westminster, so that policy changes required to legislation on local government, education or the Welsh Development Agency could include an input from our own assembly. Wales should not be totally dependent on this Chamber and this Parliament for any modifications to existing law.
      We are aware that Scotland is to have a Parliament with full legislative functions. It will be possible for that Parliament to make full-scale legislative changes in those areas over which it will have competence. If there was a subsequent change in education policy as a result of legislation passed in the House, that would not apply to Scotland, because the Scottish Parliament will pass its own education Acts. The people of Scotland will therefore be safeguarded against a right-wing Government who sought to impose policies contrary to their democratic wishes. They will be able to withstand that.
      My understanding is that the Bill does not offer a similar power to Wales. During the referendum campaign, however, I heard Ministers say that it might be possible to stop the enactment of legislation that would otherwise be imposed on Wales by a Government of perhaps a different colour from the current one. The possibility of that power should be explored in Committee, so that those in the assembly know exactly what they could do in terms of promoting legislation and withstanding that which is not wanted by the majority of people in Wales, as reflected by membership of that national assembly.
      I want to clarify the legislative role of the assembly, and it is important to bear it in mind that such legislative powers are not draconian. We should remember that, apart from the proposed Scottish Parliament, the Stormont Parliament of Northern Ireland, when it was up and
      824
      running, had similar legislative powers, as do the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which can make their own laws.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Stormont was not called the legislative assembly of Stormont. Surely the essential point is that, when one defines, one limits. To call the assembly a legislative one would in part be a deception, because it will be capable of more than that, while having limited legislative powers. Why deceive people?
      Mr. Wigley: That is a very interesting interpretation, and if that is the interpretation of Ministers, we shall listen to their comments with considerable interest. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware, as I am, that there are Parliaments in other countries that are known as legislative assemblies, for the reason that that term clarifies the fact that the body is the prime body for making legislation as far as the people are concerned. Of course those bodies have other powers—financial, executive and administrative—but the term "legislative assembly" is used in other parts of the world.
      My point is that, even if the assembly is not a fully self-governing Parliament—although we on this Bench would like it to be—there is nothing unusual in having a significant legislative role in a Parliament or assembly that is subordinate to another. We see that in the states of the United States of America, in the Lander of Germany, in Australia and in the provinces of Canada. It is important that the National Assembly for Wales should have those powers.
      If we have those powers, it will be possible to develop, for example, our education system in Wales in line with the aspirations, values and wishes of the people of Wales. Over the past 100 years, we have seen education as something of intrinsic importance in Wales. Even 100 years ago, Acts of Parliament were passed that had special relevance to Wales, whose legislative provisions gave Wales a different structure in respect of education. Our education in Wales needs that sort of framework to enable it to develop now.
      We hope that the assembly will be set up in spring 1999. Suppose we reach a position where the assembly, despite taking a considerable interest in the administration of education and in applying the secondary legislation and orders that are within the framework of laws passed here, cannot pass primary legislation; but we need changes to primary legislation in order to meet the needs of policy in Wales.
      Then the assembly will come, by some mechanism—perhaps cap in hand—to Westminster to find the means of getting the legislative change it needs to implement the sort of policy wished for in Wales. I cannot see how that situation is provided for in the Bill, and, without giving fuller legislative power to the assembly, I am not sure whether it can be resolved.
      It may be possible to develop some fast tracks, and, if so, all the better; but there needs to be some mechanism. We Back-Bench Members of Parliament know how long we have to wait to get legislative changes made. If the assembly wants and needs change but has to wait year after year to get them, or if it cannot get changes made

      825
      that it clearly and manifestly needs and desires, that will build up frustration. There must be a mechanism provided to deal with such situations.
      The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but, so that we can respond more fully to the case he is developing, will he give the Committee one or two examples of the sort of legislative change he believes might be required in future, which would be frustrated by the absence of primary legislative powers in the Bill as it stands?
      Mr. Wigley: One can easily give examples relating to local government in Wales. We have had two rounds of changes to local government powers in Wales within my political lifetime—in 1974 and 1994. Legislation passed through this Chamber and was dealt with in Standing Committees. In the most recent instance, the Committee had a majority of Conservative Members, who were not even Welsh Members of Parliament, deciding what sort of local government system we should have in Wales, when they did not have to live with the consequences.
      Changes may need to be made in the context of local government—goodness knows, there are weaknesses in the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, as the Secretary of State well knows, judging by Labour's criticisms when the Act was being passed. However, if the assembly feels that changes need to be made to the arrangements enshrined in the primary legislation passed in Westminster, as far as I can tell, it will not be possible for the assembly to make those changes.
      If the Government have a mechanism whereby draft Bills introduced by the assembly can be fed into the Westminster system, and can guarantee at least that there will be a fair opportunity to debate them in Westminster, it goes part of the way towards achieving what we want. It does not go the full way, because, if a Conservative Government come to power in Westminster, and if the objectives of the legislation introduced by the National Assembly for Wales are not in line with those of the Conservative Government, we may have to wait five, 10 or, in line with our experience in recent years, even 18 years before getting those changes through. That is unacceptable.
      Another example that may or may not need full law-making powers is education. I know that Ministers have been considering matters such as the international baccalaureate and have found certain difficulties with it. Such changes have a broad cross-section of support in Wales, albeit one must find the finances to carry them out.
      Only a few months ago, we were discussing changes to pre-school education. The last Government introduced a system that could have led to the privatisation of pre-school education, and they would no doubt have gone on to do the same to primary education. If a law is passed by a Conservative Government in Westminster to privatise primary education or bring in a system of dockets to pay for education, we would be unable, without law-making powers, to introduce an alternative system. We might be able to stop the orders, and we would be locked into the Westminster system.
      Mr. Ron Davies: We must establish at the outset of the Committee stage that the sort of fast-track system to
      826
      which the right hon. Gentleman refers is not provided for in the Bill. It is as well to acknowledge that openly. It is also important to establish at the outset that there will be a developing relationship between the assembly and the Westminster Government. The assembly's success will be judged, by and large, by whether it develops a good working relationship with the Westminster Parliament, because it will continue to rely on the Westminster Parliament for its primary legislation.
      The right hon. Gentleman has not yet convinced me, because the two arguments that he has used in respect of education did not require primary legislation. The changes to the examination system and the nursery voucher system would have been carried through by the powers that will be vested in the Welsh assembly, as proposed in the Bill.
      Mr. Wigley: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's words. He said that the changes would have been carried out by the assembly through its secondary legislative powers. The assembly may be able to block secondary legislative powers and orders, but could not create an alternative, because it would have to work within the framework of the existing primary legislation. To that extent, it stymies the assembly's powers to develop the education system in line with Welsh values. Nursery or primary school vouchers, or any such system, would certainly be out of line with our needs.
      I should be even more concerned, if a Conservative Government carrying out that agenda saw that their agenda for Wales could be blocked through the Welsh assembly's order-making powers, and then created primary legislation to avoid those orders. Our freedom to withstand the legislation would therefore be withheld.
      Mr. Davies: Yes, but let us face the brutal reality: if, by some mischance, such an horrific situation should arise and a Conservative Government were re-elected, it would always be open to them to ensure that their writ would run in Wales, just as it can run in Scotland once there is a Scottish Parliament. This Parliament is sovereign and can do whatever it wants, regardless of legislation passed by this Government.
      Mr. Wigley: We shall doubtless discuss the sovereignty of Parliament on a future group of amendments. The Secretary of State mentions the Scottish example, and says that the Westminster Parliament could overrule Scotland. This House could take away any devolved regime; it could abolish the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, just as it abolished Stormont and the Greater London council.
      Although that is conceivable, in the context of the Scotland Bill, the primary legislative powers being transferred to Scotland will not, once transferred, be interfered with by Westminster on a day-to-day basis. Notwithstanding an acknowledgement that sovereignty still lies in Westminster, there is an acknowledgement that, when those powers are given to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Parliament is expected to use them. There would be no point setting up the system if it was to be double-guessed from Westminster. The Welsh assembly will not have that facility, and that will create frustration.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am following as closely as I can the exchanges between

      827
      the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that the Bill allows the Welsh assembly to block provisions, such as the nursery voucher scheme, by refusing to exercise its order-making power. Is he certain of that, because, from my reading of the Bill, I am not so sure that that is the position?
      4 pm
      Mr. Wigley: If the hon. Gentleman has doubts about what the assembly will be able to do, I shall listen carefully to his arguments when we explore its order-making powers. At present, order-making powers rest with the Secretary of State and will be transferred to the assembly. A decision by the assembly not to move the commencement orders would prevent orders from being used. Other orders also fall into that category.
      I accept that the National Assembly for Wales will be able to prevent provisions from being implemented, but that is a negative role, and I want it to have a creative role, so that ideas that have been bubbling away in Wales in local government, education, health and housing will be able to flourish. If that is true for those areas, how much more true it would be for the Welsh language.
      The Welsh Language Act 1993 was dealt with by a Standing Committee which had a majority of Tories who did not represent Welsh constituencies, and who did not know about the prospects and hopes for the language and the need to ensure that we were carrying the whole community with us. Members of the National Assembly for Wales will have that background, because they will be from communities in which that is a material policy. It would be nonsense to have to come to Westminster for the smallest legislative change in the Welsh Language Act 1993 when we have our own national assembly.
      The national assembly must have full legislative powers if we are to have a coherent policy. The interface between executive and legislative powers must be clarified. If the national assembly has executive powers but no primary legislative powers, there will be a partial vacuum between the left hand and the right hand, and there is a danger that one will go in one direction and the other in the other direction, especially if there is a difference between the political balance in the assembly in Cardiff, or wherever it may be, and the political balance in the House.
      There is also the question of the credibility of the National Assembly for Wales in the context of the European Union. The Secretaries—if that is to be the term—will go to Brussels as part of a United Kingdom delegation dealing with agriculture, the environment, employment and regional policies, which are matters of essential importance to the National Assembly for Wales. If they are regarded as second-class citizens compared with the Secretaries or Ministers of the Scottish Parliament, who will have full, law-making powers under their belt, that will be a retrograde step. The needs of Wales will not have the same credibility as those of Scotland.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more careful when saying that the Scottish Ministers will have full law-making powers, because it is clear that no one other than a representative of this House can represent the United Kingdom as a whole?
      Mr. Wigley: That is open to argument. Some people take a different view from that taken by the hon. Member
      828
      for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I know what stance he takes on the Scottish Parliament, and although I fundamentally disagree with his view, I cannot but respect it, having heard it over the years from the 1970s to the late 1990s.
      It is up to Ministers to clarify the position, but I think I know what the Government intend. The agricultural needs of the Scottish and Welsh communities are different, in terms of balance, from those in England, which are dominated by the requirements of barley and grain fanners in East Anglia. When a Welsh national assembly and a Scottish Parliament are dealing with specific needs of that kind, it will be crazy if those who are in charge of the executive functions in Wales and Scotland are not out in Brussels as part of the team and able to argue the case, and I hope very much that that will happen.
      I am merely saying that the credibility of those people will be that much greater if they are accompanied by Ministers, with the full implication of that term—or Secretaries, as they will be called in Wales—rather than just going as people in charge of an administrative and executive function.
      Mr. Michael Ancram: The issue is important, and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was right to raise it.
      The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) says that he understands that the Government will invite Members of the Assembly who have interests in agriculture and fishing to go to the Council of Ministers, and we have heard from the Secretary of State for Scotland that he intends to establish concordats or agreements to allow that to happen. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, in such an important context—in which the voice of Wales and, indeed, that of Scotland will be either heard or not heard in the Council of Ministers—the matter should be left, in the long term, to concordats or agreements? Should not the legislation make the position clear?
      Mr. Wigley: I am not sure that it is for me to answer that question; it might be better for a Minister to answer it. I certainly think that we need to understand what the assembly's powers will be—and the Secretaries of the assembly, who will be responsible for the functions concerned, will also need to know the extent of its powers. That stands to reason. The position must be clarified, whether that is done by means of primary legislation—our amendment, along with others, is an attempt to move the agenda forward—by order or through guidelines.
      Let me put another point to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), and to the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I have the impression that it has been acknowledged in regard to the Scotland Bill that, in some circumstances—one thinks of fishing, in the context of Scotland—a Scottish Minister will be able to deliver the United Kingdom vote in the Council of Ministers. If that is so, we shall be looking for similar powers in relation to Wales.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Surely, in such circumstances, the Scottish Minister would be speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom by agreement, because of the special interest in Scotland. The same applies to forestry. There is only one member of the European Union—the United

      829
      Kingdom—and the fact that the United Kingdom chooses to delegate to one or other person responsibility for speaking on a particular subject does not detract from that.
      Mr. Wigley: I accept, of course, that the Scottish Minister—or, I hope, the Welsh Secretary—will be speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom. I believe that the Welsh Minister would probably have a higher profile in the context of, for instance, minority languages than any other Minister from the United Kingdom. My point is that, in the context of not only the Council of Ministers itself but the negotiations that lead to decisions in the Council, if we have something that is seen to be less than a legislative assembly, a certain amount of the profile and credibility of our Secretaries who go out there will be diluted.
      The National Assembly of Wales—or for Wales; we will come to that in a moment—needs to be capable of developing full legislative powers in regard to certain areas in which Wales clearly has special needs. The Secretary of State referred in an intervention to a programme developing over a period. As the Welsh Office has itself developed over the past 30 years—it was established in 1964—it has been able to bring about functions and responsibilities that may not exist in the assembly during the initial period. If, however, the Secretary of State sees the Bill as it stands as part of the programme to which he refers, that is obviously interesting. We accept that everything cannot come to Wales overnight, and that we have to walk before we can run; but I want some clarification in relation to the legislative function referred to in the amendment.
      Finally, let me deal with a subject that, although it is covered in the Bill, seems to be covered in a unique way. I refer to the legislative changes with regard to the Welsh Development Agency Bill. I believe that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and I are the only remaining Members who sat on the Committee that considered the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975.
      Mr. Rowlands indicated dissent.
      Mr. Wigley: Of course. The hon. Gentleman was a Minister at that time. I may be the only remaining Member who sat on that Committee. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) was also there.
      The Act was important, and it has developed a body that has undertaken an important function for Wales, but the agency needs changing, and changes need to be made to that primary legislation. Those changes are included in the Government of Wales Bill. If people find that similar changes are needed to primary legislation with regard to other bodies in Wales or to other areas of Government policy in Wales, will it be possible to use powers similar to those defined in the Bill for the WDA with regard to those other matters? That is a facility to change primary legislation.
      I want to understand whether it will be possible for the assembly to say that other primary legislation needs to be dealt with in this way in order to create the structures—
      830
      as in the case of the agency—or the policies within which bodies operate in other contexts to meet the requirements of Wales.
      Mr. Ron Davies: As the right hon. Gentleman is asking a specific question, perhaps I can resolve the matter. There will be a dynamic relationship between the assembly and whichever Government are in Westminster. If the Welsh assembly wishes to make such a submission, I would hope that there would be a reasonable relationship between the assembly and the British Government—the Westminster Parliament—to allow those arguments to be voiced. Ultimately, however, it would be a matter for the British Government and then this British House of Commons to decide whether they wished to give those powers to the assembly. It would be for this Parliament to give it those powers.
      It is not possible at this stage to give a blank cheque to the right hon. Gentleman or to say that that is what would happen, but, if he were to want that to happen, it would be for the assembly or the Welsh Secretary to ensure that the British Government adopted that as their policy, and to introduce appropriate legislation before this Parliament.
      Mr. Wigley: I have listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said and I will want to read Hansard to ensure that I have understood his words and that what is on the record is clear and undisputed. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that, if, to meet other aspirations, there is a need to change this legislation after it goes on to the statute book, another Act will need to go through Westminster—through the House of Commons and the House of Lords—to give the National Assembly of Wales the powers it may seek.
      A Government may be in power here who are willing to give time for such an amendment to the Act, or a Government may be in power who have been in office for 18 years and who are not willing to give the time. If the latter is the case, we have a serious problem.
      There should be some mechanism whereby, if the National Assembly of Wales expresses in clear-cut terms the desire for legislation to be passed here, that desire has some precedence and can make some progress. It should have some status, despite the fact that it may not represent the view of the then majority party in the House of Commons. If we do not have that, clearly we are totally at the mercy of the majority party in the House of Commons in relation to any such legislative change.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: Bearing in mind the narrow majority—some people might say the minority—of people in Wales who voted for the very limited powers of the present assembly, does the right hon. Gentleman—being the great and wonderful democrat that he is, and believing in the people of Wales—think it appropriate that any extension of powers should not be fought for on the Floor of the House, but should go back to the people of Wales in a referendum?
      Mr. Wigley: Conservative Members seem to agree with that intervention by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who I am glad to see has entered the Chamber and joined our debate. Very soon after the referendum, I heard him say that he believed that the

      831
      referendum had been held, that a decision had been made, and that the important matter now was to build the best possible National Assembly for Wales. I whole-heartedly agree with him in that aspiration—which, in tabling our amendment, we are attempting to realise. I have heard him criticise the assembly, which was proposed by the Labour party, because it was not strong enough or a real Parliament. Our amendment provides an opportunity for him to join us in the Lobby—to show that he is committed to gaining that real Parliament that will do the real job that is needed for the people of Rhondda and elsewhere. I welcome his intervention.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: Given what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about the referendum result, does he not feel that, for the reassurance of the people of Wales, there really should be a judicial inquiry into polling irregularities? Given the narrowness of the referendum majority as recorded, would not he and Plaid Cymru feel much more confident if we could all see that those results were thoroughly checked?
      Mr. Wigley: That is a complete red herring, and a completely unnecessary detraction from the debate. If Conservative Members felt that strongly about the matter, where were they in the two months after the referendum? They had to be goaded into taking any action on the matter by an article in The Scotsman; goodness only knows why it appeared in that newspaper initially, but so be it.
      A decision has been taken, and, as hon. Members on both sides of the House—even Conservative spokesmen—have said: it is now time to establish the best possible National Assembly for Wales. We must now establish an assembly that works effectively and efficiently and that meets all the needs of Wales, although everyone will not agree with all the details in establishing it.
      Our amendment states that, if we are to be clear about the assembly's role, there will have to be a clearer statement of the meaning of the legislative powers provided in the Bill. We believe that, in establishing the National Assembly for Wales, we will get to grips with the needs of the people of Wales only by including in the Bill primary legislative powers for at least some subjects. I therefore recommend our amendment, and I shall listen with considerable interest to the comments by hon. Members from both sides of the Committee, and to the Minister's reply.
      Mr. Rowlands: The interesting speech made by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) prompts me to speak. Like him, I should like to clarify the situation. We did not propose in the White Paper—or to the Welsh people—that the Welsh assembly should be a law-making body and make primary legislation. I think that he will accept that that was not the basis on which we sought the people's assent and consent. His case is that amendment No. 52 is a paving amendment that would extend the Welsh assembly's scope to include making primary legislation.
      In the White Paper and in the Bill, we proposed a legislative character for the assembly in the form of order-making powers. I was interested in the right hon.
      832
      Gentleman's interpretation of those powers. He said that the Bill provides at least the power to block implementation of legislation from the Westminster Parliament and that it would be possible for an assembly to refuse to move or authorise a commencement order for a Bill—which would be one of the most effective ways to negate legislation from the Westminster Parliament.
      If that interpretation of the proposed legislative power is correct, it will be a considerable negative legislative power and it does not require the adjective "legislative" proposed by amendment No. 52. The right hon. Gentleman gave the example of education and said that if an assembly had existed it would have been possible to prevent any nursery voucher scheme. I should be very grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will confirm that the Bill contains such a power.
      Sadly, we must not stray from the subject of the amendment, but I have a horrible feeling that clause 41, one of the most important and confusing in the Bill, may not receive the scrutiny that it deserves. It deals with a complicated matter. I realise that I cannot bring the debate forward, but as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon raised the issue of what functions were or should be in the Bill, I feel that we should have some clarifying statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as to the legislative nature of the Welsh assembly and its order-making powers.
      Do the powers go as far as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon suggests? Will it be possible for the Welsh assembly to negate the effective implementation of any form of legislation from Westminster by refusing to move the relevant orders?
      Mr. Wigley: It would be able to block only legislation that required orders. It would be in the hands of the Westminster Parliament to create primary legislation that did not require such orders.
      Mr. Rowlands: I appreciate that explanation, but if the United Kingdom Parliament wanted to get around the powers of the Welsh assembly, it would have to reverse the development of shorter primary legislation with considerable order-making powers that has been the pattern of legislative change in the past 50 years.
      Many Acts require commencement or implementation orders. Is the power to negate any legislation from the United Kingdom Parliament in the Bill and, therefore, within the legislative capacity of the assembly?
      Mr. Ron Davies: In a sense, my hon. Friend has answered his own question as he has said that legislation takes many different forms. Those different forms of legislation can confer different powers on the assembly. That is the essence of secondary legislation. It will be for primary legislation to identify the powers of the assembly to deal with secondary legislation. It is a matter not just of blocking, although that may arise, but of the powers that will be available to the assembly to create distinctive secondary legislation, which might be quite different from the parallel secondary legislation that applies to England, to meet Welsh needs.
      Mr. Rowlands: I followed closely what my right hon. Friend said. I can see how a Welsh assembly might exercise order-making powers within the framework of

      833
      the primary legislation to create secondary legislation that is different from that which applies to England. Does the term "different from" go as far as making it possible to for the assembly to negate any part of the primary legislation or to prevent it from being implemented, for example by refusing to move a commencement order, or will the United Kingdom Parliament reserve the exclusive right to move commencement orders? Will primary legislation list a series of orders that the United Kingdom Parliament will implement, rather than leave the decision to the Welsh assembly, even in respect of areas and functions that have been transferred to the assembly?
      Mr. Davies: The areas and functions being devolved to the assembly are not relevant to the argument. If we do not reach clause 41, I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend to ensure that by the time the Bill is enacted any outstanding questions that he might have are properly addressed.
      I must refer back to my hon. Friend's original question. The answer will depend on the primary legislation enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament. It is quite possible, in one Session of Parliament, to pass half a dozen Acts that give the assembly different powers that might or might not require commencement orders. It will depend on the nature of the legislation and the decision of the House as to which powers are given to the assembly and how they can be exercised.
      Mr. Rowlands: I understand that. I shall read carefully what my right hon. Friend has said, but I should like a simple answer to a simple question arising from what the right hon. Member for Caernarfon said. Let us consider primary legislation passed in the House of Commons with a series of orders, including commencement orders, the drafting and enactment of which fall to the Welsh assembly. Will the assembly have the power not to implement the relevant parts of that legislation by not moving the commencement orders or seeking to amend them in such a way that they become not just different from but contradictory to the original legislation?
      Mr. Davies: I shall take advice and let my hon. Friend know if my answer is not correct, but I think that it depends on whether the primary legislation says "may" or "shall". If the primary legislation offers the assembly discretion, it can exercise that discretion. If the House of Commons says that it shall make a commencement order, no such discretion will be available to the assembly.
      Mr. Rowlands: That is a useful clarification. I am interested in that phrase, "different from". How limited is the order-making power? The right hon. Member for Caernarfon suggested that it would be more than possible for the assembly to block measures. That is the phrase that has prompted me to respond. Is it possible for the assembly to block orders for which it has been given responsibility, resulting in aspects of primary legislation never being implemented?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. I should also like to know the answer to the question that he has just asked. He is dealing with possible future legislation. The Secretary of State said that
      834
      it is up to the House what it passes and what form the order-making power takes. What happens with existing legislation that has a commencement order that has not yet been exercised or operated by order? Will the Welsh assembly be able to block that without the House being able to do anything about it?
      Mr. Rowlands: I have no answer to that. I am seeking clarification of what the right hon. Member for Caernarfon said. It would be useful if Ministers could say how far the legislative powers in the Bill go. Having said that, I cannot possibly support the amendment.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: I am relieved that the Committee stage of the Bill is being taken on the Floor of the House. The Government, in the guise of their earthly presence, the Secretary of State for Wales, have finally come off their high horse and conceded the importance of discussing this major constitutional issue on the Floor of the House. That is important because it is also an acceptance that this is not simply a Welsh issue, but a United Kingdom issue. All United Kingdom Members of Parliament will have an opportunity to have their say on the Bill.
      A source close to the Secretary of State, no less, has been reported in the newspapers as saying that the Conservative party has rolled over and died on the issue. That is wrong. We shall give the Bill careful scrutiny and make constructive suggestions, as our amendments show. We shall speak out on areas in which we feel that the Bill can be improved to serve the Welsh people better. Taking a constructive role in proceedings on the Bill does not detract one jot from our desire for democracy in Wales to be properly served.
      A sour smell will hang over the Bill, the Act and the assembly, once established, because of the Secretary of State's refusal to hold a proper, independent inquiry into the conduct of the count of the Welsh referendum vote. The Secretary of State says that with some of our amendments, including amendment No. 10, to which I shall speak, we are looking to wreck the Bill. We do not want to do that, or to tarnish the name of the assembly, wherever it is to be sited, but we say that the Secretary of State's stubbornness in not agreeing to an independent judicial inquiry will tarnish the good name of the assembly—
      4.30 pm
      The Chairman: Order. We are looking forward rather than looking back.
      Mr. Evans: Thank you, Sir Alan. What we are looking forward to, surely, is not only the establishment of the assembly, or whatever it may be called—that is the concern of the amendment to which I am speaking—but its good name, irrespective of what its actual name is when the Bill becomes an Act.
      I shall now speak to amendment No. 10, if I may. In terms of the good name of the assembly, most of the amendments before us could be described as "scratch it and see" amendments. We scratch them and see what really lies behind the raison d'etre of the assembly. The nationalists have taken off the kid gloves and the pretence; all they want is there for us to see.

      835
      If any one factor has been established from the beginning, it is the muddle in which the Bill finds itself. More questions will be asked than answers given. I hope that we shall hear some proper clarification from the Secretary of State. I am sure that the nationalists would love it to be a legislative assembly with primary law-making powers. They are pushing at the edges of the Bill.
      Mr. Cynog Dafis rose—
      Mr. Evans: We can forget the White Paper—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall give way in a second.
      We can forget the White Paper; we can forget what was put before the Welsh people and what was said about legislative powers in the version of it that went into every Welsh home during the referendum campaign. The nationalists would like matters to be pushed even further.
      Mr. Dafis: I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman would clarify whether he is talking about the Welsh nationalists or the British nationalists who sit on the Conservative Benches.
      Mr. Evans: That is an interesting point. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can start to meddle with the constitution without there being an impact on the constitution of the United Kingdom as a whole, he is mistaken. Not only Conservatives have been raising questions about various aspects of the United Kingdom constitution since we have gone down the route of devolution; Labour Members, too, will ask those questions. They are legitimate questions that need to be asked.
      The nationalists would like us to go further. They are pushing for primary legislative powers and for the Welsh assembly to be turned into a full Parliament—but that is not what the Welsh people voted for, nor what they were offered in the White Paper. Half of those who were asked did not vote at all, and half of those who voted, voted no. Only one in four of the Welsh people wishes to go down that route. That is not a clear endorsement for jumping out of the pan into the fire.
      Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has already been on his feet for five minutes and we have a fairly tight timetable in which to debate all the clauses in the Bill. We are now dealing with particular amendments and, as the hon. Gentleman has been making a Second Reading speech for five minutes, he should now address himself to the amendments before us.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. That should be the case for the whole Committee. The amendments before us are the matters to which we should pay attention.
      Mr. Ancram: Who is running the show?
      The First Deputy Chairman: I am; do not worry about that. We should confine ourselves to the amendments before us.
      Mr. Evans: I am indeed referring to amendment No. 10—we are talking about the name of the assembly.
      836
      The problem is that the Secretary of State for Wales likes to close down debate whenever he can. He may be good at bullying members of his own party, but he will not be so successful at bullying members of other parties—or the Chairman of the Committee.
      Mr. Rogers: It is no good going over old arguments again: the referendum result is known. What is critical remains: the relationship between this Parliament and the Welsh assembly when it comes to legislative issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has dramatically asked whether the assembly will have just a blocking power or whether it will be able to initiate secondary legislation. We desperately need to tackle that problem, because it is fundamental to the working of the assembly. My view is that the assembly should have more powers, but for goodness' sake let us return to the argument.
      Mr. Evans: We are seeking clarification of the issue—indeed, the Secretary of State said that he himself was seeking clarification at one stage
      Mr. Davies indicated dissent.
      Mr. Evans: That is how I remember what he said at any rate. What the assembly will be and what its name will be are important matters. That is why the nationalists want to call it a legislative assembly; it is also why we have tabled our amendment, which maintains that that is the wrong way to go. The Welsh people do not want it either.
      Mr. Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman has thanked the Government for acceding to the Opposition's request to deal with the Bill on the Floor of the House. Does he find it disappointing that, of the 600 Members of Parliament who do not represent constituencies in Wales, only five are present in the Chamber, two of them on my side of it?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with the amendment.
      Mr. Evans: What disappoints me is the fact that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is here to participate in the debate—
      Mr. Wigley: He is a Welsh Member.
      Mr. Evans: Funnily enough I am too, although I do not represent a Welsh constituency.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: Since the hon. Gentleman seems incapable of making his point, I shall make it for him. His amendment would delete the word "National" in relation to Wales. Does not that reflect the fact that the Conservative party is incapable of recognising that Wales is a nation and should be

      837
      recognised as such? The Tories fail to recognise the fact that various nations make up the United Kingdom, which is a unitary state.
      Mr. Evans: I shall come in a moment to what the White Paper called the assembly, but I want first to deal with the Liberal Democrats' amendments—
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Wales is not a nation?
      Mr. Evans: That is not what is behind our amendment. I want later to refer to the White Paper the Government published and sent out to people's homes during the referendum campaign.
      The Liberal Democrats' amendments are more subtle than their new clauses, the contents of which border on self-delusion. The Liberal Democrats want to call the assembly a senedd—[Interruption.] I hope that the Secretary of State will listen, because I am discussing the name of the assembly, which the Government have changed since the time of the referendum. They now want to call it the National Assembly for Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State does not mind our discussing the final name of the assembly in Committee. I understand that he is grappling with the problems of where to site the assembly. Meanwhile, we are talking about what to call it. The Liberal Democrats want to call it a senedd, which is the Welsh word for Parliament.
      Mr. Davies: I must explain the cause of my mirth to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not feel that it is presumptuous for him to be dealing with the points that the Liberal Democrats will presumably argue when they have not yet had the opportunity to do so?
      Mr. Evans: No, I know no shame. I have learnt that from watching how the Secretary of State behaves both inside and outside the Chamber; I have had a good master.
      It would be a mistake to call the Welsh assembly a senedd because that is the Welsh word for Parliament and it will be anything other than a Parliament. It is premature and naive to go down that road because that would only be playing the names game. We do not believe in deluding the Welsh people or anyone else and it would be an insult to call it a senedd.
      Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman should understand that Welsh words were not coined to translate English words—or, indeed, French words, which is what Parliament is. The Welsh word senedd is derived from the Latin word senate and has its own meaning. There is no reason why it should be seen as a translation of an English word.
      Mr. Evans: I am glad of that clarification. That is lesson in Welsh number one. I am sure that we will have many more during the passage of the Bill. I understand that senedd does not mean a talking shop or an assembly. The senedd was always deemed to be the body that would be there if Wales went down the independence route and thus had its own Parliament. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)
      838
      came to Wales in the 1970s, he was welcomed by some Welsh nationalist demonstrators calling for "Senedd i Gymru", or "A Parliament for Wales". I am sure that the meaning has not changed that much in the intervening period.
      Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. We have been sitting here for some time waiting for the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to refer to the amendments tabled by the Conservative party. We have not yet heard one reason why "Welsh Assembly" should replace the name in the Bill. Can we please hear why it should?
      The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking to amendments in the group. It makes no difference to me whether he is speaking to his own amendment, as long as the audit is one of the group before the Committee.
      Mr. Evans: Thank you for your welcome protection, Mr. Martin. It is nice to see the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) revisiting the House to make his contribution. He should refer to the Government's White Paper—[Interruption.] It is important because, first, it talks about
      "A Voice for Wales: The Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly",
      to which amendment No. 10 refers. Then, referring to remarks made in the House it states:
      "The referendum offers the people of Wales a new beginning, alongside other successful economic regions"—
      not economic nations, but regions. We must look at the way in which the Secretary of State refers to Wales, because he signed that foreword.
      What is important is how the Welsh people refer to the assembly once it is set up. Will they call it the National Assembly for Wales, or the National Assembly of Wales? Will they call it the senedd or the Welsh assembly? I shall try to introduce a little common sense into what at times is a desert of national thinking. The Welsh people will, I suggest, call it the Welsh assembly. It is a little like Cardiff Arms park. It is all very well taking it down, turning it round and rebuilding it and then trying to call it the millennium stadium, or something bordering on that, but what will the people of Wales call that rugby stadium? Will they call it Cardiff Arms park? I suspect that that is exactly what they will do—or, perhaps, new Cardiff Arms park, rather like calling the Labour party new Labour.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly out of touch with Wales. He seems to be unaware of our great Welsh gift for abbreviation. Hence, the crematorium is the crem and my leisure centre is the lesh. It will certainly not be called the Welsh assembly. It will be the assembly.
      Mr. Evans: I am delighted that the hon. Member finished off his comparison. After crematorium became crem, I thought that assembly might become something completely different [Laughter.] Thank you, I am here all week folks.
      I hope that we will get some common sense. There is no reason why it should not be called the Welsh assembly. I understand that there may well be a legal problem with

      839
      translating "Welsh assembly" into Welsh as someone may have the copyright to the Welsh version—one cannot have a copyright to the English version of the Welsh assembly. Perhaps the Secretary of State has more information about that and can enlighten us if that is why it is not being called the Welsh assembly. At least the people of Wales and the people of Cardiff, although they voted no, will refer to it as the Welsh assembly, irrespective of whether it is sited in Cardiff, Swansea, north Wales or somewhere else.
      Another amendment in the group refers to tax-raising or tax-varying powers for the assembly. That brings us back to the subject of whether we are to have an assembly or a Parliament. The people of Wales did not vote for tax-varying powers. They saw what they were offered in the White Paper. They were not offered the parliamentary version, but they certainly would not have gone down that route. I do not believe that they would have gone down the route of tax-varying powers either.
      Today, I was speaking with some of the farmers who are lobbying Parliament about farm incomes, which have dropped 50 per cent. in a short time. They face one of the bleakest crises ever. Some of them may be listening to our debate and others will no doubt read about it avidly tomorrow in the newspapers. It is appalling for us to be talking about burdening them with extra taxes when their incomes have fallen. This is one reason why the Government never suggested tax-raising powers for Wales—because the assembly will not be the same as the Scottish Parliament. Judging from some of the amendments, however, that Parliament is what some hon. Members want to mimic. It has primary legislative and tax-varying powers, but the Welsh assembly has none of that. We are witnessing moves to give the assembly something that the Welsh people did not vote for, by stealth and without the endorsement of the Welsh people.
      I fear for the Severn bridge if we go down that route and if a 3 per cent. tax-varying power is given to a Welsh assembly. Taxes would go only one way—up. I cannot envisage that they would go down if the Welsh assembly were given that power, particularly given the Barnett formula. Many taxpayers in England would have something to say if they thought that their money was subsidising one part of the United Kingdom where people's taxes were going down.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the former Member for Conwy said at the time of the referendum vote and the win for the yes campaign that he thought that the Government's proposals did not have enough teeth and that tax-varying powers would be a great advantage? Indeed, the attraction of a reduction in tax is that it would make Wales a tax haven.
      Mr. Evans: I am not sure which is the greater delusion, calling the assembly a senedd—a Parliament—or thinking that if it had tax-varying powers one of its first measures would be to reduce taxation on the Welsh people. I suspect that it would not be, particularly given the demands that would be made on public expenditure in Wales. Irrespective of what the Liberal Democrats say, there is only one way that taxation would go. It is bizarre
      840
      for a party that thought that putting a penny on the basic rate of income tax was the answer to all evils at the general election to talk in such a way.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: Why is the hon. Gentleman so frightened of trusting a Welsh senedd or assembly with the authority to make decisions that would surely be supported by the majority in Wales—otherwise the individuals would be voted out of office?
      Mr. Evans: When 73.4 per cent. of people in Scotland voted yes to the Parliament, only 63.5 per cent. voted yes to tax-varying powers. We can see the gulf. We must remember that only one in four of the Welsh people voted for the assembly. I shudder to think how many would vote for that assembly to have tax-varying powers. I cannot imagine it happening.
      If we were to go down that route, the number of holiday homes in Wales would grow dramatically as people vacated Wales and moved just east of the border to take advantage of the tax haven in England. Let us have some common sense and ditch any idea of calling the Welsh assembly anything other than what it is: a Welsh assembly.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Amendment No. 142 would delete the word "for" and insert the word "of". There is no deep philosophical or metaphysical reasoning behind it. I simply thought that the draftsman had made a mistake. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) also made a mistake, referring to the National Assembly for Wales four times as the National Assembly "of" Wales. Perhaps he does not like the fact that it is "for" and not "of" Wales.
      Draftsmen do not usually make mistakes, but even Homer sometimes nods, as somebody or other told us in a poem years ago. Perhaps it is a mistake or perhaps it is a subtle piece of drafting. I do not know what instructions were conveyed. I see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is getting restive.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I was getting comfortable.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend is smiling, but he does not look comfortable. I do not intend to give way to him yet, but I am sure that he would like to come to the Dispatch Box immediately. I do not understand the words, "National Assembly for Wales". I understand "Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru", which I would translate as "National Assembly of Wales". In French no doubt we would have the National Assembly "of" France. I cannot imagine the French saying "for".
      Mr. Wigley: Or the Germans.
      Mr. Davies: Or the Germans. It would be one long word in German, with a verb at the end, as in Latin.
      If there is a national assembly that is for Wales, there must be another national assembly somewhere. "National" cannot refer to Wales in that context, whereas "National Assembly of Wales" would refer to Wales's own assembly. What is this national assembly that is "for" Wales? Perhaps my right hon. Friend could explain.
      Did the Lord Chancellor, with his acute brain, honed at the Bar—for vast fees, we are told, but I do not know about that—say that we could not have the National

      841
      Assembly "of" Wales because of the question of sovereignty? Perhaps the Welsh National party should have tabled amendment No. 142.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is on the Front Bench. Perhaps he would like to intervene. He may have had something to do with the decision. I do not remember whether this subtle bit of drafting was contained in the legislation for the putative—very putative—assembly in 1978.
      I suspect that there has been no mistake, and that it is a deep point. Clearly, "National Assembly for Wales" sends a signal, especially to the nationalists, that sovereignty resides in the House. Otherwise, the draftsman would have put "of". What does "National" refer to in "National Assembly for Wales"? It is pretty meaningless. Is it a British national assembly? There is no such thing as a British nation, as Mr. Gwynfor Evans used to remind us a long time ago.
      Why the convoluted formulation? It does not trip easily off the tongue, as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon said. Why cannot we simply say, "National Assembly of Wales"? It is much better English, and much clearer. Why should it be "for"?
      Mr. Livsey: I will now give what I believe to be the correct version of the Liberal Democrat amendments and their meaning. Amendments Nos. 2 and 19 refer to the name of the assembly, suggesting the use of the word "Senedd"; new clause 3 would give the assembly legislative powers; and new clause 4 refers to income tax and the ability to vary taxation.
      "Senedd" refers to a senate, and if it was good enough for Owain Glyndwr in Machynlleth, it is good enough for us. It is an accepted bilingual word in Wales that has been known for many centuries and has a meaning for both English and Welsh speakers. It is a simple description. Obviously, it implies that the body has rather more powers than are given in the Bill, but it is our view that the assembly, or senedd, should aspire to a status that is meaningful for a national legislature. The description is dependent on new clause 3 and amendment No. 52.
      We believe that amendments Nos. 2 and 19 would provide a far better distinction, avoiding confusion both with a Scottish Parliament and with regional assemblies in England. The changes would make it absolutely clear that it was a Welsh body and the word "senedd" is easy for everybody to pronounce. We all know about the Senate in America and the part that Welsh people played in constructing the constitution of the United States more than 200 years ago. That means a great deal to people in Wales.
      Mr. Ancram: Is the hon. Gentleman's idea closer to the model of the Senate in the United States or the one in the Republic of Ireland?
      Mr. Livsey: I do not want to go into such deep territory. There are certainly similarities with the Senate in the United States, but the Government of southern Ireland have been reasonably successful with their constitution.
      Mr. Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the names of most national assemblies and Parliaments of
      842
      various countries are known to the rest of the world by the name for a Parliament in their own languages? There is only one Knesset, one Duma, one Riigikogu and one Seimas. Is it not inevitable that the press will refer to the Welsh assembly as the senedd, because the press find irresistible the use of two syllables instead of six? While of course I will always loyally support Ministers, it is inevitable that whatever we decide today, the press and the world will know the Welsh assembly as the senedd.
      5 pm
      Mr. Livsey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that will inevitably occur and, knowing the ways of the press, might occur rather more quickly than some hon. Members think.
      New clause 3 mirrors amendment No. 52 and would give the assembly the power to legislate. It would bring to the fore the ability of the assembly to introduce Bills and to create Acts. Those may be voted on at the end of the Committee stage. The new clause would also give the assembly the power to make primary legislation. I shall not rehash the debate that we have already had about amendment No. 52, but the Welsh assembly will have powers over many areas that have distinctive features in Wales and may require special attention. For example, hon. Members have mentioned education, and we have a long and honourable track record in Wales of pioneering in education. It is sad that education in Wales does not currently reflect its past glories, but a recent turnaround has displayed signs of hope. We have an honourable tradition in education in Wales and many excellent people have been involved.
      Another example is agriculture. Welsh farmers, some of whom came here today, are distinctive: their holdings are roughly half the size of those in England and they depend heavily on family labour. A Welsh assembly might need to address the problems of Welsh agriculture, including legislation from Europe. Housing, too, is an area that could be covered, as the housing stock in Wales is the worst in the United Kingdom. Much work has been done, but we still have poor housing that affects the health of the people. The health service needs of Wales are also distinctive. The health of people in Wales, especially in the south Wales valleys, is poor, as we heard yesterday at the meeting in Cardiff of the Welsh Affairs Committee. We have a great natural resource in water, which was privatised in the 1980s. Long-term agreements were made and leases of 999 years granted, so the Welsh assembly might like to legislate on water. Similarly, we have an abysmal transport system, especially the public transport infrastructure. Understandably, this Parliament has not been minded to take a great interest in the transport infrastructure in Wales because hon. Members who represent other parts of Britain do not use that system. if they did, they would be back here quickly to do something about it.
      Economic development is also important. We have tabled new clause 3 because we want the Welsh assembly to have a status worthy of Wales and to earn the respect of the Welsh people. Such an assembly is more likely to be successful. The assembly, in its present form, might not be able to achieve all that it would want and might be just a talking shop. In new clause 3, we are trying to push forward the boundaries and we shall seek to put it to a vote.

      843
      New clause 4 has already been mentioned, and I will not go into it in more detail. The new clause refers to tax-raising powers, which we feel are important for a legislature of the type that we support. Liberal Democrats are federalists and we believe in the devolution of power to the regions and countries of Britain.
      Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has spoken twice of tax-raising powers. I know that the Liberal Democrats believe in tax raising, but the new clause refers to tax-varying powers.
      Mr. Livsey: For once, I accept the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's comments. As I said earlier, we could have reductions in tax.
      Mr. Charles Kennedy: It is ironic that Conservative Front Benchers should make that pedantic semantic point given that, although the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) campaigned vigorously throughout the length and breadth of Scotland for a no vote, I did not hear him once use the phrase "tax-varying powers"; he always referred to tax-raising powers.
      Mr. Livsey: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) also visited Wales and argued that the Welsh assembly was not powerful enough because it would not have tax-varying powers. He said one thing in Scotland and the opposite in Wales.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: The argument about devolution and federalism is complicated. Most federations are composed of regions that have given up part of their powers to the centre for purposes of common use. Devolution is more a matter of a central authority giving some of its power to lower levels. Devolution and federalism are different concepts and the ease with which they are blurred, especially in Liberal thinking, is a mistake.
      Mr. Livsey: There is nothing blurred about Liberal thinking. It is clear that what was achieved in the last century through federalism in Australia, Canada and the United States owes much to Liberal philosophy, because it involves constructing powers that can best be exercised at the appropriate level of government. Devolution, in this centralised country in which we live, is about giving powers back to the people so that they can exercise them in the detailed knowledge of what is happening locally. To be fair to the Secretary of State, he has said that he wants to give away powers to the Welsh assembly and he is right to do so.
      Mr. Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman see any contradiction between the wish to give additional, devolved powers to a Welsh assembly and another aspect of Liberal philosophy—the wish to centralise decision making in the hands of an unelected and unaccountable European central bank?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members must keep to the subject of the amendments.
      Mr. Livsey: Thank you for your assistance, Mr. Martin. I shall say only that our amendments are
      844
      important in respect of the description of the assembly, its legislative powers and its ability to vary taxes. They would create a senedd with real powers worthy of the aspirations of the people of Wales.
      Mr. Rogers: I shall briefly deal with the title "legislative" proposed in amendment No. 52. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said earlier, the matter is tied up with clauses 41 and 42. There is a real dilemma, beyond talking about silly name changes, about exactly what the assembly will do. There is confusion about whether it will have the power to vary legislation only if such a power is given in every Act that goes through this Parliament or whether it will have a general catch-all power to vary what happens in Wales in respect of all legislation.
      Having read clauses 41 and 42, which I hope we will eventually reach, I am more confused than I was when I started. I support the proposal that the assembly should be a legislative assembly because I do not want an assembly that has no more than the power to vary nursery vouchers, for example, or an assembly that is falsely said to have powers that it does not in fact have. One Minister has said that we would not have had the miners' strike if we had had a Welsh assembly; he needed reminding that the strike started in Nottingham. It has been said that we would not have had the effects of Thatcherism with a Welsh assembly, as though the Severn bridge would have cut off the disease of Toryism and Thatcherism at that line. The proposed assembly will not do that for Wales, unfortunately. It will not have the necessary legislative or tax-varying powers. It will not be able to do anything for the economic development of Wales because it will not have the power.
      I should like the assembly to have legislative power, but I think that the Welsh nationalists—I must be careful to use parliamentary language—are being a little devious. They have their agenda: a separate Wales with its own Parliament and legislative powers. That is an honest position but it has nothing to do with this debate. What was put before the people of Wales was the proposal that there should be an assembly with the powers contained in the Bill. After all the cuddling that the leader of Plaid Cymru has done over the past few months, he ought to cwch up a little closer now and vote with us.
      Mr. Dafis: In responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the Secretary of State asked for examples of how primary legislative powers would be useful and of how their absence would be a disadvantage. I thought that I would give some examples involving education.
      It is clear that the key task for the assembly, in the context of the priorities that the Government have set, will be to create a first-rate school system in Wales. I shall stick to schools for the moment, and not consider higher education. Our purpose must be to raise standards so that we have the best in the world. That is part of the Government's rhetoric, and I strongly identify with that. The question is whether the assembly will have the necessary powers to achieve such aims.
      The previous Government decided that the means to drive up standards in schools was the creation of a competitive market. That was the logic that they applied to the education system, believing that it would achieve

      845
      the purpose. Parents choosing schools, schools selecting pupils and league tables are all part of the same mechanism. In many ways, the present Government are still pursuing that agenda. The School Standards and Framework Bill has many similar provisions. Without going into the rights and wrongs of that approach in principle, I believe that it is not likely to yield results in Wales. The geography and demography of Wales mean that parents cannot be provided with the significant choice between schools that they need to make decisions on the basis of the standards that schools can offer. It is not a useful mechanism for Wales. We need another approach, but one that nevertheless emphasises excellent standards.
      We inherited from the previous Government's reforms a structure that is not conducive to promoting high standards. Key functions, at an all-Wales level, are provided by an unsatisfactory organisational structure. First, there is the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, which was established by the Education Act 1993. It is responsible for curriculum development, the provision of materials and testing, and it is now also responsible for vocational qualifications. The previous Government decided not to give those functions to the body that existed at the time, the Welsh Joint Education Committee, because they did not want to do anything to strengthen local government. The WJEC was a local government body. It lobbied for the functions to be given to it and that was debated in Committee, but the Government did not want it.
      We now have two bodies in Wales: one responsible for curriculum and assessment and the WJEC, which is the examining body. The WJEC is now a limited company owned by local authorities. I cannot see how it makes good sense to separate curriculum development and assessment from examination. Assessment and examination are part of the same process and there is a good argument for merging the two.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Ancram: Which amendment is the hon. Gentleman addressing?
      Mr. Dafis: I am addressing amendment No. 52 and establishing the case for legislative or equivalent powers. I remember that you, Mr. Martin, were one of the Chairmen of the Committee that considered the matter, so you understand my point. I am considering whether it makes good sense to merge the two bodies. As a matter of interest, the establishment of an all-Wales body, which we might call the education council for Wales, is Plaid Cymru policy. Such a body would have strong local government representation.
      Mr. Rogers: Like the WJEC.
      Mr. Dafis: Indeed, it would be a body not unlike the WJEC, but it would have the functions of the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, and would have to be established by statute in primary legislation. It would also have representations from those in higher and further education.
      The assembly will have powers in relation to the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, which is a body from which powers can be taken or to which
      846
      powers may be added. Under schedule 2, the authority could be abolished. However, I do not think that the assembly could transfer such powers to the WJECI— would like to be enlightened on this—or, better, revamp it to create an integrated body responsible for curriculum, examination and testing. A further possibility would be to bring in the inspectorate, which is ensconced inside the Welsh Office. We would then have an integrated body for quality control. It seems to me that that would be a very useful instrument in raising education standards in Wales.
      It is worth considering local government and its responsibilities in relation to schools. The previous Government exercised a pincer movement on local government which weakened its position and its ability to deliver services to schools. First, they introduced local management of schools. I had no objection in principle to LMS, but the way in which it was done had an effect on local government. Following LMS, the Conservative Government reorganised local government and created small counties and small local education authorities in Wales. The evidence suggests that those small bodies lack the ability to deliver the support services that schools and teachers need to respond to the demands and pressures on them to raise standards.
      Small local education authorities do not have the benefit of economies of scale. Some of them are setting up ad hoc co-operation with each other to provide support services. There is a strong case for delivering support services through a national organisation. When I say national, I mean an all-Wales organisation. I think that the word "national" will increasingly be used in Wales to apply to Wales rather than to the whole of the United Kingdom. Some people might disagree with the idea of creating an all-Wales body to be responsible for delivering services, such as in-service training, to schools. Some people might see it as a centralising process, but I do not see it that way.
      The important issue for us tonight is whether, if it wished to do so, the National Assembly for Wales would have the power to bring about changes and create structures and systems that are appropriate, suitable and acceptable to Wales in order to raise standards. Most of the reforms of the past 18 years were not ideologically acceptable in Wales. I believe that the answer to my question is no because I do not believe that the assembly would be empowered in that way. It would find itself constrained. It would have to work, manoeuvre and manipulate the situation within severe constraints. It would find itself hobbled like a gipsy's horse in an area crucial for the advancement of Wales as a successful country, which is the enterprise that we are all about.
      I applied to sit on the Standing Committee which is considering the School Standards and Framework Bill, but I was not accepted. As a result, there is no Member of Parliament from Wales on that Committee, apart from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). There ought to be a Back-Bench Member from Wales on the Committee, but that is by the way. Clause 93 of the School Standards and Framework Bill contains provisions to encourage selection on the basis of ability or, as it calls it, aptitude in a number of subjects. It is not clear to me that Wales would not be subject to the provisions of that Bill. I believe that the selection process would apply to Wales.

      847
      It is true that the School Standards and Framework Bill contains a disclaimer in clause 118(6), where it says:
      "Any order or regulations under this Act may make different provision in relation to England and Wales respectively."
      I am not sure what the word "respectively" is doing there. As I understand it, that clause does not make provision for Wales not to be subject to the provisions of the School Standards and Framework Bill. I should like an answer to my question. How will the Welsh assembly be empowered to do what, for practical reasons, it might feel it necessary to do?
      The assembly's lack of legislative power will certainly be a cause of frustration and dissatisfaction to Members of the Assembly. Conservative Members would be delighted at that; it is what they hope for. They hope to see dissatisfaction and frustration in the assembly. If we want to prevent that and, if as I presume is inevitable, the Government do not give the assembly primary legislative powers, some other mechanism must be created. Plaid Cymru Members have suggested this fast-track mechanism. The Secretary of State spoke cautiously and promisingly on this important issue.
      The amendment should be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber because it accepts that primary legislative powers should remain at Westminster. That is not where I come from, and the Secretary of State understands that; I do not have to explain the point. The amendment respects the conviction of people in this place that this is where primary legislation ought to be made. It does not seem to me unreasonable that the National Assembly for Wales should have the serious power to tell the House of Commons that it wishes primary legislation to be enacted in a particular way, and that the House of Commons should respond positively. That is a practical way ahead which would enable the assembly to do its work effectively and set in place the type of measures that we all want in order to make it a success.
      Mr. Rowlands: I am following the hon. Gentleman's remarks closely. He has used as an illustration a Bill that is before the House and that will spawn orders even after the assembly has been established. What is his reading of the provisions in the Government of Wales Bill with regard to orders? How does he see it working with the orders that might come out of the School Standards and Framework Bill?
      Mr. Dafis: I shall not hold a seminar on the contents of that Bill except to say that, in some clauses, the Secretary of State is given power to bring orders before the House. In those circumstances, the assembly could pursue its own priorities and not implement them as they are likely to be implemented in England. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment told me clearly that any discretion that the Welsh assembly would have—he said that it would have considerable discretion—would be subject to the principles set out in the Bill.
      The principles in the School Standards and Framework Bill are not all that different from the principles of the previous Government. The Bill is about selection and competition. However, in some clauses it is clear that the provisions of the Bill would not have to apply to Wales. The clauses on education action zones are one example. I
      848
      do not believe that the Secretary of State for Wales would have the ability to opt out of selection, and schools in Wales would be empowered to set about the process—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is dwelling on selection in education for far too long. We are talking about amendments on legislative powers. Education could be one of those powers, but to dwell on education is to stray away from the amendment before us.
      Mr. Dafis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin. You were one of my early instructors in the niceties of this place, and I certainly bend to your judgment. I have almost finished. I think that the point has been made.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The amendments cover a variety of subjects, and I should first like to consider whether the introduction of tax-varying powers would make sense or not. In the light of the referendum result, there is no question of supporting their introduction, because that referendum was fought on Government proposals that excluded such powers. Their subsequent introduction would be such a departure in principle from what was put before the people of Wales at that referendum that it would invalidate the legislation, because it would invalidate that very referendum. There is no question about that.
      I should also like to refer briefly to the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). My right hon. Friend was quite right to say that there is a dissonance between the Welsh and English versions of the title of the assembly, which is unacceptable. Either the Welsh should read "Cynulliad Cenedlaethol dros Gymru" or the English should read, "National Assembly of Wales". Perhaps it does not matter which version is used, but there should not be a difference between the Welsh and English versions. Someone has got something wrong, and we need to change either the Welsh or the English. That difference must be overcome.
      I must admit that my instinct is to support the amendment proposed by my two distinguished Back-Bench colleagues. I do not believe that it makes a huge amount of difference, but I hope that the Government will show some flexibility on the matter.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I am rather amused to hear my hon. Friend's reference to a dissonance between the English and Welsh language versions. I understand that the proposition that the assembly should be called the National Assembly for Wales was first put forward in the other place by the chairman of the Welsh Language Board, and that that suggestion commanded all-party support. There is a pretty strong body of support for that option.
      Mr. Morgan: Pretty strong is as pretty strong does, but that is not a sufficient reason for a distinction between the Welsh and English versions. That needs to be sorted out. It is not a sufficient reason to deny the House the right to differ from someone even as distinguished as the former hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Dafydd

      849
      Elis-Thomas. We should make our own minds up about it, and if we differ from a distinguished Member of the House of Lords and the chairman of the Welsh Language Board, so be it.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not suggesting that that individual, as chairman of the Welsh Language Board, approved the translation into the Welsh, which is incorrect—it is more likely that an error has been made in the English version.
      Mr. Davies: I am not suggesting that. I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument. I suggest that the other place will want to reflect on its original debate and on the debate in the House about the dissonance between the English and Welsh language versions and whether that is acceptable.
      Mr. Morgan: Let me put it more frankly, so that the other place can reflect upon it more honestly—the chairman of the Welsh Language Board was talking rubbish.
      It is clear that the introduction of tax-varying powers is a no-no following the referendum. That would defraud the people of Wales, and render the entire referendum campaign nonsense. Those of us who slogged our guts out during that campaign would not like to think that we would have to do it all again to seek approval for the assembly to have tax-varying powers. That option is absolutely out for all of us.
      The question of law-making powers is slightly different, because of the possibility that the Bill offers a law-making element in a Henry VIII clause which is equivalent to primary legislative powers. That possibility has accounted for the bulk of our discussions since 3.40 pm. I believe that the Secretary of State has referred to that possibility in some of his interventions. We are referring to the power either to block or to initiate legislation.
      A lengthy discussion has been held between my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru Members about whether the power to block legislation is contained in the Bill. That power could be construed as equivalent to being able to block primary legislation from the House. The Secretary of State placed more emphasis on the ability to be creative and the power of the assembly to initiate the equivalent of primary legislative powers through a Henry VIII clause.
      I am not a parliamentary draftsman, so it is difficult for me to define exactly where that power appears in the Bill. Somewhere between clauses 29 and 41 there appears to be an opening provided by such a Henry VIII clause. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appears to have made it clear in his interventions that such a possibility exists. Although that power would be under a secondary legislative one, in certain minor areas it would be equivalent to primary legislative powers. In the end, it does not matter whether that power is described as primary or secondary: it is the power itself that is of interest to people.
      It seems that it is my right hon. Friend's intention that the assembly should have the power to initiate legislation. Whether the assembly would have the power to block
      850
      adverse legislation which is passed by a Government of a political party of a different colour from that representing the majority in the Welsh assembly needs to be clarified, either when a Minister responds to the debate or at a later stage in our deliberations. It would be preferable if one of my right hon. Friend's colleagues sought to answer that question in the response to the debate.
      We are satisfied that it is my right hon. Friend's intention that the assembly should have the power to initiate. That important power to an extent answers some of the objections and whinges expressed by the president of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who moved amendment No. 52. We would be grateful for some further elucidation of the possible powers to block legislation and where that authority rests in the Bill. There has been a great deal of talk about that this afternoon.
      I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) about the name of the proposed Parliament. What does one call a legislature, debating chamber or body? There is a case for allowing the assembly to make its own choice. I disagree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who said that it will be known as the Welsh assembly. He is trying to predict the future, which is difficult, but the principle behind his remarks is right.
      We should try to fit in with what the people of Wales call that Parliament. We should not be too prescriptive. If we offered the Welsh assembly the freedom to decide its name, would it be terribly pompous and try to inflate its importance, or it would follow what the man or woman in the street called it anyway?
      The problem with the name "Welsh assembly" and the objection to it which arose during the referendum campaign is that the word "Welsh" has two meanings. One means the Welsh language, and the other that it is of Wales. It is one of those things that we cannot get away from.
      One of the main purposes of changing from the name Welsh assembly to National Assembly either of or for Wales is to clear up the confusion that exists in some people's minds. They ask whether, if one calls it the Welsh assembly, that means that one must be able to speak Welsh to take part in its proceedings. It is a big problem, which we met during the referendum. I believe that the alternative title of National Assembly gets around it, although I prefer National Assembly of Wales to National Assembly for Wales.
      Is there a further advantage in trying to give the assembly a bit of local colour by encouraging the use of the word senedd? The hon. Member for Ribble Valley is incorrect to say that that word is used only as a direct translation of the Anglo-French word Parliament. I must tell him that, until the first world war, the word senedd was not used very much, and the Welsh word for Parliament was Parlmant, with an "a" not an "e" and without anything between the "1" and "m". It was the Welsh version of the Norman French instead of the English version of Norman French. The use of the word senedd started to gain a grip only after the first world war.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley has already been told, quite correctly, by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) that "senedd" is a translation of senatus. It may have a bit of the word "synod" in it as well. It is confusing for us all, but if it was a direct translation from

      851
      senatus I am told that it should be spelt senawd, not senedd. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ceredigion can confirm that, but perhaps it comes from the Greek word "synod", which has an entirely different meaning, but which, fortunately, tends to mean the same kind of thing—a debating body.
      It is all very confusing, but the names of Parliaments are always confusing. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West is wrong. The BBC always refers to the Japanese Diet, but that word is unknown in Japan. The Japanese word for its Parliament is Kokkai. The BBC refers to it as the Diet perhaps because it thinks that the Japanese word is open to misinterpretation. What does Diet mean? It means a body that meets for one day.
      The lesson we must learn is that there is never an accurate translation of the names for assemblies, Parliaments, councils, diets, folketings, sejms, majlises, or any word for Parliament. Any name must develop in a way that is natural and meets with the approval of the people whom that body is trying to serve. That is the important point—the name should evolve naturally, but we are trying to predict what will evolve naturally in Wales.
      Will the people of Wales prefer to use a Welsh-language but easy-to-pronounce term like "senedd", or will they prefer a word like "assembly"? Do they like the Welsh word "cynulliad"? I do not think they do: the word cynulliad is rather complicated, as if one had chewed a dictionary for breakfast. Many people do not like it, and will probably never use it, so we need a simpler Welsh version.
      That is the main reason for looking for something else. "Cymanfa" has associations with singing in chapel, but it is probably a better translation of assembly than cynulliad. I admit that I have never liked the word cynulliad; I do not think the word trips happily off the tongue even of Welsh speakers, let alone those who are learning Welsh or who have no Welsh at all. We must try to evolve words—possibly leaving the matter to the assembly itself—which trip naturally off the tongue of the people of Wales and which indicate the affection and respect in which the body is held by the people of Wales.
      The question whether we should aim at a full primary legislative body is ruled out by the terms of the referendum, but—provided the Secretary of State confirms that there is a clear intent to have a Henry VIII power in the legislation—there is nothing to stop the assembly reforming public bodies in Wales and dealing with other matters. The House is always bored when dealing with such matters—we remember the farcical proceedings over the reform of Welsh local government and the Welsh Language Act 1993—and, in future, Parliament will generally expect the Welsh assembly to deal with them.
      In future, if legislation of a primary, secondary or hybrid nature is required, hon. Members here would prefer not to slog away until 10 pm on matters that should be dealt with by the Welsh assembly. That is the way the two bodies will come to work together naturally. I do not see any problem with allowing a matter that was in the White Paper and therefore was there when the people of Wales voted in the referendum to be expanded, but we cannot introduce something completely new, such as tax-varying powers, which were clearly excluded when the proposition was put to the people of Wales.
      852
      We must also be aware that, if the Welsh assembly is to participate in certain supranational bodies, such as the council of the isles mooted by the Government—depending on whether that idea comes off as part of the Northern Ireland peace process, what the council can do and the right to participate being granted—it may be that we will need to consider whether any adaptation of the legislative powers referred to in the Bill is necessary in order to permit the Welsh assembly to play the part intended for it in that council.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I have been listening carefully to the debate on this group of amendments, especially the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on the issue of legislative powers. Despite his eloquence and the powerful case he put forward, I suspect from his interventions that the Secretary of State is unlikely to concede the amendment. However, another possibility is open to the Secretary of State, which has been put to him on more than one occasion.
      In the absence of legislative powers being transferred to the national assembly, how will Westminster deal with a legislative framework to develop its powers in respect of secondary legislation? The Secretary of State has said that the assembly will need to find a dynamic relationship with Westminster. There will always be such a dynamic relationship, but I suspect that it will work best when the Welsh assembly is governed by a party that is largely in sympathy with the party governing in Westminster. The right hon. Gentleman has to accept that his case tends to fall down when the Government in Westminster want to introduce legislation that is diametrically opposed to what the settled will of the Welsh people, through the Welsh assembly, wants to achieve.
      We have to look at circumstances in which that might happen. The Secretary of State has said that, in future, the Conservatives might have a majority in Britain that would enable them to govern in Westminster. I am not interested in the likelihood that, in the first term of a Welsh assembly, there will be a Labour Government and an assembly in Cardiff that is sympathetic to that Government; but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to address the situation in which there is a Conservative Administration here in Westminster and a non-Conservative Administration in Wales.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Ron Davies: The principle has to be the same, regardless of the nature and political colour of the Government here in Westminster. The hon. Gentleman should not strain too much against the prospect of improvements in the Conservative party. It is a serious point that the Conservative party is currently going through an ideological debate and will eventually emerge as a party that recognises that power is best devolved. It was interesting to hear the Conservative spokesman arguing strongly that the assembly would provide a powerful voice in Europe and that we should put on the face of the Bill the assembly's representative powers in respect of Europe. If that sort of progressive thinking develops, who knows what sort of Conservative Government we might have in 10 or 15 years' time?
      Mr. Jones: That is an interesting point and it has merit, because the logical outcome of the Conservatives' attacks

      853
      on the Bill is that they would either abolish the Welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament, or opt for the federalist solution. Nevertheless, the great danger facing the Welsh assembly is that it might find that it wants to put something right in a way that requires legislation, but is unable to act quickly because of the Westminster logjam.
      Let me give the Secretary of State two brief examples. He will know that, occasionally, Bills come to the House simply to raise the borrowing powers of the Welsh Development Agency, because that requires primary legislation. We can assume that that will be necessary in future, and, although such legislation passes through the House quite quickly, a time and a slot have to be found in the Westminster timetable. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman another example.
      Mr. Davies: Before he does, the hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that the previous Conservative Government allowed for those increases to be dealt with in future through secondary legislation.
      Mr. Jones: That was a change.
      Let me put another point to the Secretary of State. He will know that we have had some interesting discussions in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on the issue of conterminosity. The Welsh assembly will be given powers to change the boundaries of quangos, but not of local authorities. There is a powerful argument in favour of conterminosity—in other words, that services should be developed within boundaries shared by quangos and local authorities. Major legislation might not be needed for that to happen—a small Bill might suffice.
      If we had a fast-track procedure—which might not require amendments to the Bill, but only changes in the Orders of the House—and the Welsh assembly made it clear to Westminster that it wanted a small legislative change to be made, all that would be needed would be for the Bill making that change to go through a revamped Welsh Grand Committee. It would not tie up the House in a lengthy procedure. It could adopt an easy procedure—the Welsh Grand Committee. I see no reason why that could not be considered.
      Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the subject of conterminosity, will the hon. Gentleman forgive me for asking whether he will be a conterminous Member of Parliament?
      Mr. Jones: I shall not enter that debate; I simply wish to put a serious point to the hon. Gentleman.
      In north Wales, many local authorities deliver social services, and a trust delivers community care. When Gwynedd health authority and county council were in existence, community services could be developed on the basis of geographical area. That possibility has been lost as a result of the changes in local government and how the health service has developed.
      There may be other ways of proceeding, but the Welsh assembly will be unable to follow that course, because, while it can change the boundaries of the quangos, it cannot change the boundaries of local authorities. Therefore, although the Government could consider using
      854
      other procedures, a fast-track procedure would assist the Welsh assembly in implementing its policies, provided that a major piece of legislation is not involved.
      It is generally accepted that one of the dangers for the Welsh assembly in its early years is that it might be frustrated from making simple changes—those that call not for major legislation but simply for minor amendments of the kind that I described. It would be frustrating for the Welsh assembly, in its first term, to find that the Westminster Parliament could not find time to implement Welsh legislation. A fast-track procedure would remove the intense frustration which Assembly Members may feel.
      Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman has argued that case before, and I have always listened carefully when he has done so. First, it is important to establish the assembly, and the assembly will have a heavy responsibility to prove itself. Secondly, what the hon. Gentleman argues for cannot be legislated for in the Bill, because it is for the Westminster Parliament to adopt its own procedures.
      I have long argued that constitutional change is a process of evolution. The assembly must establish itself, and if circumstances arise in which relatively minor changes are needed, it will be a case of waiting for the relationship between the Welsh assembly and the Westminster Parliament to mature. The assembly must establish itself in such a way that the House feels comfortable about adopting new procedures to facilitate the assembly's wishes.
      Mr. Jones: That was an extremely helpful intervention. The Secretary of State acknowledges the fact that circumstances could arise in which that procedure could be used. I am grateful to him for acknowledging that there is a strong case for that. I suggest that the Committee considers that that option will be available to the House. Now that we have it on the record that it is a matter for discussion, we should pursue it when the opportunity arises.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Clause 1 is the foundation clause for the Swansea assembly. I draw three conclusions from the debate so far. First, the Conservative party in Parliament has not come to terms with the result of the referendum. Its spokesman, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), used expressions such as out of the frying pan and into the fire. His speech was negative and carping—and some distance away from what I hear from Conservative party members in Wales.
      Secondly, all the interesting wordplays that we have heard, adding to or subtracting from the definitions in the Bill, tell us something about those who suggest them. They are trying to reconstruct the assembly as they would like it—with more legislative powers, with tax-raising powers or diminished powers—not as it was broadly endorsed by the people of Wales and in the White Paper.
      Thirdly, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) put their fingers on a key point relating to the interface between this Parliament and the proposed assembly. Of course there are likely to be frustrations, because politicians in the assembly will

      855
      have a vested interest in pushing the boundaries further, while some hon. Members in this Parliament will take a minimalist view.
      However, the Secretary of State should answer this simple question: are there circumstances in which the assembly can refuse to implement an order that applies to the rest of the United Kingdom? If so, in which circumstances will that be possible? I hope that he will answer not just in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney but will tell all hon. Members. How do we deal with the serious problem described by the hon. Member for Ynys Mon and others: how to implement speedily relatively minor matters relating to the assembly on which everyone agrees and which do not detract from the sovereignty of this Parliament? I invite interested hon. Members to make a submission, perhaps in the light of experience of the workings of the assembly, to the Modernisation Committee. If it is a problem, I hope that it can be dealt with reasonably by people of good will on both sides.
      Perhaps I may outline a few of the principles that the House should adopt. This is an evolutionary situation because we have no constitution and the Bill is not set in stone. No institution is static; institutions are dynamic and will progress. A big step has been taken: we are to have an assembly for, or of, Wales. It is therefore a matter of adapting. I believe that the European Parliament was first called the European Assembly. I have used the analogy of the Welsh Office before in the House. The Welsh Office was a pretty puny creature when it was first created; the fact that it now has much greater powers simply reflects the fact that all institutions are dynamic and evolve with the passage of time.
      The second principle is that constraints are imposed on us by the referendum. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) ably said, although the referendum showed an acceptance of the Government's proposals, it only just showed acceptance. The slim majority imposes certain constraints. For example, no one who wanted the assembly to have much greater powers would have voted against it. Hence one can conclude that, had the Government proposed greater powers—in terms of primary legislation or taxation for example—the people of Wales would not have accepted the assembly. That should impose a certain humility on us as we frame the legislation to establish the assembly.
      The third principle concerns the constraints imposed by the nature of Wales. I shall not go into the divisions in Wales between the north and the south, and between those who use the Welsh language and those who do not. Happily, through wisdom, we have developed a consensus and we should do nothing to upset it.
      The final principle is clear. Wherever possible we should trust the assembly people. We should not be too prescriptive. We should give them as much discretion as possible so that they can work out their own rules and procedures. We should not put a straitjacket on them, but trust them to make up their own rules.
      6 pm
      I shall briefly apply those broad principles to the amendments. The ability to make primary legislation would be against the spirit of the referendum and should not be adopted. I understand the argument about the word senedd, but language can be an explosive issue in Wales.
      856
      Happily, we now have a consensus. I pay tribute to the previous Government for the Welsh Language Act 1993, which drew the sting out of what might, in other circumstances, have been a highly divisive matter. The use of senedd may have sent out the wrong signal, whereas the term Welsh assembly gives the right consensual signal.
      On whether it should be the National Assembly of Wales or for Wales, I do not understand the semantics. Although for Wales may sound a little patronising, it assumes a unitary government for the United Kingdom. The danger is that an assembly of Wales may imply that Wales is a single entity separate from the United Kingdom. That may or may not be the reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West mentioned the German precedent. I knew a German called Mr. von and zu Guttenburg; we used to say that he did not know whether he was coming or going. I hope that we do not have a messy compromise: I am happy with the present formulation.
      I promised to be brief. I have explained the spirit in which I believe we should approach the amendments, given the constraints. We should proceed on a consensual basis and, above all, trust in the assembly so far as is possible. We should be ready to smooth the way if necessary by sensible amendments to our procedures in the House.
      Mr. Dalyell: As the first, and possibly only, non-Welsh contributor from the Labour Benches, I feel like a guest who is expected to behave himself at the party. I want to ask the Secretary of State two questions. First, when he intervened during the speech of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), he referred to a developing relationship; later, in another intervention, he referred to a dynamic relationship. Other hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom are deeply affected by the Bill. I am curious to know at what point there will be a stop to this developing relationship. The Secretary of State's remarks were very interesting and revealing and we are entitled to know what is in his mind.
      Secondly, the Secretary of State referred to The Scotsman. As a Scot, I believe what The Scotsman says about births, marriages and deaths. I also believe The Scotsman when it comes to football scores. Beyond that, I tend to be sceptical. I am not jumping to the conclusion that The Scotsman has got it right. Day after day, we are regaled by the so-called iniquities of the Welsh referendum. Will the Secretary of State put on record his view of what The Scotsman has been up to, because it has written a heck of a lot about that? I am a simple seeker after truth.
      Sir Raymond Powell: I shall be brief, unlike some people who say that they will be brief and then take 25 minutes when everyone is waiting to finish the debate at 6 o'clock.
      I want to refer to amendment No. 52, because I would be appalled by the creation of a legislative assembly in Wales. I have made myself abundantly clear on that topic and my view accords with Labour party policy. As a supporter of Labour party policy on most issues, I resist Plaid Cymru's advocacy of a legislative assembly. There is no doubt in my mind that the nationalists want a legislative assembly in Wales: they have wanted to

      857
      achieve that in all the 35 years that I have been active in politics. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would say the same with regard to Scotland.
      We will not have a legislative assembly in Wales: that was made abundantly clear in the White Paper. That is also what the people who voted in the referendum decided. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether any of proposals in the first set of amendments were included in any way, shape or form in the White Paper?
      Dr. John Marek: I agree that the Bill should be as close as we can get it to what the people of Wales voted for in the referendum. It may not be exactly what we want: all of us wanted something different. I should have liked parts of the Bill to be different, but I accept that any large measure of legislative powers for the Welsh assembly would be inappropriate. It is easy to say that, but it is not so easy to define the word "legislative". The Bill uses the word "legislation" but it is always preceded by the word "subordinate". The legislative powers of the Welsh assembly will be subordinate.
      We can explore that a little further and try to define subordinate legislative powers. It is conceivable that, when the Welsh assembly is established, the House could pass an enabling Bill that left everything to be decided by order or by regulation. Technically, that would be subordinate legislation. However, it is easy to envisage a different Administration introducing not an enabling Bill but legislation in which everything is prescribed, thus making any subsequent orders or regulations completely unnecessary. In that case, the Welsh assembly would have no powers, because it could not even block an order or regulation. What is primary legislation in one scenario is subordinate legislation in another.
      I would not say that there is confusion, but a wide interpretation is available of what constitutes legislation—whether it is subordinate or primary. I hope that we will set up a Welsh assembly and that the Bill will complete its Committee stage successfully, but, if that is to happen, we must adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson): we must not put the assembly in a straitjacket.
      One of the amendments says that there should be a National Assembly of Wales rather than a National Assembly for Wales. Let us suppose that, having come into existence, the assembly wanted to call itself the National Assembly of Wales, perhaps after consultation in Wales. I understand that, simply because the name would be in the primary legislation that we would be passing here, it could not be changed. That cannot, or should not, be the House's intention. The House cannot think it right for decisions that it would probably wish to devolve to the Welsh body not to be devolved because of what was in primary legislation—the Government of Wales Bill.
      Let us not put the Welsh assembly in a straitjacket. Let us be a little generous. It must be possible to design a way of retaining the safeguards for the House: the Scotland Bill may show us how that can be done. Let us, however, allow the Welsh assembly some latitude in regard to matters that, according to any sensible person, it ought to be able to debate and decide on. Let us not
      858
      have laws and rules that remind us of the well-known phrase about the guidance of wise people and the obedience of fools, preventing the Welsh assembly from carrying out its proposals as it would wish to do.
      How are we to arrange that? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to consider the matter. I do not expect instant answers, but my right hon. Friend has heard pleas from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and, probably, from a number of other hon. Members, including me. There must be safeguards preventing the Welsh assembly from assuming legislative powers beyond those that the Welsh people expected when they voted in the referendum on 18 September, but there are other legislative powers that I think it would be sensible to allow. We should at least allow the possibility.
      Let me give an example that is, or was, dear to the Secretary of State's heart. I refer to the Cardiff bay barrage. Any reasonable argument would suggest that the matter should have been decided by people in Wales, preferably people in south Wales. It certainly should not have been decided by the House of Commons. The Secretary of State will remember very well our debate at 3 am, or 4 am, when, by the force of sheer argument, we defeated the proposals that had been submitted to the House—only for English Members representing constituencies well away from Cardiff to force through legislation that most Welsh Members did not want.
      I hope that legislation such as that would be considered appropriate for the Welsh assembly to pass. Cannot a form of words be incorporated in the Bill to allow such sensible measures to be debated and decided on in the assembly?
      Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has drawn together many of the strands that have arisen in the debate. Surely what we need is an order-making facility in Westminster, allowing the National Assembly of—or for—Wales to take on a legislative role for a specific purpose. If that were provided, there would be a longstop here with regard to the functions that could be transferred, but the assembly would be able to get on with the job rather than having to wait for an inordinate time in the queue for legislation here.
      Dr. Marek: I do not dissent from a word of that. The right hon. Gentleman puts it very well.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I must put one point on the record, because I do not want the impression to be gained that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will gain the success for which he is arguing. I refer him to our earlier debate with the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). What we must do now is get the assembly established.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked me to explain what I meant about a developing relationship. The assembly will have to establish itself. There will be concordats between it and this place; there will be working relationships between it and the Westminster Government. It is in the light of the way in which the assembly operates, and in the light of needs that will be demonstrated in the future, that this place will have to look to its own procedures—but that is a matter for Parliament, not a matter for the assembly. It is for the assembly to make recommendations, but not to decide.
      6.15 pm
      Dr. Marek: Clearly the position will develop, so I will not go into it now; but the argument stands that we should not let the precise wording of the primary legislation that we are passing here now prevent any future relationship from developing.
      I will not say too much, because I know that hon. Members want to proceed to the next debate. Let me say, however, that the Scottish way of doing things was easier, and more all-embracing, simply because a different referendum was held in Scotland. As a result of the proposals for us in Wales, rather than being given permissive powers, we have been given virtually all the Bill's proposals in a straitjacket. There is a churlish acceptance that certain functions must be devolved, and it has been promised that certain powers will be handed over by the Secretary of State for Wales; but the powers are circumscribed as much as possible, wherever possible. The problem lies with the principle that guided the drafting of the Bill. I ask the Secretary of State to consider this proposition. If the assembly is to be constrained by a tight corset preventing it from exercising certain powers, there will be precious little room for beneficial development of its role.
      Mr. Öpik: Is it the hon. Gentleman's understanding that a consensus seems to be developing—that we are not closing the door on the evolution of a devolved assembly with law-making and tax-varying powers?
      Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman must not take me too far along that road. It is a road that I would be prepared to travel, but I am bound by a self-denying ordinance. The Welsh people voted for a particular model of assembly, and I think that, by and large, we should deliver what they voted for. I do not think that we need any development of law-making powers.
      Is this to be an assembly for Wales, or an assembly of Wales? That ought to be something for the Welsh assembly to decide, but under the present rules it will not be able to do so. We shall have to do it here, which shows something of the problem involved in drafting devolution legislation as it has been drafted in the Bill.
      Let me suggest to the Secretary of State that, on this minor matter, he should consult the other parties. He will probably resist the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). If it were pressed to a vote, I would be tempted to vote for it, but I would fear for my safety from the Government if I voted against them again too soon after 10 December—or 11 December, or whenever it was. I think that we can get together and see whether there is general agreement in favour of a change. If the Liberal Democrats, the Welsh nationalists and the Conservatives—if they have any interest in these matters; I do not know whether they do—think that it would be better for us to have a National Assembly of Wales, why do we not have such an assembly? It does not matter. It is a trivial point.
      The important point is that the assembly will not be able to decide its name. The Government need to think about whether they can loosen the tight straitjacket, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East said, so that the Welsh assembly has a little legislative freedom.
      Ms Julie Morgan: I am pleased to be called to speak. I will be brief because I am aware that
      860
      we have been at this debate for three hours, but it is important that a woman from Wales should speak to the proposals.
      When we were knocking on doors during the referendum campaign, two main points came over from people in Cardiff. One was that they were concerned that Welsh speakers would dominate the assembly. We addressed that issue a little when we discussed the name. The other point was that the assembly was about jobs for the boys. We have heard much from all the boys tonight, but I hope that, when we discuss the clauses on election methods, we will be able to talk more about that aspect.
      Most of the points that I wanted to make have been covered. Most of the amendments have to be resisted because, in the referendum, we campaigned on the fact that there were to be no tax-raising powers and no primary legislative powers. I said in many places that that was what we were campaigning for and we are bound to keep to the spirit of that policy.
      We should not play down the powers that are in the White Paper, the Bill and the secondary legislation. There is tremendous scope there for building Wales and for making a truly representative and strong assembly. The Bill presents us with a tremendous opportunity.
      Ms Jackie Lawrence: I have sat for around three hours listening with great interest to the debate, which covers primary legislative powers, tax-varying powers and dissatisfaction with the intended name of the assembly. However, we are dealing not with details but with fundamental and basic principles here. The basic principle outlined in paragraph 1.7 of the White Paper is:
      "The Assembly will take over the responsibilities that the Secretary of State exercises in Wales."
      Our view on that should be coloured by the referendum. In that referendum, the people of Wales did not vote for further legislative powers, tax-varying powers or an assembly by another name.
      There were genuine fears in Wales at the time that tax-varying powers could lead to increases in taxation. Those of us who campaigned in Wales—at least Labour and some Opposition Members—recognised that countering those fears effectively led to a 30 per cent. increase in the yes vote over that in 1979, culminating in the decision to go ahead with the assembly. People have therefore already voted to establish that principle. We are governed by the widest possible democratic remit within Wales—to consult and to give every person in Wales an opportunity to take part in that democratic process.
      Those are the promises that we have made as a Government to the Welsh people. It is vital that we keep our promises. Our colleagues on both the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru Benches joined us in supporting the principles in the White Paper proposals for a Welsh assembly and for a more democratic legislative framework in Wales that would restore faith in democracy there. The referendum turnout reflects the feeling of the people of Wales that their voices are not being heard any more. Any diversion from the basic principles outlined in the White Paper would be a total denial of the democratic process.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): We have had a wide-ranging

      861
      and interesting debate on the first group of amendments. To some extent, some of the amendments concern what might be regarded by the Welsh public as a minor issue—the specific name of the assembly—but they have given us an opportunity to have a thorough canter over all the ground that we argued over during the referendum campaign and while the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill was going through the House.
      As nearly every Labour Member has said, there is the issue of honouring the White Paper as set out during the referendum campaign. The majority was not huge, but it was clear. The count was undertaken by counting officers throughout Wales, who did their jobs effectively within the law. For five months, no one made an observation just to create trouble.
      Let us be clear about the matter. We cannot accept amendment No. 52. The word "legislative" introduced at this point would be misleading because, in the broad range of things, the assembly will not have primary legislative powers. It will have some specific powers arising from clause 29 in particular and there will be an opportunity to debate the extent of that clause later. The Scottish Parliament is called a Parliament because it does have those legislative powers. In Wales, we have an assembly because it does not have primary powers, except in specific areas.
      That has given rise to a debate about how some of the subordinate powers—the secondary powers—might be dealt with by an assembly in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales made the position clear in his usual straightforward and forthright way—in some ways, it is a straightforward point, but it is not a simple point because the way in which the secondary powers work will depend on the way in which they are framed in any Act of Parliament.
      I throw in one example going back to the heady days of 1988, when I first came into the House and sat on the first of many Committees that considered education Bills—on that occasion, the Bill that became the Education Reform Act 1988. That provides for the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Wales to create city technology colleges. For whatever reason, that power was never exercised in Wales; the power lay with the Secretary of State for Wales. If the assembly had been in charge, it probably would not have exercised that power either, so we must examine existing legislation and even Bills that are going through the House to determine how the assembly will be able to use its secondary powers.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) mentioned the School Standards and Framework Bill, which is going through the House, and some of its ramifications. We must consider exactly what powers are conferred on the Secretary of State. For example, I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales that the Secretary of State will have powers in relation to admissions, which will deal with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
      Mr. Rogers: Is my hon. Friend saying—or shall we leave discussion of the issue until we debate clauses 41 and 42—that the assembly will have powers to introduce secondary legislation only if such powers are
      862
      included in the primary legislation passed in Westminster, and that the assembly will not otherwise have the power to initiate secondary legislation?
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Griffiths: The assembly will have all the powers vested in it by the draft transfer order that was published yesterday. My hon. Friend will undoubtedly have seen just how extensive those powers will be. The assembly will be able to initiate secondary legislation only when it has been given the power to do so. It will not be able to conjure legislation from the air and call it secondary legislation. The power will be specific.
      As I said, clause 29 will provide the assembly with some primary powers, but they will apply only in very specific circumstances, which we can tease out when we debate the relevant clauses.
      The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) have all raised procedural points on the legislative powers. I hope that they will examine the draft transfer order in some detail, and join the debate on the relevant clauses with all the knowledge that will be at their disposal.
      Sir Raymond Powell: The Minister mentioned the powers that the House will give to the Welsh assembly. Will he explain what will be left for Members of Parliament to deal with after all those issues have been assigned to the Welsh assembly?
      Mr. Griffiths: There is a straight and easy answer to that question: all primary legislation will still be considered by the House. My hon. Friend will have every opportunity to sit on Committees considering health, education and industry Bills, all of which will have an impact on Wales. The job of hon. Members at Westminster will be to ensure that Wales's interests are best served.
      Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) implied that the assembly would have the power to block legislation in Wales. Will that be possible?
      Mr. Griffiths: It depends on how one uses the word "block". Some people might regard as blocking, for example, situations in which the Secretary of State has power to initiate action under secondary legislation and decides not to do so. The ability to block will depend on the nature of the orders and on whether they have to be introduced by a certain date. For example, some people might say that, in the past nine years, the Welsh Office has blocked the creation of city technology colleges.
      Mr. Dafis: Is the Minister saying that the assembly of Wales will be able to block measures only if the Westminster Parliament is willing for it to do so?
      Mr. Griffiths: If in legislation the Westminster Parliament provides a discretion for the Secretary of State

      863
      of Wales and for the assembly in Wales, they will be able to decide whether to use that power, as Secretaries of State for Wales have done in the example that I cited.
      Dr. Marek: Based on my time in the House debating Bills that provide for orders and regulations, one aspect of this Bill worries me, and I wonder whether the Minister will be able to help me. Many regulations and orders use the phrase "the Minister may". What is to stop a succeeding, unfriendly Administration saying that "the Minister shall"—removing all the permissive powers that Welsh Office Ministers currently exercise?
      Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is making the point that legislation sometimes states "may" and sometimes states "shall", but gives some leeway about when that "shall" will be used. We shall have to consider exactly how the House deals with legislation, and the assembly will have power to operate under the secondary powers.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend accept that it might be worth while stating in each statute the implications for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly—just as we currently state the public expenditure implications of Bills?
      Mr. Griffiths: That will be a matter for the House to decide at the appropriate time.
      The House will have to decide on establishing a fast-track procedure or something like it, either within this legislation, if the House were minded to act so quickly, or at a later date—such as, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said, with the establishment of a council of the isles, as part of a solution to the Northern Ireland problem.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the beginning of his speech. He is telling the Committee that the Bill is not a settlement, but an unholy mess in which the assembly will have no idea, from one Act of Parliament to another, how much power will be devolved to it. Is that not so?
      Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has already had an opportunity to study yesterday's draft transfer order. The very long list of powers that will be held by the assembly in Wales shows that there is absolutely no uncertainty over many powers. In future—through the Secretary of State, through hon. Members at Westminster and through representations in response to White Papers and Green Papers—the assembly will have an opportunity to participate from Wales in the Westminster legislative process. There is no question of there being an uncertain muddle. A dynamic and developing relationship is a positive part of the process and growth of government of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Öpik: Is not future strength based on the fact that the assembly's powers and authority can evolve according to the will of the people of Wales and according to what works in the relationship between Westminster and Cardiff or Swansea?
      Mr. Griffiths: Although it is not formally written, one of the great strengths of the British constitution is that, as the issue of sovereignty has grown over the years, it has
      864
      responded to the demands of certain groups of people. Those in power who have responded to change have saved themselves, whereas those who have not—like poor old Charles I—have lost their head. It was the Conservatives' failure to respond to change that resulted in their severe truncation at the general election.
      Mr. Rogers: I am still a little confused about the blocking power—it was the right hon. Member for Caernarfon, not the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who threw that cat among the pigeons. It has been said that certain Conservative diseases, which were desired by some odd people, might not have been inflicted on Wales if we had had a Labour assembly.
      The poll tax is a graphic illustration. During the referendum campaign, we heard about a range of things that would not have happened to Wales had there been an assembly; we certainly would not have had the poll tax. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon said that an enlightened, Labour-controlled Welsh assembly would not have implemented that disease. I want to know whether a Labour assembly will have the power to stop such measures, as has been claimed.
      Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend has raised an extremely helpful point. The legislation allowed the Secretary of State to implement orders to introduce a scheme for the poll tax. Although the poll tax itself would have been introduced, had there been a Welsh assembly, there could have been differences in banding, there could have been more bands in Wales and there could have been different discretions. The poll tax could and would have been an entirely different animal.
      The name of the assembly, which is addressed by amendments Nos. 10 and 142, should not detain us. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)—and to a certain extent the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—have intimated, usage will determine what the assembly will be called in common parlance. For the purposes of the Bill, a great deal of discussion arose out of a proposition in another place by the chairman of the Welsh Language Board that received support from both sides of the House. We debated the matter at some length before deciding on the form included in the Bill.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: The Minister unintentionally misled the Committee a moment or two ago when he referred to banding in respect of the poll tax. There was no such banding. What did he have in mind?
      Mr. Griffiths: I believe that the orders—and we can check them—included powers to introduce different ways in which to implement the poll tax. However, we shall return to the matter at another point in the debate.
      As to whether the title should include "of" or "for", there is a national orchestra of Wales and a national museum of Wales, but there is a Sports Council for Wales. We felt that an assembly for Wales would produce a better feeling of inclusiveness, rather than giving the impression that it related to a particular group in Wales or only to people who had been born in Wales—I would be in a bit of trouble in that respect. Although we are not absolutely wedded to that title and we are prepared to discuss it later, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed so that we do not have to resist them altogether.

      865
      Although the word "senedd" may enter popular usage, we do not want to put it in the Bill as it may raise fears among some people. An interesting debate developed about whether the word originated from the Latin for senate or from the Greek for synod, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West pointed out. However, in modern English parlance, the word "senedd" is the equivalent of parliament, which is derived from the French word "parlement", but the French "parlement" was nothing like the modern National Assembly, which is the French equivalent of our Parliament.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but I am driven to do so by what the Minister has just said. Is he honestly saying that the word "senedd" would imply that everyone in the assembly spoke Welsh? Why should people worry about that name? Is not Tai Cymru doing roaring business? Is CADW not rather well known in Wales?
      Mr. Griffiths: I was not saying that. Clearly, the assembly will be a bilingual institution. As it will be the National Assembly for Wales, if we put the word "senedd" in the Bill some people may think that we are being partial. We do not want to give that impression because we want to bring everyone with us.
      I should add that we reject new clauses 3 and 4 as they go against the wishes of the people of Wales as expressed in the referendum.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Wigley: I thank hon. Members for taking part in this afternoon's extremely interesting debate. I shall address the nomenclature first as I can do so fairly rapidly. We do not support the Conservative amendment proposing the name "Welsh Assembly", although I readily agree that the term will be used colloquially. However, I accept the arguments of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that a body "of Wales" belongs to Wales, that a body "for Wales" sounds as though it belongs to someone else and that "of" would, therefore, be better than "for". I understand that Ministers will look again at the matter, so we shall not push it to a vote at this stage.
      Obviously, we support the use of the word "senedd" as it reflects the nature of the institution in that it has law-making powers. We should like the assembly ultimately to have full law-making powers. I readily accept that the Bill does not provide full law-making powers. It was, however, interesting to hear the Minister's reply to the debate and the comment made by other hon. Members that the division between secondary legislation and primary legislation was not as clear cut as some people might think.
      As the Minister said, the White Paper contained provisions for the assembly to have certain primary law-making powers. The Bill provides mechanisms in respect of those powers. The White Paper on which the people of Wales voted included changes of a primary legislative nature within the capability of the assembly.
      The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) made the interesting point that the extent of the powers of the assembly dealing with secondary legislation would be
      866
      determined largely by the nature of the primary legislation passed here. Therefore, there may be times when the assembly will require primary law-making powers to achieve what might otherwise have been achieved by secondary law-making powers had the primary laws been drawn up differently. There is a substantial overlap.
      The main thrust of the debate came from the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and for Wrexham and from some of my hon. Friends who said that the issue was not set in stone for all time and that, in drawing up the provisions for the assembly in the Bill, we were providing for certain legislative functions—most of them secondary legislative functions and some of them specific primary legislative functions. They also said that the provisions need not necessarily be the formula for ever and a day, and that if the democratic wishes of the people of Wales, as expressed to the assembly, sought a change in that balance, it might be possible to facilitate that.
      I accept that idea as a reasonable way forward, but it would be silly for the Bill not to include mechanisms to allow for at least some of those functions to be achieved without the House having to resort to primary legislation every time we needed a facility to change the name of the assembly, for example, or every time Members of the Assembly wanted a change in respect of other relatively small provisions.
      We have heard that discretion is being provided by the House—it could be called a discretion of the House—in terms of blocking secondary legislation. The assembly will be able to say that it does not want to use orders that are allowed because they are not appropriate for Wales—in other words, that it does not want to adopt the secondary legislation applied to England. That is the nature of the assembly and of the powers of the Secretary of State. However, we do not have the positive discretion to allow the assembly to do things. The Bill may need a mechanism to enable an order to be passed in Westminster allowing primary changes on relatively small matters of the sort mentioned by several hon. Members, without the whole primary mechanism in Westminster having to be gone through again. Building such an order into the Bill would be of tremendous benefit, saving the House a lot of time, but leaving the ultimate decision to the House, because the order would have to be passed by Parliament before the powers could be transferred.
      Given that that is where the argument lies and having heard the Secretary of State's acknowledgement that we are talking about an evolving assembly, we could well look at the issue again on Report or in another place. I hope that it will be possible to find a mechanism that avoids unnecessary work for this Chamber and avoids the confrontation that there might otherwise be between the assembly and this Chamber purely because of lack of time.
      We have had a constructive debate on these powers. On the basis of that debate and the evolving nature that the Secretary of State has described, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
      '(1A) Notwithstanding the establishment of the Assembly, or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Wales.'.
      Having listened to the previous debate, I am even more confirmed in my view that the amendment is necessary. The leader of Plaid Cymru asserted his determination to ensure that the Bill is part of a slippery slope towards achieving an independent Wales. Many of the comments made during the previous debate raised serious doubts in my mind—and, I suspect in the mind of many of my hon. Friends—about the effective sovereignty of this House.
      On Second Reading, the Secretary of State asked why such an amendment would be necessary, saying that this House was sovereign anyway. We have heard suggestions tonight that the sovereignty of this House could be thwarted. I did not intervene on the Minister a few minutes ago because I felt that it was proper to raise the issue on this amendment. If the assembly could thwart the sovereignty of Parliament by refusing to implement a commencement order on legislation that the House had deliberately and consciously voted to apply to Wales—I am uncertain about that after what has been said—serious questions would be raised.
      Mr. Ron Davies rose—
      Mr. Ancram: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but if he is going to say that the House could revert to primary legislation in such a case and retrieve the commencement order to apply it from this House, he will raise serious questions about the whole project.
      Mr. Davies: I am not going to say that. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is clear. The assembly can exercise only the discretion that the House gives it. A future Government may want to give the assembly discretion to implement, or not to implement, a measure through secondary legislation or to vary provision in Wales according to Welsh circumstances. The assembly will not be able to exercise any judgment outwith that given to it by the House.
      I should like to make two other points briefly. There is no need to make it explicitly clear that sovereignty rests with the House, because it clearly does. Nothing that the assembly or any future Government do can undermine the sovereignty of Parliament.
      There was an interesting debate on the previous amendment. The important point is that there is a body of opinion that wants to make the assembly work. The discussions that are taking place and the concept of developing relationships derive from the broad consensus that the assembly must be made to work. I hope that the Conservative party accepts that the project is on course. We are going to have an assembly and it is in the best interests of the House and of the people of Wales to have one that is soundly based and has a good working relationship with Parliament. That means that there will be developing changes.
      Mr. Ancram: One other developing change is a galloping response to an amendment as it goes along. The
      868
      Secretary of State has responded to my points during my remarks rather than at the end. I do not know whether he will be responding to the debate—
      Mr. Davies: No, it will be the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
      Mr. Ancram: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman will not because, with great respect, he has greater authority than his hon. Friend. However, I look forward to hearing the response.
      Mr. Davies: I shall not allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away with that unwarranted slur on my hon. Friend, who speaks with the full authority of the Government. There is no question of his statements carrying any less weight than mine. There is no reason why I should have chosen to reply to the debate. I had no knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman was going to move the amendment. Had he had the courtesy to notify me that he wanted me to reply to the debate, I should have considered it, but he cannot assume that this is the most important debate just because it is on a Conservative amendment. I think that the amendment is the least worthy of all those that we are due to debate.
      Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman is indulging in his usual tactics. He will find that, after four years in Northern Ireland, I am not as easy to bully as some of his Back-Bench colleagues. I shall certainly not be bullied by him. I know what he is up to. When he decided to sneak the Bill away into Committee upstairs, he was not prepared to come to the Dispatch Box to announce it himself. He was sitting in the Chamber at the end of the Second Reading debate and he got the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), to do it, perhaps because he foresaw that he might have to back down and did not want his own words thrown back in his face.
      Let me return to the amendment. We have heard some doubts about what an assembly will be able to do to legislation passed by the House. I asked a question during the previous debate to which the Secretary of State has not responded—perhaps his hon. Friend will do so in due course. Parliament can decide whether a commencement order will be in new primary legislation to keep it out of the hands of the assembly or whether discretion will be given to the assembly. However, there is a lot of existing legislation with orders passed by the House on the understanding that, if the Secretary of State did not use the discretion given to him, he would have to answer to this sovereign House for not doing so. That is how the sovereignty of the House is exercised on that discretion. If an assembly is able to decide not to exercise such discretion, even though it was Parliament's intention that it should do so, there will be no come-back because there is no accountable relationship between the assembly and the House on that.
      Mr. Davies rose—
      Mr. Ancram: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will leave something for his hon. Friend to say at the end. He appears to be responding as we go along.
      Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has not put a lot on the table yet, so there will not be a lot for me to

      869
      leave to my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the scheme that we are proposing. The issue is not the assembly taking powers to itself. The assembly will have only those powers given to it by Parliament. During the passage of the Bill, Parliament will have the opportunity to delete clause 29 if it wants to withhold those powers from the assembly. We shall have a further opportunity when the transfer order, which I published yesterday, is put before us. The right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to look at all the Acts that will be affected. There will be no question of hiding that information from the public domain. There will be a full process of discussion, we shall publish the final draft order in the autumn and Parliament will have a final opportunity some time next year to approve it.
      The powers will have been described, debated and approved by this House of Commons, and this Parliament will decide that those powers can be exercised by the assembly. If that is not the exercise of Parliament's sovereignty, I do not know what is.
      7 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for one thing; he may save me from having to table a question, because I had intended to ask him which of the Acts of Parliament referred to in the draft order still had commencement orders outstanding on them. Once we have the answer to that, we should then be aware of what discretion we should be passing to an assembly that will not have the accountability back to Parliament that is at present exercised by the Secretary of State. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell me that he will do that during the Committee stage, I shall not table the question—but if he cannot 1 shall, because I feel that that would force him to make the position clear.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought my amendment one of the least important. However, its real purpose is simple. Essentially, it is to establish the veracity of the claim made during the referendum campaign, that the measure is Unionist in intent, and is intended to strengthen the United Kingdom—I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will recollect those words having been used in relation both to Scotland and to Wales—not to detract from the sovereignty of this Parliament here at Westminster.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman seeking to persuade the Committee that the purpose of his amendment is declaratory rather than practical?
      Mr. Ancram: It has to be declaratory because such an amendment, or such an assertion, describes an existing situation. As the Secretary of State rightly said on Second Reading, this Parliament can change that situation if it wants to. It would not be unusual or unprecedented to include such assertions. They are made where there is a question mark over whether what is being done is intended to diminish the strength and unity of the United Kingdom or intended, as was said during the referendum campaign, to strengthen it.
      I said on Second Reading that there was within the body of United Kingdom statute a clear precedent—that of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, as amended in
      870
      1922. Section 75 of that Act is still outstanding and, with suitable changes, forms my amendment. Obviously, I have changed the words "Northern Ireland" to the word "Wales".
      That provision is there, and is still on the statute book, because it served to give a reassurance that what was being done in the Government of Ireland Act, especially as it related to Northern Ireland, was not part of a slippery slope leading to a united Ireland but would retain the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament over all matters in Northern Ireland, and retain Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Morgan: I promise that this will be my last intervention. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not seek to compare the Government of Ireland Act with the Bill that we are debating, when the degree of devolution in that Act is 100 times greater. There is no comparison. There was a need to provide reassurance in respect of the Government of Ireland Act because that was similar in nature to the Act that set up the Dominion of Canada, which contained a colossal amount of devolution and reserved few matters to the United Kingdom Parliament. The purpose of such an Act might have created a clear political necessity, which is hardly justified by a measure such as that before us, in which there is only one hundredth as much devolution.
      Mr. Ancram: The difficulty that I have with such an intervention is that it suggests that the amendment is unnecessary.
      Mr. Morgan indicated assent.
      Mr. Ancram: If the sovereignty of this Parliament is complete, what is there to prevent the amendment from being accepted? If it is an assertion, as I have said it is, and if it is in line with what the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State believe to be the case anyway, what have they got against inserting it into the Bill? [Interruption.] They say that it is unnecessary.
      However, if we turn to the Scotland Bill, concerning devolution north of the border, although we do not find that assertion—I should like to see it there, too, and will table an amendment accordingly—we do find another assertion, equally drawn from Northern Ireland legislation. In that case, the legislation is the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which asserts in another way, but extremely clearly, the supremacy of this Parliament over Scotland.
      In clause 27 of the Scotland Bill, we read:
      "This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland."
      That provision is in the Northern Ireland legislation as well. One could equally well argue that it is unnecessary there too, because as it is clearly the case that this is a sovereign Parliament, obviously it can do that. So why is that assertion in the Scotland Bill?
      It is there for the same reason that it is in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973—because the assertion was needed to reassure. If there is no concern in the mind of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) that what is proposed for Wales might lead further down the road to the independence of Wales and the separation and

      871
      break-up of the United Kingdom, what has he against the amendment, which would provide belt and braces for the intended position?
      The only possible reason for leaving such an assertion out is that one knows that, ultimately, it is likely to be disproved, or may have to be reduced in some way.
      Mr. Ron Davies: How can it be disproved?
      Mr. Ancram: The Secretary of State has himself said that the Bill is not stable, because devolution is not an event but a process. He himself envisages things moving on, and if he puts his hand on his heart he cannot say that he is certain that we shall end up with the sovereignty of this Parliament still intact. That is why he will not put the assertion in the legislation.
      Mr. Llwyd: I am curious to find out how many times the right hon. Gentleman, as a Minister, has used the word "otiose" in such proceedings. It is the proper legal definition, and it is parliamentary language, too. If something is unnecessary, it should not appear on the face of a Bill. That is pretty obvious.
      Mr. Ancram: I do not believe that the assertion is unnecessary, but to those who say that it is, I say that I should prefer to see it on the face of the Bill. If there are those of us who think that it is required, and if it would not affect the position either way, I do not see the objection.
      It is interesting that new clause 3, proposed by the Liberal Democrats, replicates the clause that I mentioned in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, because they, too, believe that there is a need for such an assertion. We are asking not for a statement that would change anything, but for the Government to give those of us who have always been nervous about the effect of devolution on the United Kingdom a reassurance that the United Kingdom will remain intact, as will the sovereignty of this Parliament.
      Mr. Edward Gamier: I do not want to take my right hon. Friend's arguments out of order, but will he project forward to clause 30, which deals with the power to implement Community law—a delegated power that the Bill gives to the assembly? At present, he is arguing about the effect on this Parliament of internal devolution within the United Kingdom, but clause 30 provides an example of extra-territorial law being handed straight to the Welsh assembly, bypassing this Parliament. Does not that underline all the more emphatically the argument in favour of my right hon. Friend's amendment?
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for making that point. He has found an example of a potential erosion of sovereignty on the face of the Bill. Again, it is important in that respect to have the assertion on the face of the Bill. We must start from the position that this Parliament is sovereign and will remain so, and that is all that the amendment says, so I find it surprising that we meet such resistance from the Government side.
      I shall ask the Secretary of State one question. I am not a suspicious character, but at the back of his mind there may be some element of what I am about to suggest. I do not know whether, in three years' time, the right hon.
      872
      Gentleman will be a Member of the Welsh assembly or a Member of this Parliament, retaining his office of Secretary of State. I do believe, however, that those who see the assembly as their natural home will always argue for fewer restrictions on its potential for growth and for the maximum ability to undermine the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. By contrast, those who remain here will want this Parliament's sovereignty to be maintained.
      Mr. Öpik: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a big difference of tone between our new clause and what he is proposing? His amendment has a rather belligerent turn of phrase suggesting a fear of any kind of delegated authority being granted to the Welsh assembly.
      Mr. Ancram: I do not accept that; and I do accept that authority will be delegated to the Welsh assembly. This Parliament has the right to tell the Welsh assembly that, although it has delegated authority, the authority of this House and the sovereignty of Parliament will not be diminished.
      It is clear to me from the previous debate that there is something of a muddle on the question of sovereignty. The Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues have not answered the important points made by the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and others. I believe that they still harbour doubts about the extent of the powers of the assembly and the effect of those powers on the sovereignty of this Parliament.
      The Government's approach this evening has been ambivalent. There seems to be an element of schizophrenia: will the assembly be strong and powerful with sovereignty of its own, or will it always be subject to the sovereignty of the UK Parliament? It is because of that schizophrenia, ambivalence and muddle that the amendment is necessary. I commend it to the Committee.
      Mr. Öpik: Judging by its tone, this is something of a wrecking amendment. That is not to detract from what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has been saying, but words like "undiminished" give one the feeling that the Conservatives are worried about giving the assembly delegated powers that will enable it not to look over its shoulder to Westminster all the time.
      Hence, we would be minded to oppose the amendment. It is also rather provocative; it implies that the Welsh assembly cannot be allowed to function without close scrutiny by Westminster. That goes dead against the idea of devolution.
      It is all very well to talk about belt and braces; it is surely even safer not to put on trousers at all but to stay in the constitutional bed and not try to move decision making out from the centre to Scotland and Wales.
      Mr. Dalyell: May I, out of curiosity, ask the hon. Gentleman whether he hopes to be a member of the Welsh assembly or to remain here as a Member of the Westminster Parliament?
      Mr. Öpik: I do not see the relevance of that question to the points that I have been making. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that an Estonian in Parliament has far more to contribute than an Estonian in Swansea or

      873
      Cardiff. I can foresee no circumstances in which I would stand for the Welsh assembly. I hope that that unequivocal statement reassures the hon. Gentleman.
      The Liberal Democrats feel that the amendment is not in the spirit of devolution or of what was voted for on 18 September. Perhaps it is all a matter of judgment; perhaps the words would not undermine the effectiveness of the assembly, but they send out the wrong message. Having accepted the principle of devolution, we must now trust the Welsh people to elect individuals who are capable of operating effectively and wisely on their behalf. We do not see the need for endless insurance policies just in case the assembly gets it wrong. Responsible people act responsibly. I like to think that the Welsh assembly will behave responsibly and constructively in relation to Westminster; and that, if there are problems, they can be resolved by discussion and negotiation—and then possibly by legislation. We must not tie the hands of the assembly before it has even been elected.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: A remarkable concession by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) rather suggested that the amendment has more to do with mischief making and raking over the coals of an argument that the Conservative party has long since lost than with anything constructive. It is, in the right hon. Gentleman's words, purely declaratory: it has no practical purpose. Why then introduce it? As a lawyer, he ought to know the definition of otiose. There can be no better example of an otiose amendment than this one, because it is unnecessary. It is a propaganda exercise designed to create fear about the assembly. We should be concerned to engender precisely the opposite emotion.
      The purpose of the package of reforms leading to this measure is to strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom and to reform the relationship between its constituent parts. That is eminently sensible and reasonable. It is not an attack on the sovereignty of the UK; it is a way of strengthening that sovereignty and improving our parliamentary processes.
      Mr. Peter Luff: Unlike Labour Members, I see this issue as important. If the amendment is purely declaratory—I do not believe it is; it also has a utilitarian purpose—then there are many precedents for that in law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) gave examples from similar constitutional legislation of the past. As I recall, the Family Law Act 1997 includes a similar provision at the beginning, declaring that the purpose of the Act is to reinforce family life. So the fact that an amendment is declaratory does not diminish its importance or invalidate its consideration by the Committee.
      I found the Secretary of State's interventions in my right hon. Friend's opening remarks extremely difficult to follow. He says that he wants the assembly to work. I am reconciled to the idea that there will be an assembly, although I am not glad about it, and I share the Secretary of State's view. I am a former member of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, and I am concerned for the Principality. It is only just over the border from my county, and I want the people of Wales, if they are to have one at all, to have an assembly that works.
      874
      But if the assembly is to work as a secure part of the constitution of this kingdom, it must have not just the whole-hearted support of the Welsh people but more than the grudging acceptance of the English people. The latter need to be reassured that the assembly will work in their interests, too.
      That is why I think the Secretary of State was profoundly misguided to describe the amendment as unworthy. It is a matter for incredulity that the amendment was not accepted on the nod. It does no harm, and it would provide a real reassurance to the people of England that their concerns will be taken into account in the process of devolving power to Wales.
      I declare an interest—I shall soon get bored with hearing myself say this; I have said it in three debates in the House in the past week—in that Worcestershire stands to be disadvantaged by the Bill and by the Government's regional development agencies for England. We shall be caught between the Welsh powerhouse set up by part VI of the Bill, and the Birmingham-based RDA. That is why I know that my constituents are worried about the Bill's implications for them. Thus, a reassurance in the Bill to the effect that it will work for the benefit of the whole kingdom, and that the supremacy of this place will remain intact, would be of benefit to my constituency.
      As an English Member, I would appreciate it if Welsh Members could see that perspective as they consider this matter. The amendment goes beyond being purely declaratory, and provides some practical safeguard for my constituents' interests and those of other hon. Members in England.
      The Welsh people have not declared themselves that enthusiastically for this Bill and the assembly. There has been a grudging, half-hearted acceptance, and three quarters of them seem to be saying that they also value the United Kingdom. They want some reassurance that the supremacy of this Parliament will still be very real. I accept that "supremacy" is not the most attractive of words. Perhaps its connotations are not entirely happy, but it was right for my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes to draw on precedent in other legislation in drafting the amendment.
      Why should the Government resist the amendment? Frankly, I do not understand it. They say—indeed, the Welsh nationalists have been saying this too—that the amendment is superfluous and unnecessary. I am deeply suspicious about the direction from which I am hearing that claim. Some people who are telling me that have clear agendas—which, to their credit, they do not conceal. Why are they saying that an amendment to the Bill that would reassert the primacy of this place in the consideration of United Kingdom matters is superfluous? That concerns me.
      I see the amendment as an insurance policy for the people of England and, indeed, of Scotland in the relationship between the Welsh assembly and this Parliament. A devolved Parliament in Scotland will inevitably lead to pressure for independence for Scotland. I am as yet unclear whether the National Assembly for Wales will have a similar impact. I suspect that it will become an ineffectual talking shop, and that the

      875
      enthusiasm of the people of Wales will diminish. However, the amendment is a useful safeguard should the Welsh assembly take off in the direction I fear.
      Mr. Öpik: What evils and catastrophes does the hon. Gentleman foresee, if the amendment is not accepted?
      Mr. Luff: I do not want to detain the House long, and I am trying to draw my remarks to a conclusion, but I would point the hon. Gentleman to clause 23(6) on page 14, which states:
      "Any function exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to … a cross-border area, or … a committee, board or undertaker which carries on activities in, or with respect to, a cross-border area".
      From my reading of the Bill, it seems to me that the assembly will be given powers over any cross-border area
      "which includes a part (but not the whole) of England"—
      I am relieved to say—simply on the say-so of a Minister of the Crown, with no assurance that this place will have any say over the giving of those powers over important chunks of England.
      The hon. Gentleman will understand that, as I come from Worcestershire, where we historically fought the Welsh for many years, we are a little more sensitive on that point, perhaps, than those in other parts of the United Kingdom. The amendment will provide a useful and practical safeguard against that sort of frank abuse of its power by the assembly.
      I genuinely believe that this is a useful amendment, which will safeguard the supremacy of this place. People are becoming more aware of the dangers of the Bill for the rest of the United Kingdom, and I honestly hope that, if the amendment is only superfluous, as the Government seem to suggest, they will accept it and give me great peace of mind.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: This has been a brief, but nevertheless interesting, debate, even if it only showed us the shortcomings of the Opposition's thinking and that of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
      From the outset, I must make it clear that there is nothing in the Bill to imply that the establishment of a National Assembly for Wales would undermine the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. The powers are clear. We discussed the background to the amendments at some length on Second Reading. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman can remember that discussion well. We set down in detail our reasons why the official Opposition's concerns were, frankly, misplaced. That remains our position. Nothing has happened since that debate to change our minds about this amendment, which is unnecessary.
      Mr. Ancram: Can the hon. Gentleman answer this question? If he thinks the amendment unnecessary in this Bill, why did the Secretary of State for Scotland decide that an assertion-of-supremacy clause was necessary in the Scotland Bill?
      Mr. Griffiths: That is a good point, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will deal with it as I develop my argument. It is important—in fact, it is crucial to the whole of our consideration of the Bill.
      876
      First, we believe that the views of the official Opposition on this point are based on a faulty grasp of the British constitution and of the powers of the assembly as contained in the rest of the Bill. I should have thought that it was obvious that it is this Parliament that is debating the passage of the Bill and that will be able to amend or repeal it after it is enacted. I should have thought that proof enough of this Parliament's sovereignty.
      Any guarantees that the House attempts to add to the Bill could simply be overturned by a future Parliament. That is the basis of our parliamentary democracy. Each Parliament has the right to determine what should remain as part of our legislative structure.
      So the Bill has no bearing on Parliament's sovereign power to legislate for Wales. This Parliament will still be able to legislate for Wales once the National Assembly for Wales has been created. That assembly will carry out its functions under legislation enacted by this Parliament. This Bill does not confer powers to make primary legislation on the National Assembly for Wales.
      Mr. Ancram: But it does.
      Mr. Griffiths: I shall move on to the specific circumstances.
      The Bill does not allow general primary legislative powers, but it would pass on to the National Assembly for Wales those powers that are vested in the Secretary of State and certain order-making powers, which are precisely described. Therefore, primary legislative powers can be discussed when we debate clause 29, where the powers are specifically circumscribed. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to raise issues relating to the thwarting of the powers of Westminster. The National Assembly for Wales will be able to act in specific areas.
      I agree that the question is not simple. Yes, it is complicated, and we have to think about the vast array of secondary powers that would be passed to the Welsh assembly, or the National Assembly for Wales, or the Assembly of Wales—we will all pick our own version for the future. However, there can be no doubt that, apart from clause 29, which mentions some specific powers, the rest are secondary.
      The right hon. Member for Devizes cited as the big precedent section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which was amended in 1922, as he pointed out. In further developing his argument, he claimed that clause 27 of the Scotland Bill contains a similar statement—based, he thought, more closely on the 1973 legislation, although I think that he would admit that it really comes out of the 1920 stable. His argument was about the principle of having a statement about the sovereignty of Westminster as the United Kingdom Parliament.
      It is unnecessary and otiose for a similar statement to be included in the legislation for the Welsh assembly, because the National Assembly for Wales will not have the same wide-ranging primary legislative powers as the Scottish Parliament. The referendums were conducted on that basis.
      If this Parliament should ever decide that the National Assembly for Wales should have such powers, that will be the point when the amendment becomes active and relevant and should be made. Today, for this legislation, it is otiose and unnecessary. We heard those words for

      877
      18 years when we were in opposition. I hope that the right hon. Member for Devizes will have the good grace to accept that there is no need for us to vote on the amendment.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Jenkin: Most of what the Minister said was completely irrelevant to the amendment. The Government have a narrow view of parliamentary sovereignty. It is, of course, a legal concept and, legally, any message of Parliament's sovereignty in any Act of Parliament is superfluous; but the secondary purpose of a provision such as the amendment—this is why it has been used in other legislation, where the Minister's argument about its being otiose equally applies—is political.
      We do not want the relationship between Westminster and the Cardiff assembly, if that is where it is to be, to be one in which Westminster is constantly interfering and reasserting its supremacy. That is precisely why it is necessary to include a message in the Bill to explain to everyone who reads it that Parliament is and intends to remain sovereign.
      Sovereignty exists only as long as it has the means to sustain itself. Charles I was mentioned in an earlier debate. Charles I was legally sovereign—there is no doubt about that—but he did not have the means to sustain that sovereignty, which is why he got his head chopped off. We are not in the business of having this Parliament's head chopped off at some stage in the future.
      Parliament's sovereignty is vital, because we do not have a written constitution. We are not like United States Congressmen, who swear allegiance to the constitution of the United States: we swear allegiance to the Queen, who represents the sovereignty of Parliament. That is our only guarantee of our liberty in this country.
      For the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) to say that we need no insurance policies because we have such confidence in the happy relationship between Parliament and the Welsh assembly is completely wrong. It is precisely to plan for all eventualities that we need to make the amendment.
      Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Jenkin: No. I want to be brief.
      The Minister says that there will be no difficulties between Westminster and the Welsh assembly, but that is entirely his own view, because Welsh nationalist supporters of his legislation, who are sitting in the Chamber, deny the sovereignty of Parliament. They deny that the settlement will be stable, and want it to lead to precisely the destruction of the United Kingdom that he professes to be against.
      In unwritten constitutions, the tendency is for powers that are not used to disappear through that disuse. We do not want Parliament to have to reassert its sovereignty by regularly interfering with the Welsh assembly. It would be much better to write into the Bill a clear assertion of sovereignty, so that everyone knows the ground rules by which the assembly will use its powers, preferably with no interference from Parliament.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 365.

      Division No. 134]

      [7.34 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Amess, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Lansley, Andrew

      Arbuthnot, James

      Leigh, Edward

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Baldry, Tony

      Lidington, David

      Bercow, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Loughton, Tim

      Body, Sir Richard

      Luff, Peter

      Boswell, Tim

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      MacKay, Andrew

      Brady, Graham

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Brazier, Julian

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Malins, Humfrey

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Maples, John

      Burns, Simon

      Mates, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Chope, Christopher

      Moss, Malcolm

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Norman, Archie

      Ottaway, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Page, Richard

      Colvin, Michael

      Paice, James

      Cran, James

      Paterson, Owen

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Pickles, Eric

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Prior, David

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Randall, John

      Day, Stephen

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Robathan, Andrew

      Duncan, Alan

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Evans, Nigel

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Faber, David

      Ruffley, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Fallon, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Shepherd, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gale, Roger

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Garnier, Edward

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gibb, Nick

      Streeter, Gary

      Gill, Christopher

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Syms, Robert

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Green, Damian

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Greenway, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tredinnick, David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Trend, Michael

      Hammond, Philip

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Walter, Robert

      Hayes, John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Whittingdale, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Horam, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Willetts, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Wilshire, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Woodward, Shaun

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Yeo, Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Key, Robert

      Mr. Oliver Heald and

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Sir David Madel.

      879

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Ainger, Nick

      Cox, Tom

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cranston, Ross

      Alexander, Douglas

      Crausby, David

      Allan, Richard

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Allen, Graham

      Cummings, John

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Dafis, Cynog

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Dalyell, Tam

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Banks, Tony

      Davidson, Ian

      Barron, Kevin

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Beard, Nigel

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Denham, John

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Benton, Joe

      Dismore, Andrew

      Berry, Roger

      Dobbin, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Betts, Clive

      Dowd, Jim

      Blackman, Liz

      Drew, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Borrow, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Efford, Clive

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ennis, Jeff

      Breed, Colin

      Etherington, Bill

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fisher, Mark

      Browne, Desmond

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Flint, Caroline

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Flynn, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Follett, Barbara

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burnett, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Byers, Stephen

      Foulkes, George

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cann, Jamie

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Casale, Roger

      Godman, Norman A

      Cawsey, Ian

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chaytor, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chidgey, David

      Gorrie, Donald

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Grant, Bernie

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Gunnell, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hain, Peter

      Coaker, Vermon

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hancock, Mike

      Colman, Tony

      Hanson, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Cooper, Yvette

      Harvey, Nick

      Corbett, Robin

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Healey, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      880

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McNulty, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Heppell, John

      McWilliam, John

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hill, Keith

      Marek, DrJohn

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hoey, Kate

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Home Robertson, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hope, Phil

      Martlew, Eric

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Maxton, John

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Meale, Alan

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Michael, Alun

      Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Milbum, Alan

      Hurst, Alan

      Miller, Andrew

      Hutton, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Moffatt, Laura

      Ingram, Adam

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Moore, Michael

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Jenkins, Brian

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Olner, Bill

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Keetch, Paul

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Osbome, Ms Sandra

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pearson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Kidney, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pike, Peter L

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Plaskitt, James

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Pope, Greg

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pound, Stephen

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Laxton, Bob

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Levitt, Tom

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Linton, Martin

      Purchase, Ken

      Livingstone, Ken

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Livsey, Richard

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rammell, Bill

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rapson, Syd

      Lock, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Love, Andrew

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      McAllion, John

      Rendel, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McDonnell, John

      Rogers, Allan

      McFall, John

      Rooker, Jeff

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Rooney, Terry

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Rowlands, Ted

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Roy, Frank

      McLeish, Henry

      Ruane, Chris

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      881

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Timms, Stephen

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sanders, Adrian

      Todd, Mark

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Touhig, Don

      Sawford, Phil

      Truswell, Paul

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tyler, Paul

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Vaz, Keith

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wallace, James

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Watts, David

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Webb, Steve

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      White, Brian

      Snape, Peter

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wills, Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stott, Roger

      Wise, Audrey

      Stringer, Graham

      Wood, Mike

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Worthington, Tony

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Swinney, John

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Janet Anderson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      MEMBERSHIP
      Mr. Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 1, line 15, after 'of' insert
      'members for each Assembly constituency'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 94, in page 1, leave out lines 16 and 17.
      No. 22A, in page 1, line 16, leave out from 'constituency' to end of line 17.
      No. 23A, in page 1, line 18, leave out from 'constituencies' to end of line 20 and insert
      'shall initially be the parliamentary constituencies in Wales, which shall be subject to periodic review by the Boundary Commission for Wales with like powers and in like manner as in the case of parliamentary constituencies.'.
      No. 95, in page 1, line 18, leave out from 'constituencies' to 'shall' in line 19.
      No. 110, in schedule 1, page 70, line 5, leave out 'the parliamentary constituencies in' and insert
      'determined by the Boundary Commission for'.
      No. 111, in page 70, leave out lines 7 to 11.
      No. 112, in page 70, leave out lines 12 to 14.
      882
      No. 113, in page 70, leave out lines 16 to 22.
      No. 114, in page 70, line 24, leave out from 'where' to second 'the'.
      No. 115, in page 70. line 26, leave out 'electoral region' and insert 'constituency'.
      No. 116, in page 70, line 27, leave out 'electoral region' and insert 'constituency'.
      No. 117, in page 70, line 31, leave out 'electoral region' and insert 'constituency'.
      No. 118, in page 70, line 33, leave out from 'constituency' to 'and' in line 34.
      No. 119, in page 70, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 2 on page 71.
      No. 120, in page 71, leave out lines 3 to 7.
      No. 121, in page 71, line 10, leave out 'electoral region or regions' and insert 'constituency or constituencies'.
      No. 122, in page 71, line 13, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
      No. 123, in page 71, line 18, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
      No. 124, in page 71, line 19, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
      No. 125, in page 71, line 44, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
      No. 126, in page 71, line 45, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
      No. 127, in page 72, line 1, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
      No. 128, in page 72, line 3, leave out 'electoral regions' and insert 'constituencies'.
      No. 130, in page 72, leave out lines 7 to 43.
      No. 191, in page 72, leave out lines 10 to 14.
      No. 129, in page 73, line 6, leave out 'electoral region' and insert 'constituency'.
      No. 131, in page 73, line 8, leave out from 'within' to end of line 9 and insert 'the Assembly constituency'.
      No. 49, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, leave out from 'have' to end of line 15 on page 3 and insert—
      'a single transferable vote, that is to say a vote—

      (a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency, and

      (b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—

      (i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or

      (ii) when, owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates.'.

      No. 11, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'two votes' and insert 'one vote'.
      No. 12, in page 2, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 3.
      No. 58, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'the simple majority system' and insert
      'a preferential voting system whereby the voter indicates his or her preference for the candidates by marking the ballot paper 1, 2, 3, etc., with the votes of the last candidate being transferred on the basis of second preferences until one candidate has 50 per cent. + 1 of the votes cast.'.
      No. 13, in page 3, leave out lines 5 to 15.

      883
      No. 102, in clause 8, page 5, line 18, leave out from 'only' to end of line 20 and insert
      'one vote; and the member shall be returned under the system in section 4 above'.
      No. 32A, in clause 10, page 6, leave out lines 28 to 30.
      No. 106, in clause 14, page 9, line 1, leave out from 'member' to 'is' in line 3.
      No. 107, in page 9, line 3, leave out from 'member' to first 'his' in line 5.
      No. 108, in page 9, line 7, leave out from first 'member' to second 'he' in line 8.
      No. 109, in page 9, line 13, leave out from 'member' to end of line 15.
      Mr. Öpik: I am tempted to shout "House", but not sufficiently tempted actually to do so.
      It is interesting to commence this debate having just had a Division because voting systems are what we want to discuss. In simple terms, the Liberal Democrats propose the replacement of the system in the Bill with a single transferable vote system. Our amendments pave the way for STV in multi-Member constituencies by removing the references to the electoral regions.
      The system would achieve the main aims of an electoral system: proportionality, voter choice and constituency link. Naturally, the boundary commission would determine the boundaries of the STV constituencies. It is a fairly straightforward process. STV would allow for single-Member constituencies in rural areas with sparse populations. It is important to stress that in some areas STV can still provide single-seat constituencies.
      The purpose of our proposal is to ensure the fairest achievable system of proportional representation for Wales. The Labour party's acceptance, about 18 months ago, of the case for proportional representation in the Welsh assembly was a source of great celebration among Liberal Democrats. It was with some delight that we prepared our amendments, safe in the knowledge that the strategic argument for a proportional representation system had been won. Not only the Liberal Democrats called for an STV system to maximise voter choice. The Electoral Reform Society, the Parliament for Wales Campaign, the Movement for Welsh Democracy, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats have been united in the belief that STV provides the best system of proportionality that we can have.
      I shall briefly explain the system in the Bill—the additional member system with closed party lists—without going through every excruciating detail. Every voter has two votes: one for a constituency Member and one for a party list. The constituency Member is the same as we have now—40 constituencies with 40 Members elected by the first-past-the-post system. An additional 20 Members will be elected from a closed party list to correct the disproportionate effects of first past the post. To make up the 20, four will be elected from each of the five old European constituencies that make up the new assembly's electoral regions. That is huge progress; for the first time, Wales has a serious chance of getting a national elected body proportionate to the votes cast.
      As we all know, first past the post has regularly and monotonously created an unrepresentative outcome. That was clearly the case on 1 May, when an overwhelming majority of Labour Members were elected to the House
      884
      despite the fact that Labour had only a minority of the vote. To that extent, we praise the Government for their foresightedness and for their willingness to carry through a promise made before their election. We seek to amend the proportional system to make it even more proportional, on the basis that we are now arguing about the details and how to improve our system of election to make it as transparently fair as possible.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The hon. Gentleman said that he was seeking to make the system even more proportional, but do not studies of the 1 May general election result show that only the additional member system would have given a more proportional result than first past the post? STV would have given a less proportional result than AMS.
      Mr. Öpik: There have been various surveys, but they have consistently failed to assess—indeed, they cannot realistically assess—how voting intentions would have changed had a truly proportional system been in use so that people did not have to take a gamble or make some tactical calculation before casting their votes.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
      Mr. Öpik: We do not know. That is one of the interesting elements of our debate. We can be fairly sure from what happened on 1 May that people voted tactically to help remove the Government. Few would question that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name names."] I do not want to mention individuals, on the ground that it would be a major retrograde step for my political career for me to bring the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats into this—unless he wants to intervene.
      People voted in a way that showed that they were thinking of more than the simple casting of a vote for one party. They were thinking about the bigger picture—the effect that their vote would have. On that assumption, we are seeking to look beyond the simple calculations of the percentages of polls that have occurred in the past to how to remove the element of gambling in which voters have to indulge at present. How can we ensure that voters can vote according to their preferences and consciences, safe in the knowledge that the electoral system will do the rest on their behalf?
      One of the assumptions of STV systems is that voters should not be expected to be experts on the electoral system and that the structure should serve them rather than make them study tables, graphs, advice in newspapers and what their friends are doing. For that reason, STV has generally been regarded as very successful.
      Mr. Robert Syms: If STV is so successful, why do only Southern Ireland and Malta use it? Why should someone's second preference outweigh someone else's first preference? That is how the system works.
      Mr. Öpik: One person's second preference does not outweigh another's first choice. It is simply that if the candidate of first choice is eliminated, a person's vote is not wasted but transferred to their second preference. Before the hon. Gentleman rises again, let me stress that no system of election is perfect. We are trying to optimise

      885
      the system that we have. He is wrong to say that Southern Ireland and Malta are the only places that enjoy STV systems. The United Kingdom uses STV in Northern Ireland because it was believed that STV would be the fairest system in an area where, more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, fairness has to be seen to have been achieved.
      Mr. Ancram: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason for the introduction of STV in Northern Ireland is that Northern Ireland does not have pluralist politics? Its politics are very different from those of the rest of the United Kingdom. If STV were introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom, its effect would be the reverse of that which it has had in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Öpik: I find it hard to understand the right hon. Gentleman's second point. He is almost saying that if we have a fairer system, people will have to become more partisan and sectarian. I do not accept that. Having grown up in Northern Ireland, I praise the STV system there. It is understood and accepted by pretty much everyone as a fair system for creating a representative outcome. Must we wait for things to get so bad in communities that people are no longer operating effectively in their political system before we are prepared to introduce a fairer system of government? The Liberal Democrats do not operate like that. We think that if something is working effectively in one part of the United Kingdom, the rest of the UK deserves it too. Let us not wait for troubles in our political systems to optimise their operations. The right hon. Gentleman has a deep knowledge of Northern Irish politics. Will he not ask himself whether he agrees with me and many people in Northern Ireland from both sides of the political divide that, for all the problems in Northern Irish politics, the STV system is one thing that is generally regarded as a success? That can be argued for particular reasons, but the most particular reason of all is that STV is the fairest system of electing a Government that anyone has yet come up with.
      I shall listen with great interest to speeches from colleagues from other parties if they wish to express their worries about STV. We shall try to allay some of their fears.
      I wish to talk a little more about the additional member system.
      8 pm
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, may I point out that a big negative for the STV system is that it creates multi-Member constituencies. I notice that he has not made any remark about that. He represents a rural seat that has its own strong identity, and so do I. Unfortunately, multi-Member constituencies mean that the attachment of people in a given area to their Member is lost.
      Mr. Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that up. I am discussing the STV system this evening rather as I would eat a pizza—I am saving the very best bit until last.
      Mr. Ancram: The best bit is the crust.
      Mr. Öpik: I knew that I would regret saying that. I shall move swiftly on, not be distracted by these
      886
      gastronomic accusations and return to the point made by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams).
      It is important that we discuss the merits and demerits of multi-seat constituencies, but I want to talk about the additional member system first. I shall describe our concerns about the AMS system. I shall be brief because I am sure that many other hon. Members wish to speak on the matter. The AMS system maintains the firstpast-the-post system for the 40 constituencies. That means that the voter has to develop a certain understanding of the nature of the political process. That is our job, not the voter's job. Our job is to create the simplest structure so that the voter can enjoy the outcome for which he or she or, to be more exact, his or her community, has decided to vote.
      The AMS system creates party lists. Party lists can be open or closed, but in essence the voter votes for a political party. In a closed list system, the political parties decide who goes on those lists. As Liberal Democrats, we are worried about the power that that gives political parties to establish who will sit in the assembly. We would like a more open system, and there is more than one open system to choose from. We want a system that gives voters choice and we want an open list so that the parties do not enjoy a stranglehold on the 20 seats.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does my hon. Friend think that the Government ought to be persuaded that parties that insist on closed lists may be punished by the electorate, who resent being presented with cloned candidates rather than the genuine range of opinion that is apparent even within new Labour? Does he agree that the Government should perhaps consider that a more pluralist system might benefit them?
      Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. By amazing coincidence, I have an example of just such an event. In Bavaria, which has a form of open-list AMS for its state Parliament elections, in a celebrated case in 1962, Dr. Hildegard Hamm-Brucher was sensationally moved from 17th position to first, despite the protestations of the political parties, by the wish of the voters. The voters reacted to party bullying and elected the person they, rather than the party, wanted.
      There is resentment among the public when they feel that there is a party stitch-up. Some valuable points were made by Labour Back Benchers earlier about jobs for the boys—jobs for the boys and the girls. The STV system gets rid of all that, but with AMS there is still a danger, especially in the 20 seats, of patronage and that the situation will be exacerbated by the closed list.
      The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr expressed concern about multi-seat constituencies. I want to explain why we think they are an advantage. There is nothing new about them in the United Kingdom. In any large metropolitan authority, members of different parties are likely to represent the same ward. I have experience on Newcastle upon Tyne city council of a three-party ward. For a long time there were two Tories and one Liberal Democrat councillor. Now, I am glad to say, there are three Liberal Democrats. We learnt to work together. The public chose which councillor they wanted to use. There was a surprising degree of co-operation. The party issues came second and the interests of the people came

      887
      first. In local government, we already have abundant evidence to suggest that people are effectively represented by multi-seat wards.
      Another example is to be found in the Republic of Ireland. I have had many discussions with politicians in Southern Ireland in fulfilling my responsibilities as Liberal Democrat spokesman on Northern Ireland. They often talk about STV. One of the most interesting consequences of the multi-seat STV system in the Republic of Ireland is the regular and consistent interest that all Members of the Irish Parliament must take in the activities and problems of their constituents. More to the point—this is perhaps something that we as Members of Parliament would not enjoy—there is an element of competition within the parties to be the best constituency representatives. That may make us work a little harder in our constituencies, but there is no doubt that the winner is the voter.
      Mr. Richard Allan: Is not one of the strongest benefits of the STV system that individuals who hold strong political views are more likely to be represented by a range of political representatives? For example, strong Conservatives in Wales cannot find a sympathetic ear because only one party represents large areas of Wales.
      Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I should like to think that there is no such problem in Powys and that the voters would repeatedly fill up all the spaces with Liberal Democrats, but I am sure that even in Powys there is a cross-section of political views. In rural areas, for the sake of simplicity, we may end up with single-seat constituencies, but in places such as Cardiff and Swansea there is no doubt that the first-past-the-post system mitigates against proportional representation of a cross-section of opinion. We do not get two Labour, one Liberal Democrat, one Conservative and a Plaid Cymru Member representing such cities.
      I agree emphatically with my hon. Friend's point. In the interests of democracy, leaving aside the stress and anxieties for us as elected representatives, it would be preferable if a 50 per cent. vote for Labour delivered 50 per cent. of the seats to Labour and if 25 per cent. of the votes for the Liberal Democrats gave us one quarter of the representatives.
      One point about multi-Member constituencies that is not always made is that women and ethnic minorities tend to achieve more representation by being allowed to choose between candidates of the same party and, more to the point, by the elimination of some of the closed-shop mentality which, whether we like it or not, often pervades the political system. In that sense, the system is effective even in helping to redress some of the traditional inequities thrown up by the first-past-the-post system.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: I am a little puzzled. If the only precedents are those from Southern Ireland and Malta, which ethnic minorities are likely to be helped there?
      Mr. Öpik: To add fuel to the hon. Gentleman's fire, who would imagine that a Northern Irish Estonian, living at the time in Newcastle, would go on to be Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire? One may regard that as surprising. I accept that the minorities in the Republic of
      888
      Ireland are not so much ethnic ones, although there may be such examples, but they do not come to mind immediately. In the past, women were discriminated against in the Republic, as has often happened in many countries, and they are now much better represented in Irish politics than they are in the United Kingdom. We would assert that one reason for that difference is the STV system. I look forward to other examples being cited in the debate.
      In Northern Ireland, the whole purpose of the STV system is to prevent one political or religious grouping from overwhelming the political system. Not only has it been quite effective in ensuring the election of a cross-section of representatives from different parts of the sectarian divide, but I should like to think that it has gone some way towards breaking it down. Perhaps that example is a better one to offer the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
      I should now like to consider the amendments. I shall not dwell on them because right hon. and hon. Members have no doubt already studied them at great length. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), are indicating assent.
      Mr. Ron Davies: Since the hon. Gentleman tempts me, I assure him that I have studied them closely. In fact, I studied them with his predecessor, Alex Carlile. We agreed before the election that the best scheme on offer was the additional member scheme. Before the election, the hon. Gentleman's party signed a solemn and binding undertaking with me to campaign for it during that election. His party also put its name to the White Paper which proposed that scheme and campaigned vigorously and successfully in favour of that document during the referendum. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that I have studied his proposals closely, but I judge them to be second best to the scheme that, before the election, his party thought to be much better.
      Mr. Öpik: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that we signed on the dotted line for the best scheme that we thought that we could get away with at that time. I have nothing but praise for the right hon. Gentleman's accurate memory, although his hearing is not necessarily as impressive. I believe that we have fulfilled our side of the contract. Despite our misgivings, we campaigned positively and faithfully for the Welsh assembly. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats' contribution was crucial on 18 September. I would suggest that, since the referendum, we have returned the generosity shown by the Secretary of State in like kind.
      Ms Lawrence: It is interesting to note what the hon. Gentleman has said. We in the Labour party have stressed the importance of sticking to the contract that we made with the British people. Is he saying that his party does not take the same view about keeping its side of that contract?
      Mr. Öpik: On the contrary. I would like to think that, for all our differences—we are now discussing one—we have presented ourselves as a constructive Opposition. We support many of the Bill's proposals. In the final

      889
      analysis, we will vote for it. I am sure that the hon. Lady is not trying to encourage the Secretary of State to impose some sort of gagging order on the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Livsey: My hon. Friend is talking about the important principle of proportionality in the STV system. Does he agree that one of our concerns is that the additional Member element in the system proposed for Wales is much weaker than that proposed for Scotland? In Scotland there will be seven additional Members per Euro-seat or electoral region compared with four in Wales. The Scottish system is based on a first-past-the-post element and that is why we are proposing a more proportional system.
      Mr. Öpik: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation.
      Mr. Davies: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could remind the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) that in answer to me he said that the AMS is the best system that he could get away with
      Mr. Öpik: Because of various numerical differences, the system in Scotland is more proportionate than that proposed for Wales. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that I said that AMS was the best system that we thought that we could get away with at that time. More to the point, it set the slightly old-fashioned Labour party of Wales on the long, painful journey towards accepting the more radical, fresh and far-sighted views of the Liberal Democrats in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have made tremendous progress in the past 12 months. We will carry on coaching them as best we can on all matters of constitutional reform as the years go by.
      It is important to emphasise that we are pleased that we are not discussing the case for proportional representation, but the type of proportional representation that we want to adopt. We do not want to wreck any accord on the creation of the Welsh assembly, rather we want to propose arrangements to improve it. As the Government are a listening Government, surely it is good to have the opportunity to respond to our concerns. On the basis of earlier discussions—and whatever the outcome tonight—perhaps we will review the issues in years to come. Perhaps the Government will be persuaded of the benefits of STV once they have considered what happened with AMS.
      8.15 pm
      Amendment No. 110 provides for the boundary commission to determine the boundaries of the proposed constituencies. Amendments Nos. 111 to 130 remove references to electoral regions to allow for STV. They are technical changes. Amendment No. 49 is the main enabling amendment to introduce STV by amending clause 4. Amendment No. 102 changes clause 8 to allow for STV and amendments Nos. 106 to 109 change clause 14, again to remove references to the electoral regions in order to allow for STV. In effect, the amendments are a complete package designed to replace AMS with STV.
      We are not setting out to wreck the accord; we are very pleased to note where we are starting from because it could have been a lot worse if we had a less progressive
      890
      man holding the office of Secretary of State for Wales and a Labour party that was unwilling to look at the future but was content simply to rest on laurels past. Now that the bold step has been taken, it is right for the Liberal Democrats to suggest that the Labour party should take the final step towards true proportionality.
      The Labour party should support not just a system that is fairer, but a system that is seen to be such by the public and which offers no secret controls to party hacks to appoint individuals from party lists. Above all, the Labour party should favour a system that enables the Welsh voting public to get exactly what they vote for. That is our intent and it may lead to the re-election of Conservatives in Wales.
      Mr. Owen Paterson: Given that we are talking about proportion, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that, in the referendum, only 24 per cent. of the electorate of Powys voted yes?
      Mr. Öpik: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of three other statistics. First, the result was massively different from that achieved at the previous referendum. I accept that we still have a job to do to convince many people in Wales that the assembly is the right way forward, but we are well on the way to doing so. Secondly, I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman that just 29 per cent. of the voting public propped up the Tory Government for five years, yet the Tories regarded that as a mandate for wrecking large parts of the country.
      As for the third and final statistic, the hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that those who whinge about figures and statistics after the vote are often punished by the electorate at the next election, as we saw so graphically in Winchester, where Conservative whingers managed not to win back the seat, but to increase our majority from two to 21,556. My advice to him is to accept the decision of the whole of Wales and constructively to work to weld together a more co-operative and constructive process with members of all parties and of none.
      In conclusion, I hope that the Government will seriously entertain our amendments and accept the merits of STV. Perhaps we have some way to go before we convince the Government, but I hope that the door is open for a constructive debate. We have come a long way already and I should like to think that this is the beginning of a constructive dialogue that will help to revolutionise the way we elect our representatives and restore the faith of the public who, all too often, have been disappointed, not by how they voted, but by what they got when they voted according to their conscience. I thank hon. Members for their time and I shall be interested to hear all the speeches from Labour Members that add colour and insight to our debate tonight.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) asked whether Labour is the listening party. Perhaps that is part of the problem—we listened to Alex Carlile. He came to a concordat, which is now described as the best the Liberal Democrats could get away with. I wonder whether Mr. Carlile said so at the time.
      I understand that our good friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches venerate Mr. Lloyd George, of whom it was said, "Count not his broken promises as a crime.

      891
      He meant them, oh he meant them at the time." It was clear that, in the spirit of Lloyd-George-ism, the latter-day Liberal party meant its promise to us "at the time", prior to the election, but since that time an amendment has been ably moved by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire who, consistent with Liberal Democrat tradition and like Miss Enid Lakeman, is having a love affair with proportional representation. He believes that all the ills of society will evaporate if only we accept different forms of proportional representation, depending on whether we are dealing with the matter before or after the election.
      Mr. Öpik: On the contrary, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no doubt that, were STV to be introduced in Wales, the return of the Tories would mean that many of the ills of society would return to sit in the Welsh assembly. It is not in our political interests that we move the amendment; it is in the interests of democracy.
      Mr. Anderson: What self-sacrifice.
      The amendments set out a series of potential voting systems. It is fair to say that there is no perfect voting system and the outcomes are never exact, save in a country such as Israel, where the whole country is a single electoral unit. Unless there is a minimum vote requirement—say 5 per cent.—the result can contain enormous distortions and give great power to fringe groups such as that of the late Rabbi Kahane in Israel.
      Mr. Syms: Because of the fringe elements and the diversity of its system, Israel has introduced a directly elected Prime Minister on an essentially first-past-the-post system so as to get away from minorities holding power.
      Mr. Anderson: That Prime Minister is still dependent on the Knesset, which is itself the result of a one-country proportional system that carries with it all the problems of coalition-building and fringe or minority power that can now be seen affecting the peace process. Leaving Israel speedily, it can be said that all systems are proportional, but some are more proportional than others. All have advantages and disadvantages.
      One important and fundamental point has not yet been made. The fact that the Government are introducing a system of proportional representation tells us something about the spirit in which the devolution package has been put forward. It is an important signal that, in this respect, the Labour party is Plaid Cymru—the party of Wales. Under the current system, we have gained all the seats in the European Parliament—five out of five. To put it bluntly, we are overrepresented and, by contrast, the Conservative party is underrepresented. By what can only be deemed to be an act of generosity, the Labour Government are proposing a system from which we as a party shall not benefit—but Wales will benefit.
      If the assembly were to use the first-past-the-post system, we would have the same distortions as have been thrown up by the current system in this Parliament. The Government and the Labour party have not been given sufficient credit for their act of generosity—an act not of weakness, but of strength, because we can decide the issue. It was a spirit not of domination but of inclusiveness that persuaded the Labour Government to bring forward a system of proportional representation in
      892
      the first place. That fundamental point needs to be stated before we consider the effects of different electoral systems.
      Mr. Allan: I should like to stress that Liberal Democrat Members give the Government credit for their decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made it clear that we feel that the Government have gone a long way in a fairer direction and that we are talking about the final outcome. We fully accept and are duly grateful for the fact that the Government took that decision. It is an essential step forward and we hope that it will be a model for the whole United Kingdom.
      Mr. Anderson: I welcome that response. I simply said something that must be said. Had we accepted the Conservative amendment, which would have introduced a first-past-the-post system, the result in respect of the assembly would have been as distorted as was the result of the last election. In that election, the Conservative party received about 20 per cent. of the vote in Wales but had no representatives whereas Plaid Cymru had 10 per cent. of the vote and has four representatives. If that is what the Conservative party wants to follow from its amendment, so be it, but it is wrong in principle and unfair.
      The Labour Government are coming to the aid of the Conservative party, both in respect of Europe and in respect of proportional representation, and trying to breathe some life into the corpse that is the Conservative party in Scotland and in Wales. It may well be that that corpse will be slightly revived by the electoral system we are debating.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Anderson: Yes, to the hon. Gentleman speaking from the dead.
      Mr. Robertson: To get 20 per cent. of the vote and yet no seats is wrong only if one looks at the whole area of Wales; but if we look at each constituency—the principle on which the constitution of this country is rightly founded—we see that in each case electors chose to vote for another candidate. Surely that is quite acceptable to everybody?
      Mr. Anderson: If the hon. Gentleman supports the amendment put forward by his party in favour of the first-past-the-post system, he must intend the natural consequence of that, which is that on the 1997 outcome the Conservative party would not be represented in the assembly. He may welcome that and think it a happy result of the electoral system, but I think that it is wrong and unfair. The Conservatives should be included, in spite of themselves, in the assembly
      Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that many Conservative party members in Wales desperately hope that this provision will be in the Bill; they include a number of former Members of Parliament who are looking for a new incarnation.
      Mr. Anderson: It is wonderful to think of former Conservative Members in Wales having a Damascene

      893
      experience. They have seen the light and, in spite of the unreconstructed policies put forward by the Conservative Front Bench, they now say that they wish to clamber on board and that they were really closet devolutionists all the time. Like Nicodemus, they come to us at night and say that they were really with us.
      Various systems were on offer. The present Welsh Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), and I happily proposed a system that was accepted by the Government—our submission was not to Alex Carlile but to the Welsh Labour party. It was based on the following principles: first, the link between a Member and his constituency is deemed to be valuable and should be accepted in the system. I have been here for a fairly long time. My international experience has shown me that many of my colleagues on the continent come from multi-Member constituencies or have no real identity and base in the areas that they represent. There should therefore be a direct link between a Member and the constituency that he or she purports to represent.
      8.30 pm
      Secondly, there should be, as far as possible, a known electoral division. Hence the proposed system is based on the current Westminster constituencies because they represent identities and communities. It is also based on the Euro-constituencies, which will now be swept away but which have some relevance in terms of community. Ultimately, there will be a greater relationship between the seats in the assembly and the votes cast by the people of Wales. That is part of the inclusiveness that clearly weighed heavily with Alex Carlile when he accepted that view before the election.
      As part of the package my hon. Friend and I proposed, we suggested that there should be 60 seats—40 plus 20—and not simply because there happen to be 60 seats in the Swansea guildhall and, by some great foresight, the founding fathers, who helped to construct and design the Swansea guildhall, had put 60 seats in the chamber. Although that is an important consideration, we thought that that figure made sense. We did not want people to say, "There they go again; we are over-governed." That number of seats seemed to be right for Wales as a whole. It is the Goldilocks syndrome of not too many and not too few. However imperfect it is, I believe that our suggestion meets the requirement.
      Hence, I agree with Alex Carlile and the Government, but I do not agree with Lloyd George or the Liberal Democrats
      Mr. Ancram: It is always a pleasure to follow a speech of that kind and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for his solicitousness about the Conservative party. I assure him that if he thinks that we are a corpse, he will have some sleepless nights, because we shall haunt him. He may find a little later that it is not the Canterville ghost but a live political body that is haunting him. But by that time it may be too late to do much about it. He spoke about Nicodemus coming in the night. That was a little rich coming from a Labour Member in the context of Wales because there is not total unity of spirit among Labour Members. I, too, have had some interesting conversations over the past four months about the proposals before us.
      894
      I am sorry that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), is being overworked tonight. This is the third debate to which he will have responded. I had been looking forward to the launching in Committee of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who I thought was the devolution Minister, particularly during the referendum campaign. I then remembered that about 20 years ago he wrote a book called "Proportional Misrepresentation", in which he completely destroyed the argument for proportional representation and came out in favour of the first-past-the-post system, so a speech from him from the Government Front Bench might not have helped the Government's cause.
      I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I felt that we were having a peep-show view of the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead committee and the attempts of the Liberal Democrats to persuade their Labour colleagues of the benefits of the single transferable vote. The more I hear the arguments for STV, the less I am convinced by them. The hon. Gentleman talks about fair votes, but when my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) suggested that only 24 per cent. in Powys had voted for the assembly, we were effectively told that those who had voted against were wrong, so they could be ignored. That is the antithesis of an argument for fair votes.
      Mr. Öpik: While no one is wrong for expressing a view in any vote, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we still have a job of work to do in that respect? However, under STV, a minority vote will not command an overwhelming majority of the power
      Mr. Ancram: That does not detract from the fact that the hon. Gentleman said that if one dislikes what the majority votes for, one simply ignores it. That is not the basis of a fair vote. He gave some examples of STV and referred to Ireland. I do not wish to criticise the Irish system, but in my experience it created anything but stable government. When I was a Northern Ireland Minister, I found myself negotiating with a Government led by Mr. Albert Reynolds one month and with a Government led by Mr. John Bruton the next. There had been neither a change of political opinion nor a general election, simply a change of coalition partners—a falling out of individuals—and suddenly the whole political landscape in Ireland changed. We should be very much aware of such lessons if we are to create a stable system. I thought that the Government wanted to create a stable institution in Wales, not one that is constantly at the whim of the small parties involved.
      Proportional representation leads to government by deal. That is what coalition is about. I was entertained tonight to hear that the deal cobbled up before the election on the additional member system between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, which was in opposition at the time, had not even lasted the short course between the election and now, and that the Liberal Democrats were trying to unpick it. That does not fill me with great confidence about the Liberal Democrats' proposals.
      Mr. Dafis: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that all Governments govern by deal? One of the last

      895
      Conservative Government's biggest problems was that a deal between the two disparate wings of the party was impossible, so the whole thing fell apart.
      Mr. Ancram: I suppose that, in a pluralist system, all political parties are coalitions. At least within a party there is a system for having arguments, whereas under proportional representation deals are done between different parties. I seriously believe that, almost invariably in a coalition system born out of proportional representation, the small parties hold the balance and sway of power. The Liberal Democrats are keen to have such a system because they look across the water to Germany and see that the party that has remained in government, regardless of whether the left or right is in power, is their sister party. That must be attractive to them. However, it is not a democratic prospect when the party that is actually in power is the one that secures the smallest number of votes.
      Mr. Dalyell: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the writings of Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at Oxford university, who incidentally is a great pro-devolutionist, about the problems of having fixed-term Parliaments under a coalition? If one member of the coalition wants to swap sides or change allegiance, real problems arise. Unless there is the possibility of dissolution, it is difficult to maintain a credible Government.
      Mr. Ancram: I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: As in Norway now.
      Mr. Ancram: We shall closely examine whether the Scotland Bill has provision for dealing with such a situation. It is a serious point, as is the issue of minorities holding the balance of power in coalitions. Proportional representation makes it easier for not only the moderate minority in the middle but for the extreme minority on the outside to get in. In the recent election in Ireland, three of the seats were held on a narrow majority by people with strongly republican views: two were from Sinn Fein and one was an independent who could, ultimately, hold the balance of power. That is the antithesis of stability.
      We argued against devolution, but we now believe that it will happen, so it must work. We should be conscious of anything that is likely to create a more unstable system.
      Mr. Livsey: The right hon. Gentleman argues that there is instability in Ireland, which operates an STV system, and in Germany, which operates AMS. Where does he actually stand? The Federal Republic of Germany has been extremely stable under AMS, and so has the Republic of Ireland under an STV system.
      Mr. Ancram: I have said what I have said about the Republic of Ireland. The one stable factor in the Federal Republic of Germany has been the constant re-election of the equivalent of the Liberal Democrats on between 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. of the vote.
      The additional member system gives rise to other problems. Perhaps the Minister will remind me whether the system proposed is the d'Hondt or Sainte-Lague system. They are complicated systems that try to ensure
      896
      that there is some degree of proportionality. If the system were totally and openly proportional, it might produce a distorted result. The problem with AMS is that, particularly where there is a closed list, it is the antithesis of fair votes. People are asked, in effect, to vote for a party. Members who are elected are chosen not by the electors, but by the party machine, however the list rankings have been decided. That adds to the power of the party machine, which undermines democracy and creates enormous areas of political patronage. Such a system is open to abuse. That is why we do not like it. The AMS, as opposed to the European system of a straightforward list, has two categories of Member. One category is elected directly by the electors in the constituency under a first-past-the-post system, and the other is elected by party according to the weight of vote across a larger area. Members in the first category will undoubtedly claim to represent the constituents in dealing with the problems of housing, health and roads, and Members in the second category will not have that mandate.
      In the Welsh assembly and in the Scottish Parliament, the two categories of Member will be paid the same and have the same facilities, but one will have to work a darn sight harder than the other. I believe that that is a recipe for instability.
      The Liberal Democrats' proposal for an open list should be considered, because it at least gives a greater mandate to the Member elected than does AMS.
      Ironically, the proposed system is likely, in the short term, to help my party. The hon. Member for Swansea, East kindly reassured us that that was the reason for the Government's proposal. I am not sure that I take that entirely at face value. Even so, I believe that the stability and robustness of the system that we adopt for the Welsh assembly is more important than short-term political gain.
      For that reason, we have tabled amendments Nos. 22A and 23A, which would replace the additional member system with the straightforward, firstpast-the-post system. If the result of the vote on 1 May were to be replicated, that would not be in the interests of Conservatives in Wales. However, I take the rather more optimistic view that we are on our way back, and by the time of the Welsh assembly elections, the firstpast-the-post system will do us very well, and a large number of Conservatives will be elected to the assembly.
      8.45 pm
      I want to put on record the reasons why we are strongly against proportional representation. We believe that our electoral system works better than the PR systems in other countries. Italy is a good example, because it has had PR for years and has had countless Governments. It has now begun to move away from PR towards first past the post, because PR created years of unstable government. France switched back to its second ballot system because the national front won more seats under PR from 1986 to 1988. New Zealand, which introduced PR last year, had to wait more than two months for a Government to be formed. A number of people who have studied that system have told me that we should consider closely the lessons to be learnt from New Zealand before we make the same mistakes.
      Mr. Allan: Italy is an extraordinary example to use. According to my reading of that country's current

      897
      political situation, there has been far more instability since the change in the electoral system than there was before it. There has been a complete breakdown of the parties, a growth of new parties and confusion between Forza Italia and the parties in the north. There is no case for saying that the introduction of first past the post has stabilised the Italian system.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman should consider the number of Governments that there have been since the system was changed, as opposed to the average number per year in the years since the war before it was changed. He will find that his argument does not stand up.
      There is no doubt that accountability suffers under a PR system.
      Dr. Marek: The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that Italy overtook us in economic well-being years ago, so we must not draw too many conclusions from the position there.
      If the election were replicated in Wales, a Labour group from south Wales would be in charge. We needed to change the system so as to provide not a Labour assembly, but a Welsh assembly. We have achieved that by moving away from a first-past-the-post system and providing an element of AMS.
      Mr. Ancram: I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman has declared that he is going to the assembly or staying in the House. If he is going to the assembly, he must be looking forward to many changes of Administration, possibly in the hope that he will feature in a number of them. I take his point about the need to create a Welsh political unit, but there are other ways of doing that. I do not want to show my hand at this stage, but I shall introduce amendments that try to achieve that. The price that is paid for PR is not necessarily the best way of creating homogeneity in Wales.
      There is no doubt that under PR the one-to-one link between a Member of Parliament and his constituency is weakened. I believe that the electorate want one person to be responsible for dealing with their grievances. The fact that I represent all my constituents and not just those who support me is a healthy part of our democratic system, because it broadens our outlook.
      I shall ask for a vote on our amendment, because I believe that the introduction of PR into our political system—leaving aside Northern Ireland, where the lack of pluralism creates a different situation—is a bad step. It is a bad step not just for Wales and Scotland, but because it will be seen as the forerunner for the rest of the United Kingdom.
      There is no doubt that PR produces the second best, because the result is always compromise. Some people may argue that compromise is a good thing, but in my experience compromise has its place. Compromise in politics normally means getting not the strongest and the best but the "least worst". I do not wish that on the Welsh assembly, and I will therefore press my amendment to a vote when the time comes—if I may, Sir Alan.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I do not think that Ministers will be surprised when I tell them that I do not support the
      898
      system proposed in the Bill. Although I am old-fashioned and, no doubt, in a very small minority, I support the first-past-the-post system. We have been told that no system is perfect, and I will not argue the case for first past the post versus proportional representation in general, because that is not what the amendment is about; but basically I support first past the post for the Welsh assembly—and, indeed, for the House. The Bill proposes the worst kind of PR system, if it can be strictly described as a PR system.
      I was surprised by the. speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik): like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I had thought that his party's favoured system was the system proposed in the Bill. Certainly, as far as I remember, the Liberal Democrats did not criticise the additional member system during the referendum campaign. I did, publicly, and may have incurred the wrath of the central committee by doing so.
      Mr. Livsey: Surely it is well known—and surely the right hon. Gentleman knows—that the Liberal Democrats favour the single transferable vote. The issue was whether we were to have a Welsh assembly, and whether it would involve an element of proportionality. We were prepared to accept that as far as it went, but obviously, as a matter of principle, we favour STV.
      Mr. Davies: I think that it would be possible to vote for a Welsh assembly in a referendum as a matter of principle, in support of decentralisation and devolution, while adding the caveat that the Liberal Democrats did not support the additional member system; but I heard no caveats. It surprised me that the Liberal Democrats were not prepared to say fairly, clearly and honestly, before the Welsh people, what they believed.
      Mr. Öpik: May I jog the right hon. Gentleman's memory? He may recall that we made our specific concern about the system of proportionality very clear. Indeed, I made it clear more than once on television. During the referendum campaign, we said that strategically things were proceeding in the right direction; the big question, we said, was about PR.
      Mr. Davies: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say that, and his speech came as a bit of a surprise to me, but I do not want to pursue the matter. It is understandable, I suppose: it is in character, in the context of the Liberal Democrat party.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), waxed lyrical about a system which, apparently, he had invented along with the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). It was marvellous, he told us, because it provided a direct link with constituencies. That is not how I read it. In the case of two thirds of Members the link is there, but in the case of the remaining third it is not a case of breaking a link with a constituency, because there is no link to break. Members are chosen by the party centrally, although there may be certain ways of choosing them.
      The Electoral Reform Society has issued a splendid briefing paper. Most of the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was taken from it, although he did not acknowledge the source of his speech. He even found

      899
      a reference to Bavaria in the briefing, but he did not say that he had found it there. He obviously knew about Bavaria before the briefing was published.
      The briefing paper gives the example of a ballot paper, which shows vividly that there is no link with constituencies. There are no names of people on the paper in the additional member scheme; there are just names of parties. Perhaps there is a list tucked away somewhere, but it is certainly not possible to vote for the names on such a list. The Members who are chosen will of course be accountable—a word that is used constantly nowadays. They will not be accountable to constituents, because they will have no constituents; they will be accountable to the party that has favoured them by putting them on a list.
      The additional member system is an apparatchik's dream. It is democratic centralism: "democratic" in inverted commas, that is. The central party chooses. Although the salaries of the additional Members will presumably be paid by the taxpayer rather than the parties, they will be nominees of the parties and accountable to those parties. I think that we will pay a price at the polls. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that the British like a link between their Members of Parliament and the constituencies. I think that the Welsh people will find a way out, and I think that, if we adopt the same system in Britain as a whole, the British public will find a way of telling us that they do not like the concentration of party power.
      The problem nowadays is that political parties tend to be more and more unpopular. People resent a political class that increases its own power, pay, perks and status, but here we are going further down the road when we should be trying to find a way of making people trust us a bit more as political parties, rather than creating a centralised system.
      It is true that two thirds of those who are elected will be chosen by constituencies, but the centralising tendency which probably exists in all parties nowadays is certainly very strong in the Labour party. I am told that efforts are now being made to dilute even the constituency element in the choice of the two thirds. I would not dream of using a word like "cloning"; I think that the managerial language is "profile". A kind of DNA profile is drawn up, and those who fit the profile are deemed acceptable. If someone is old Labour, or old-fashioned—as we have heard from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who is extremely new-fashioned—
      Mr. Allan: New-fangled.
      Mr. Davies: I did not want to say "new-fangled". I wanted to be kind to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. As his colleague has used the phrase, however, I can.
      Those of us who are old-fashioned, with unradical thoughts and minds that are not prepared to address problems, are not the kind of people who fit the "profile". Only those who fit the profile will be thrown back to their constituents.
      Last night, the Labour party I think decided to put constituencies together, so even the link between the so-called constituency Member and the constituency
      900
      might not be strong. We are seeing again the centralising tendency in my party and perhaps we see it in other parties too.
      Ms Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the purpose of putting two constituencies together is to achieve better representation for women? Can he suggest another way of achieving that?
      Mr. Davies: I have no idea. I have not heard any debate on the matter, which is perhaps not surprising. The executive's decision the other night was taken behind closed doors. I have not seen any minutes. This is the first time that I have heard that argument. By all means, let us have the argument, but let us not take the decision before we have it.
      Mr. Rogers: Surely my right hon. Friend would accept that the great advantage of being responsible for two constituencies is that the Member can be doubly democratically accountable—he can be accountable to both constituencies. We double democratic accountability.
      Mr. Davies: Except that one does not know where the Member happens to be at the time. Putting constituencies together reduces accountability. That is a problem in modern politics in Wales and probably in all the western democracies. Accountability is reduced as the political class creates more power for itself.
      9 pm
      I agreed with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire about one thing: we should have an open list system. If we are going down this road—and I am sure that there is no chance of changing anything—we should have that system. I confess that I am not as knowledgeable as the Liberal party about electoral reform—it has been thinking and talking of little else for the past 50 years—but I have read the excellent electoral reform publication and I know about the lady from Bavaria who managed 17 years ago to win an election, even though she was at the bottom of the list.
      I was attracted by the specimen ballot paper—if we have to have this system at all. Apparently, although I would have thought that it would confuse voters, it is possible to have a choice: to vote for the party and forget about the people who have been chosen, or to vote for someone on the party list. The person at the top of the list might not receive any votes. That would not be conducive to or useful for the apparatchiks, but at least it ameliorates, although only to some extent, the iniquitous system of the closed list and the additional Member.
      We shall not be going back to the first- past-the-post system entirely; I accept that that battle has been lost. One third of Members will be elected by this crazy system, but if we are going to have it let us explore the possibility of the open list system. I do not think that there are any problems. If the Bavarians can do it, so can we. As a party, we are very attracted by the German system. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) extolling the virtues of Baden-Wurttemberg. I am not sure where that is, except that it is in Germany.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is next to Bavaria.
      Mr. Davies: I am sorry to say that Baden-Württemberg has a closed list system, so I cannot use it as an example.

      901
      Most of Germany has a closed list system. When I went to East Germany years ago, it had such a system. The people there told me that it was similar to the one in West Germany, except for Bavaria. They were right.
      As the excellent pamphlet tells us, the Germans have that system—and it is part of their history and I do not criticise them for it—because of the problems of the Weimar Republic. One can understand why Germany needed a strong party-based system at that time, but the world has moved on and no doubt one day the German constitution will have to move with the rest of the world.
      At least I can give my hon. Friends Bavaria. If one of the German Lander is doing something, it must be right and good. We in Wales should follow that example. I say to my hon. Friends: please consider the matter again. We will pay a price for this centralism unless something is done about the closed list system. Let us have at least an open list system. Then at least the additional member system will be slightly better than it is at present.
      Mr. Dafis: Amendment No. 191 provides some flexibility in relation to the boundaries of the regions for the additional member lists. The regions are based on the European electoral regions, which will no longer operate at the time of the election for the National Assembly for Wales. It is important that the areas represented by Members elected under the additional member system bear some relationship to community and geographic reality, and are not simply based on numbers, which the Bill emphasises.
      The Wales Mid and West European constituency best demonstrates the absurdity of merely emphasising numbers. That constituency covers an area extending almost from Llandudno, in the north, to Pembrokeshire and includes all of Powys and Llanelli. It is impossible to imagine a more disparate region. The region has absolutely no unity or cohesiveness and is extremely difficult to represent. I do not envy the Member of the European Parliament who must try to represent it, as it is difficult to keep in contact with one's constituents.
      Members elected under the additional member system should have a type of constituency to which they are linked, and the regions from which they are elected should be more manageable than European constituencies. Although the Government will not accept amendment No. 191, I hope that, to achieve a sensible system, they will seriously consider making constituencies manageable, rather than simply emphasising numbers.
      Amendment No. 58 supports Liberal Democrat amendments in favour of the single transferable vote system. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke against proportional representation, although he seemed to say that the additional member system had even greater deficiencies than the STV system. It has been suggested that the STV system weakens the link between the Member and the constituency. The experience in the Republic of Ireland, however—my comments are based on my meetings with Irish TDs and on seeing them work together—belies the idea that the link is weakened. Although their constituencies are considerably larger, they are not unmanageable.
      Electors in an STV system can choose their assembly Member, rather than merely voting for a party, as in the additional member system. Such a connection would
      902
      provide a stimulus to a Member of the Assembly to be a good constituency Member. Therefore—as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said—an STV system empowers electors rather than political parties, because electors, not a party, decide which Member will be elected.
      It has been suggested that an STV system is complex, and that it is difficult for electors to understand the ballot paper, which contains so many names that are arranged in party lists. Again, however, the Irish experience overwhelmingly shows that that is not true. Although the system seems complex, it is well understood in Ireland. Moreover, the Irish clearly appreciate the influence that the system gives them over a party's selection of candidates. The parties themselves must also consider which of those they include on their lists are most likely to be electable. It is, therefore, a way in which electors can influence the party's choice of candidates, which is perfectly reasonable.
      The Irish experience demonstrates that STV produces a less confrontational style of politics in which members of different political parties representing the same constituency work well together. That sometimes happens under the current system when those representing adjoining constituencies work together in the interests of the region, but I was particularly impressed by what I saw in Ireland.
      STV also encourages coalition Governments. It has been suggested that coalition Governments create constant instability. However, the Irish Government have displayed a significant continuity of policy over several decades, instead of swinging from one set of policies to another. That must have something to do with Ireland's outstanding economic success. A striking continuity of policy has run through successive Administrations comprising different combinations of political parties. There is, therefore, no evidence from the Irish experience that the accusation of instability has any substance.
      The strength of the case for STV has persuaded Plaid Cymru to change its policy. We have moved from supporting the additional member system—although it was a little more complex than that—to supporting the STV system.
      We know that the amendment will not be accepted tonight, but we have put down a marker to highlight the virtues of the STV system. We hope that at some stage there will be an opportunity to introduce STV in Wales, and perhaps on a broader basis, as it is a preferable system.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: I agree with some of the remarks by the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). They stressed the importance of the link between the Member and the constituency, not just because it tends to give people what they want, but because it is representative of the British constitutional and electoral systems.
      I shall make one or two brief comments. I make no apology for repeating myself, as one of my concerns about devolution and the constitution of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly is the drift—although it is somewhat driven—towards European politics.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that there is no constitutional bar to Britain joining a single currency. The United Kingdom is being broken up into regions.

      903
      Proportional representation is also an alien concept. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke about its dangers.
      Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that proportional representation is more or less alien than eating horses and having toilets that are holes in the ground?
      Mr. Robertson: I am not sure whether I should welcome that intervention, but I feel that proportional representation and devolution are totally alien to British political life.
      The concept of political parties having to register or be part of the constitution is also totally alien, as is the fact that people will be asked to vote for a political party rather than a person, even though they support that political party. The fact that Members will serve those who compile a list rather than the people whom they are supposed to represent is another element of an alien system. The fact that there will be gatherings of groups to keep the whole thing going is also alien to the British way of life.
      I am perplexed that so many hon. Members are smiling or laughing at what I am saying. It may be somewhat comical, but I challenge them to point out where I am wrong in saying that the system is alien to the British way of life. It is not what people in this country expect or what they have grown up with. I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who said that the issue will come back to haunt his party. I ask the Government to take note of him and many others from various parties, who, although I do not agree with everything that they have said, have already come up with many objections to the system.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Evans: I thank the Government for their generosity in devising a system for the assembly that throws a lifeline to the Conservative party—or that is what we are supposed to believe. However, the Secretary of State must forgive me for being suspicious of his lifeline. I know that he is a charitable person, but I did not realise that his charity extended as far as the Conservative party.
      A pick-and-mix assortment of systems is offered for the European elections, the assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland. In addition, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead is looking at various systems that may be used for Westminster. The Liberal Democrats advocate the single transferable vote. I fully understand why they support that system. It may have something to do with their belief that they might be the depository of all the second votes from Tories and Labour supporters. In their virtual reality world, they may think that under STV the assembly will be packed full of Liberal Democrats trying to keep out the Tories and—
      Mr. Donald Gorrie rose—
      Mr. Evans: I have only three minutes. I hope that hon. Members will be understanding. I can imagine the system that the Liberal Democrats are thinking of.
      With a closed list system, the parties have disproportionate power over their candidates. I have grave reservations about centralising that power in political
      904
      parties. It is transferring power not from the parties to the people, but from the people to the parties, particularly from the people who work for political parties in the constituencies.
      I also have grave reservations about having two Members representing the same area—a constituency Member and a regional Member. The ordinary electors are already confused about the different responsibilities of different tiers of government. With the assembly, we shall have more tiers of government than Elizabeth Taylor has had tiers on her wedding cakes. The demarcation of responsibility between tiers of government is not clear. Even within one tier of government, people will not know whether to write to their constituency assembly Member or their regional assembly Member, who may be from different parties. There will be massive conflict.
      We already know that conflict exists between the members of different parties, and one can only imagine the conflicts that would exist between members of the same party. If the Prime Minister does not get on with his Chancellor of the Exchequer, although they are in the same party and even the same Government, we can only imagine what will happen if we have that form of proportional representation.
      I disagree strongly with the system suggested by the Liberal Democrats, which would produce 10 extra politicians. One of the strong arguments that won us a lot of votes in the referendum was, "Do you want to spend the money on politicians or on the people?" We got the result there, but the Liberal Democrats have not been listening and have suggested a system with 10 more politicians. That would cost about £1 million with all the salaries and expenses, and the people would prefer to see the money spent on services.
      Dr. Marek: I am making a brief intervention in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We want not a closed list but an open list. The people of Wales will want to be able to decide whom to vote for and whom not to vote for. That is important.
      However, if we are to have closed lists, I wonder whether the Minister can promise us that all members of the Labour party will be able to vote to decide the order within the closed list. I do not want some shadowy group of people in Labour party headquarters at Millbank to decide the order. That ought to be done in Wales.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) directly, let me say that what he has asked about is one of the things still to be decided in the Labour party. He will have a chance to say something about it at a later stage—and we shall be able to debate the issues of open lists tomorrow.
      Until I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), and his peroration about aliens, I had not realised that the electoral system that we propose would form a suitable case for investigation in "The X Files".
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) may have thought that he was on to a winner in proposing amendments to clause 4, but I have to disappoint him because we do not support the amendments that would introduce the single transferable vote. We made it clear in the referendum campaign that we would use the additional member system. That is the best way of achieving a new

      905
      inclusiveness and an element of proportionality in Wales, and it was endorsed in the referendum vote on 18 September.
      We believe that that system best serves the constituencies, with a representation that reflects the whole of Wales. It will not be too complex for voters to understand or officials to administer—unlike STV, under which we would have to have constituencies with three to five members. Some of the constituencies in rural Wales, such as mid-Wales, west Wales and north Wales, would be very large.
      There is also great potential for voter confusion. For example, we know that, although the Irish Republic has had STV since 1923, there are 10 times as many spoilt ballot papers in general elections in Ireland as there are in Wales. Moreover, the counting process is exceedingly complex. In most of Ireland, there are constituencies of between 60,000 and 75,000, but the Welsh constituencies would be bigger. Even in Ireland, there are sometimes as many as 11 or 12 counts—15 were recorded in one constituency—and they take two days to complete. That is not the best system.
      As for representation for women, as the hon. Gentleman is a member of the British islands parliamentary group, he will know that there are only two women in the group, and that at present the representation of women in Ireland is no better than in the United Kingdom. From his discussions with members of the Dail, he will also know that they would dearly love to get rid of STV, were it not so entrenched. The German example that the hon. Gentleman used lends no credence to what he had to say. Indeed, it is a warning to political parties to ensure that their selection processes are open.
      The official Opposition, of course, want to keep the old first-past-the-post system for elections in Wales. It is for the political parties to tackle the criticisms levelled by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in respect of selecting members, especially for the regions, and allocating their roles. They will not be free-wheeling, independent, forget-the-party members. They will be elected by the voters of Wales to represent the political parties that they have chosen to support. I hope that any Conservatives who may be elected in the process will exhibit enough allegiance to the Conservative party to agree on useful ways of proceeding in the National Assembly for Wales—that is to say, if any of them get elected for the constituencies, which we have yet to see.
      Criticism of the additional member system implies criticism of every country in the world that uses it. Does the right hon. Member for Devizes really think that the German system, which Britain was chiefly responsible for creating, has served that country badly or has led to more political and democratic problems than we have suffered since the war? We can agree to differ about what we believe to be the most effective system, but there is no empirical evidence to suggest that first past the post is better than any sort of additional member system.
      906
      However gradually the Opposition parties arrive at their positions, they will certainly want to ensure at least an element of proportionality. They can do so by supporting our original proposition.
      Mr. Öpik: It was remiss of me not to acknowledge the tremendous contribution of the Electoral Reform Society, not just to my speech tonight, but to the general debate on STV and proportional representation.
      An alien system, in my view, is one that consistently delivers majority government in the UK with a minority of the vote, as happened in 1992 and 1997. I shall tell the House what I mean by stability. I mean the Republic of Ireland, which now enjoys a standard of living exceeding that of the United Kingdom. Another example would be Germany, which managed to absorb 17 million people on the breadline without going bust in the process. Both countries use PR systems.
      I shall tell the Committee what is not acceptable: a system that merely harms one party or prefers one party to another. The reason for change is justice. Social justice is democratic justice. We should not measure the stability of a nation by the frequency with which it changes Administrations. We should measure it according to the country's economic, cultural and social stability. Germany and the Republic of Ireland have shown that stability in spades.
      The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) suggested that I might be new-fangled. I assure him that I am old-fangled. I am, for instance, a strong monarchist, as many people know. I still love a T-bone steak, if I can find one. What I do not want to have to tolerate are iniquities from the past and the first-past-the-post system is one of those iniquities.
      Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Llanelli seems to agree with many of our tenets for proportional representation. For one thing, we believe in an open system. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—
      Mr. Denzil Davies rose—
      Mr. Öpik: I have not the time to give way.
      Mr. Davies rose—
      Mr. Öpik: Well, I shall briefly.
      Mr. Davies: I made it clear at the beginning of my speech that I was not in favour of proportional representation. All I said was that, if we were to have that sort of system, I should prefer an open to a closed list.
      Mr. Öpik: I accept that point and shall move on swiftly. Perhaps we can discuss it further over a pint after the debate.
      The constituency and Member link is absolutely right. STV is the one PR system that establishes a 100 per cent. link between elected Members and constituents. A list system does not do so.
      We also discussed the fact that the system is an alien proposition, but it is already here, in Northern Ireland and in many organisations. If it makes Wales an alien nation,

      907
      I would be happy to live in an alien nation. Perhaps we can import some of that alien thinking back to the rest of the United Kingdom and improve democracy here as well.
      In conclusion, this is a debate not about old and new, but about fair and unfair. It is a debate not about stable and unstable, but about undemocratic and democratic processes. That is our argument for STV and if we cannot get it, it is our case for an open-list system. We are glad to have got this far and we praise the Government for the steps that they have taken in moving towards proportional representation. We sincerely hope that this is not the destination, but merely a staging post on a greater journey.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 43, Noes 335.

      Division No. 135]

      [9.30 pm

      AYES

      Baker, Norman

      Keetch, Paul

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brake, Tom

      Livsey, Richard

      Breed, Colin

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Burnett, John

      ÖPik. Lembit

      Burstow, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Russell Bob (Colchester)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Chidgey, David

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Cotter, Brian

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swinney, John

      Dafis, Cynog

      Taylor, Matthew Truro

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Tonge Dr Jenny

      Feam, Ronnie

      Tyler Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Wallace, James

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Webb, Steve

      Gorrie, Donald

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Hancock, Mike

      Willis, Phil

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Harvey, Nick

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Mr. Michael Moore and

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Mr. Richard Allan.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Ainger, Nick

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Browne, Desmond

      Allen, Graham

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Burden, Richard

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Burgon, Colin

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Ashton, Joe

      Byers, Stephen

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Banks, Tony

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Bayley, Hugh

      Canavan, Dennis

      Beard, Nigel

      Cann, Jamie

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Caplin, Ivor

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Casale, Roger

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cawsey, Ian

      Benton, Joe

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Chaytor, David

      Berry, Roger

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Best, Harold

      Clapham, Michael

      Betts, Clive

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Blackman, Liz

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clwyd, Ann

      Borrow, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      908

      Coleman, Iain

      Heppell, John

      Colman, Tony

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hill, Keith

      Corbett, Robin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Home Robertson, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cox, Tom

      Hope, Phil

      Cranston, Ross

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Crausby, David

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cummings, John

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Hurst, Alan

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hutton, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ingram, Adam

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jamieson, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jenkins, Brian

      Denham, John

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Drew, David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Edwards, Huw

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Efford, Clive

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Etherington, Bill

      Kemp, Fraser

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Khabra, Piara S

      Flint, Caroline

      Kidney, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Follett, Barbara

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Forsythe, Clifford

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Laxton, Bob

      Foulkes, George

      Lepper, David

      Fyfe, Maria

      Leslie, Christopher

      Galbraith, Sam

      Levitt, Tom

      Galloway, George

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Linton, Martin

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Love, Andrew

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McAllion, John

      Godman, Norman A

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Grant, Bernie

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Grocott, Bruce

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Grogan, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hain, Peter

      McLeish, Henry

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hanson, David

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McWilliam, John

      Healey, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marek, Dr John

      909

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Maxton, John

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Michael, Alun

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Milburn, Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Snape, Peter

      Morley, Elliot

      Soley, Clive

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mullin, Chris

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Stringer, Graham

      Olner, Bill

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Neill, Martin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pike, Peter L

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Timms, Stephen

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pope, Greg

      Todd, Mark

      Pound, Stephen

      Touhig, Don

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Purchase, Ken

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Vaz, Keith

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Radice, Giles

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rammell, Bill

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Rapson, Syd

      Wareing, Robert N

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Watts, David

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      White, Brian

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Rogers, Allan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wills, Michael

      Rooney, Terry

      Winnick, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wise, Audrey

      Roy, Frank

      Wood, Mike

      Ruane, Chris

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sawford, Phil

      Mr. Kevin Hughes and

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. John McFall.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 22 A, in page 1, line 16, leave out from 'constituency' to end of line 17.—[Mr. Ancram.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 136, Noes 378.

      Division No. 136]

      [9.43pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Leigh, Edward

      Amess, David

      Letwin, Oliver

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Lidington, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Baldry, Tony

      Loughton, Tim

      Bercow, John

      Luff, Peter

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Blunt, Crispin

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Body, Sir Richard

      MacKay, Andrew

      Boswell, Tim

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Malins, Humfrey

      Brady, Graham

      Maples, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Mates, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Burns, Simon

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Butterfill, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Norman, Archie

      Chope, Christopher

      Ottaway, Richard

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Page, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Paice, James

      Colvin, Michael

      Paterson, Owen

      Cran, James

      Prior, David

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Randall, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Duncan, Alan

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Ruffley, David

      Evans, Nigel

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Faber, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fabricant, Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Fallon, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Fraser, Christopher

      Steen, Anthony

      Gale, Roger

      Streeter, Gary

      Garnier, Edward

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gibb, Nick

      Syms, Robert

      Gill, Christopher

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Green, Damian

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Greenway, John

      Townend, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tredinnick, David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Trend, Michael

      Hammond, Philip

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Walter, Robert

      Hayes, John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Whittingdale, John

      Horam, John

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Willetts, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Woodward, Shaun

      Yeo, Tim

      Key, Robert

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Mr. Oliver Heald and

      Lansley, Andrew

      Sir David Madel.

      911

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Corbett, Robin

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ainger, Nick

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cotter, Brian

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cousins, Jim

      Allan, Richard

      Cox, Tom

      Allen, Graham

      Cranston, Ross

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Crausby, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cummings, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dafis, Cynog

      Baker, Norman

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Banks, Tony

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Barren, Kevin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davidson, Ian

      Beard, Nigel

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Denham, John

      Benton, Joe

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dismore, Andrew

      Berry, Roger

      Dobbin, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Betts, Clive

      Dowd, Jim

      Blackman, Liz

      Drew, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Borrow, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Efford, Clive

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brake, Tom

      Ennis, Jeff

      Breed, Colin

      Etherington, Bill

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Browne, Desmond

      Flint, Caroline

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Flynn, Paul

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Follett, Barbara

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burnett, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Foulkes, George

      Byers, Stephen

      Fyfe, Maria

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cann, Jamie

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Casale, Roger

      Godman, Norman A

      Cawsey, Ian

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chaytor, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chidgey, David

      Gorrie, Donald

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Grant, Bernie

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Grogan, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hain, Peter

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Colman, Tony

      Hancock, Mike

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hanson, David

      Cooper, Yvette

      Harris, Dr Evan

      912

      Harvey, Nick

      McDonnell, John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Healey, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McLeish, Henry

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McNamara, Kevin

      Heppell, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Hesford, Stephen

      MacShane, Denis

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hill, Keith

      McWilliam, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Mallaber, Judy

      Home Robertson, John

      Mandelson, Peter

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Marek, Dr John

      Hope, Phil

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Martlew, Eric

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Maxton, John

      Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

      Michael, Alun

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hurst, Alan

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hutton, John

      Milburn, Alan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Miller, Andrew

      Illsley, Eric

      Mitchell, Austin

      Ingram, Adam

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Moore, Michael

      Jamieson, David

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Jenkins, Brian

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Olner, Bill

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Keetch, Paul

      Öpik, Lembit

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Kemp, Fraser

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pearson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Kidney, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pike, Peter L

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Plaskitt, James

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Pope, Greg

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pound, Stephen

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Laxton, Bob

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lepper, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Levitt, Tom

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Purchase, Ken

      Linton, Martin

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Livingstone, Ken

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Livsey, Richard

      Radice, Giles

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rammell, Bill

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rapson, Syd

      Love, Andrew

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      McAllion, John

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rendel, David

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      913

      Rogers, Allan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Rooney, Terry

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Roy, Frank

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Ruane, Chris

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Timms, Stephen

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Todd, Mark

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Touhig, Don

      Sawford, Phil

      Truswell, Paul

      Sedgemore Brian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Shaw Jonathan

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sheerman Barry

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Twigg Derek (Halton)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Tyler, Paul

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Vaz, Keith

      Skinner, Dennis

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wallace, James

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris(Islington S)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Watts, David

      Webb, sieve

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Snape, Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      willis Phil

      Stevenson, George

      Winnick, David

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wise Audrey

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wood, Mike

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Worthington, Tony

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stringer, Graham

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Stunell, Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mr. Kevin Hughes and

      Swinney, John

      Mr. John McFall.

      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.—[Mr. McFall.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    COCOA AND CHOCOLATE
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8164/96, relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption; and endorses the Government's efforts to resist any discrimination against UK products, to secure their free circulation throughout the EC and to maintain the widest possible range of consumer choice.—[Mr. McFall.]

  Test Match Cricket
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate. It is timely, given the current review of listed events and the attempt by the England and Wales Cricket Board to get test match cricket and live test match cricket de-listed. My purpose in seeking the debate and the purpose of Members of Parliament of all parties who signed my early-day motion—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Hon. Members must leave the Chamber quietly.
  Mr. Rammell: My purpose and the purpose of colleagues is to preserve for everyone the right to be able to watch live test match cricket on terrestrial television.
  I should declare an interest, in that I am an inveterate sports fanatic. Although many things have changed over the course of my life, two of my abiding passions for the past 30 years have been football and cricket—watching, playing and endlessly talking about them. I am sure that other hon. Members will relate to that.
  My personal enthusiasm for both sports originally derived in large measure from watching them on television. Although I am happy to pay tribute to my parents for almost every aspect of my upbringing, they would be the first to admit that they were not and are not sports fans. Had it not been for sport on television, I am by no means certain that I would have developed an interest in football and cricket. It is through television that one develops such enthusiasm.
  I remember, as a child and as an adolescent, watching matches on television, going out with a burst of enthusiasm to play with friends in the park and attempting—and failing—to replicate the feats that I had seen. That is the sort of commitment and enthusiasm that can be generated by watching sport on television.
  Had cricket and football been available only on satellite television, I am not certain that I would have developed that interest. Millions of people are in a similar position. Therein, in essence, lies my fear for the future of cricket if it is hidden away exclusively on satellite television, as the England and Wales Cricket Board wants. If youngsters do not develop interest, passion, and enthusiasm for cricket through television, tomorrow's players, club members and viewers risk being lost to the game.
  If anyone needs convincing about the scale of that risk, they should consider how many fewer people will be able to watch test match cricket if it is available only on satellite television. The evidence available for football shows that only 16 per cent. of households have access to Sky Sports because they or their parents have chosen to purchase the channel.
  When the Euro 96 semi-final was held between England and Germany, the BBC had an audience of 24 million, yet a game of similar importance—the World cup qualifier between England and Italy last October—had an audience of only 4 million. That was one sixth of the audience available to watch it on the BBC. Proportionately, that difference would apply to cricket as much as to football.
  916
  The vast majority of families cannot, or choose not to, purchase sport on satellite television, so they, and particularly their children, are denied access to sport that is exclusively available on satellite television. As Jack Bannister aptly said recently:
  "Many families won't get to see top class cricket on TV. It is the nail in the coffin of grass roots growth."
  That is absolutely true.
  Although I support that view, I am by no means a wholesale critic of sport on satellite television. Sky Sports has brought major gains and benefits to a host of sports. A major cash injection into football has led to the premier league being rightly regarded as the best in the world.
  Mr. Brian White: Does my hon. Friend accept that there have been benefits with the introduction of satellite television, which has enabled us to watch South Africa versus Australia, and that we should not simply go back to the days of the cartel, when the BBC and ITV could deny many sports fans access to the sport that they wanted to watch? Test matches should be available on the BBC, but satellite broadcasters provide added value.
  Mr. Rammell: My hon. Friend makes an effective point. I was about to say that Sky Sports has brought added value to the coverage of sports, particularly those never previously available for viewing on terrestrial television.
  Sky has also vastly improved the quality of sports coverage. It uses virtual reality technology to analyse moves within a game, to look at offsides in football and to determine whether a referee was sighted in a certain situation. That has been revolutionary, and I pay tribute to it. Sky has therefore been good for sport, and I want that contribution to continue in the sports that I have mentioned. However, Sky in particular, and satellite television in general, need constraints to control them. That is what the listing of major national sporting events is all about.
  May I deal with some of the arguments put forward by the England and Wales Cricket Board in favour of de-listing live test cricket? First, it claims that cricket should be de-listed to get the market rate for television coverage, and says that, without such a cash injection, it fears for the game's future. None the less, the price which the BBC pays for the right to show test cricket has risen by more than 645 per cent. since 1990. That could hardly be described as a bad deal. When the present contract with the BBC was announced in 1994, the deal was variously described by the cricketing authorities and the media as "a bonanza for cricket" and
  "great news for the game".
  Those statements hardly square with the current ECB view that, unless the framework that enabled those deals to be struck is done away with, the game will face a financial crisis.
  The ECB has also said that live test cricket is not the be-all and end-all, and that highlights could be made available on the BBC even if live cricket went to satellite television. For cricket enthusiasts, watching highlights of test match cricket is not the same as watching it live. Test cricket is about tactics and pressure building: it is an unfolding drama. That can be properly appreciated only by watching live coverage.

  917
  The ECB has said that cricket needs a huge cash injection to nourish grass-roots development, yet there is no guarantee that, if test match cricket went to Sky, the money would be used for that purpose. Football has had a cash bonanza, but where has the money gone? Has it gone to grass-roots development? I think not.
  A major part of the money that has been generated has gone into inflating players' salaries to astronomic levels. An average premier league player today expects and demands a salary of £1 million a year. I have nothing against players receiving the going rate, but I do not understand why the vast majority of people should be denied the opportunity to watch their sport on television simply to push up players' salaries.
  Mr. Michael J. Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that the involvement of young people in the game will not only improve their sporting excellence in the future, but build up their leadership and teamwork skills? It is important to encourage young people to use cricket to develop skills for their future.
  Mr. Rammell: Absolutely. Sport is an effective way for young people to develop community and leadership skills, and cricket is a fine example of that.
  There are no guarantees that, if cricket were de-listed, the money would go to the grass roots.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Gentleman knows from our exchange of correspondence, I strongly agree with the points that he has made. I argued this case in the previous Parliament. Does he accept that, as the distinguished journalist Mihir Bose showed in a series of good articles in The Daily Telegraph in the months leading up to Christmas, one of the difficulties about the way in which money from satellite television has been used in other parts of the world is that, once the satellite providers have frozen terrestrial providers out of the market, the money has dropped away? The ECB may be naive in believing that the money would always be available if we were to have a monopoly satellite provider.
  Mr. Rammell: That point is well made. The hon. Member describes the ECB as naive. There is concern about the way in which the board is handling these issues.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: Since 1994, we have had four-day instead of three-day county cricket matches. County cricket has lost a whole day of entertainment and investment. The money that is derived from television goes to test cricket and to the counties. If the Government will not guarantee that money to test and county cricket, why should the authorities not be free to choose how they sell their rights?
  Mr. Rammell: We are talking about a national institution, in which not only the cricketing authorities, but the ordinary paying and playing public have a stake. The public also have rights, which is why our regulatory regime should prevail.
  The ECB has also said that it is not necessarily campaigning for cricket to be removed from terrestrial television: it just wants the freedom to obtain the best deal
  918
  for cricket in the circumstances. It wants an open contest. It may be an open contest, but it would not be a fair one. On each and every occasion, Sky would initially be able to outbid the BBC, which is limited to its licence fee income.
  The ECB's implicit argument seems to be: "Trust us. De-list test match cricket and we shall do our best to get the best deal, yet keep terrestrial television in the picture." I believe that any organisation should be judged not only on its words, but on its actions. Already, although it is not subject to listing, the 1999 cricket World cup has been handed to Sky exclusively by the ECB, although it was aware that the BBC was preparing a bid. Those actions do not fill me with confidence, or make me inclined to trust the ECB if cricket is de-listed.
  The Government have set out criteria for the listing of major national sporting events. I maintain that test match cricket meets those criteria. First, test match results have been widely reported for generations on main news bulletins, which suggests a national resonance. Not just cricket enthusiasts but people with a far looser connection with the game have been following the fortunes of the national team.
  Secondly, it is clearly practical to have coverage on terrestrial television, not only because that is already happening but because that is the position that the BBC wishes to maintain. Thirdly, there is a long history of broadcasting test match cricket on free-to-air services. The relationship between cricket and the broadcasting authorities at the BBC goes back some 60 years.
  For me, however, a more persuasive criterion is the degree to which top stars in a particular sport are widely recognised, and are part of what I would describe as the media establishment by dint of their sporting success. I do not think that any hon. Member who is present would deny that people such as David Gower, Graham Gooch, Ian Botham and Mike Atherton meet that criterion.
  Kate Hoey: And Alec Stewart.
  Mr. Rammell: Indeed—and many others. Those people are widely known: I would guess that seven out of 10 of the population could identify them, and they associate them with cricket. They are certainly part of the establishment that I have described.
  The one aspect of the ECB's arguments that I think has an element of plausibility is its fear that—with test match cricket more effectively protected by listing as a result of the Broadcasting Act 1996, and with no effective competition from either ITV or Channel 4—the BBC will not be pressured or feel obliged to agree a reasonable deal. If that is indeed the ECB's concern, I feel that it should be addressed in a number of ways.
  First, the Independent Television Commission has powers to intervene if the BBC will not, or does not choose to, agree a fair price. Secondly, there is no indication that the BBC is not prepared to agree a fair deal. Thirdly, if the ECB is really concerned, I think that it should act now. It should approach the BBC while consultation is taking place, while it has some political leverage. It should sit down and negotiate a deal, and, if necessary, seek the imposition of a formula agreement for uprating. I am sure that that would meet with widespread approval.

  919
  I consider that the arguments in favour of retaining listing are overwhelming. I believe that there is a conflict between the desires of the ECB and Sky in the marketplace on the one hand, and, on the other, the community's right to watch one of its premier national sporting events. I am sure that hon. Members will agree with me that the rights of the community should prevail
  10.18 pm
  Mr. John Grogan: Let me make two brief points. First, between 1995 and 1998, 405 different cricket clubs received nearly £50 million, allocated by the Sports Council from the proceeds of the national lottery. Cricket receives a larger share of lottery capital awards than any other sport, including £5.2 million for the redevelopment of Trent Bridge as a residential centre of excellence. I feel that the receipt of vast amounts of public money brings with it public responsibility. If cricket wants to receive cash from the people's lottery on such a scale, its greatest occasions must remain accessible to all the people who watch terrestrial television.
  Secondly, and perhaps most important, if we exclude the next generation from watching cricket on the box, the old cricketing enemy, Australia, will be laughing in our faces. In Australia, people treat sport seriously. In the land of Mr. Murdoch's birth, they not only nurture their sporting elite in academies, but ensure that all the top sporting action is available to everyone on television. To the Aussies, inspiring future generations is as important to sports development as training today's champions.
  Down under, the anti-siphoning list system was established in 1992 and ensures that free-to-air channels are given first option on no fewer than 41 sporting events, including every rugby and cricket international involving Australia. Recent results tend to show that Australian sport does not appear to have suffered too much from the constraints placed on the governing bodies in relation to selling their rights to the highest bidder.
  I implore my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that all my constituents, rich and poor, can watch future England versus Australia Ashes tests—whether they be at Lord's, the Oval, Old Trafford, Headingley, Edgbaston or Trent Bridge—live on television.
  10.20 pm
  The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on securing a debate on the position of test cricket on the list of events protected under part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996, and on setting out the case for its retention on that list with such clarity and passion. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on his short but telling speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow describes himself as a sports fanatic, but he is more correctly described as a sports lover. The House is fuller tonight for an Adjournment debate than I or, I suspect, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have ever seen it in all the years that we have been in the House. Usually, only the hon. Member concerned, the Speaker and the Minister are in
  920
  the House. To have the Benches full of hon. Members who love and take an interest in the issue is a testament to the seriousness with which it is taken.
  Ms Joan Walley: We have considered the issue of sport on television, but it is equally important that we examine sport on local radio, particularly BBC radio.
  Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I have received many representations about the list, and some are specifically about the listing of test matches. We recognise that the issue generates strong views in this place, as this debate has shown.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow was correct to say that the issues that he raised concern more than just cricket. I agree that cricket and other sporting events have great significance for many people in this country and generate interest among those who do not normally follow the sport concerned. Events such as the Cup final, the Wimbledon tennis championships and the Grand National are national events. They bring us all together around an event of common interest, so they have a significance far beyond the sport.
  I do not dispute the right of sports bodies that organise major events to seek to increase the income for their sport, and the sale of broadcasting rights is one of the ways in which they seek that revenue. They have a duty to do so, and they do it with some vigour, but their pursuit of that revenue is not the whole story. The Government's view is that some major events are so much a part of our national life that they are, in a sense, public property.
  The widespread interest that such events generate is only partly a result of the efforts of the promoters. In many cases, it is also the result of the long history of the event, of the fact that it brings together major national and international participants, of the involvement of British national teams or, in the case of cricket, of its deep roots in our national community, going to the grass roots of the game in villages, village greens and cricket matches throughout this country.
  Mr. Andrew Reed: Does my hon. Friend agree that the national bodies take only a short-term view in securing funding? The problem is that young people will not have sporting heroes and be encouraged to take up those sports. The national bodies are denying those young people, who need national sporting heroes to become involved in sport, access to sports such as rugby, cricket and football, for short-term cash benefits from Sky television and others. That is only a short-term solution, and will lead to long-term problems for those sports.
  Mr. Fisher: As I said, I think that the matter is more complicated than that. It is necessary to fund sports properly, so that they not only nurture the grass roots but reach the widest possible audience. The Government and the advisory group that we have appointed will have difficulty in judging that balance.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is a member of the advisory group. As a member of Surrey county cricket club, she will bring

  921
  to the group particular knowledge and sympathy for cricket. Nevertheless, she and the other group members will have a difficult job in balancing the objectives.
  Let us be clear about it. The Government are committed to the variety of principles underlying the protected list, but those principles must be weighed against other considerations. The future of the sports cannot be taken for granted. Therefore, difficult choices will have to be made.
  The Government have stated that the main criterion for inclusion in the list should be national resonance—which is very important, because it goes beyond a sport's immediate significance. However, we must also consider other matters. In considering whether to list an event, the Secretary of State will have to have regard to such factors as whether it is practical to offer extensive live coverage on a general channel. He will also take into account the impact of listing on the sport's income, which is an important factor, as hon. Members who feel strongly about the matter must realise.
  The advisory group announced by the Secretary of State is considering those issues, and it is judging the position of a number of major sporting events against those criteria. We have conducted wide consultation, which has broadly dealt with the issues.
  The group has been asked to make its recommendations before Easter, which gives it very little time to consider a complicated matter. I am confident, however, that its recommendations will be clear and objective. We have deliberately chosen people with a wide knowledge of sport, and particularly of the key sports that are being considered.
  The group will have to consider whether test cricket meets the criteria for continuing inclusion on the list. Test matches feature prominently on the sporting calendar and command wide interest—as demonstrated by the number of hon. Members in the Chamber for this debate. The Government realise that test matches are events that unite the nation, and I am sure that every hon. Member can think of one or more specific test matches. The first match that I remember was when Laker took 19 wickets. I sat there watching, in black and white, praying that Tony Lock would get a couple of runs. All of us can remember such events.
  922
  There are other points of view, some of which we have heard in this debate. Some people argue that the matches appeal primarily to cricket fans, and that average audience ratings for BBC transmissions are a little under 2.5 million. That factor, too, must be taken into account.
  The advisory group will also consider prospects for the coverage of sports events on general terrestrial channels. All parties believe that the BBC's coverage of test cricket is of an exceptionally high standard. The corporation's charter, however, states that it must offer programming of general interest to everyone. Scheduling to achieve that objective is a difficult matter.
  Whatever the merits of those arguments, the sport of cricket is clearly in need of further funds, as people like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow realise. In the past four years, the England and Wales Cricket Board has invested £10 million in development of its development arm, the Cricket Foundation. My hon. Friend will be aware that Lord McLaurin's ambitious plans for the reorganisation of cricket involve an investment of £150 million at county grounds, which have a real need for that level of investment. That money will have to come from somewhere. There is therefore a difficult balance to achieve.
  Although the test's intrinsic national resonance will be central to the advisory group's deliberations, the group will even-handedly consider its resonance against the case for participation, coverage and funding. As well as the ECB and the BBC, the views of other people will be considered.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the needs of sport must be considered in an even-handed way as well as the needs and desires of those of us who love sport and want to see it on our national television channels. I am confident that the group's recommendations will balance the good of cricket with that of the television viewer.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government's position on the issue, and I suspect that cricket fans all over the United Kingdom, and perhaps all over the world, will be grateful to him for raising such an important matter and putting the case with such passion and persuasion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

WALES

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the(a) net surplus/deficit, (b) the total remuneration of the Chief Executive and (c) the resident population of the Morgannwy Health Authority for the year ended 31 March 1997; [23601]

  (2) what was the (a) net surplus/deficit, (b) the total remuneration of the Chief Executive and (c) the resident population of the Dyfed Powys Health Authority for the year ended 31 March 1997. [23600]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is in the following table.

  Morgannwg HA

  Dyfed Powys HA

  (a)Net surplus/(deficit)(£000)

  785

  (1,913)

  (b)Total remuneration of Chief Executive (£000)

  70

  87

  (c)Resident population(thousands)

  499.7

  476.7

  Sources:

  (a) and (b) Annual Accounts of Morgannwg and Dyfed Powys Health Authorities 1966–97; (c) ONS Mid year estimate for 1996.

  Health Trusts (Appointments)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the qualifications required of appointees to non-executive posts on health trusts and authorities in Wales. [20727]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Strong links with the area served by the Trust or Health Authority are required together with relevant experience such as one or more of the following: the Voluntary Sector; the Public Sector or Business, at a senior level; previous NHS employment/experience.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Coastguard
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will request the Coastguard Agency to publish its five-year plan. [22845]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I announced on 17 November 1997,Official Report, columns 9–10, a proposed five-year strategy for Her Majesty's Coastguard and it was agreed that the Coastguard Agency would issue a document for consultation. This document is being published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Coroner's Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are his functions in relation to the Coroner's Service. [23180]

  Ms Armstrong
  My right hon. Friend has no responsibilities for the Coroner's Service.

  Untreated Sewage
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much untreated sewage was disposed of on or in agricultural land in each year since 1991; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 on these figures. [22865]

  Angela Eagle
  Sewage may be spread on agricultural land under the terms of a waste management licence issued by the Environment Agency under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The objective of the licensing system is to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of in ways which protect the environment and human health.

  The Environment Agency does not maintain a central record that distinguishes the licensed spreading of sewage from the licensed spreading of other wastes. It is not possible, therefore, to make an assessment of the impact of the 1990 Act on the quantities of sewage which are spread. However, the Department and the Environment Agency have commissioned the Water Research Council and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) to develop further the criteria that determine the circumstances in which the spreading of wastes is of benefit to agriculture. The research project is expected to be completed by the end of March 1998.

  Road Gritting
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidelines exist for local authorities for the gritting of roads in the event of sub-zero temperatures. [23194]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 20 January 1998:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent question as to what guidelines exist for local authorities for the gritting of roads in the event of sub-zero temperatures.
  The Highways Agency are responsible for motorways and all-purpose trunk roads in England. For these roads, the Agency provides a winter maintenance service which assists the safe movement of traffic and keeps to a minimum delays and accidents caused by adverse weather conditions.
  An extensive network of sensors placed in the roads measure road temperatures, moisture and salt content, wind speeds and precipitation. These together with weather forecasting services assist Maintenance Agents to carry out preventative treatment before road conditions become hazardous. They do not use grit for this treatment but use rock salt or, in special cases, deicing chemicals.
  The Highways Agency's Maintenance Agents, including Local Authorities, undertake the operational maintenance of the winter maintenance service in accordance with guidelines set out in Volume 2 Part 3 of a document titled. The Trunk Road Maintenance

  451
  Manual. A copy of the document can be made available for inspection if you would like to contact Mike Garnham at this office on 0171 921 4220.
  For the roads for which Local Authorities are responsible, they define their own treatments. Many use the guidelines of the County Surveyors Society or adapt them to their own circumstances and needs. Most Local Authorities also publish their own winter maintenance plans which define roads to be treated, together with treatment times and priorities.

  Polegate Bypass
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many written representations his Department has received from(a) organisations and (b) members of the public about the Polegate Bypass in the last three months. [22996]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have received a considerable number of representations about the Polegate Bypass. We are unable to give a breakdown covering the last three months; however, since the start of the Roads Review consultation exercise in July 1997, we have received 96 representations from organisations and businesses, and 2,689 from members of the public, of which 699 were letters; 1,768 were local press campaign coupons; and 222 were in the form of petitions.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to simplify the rules governing the purchase of freeholds by leaseholders; and what plans he has to introduce a new commonhold form of tenure. [23327]

  Ms Armstrong
  We are committed to simplifying the rules governing the purchase of freeholds by leaseholders and we intend to bring forward a new package of reforms to assist leaseholders. We are currently considering the scope and practicability of possible new measures. We expect to make an announcement about our proposals and invite comments from interested parties in the Spring.

  The introduction of Commonhold is a matter for the Lord Chancellor. However, I understand that his Department are currently considering the best way to handle the various proposals which have been made about commonhold schemes in the recent past.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many local authorities in all classes have been awarded a provisional SSA settlement for 1998–99 for the education block of less than a 5.7 per cent. increase; and if he will list these authorities with their respective figures; [23293]

  (2) how many Metropolitan district authorities have been awarded a provisional SSA settlement for 1998–99 for the education block which is less than a 5.7 per cent. increase; and if he will list these authorities with their respective figures. [23292]

  Ms Armstrong
  Eighty four local education authorities have been awarded a provisional SSA settlement for 1998–99 for the education block of less than a 5.7 per cent. increase. Of these, eighteen are metropolitan district authorities. The authorities are listed in the table.452

  Education standard spending assessment change— adjusted 1997–98 to consultation 1998–99

  Local authority

  Adjusted 1997–98 Education SSA (£ million)

  Consultation 1998–99 Education SSA (£ million)

  SSA Change (per cent.)

  Greater London

  City of London

  0.877

  0.818

  -6.7

  Camden

  81.386

  83.841

  3.0

  Greenwich

  115.354

  120.621

  4.6

  Hackney

  96.311

  99.145

  2.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  57.530

  60.115

  4.5

  Islington

  83.299

  87.978

  5.6

  Lambeth

  100.611

  105.060

  4.4

  Southwark

  111.181

  116.858

  5.1

  Wandsworth

  91.681

  93.739

  2.2

  Westminster

  60.952

  62.933

  3.3

  Barnet

  122.305

  128.973

  5.5

  Brent

  113.327

  117.836

  4.0

  Haringey

  98.795

  103.651

  4.9

  Harrow

  74.287

  77.969

  5.0

  Hillingdon

  97.883

  102.688

  4.9

  Hounslow

  98.522

  102.119

  3.7

  Kingston upon Thames

  48.814

  50.913

  4.3

  Merton

  60.425

  63.347

  4.8

  Richmond upon Thames

  48.089

  49.857

  3.7

  Sutton

  70.654

  74.468

  5.4

  Waltham Forest

  99.516

  104.442

  4.9

  Greater Manchester

  Oldham

  98.466

  103.665

  5.3

  Trafford

  80.841

  84.861

  5.0

  Wigan

  113.230

  119.463

  5.5

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  77.161

  81.506

  5.6

  Wirral

  135.458

  142.389

  5.1

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  79.127

  83.310

  5.3

  Rotherham

  105.402

  109.939

  4.3

  Sheffield

  174.938

  184.605

  5.5

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  71.781

  75.100

  4.6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  101.361

  106.520

  5.1

  North Tyneside

  70.464

  74.457

  5.7

  Sunderland

  117.965

  123.893

  5.0

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  458.879

  484.482

  5.6

  Coventry

  123.607

  130.488

  5.6

  Walsall

  112.742

  118.205

  4.8

  Wolverhampton

  101.401

  106.549

  5.1

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  215.623

  225.110

  4.4

  Calderdale

  79.504

  83.537

  5.1

  All Purpose Authorities

  Blackburn

  64.883

  68.166

  5.1

  Bournemouth

  50.588

  52.705

  4.2

  Bracknell Forest

  38.489

  39.684

  3.1

  Bristol

  122.005

  127.784

  4.7

  Derby

  87.194

  91.878

  5.4

  Halton

  54.651

  57.018

  4.3

  Kingston upon Hull

  105.033

  110.027

  4.8

  Leicester

  125.196

  129.804

  3.7

  Luton

  80.479

  83.584

  3.9

  Medway Towns

  107.290

  112.366

  4.7

  Middlesbrough

  62.787

  65.583

  4.5

  Milton Keynes

  85.526

  88.693

  3.7

  Newbury

  55.021

  57.620

  4.7

  North East Lincolnshire

  66.563

  70.101

  5.3

  North Somerset

  61.234

  64.601

  5.5

  Nottingham

  106.722

  111.057

  4.1

  Peterborough

  73.070

  76.663

  4.9

  Plymouth

  99.020

  102.180

  3.2

  Poole

  45.175

  46.932

  3.9

  Reading

  43.654

  45.559

  4.4

  Rutland

  10.916

  11.246

  3.0

  453

  Education standard spending assessment change— adjusted 1997–98 to consultation 1998–99

  Local authority

  Adjusted 1997–98 Education SSA (£ million)

  Consultation 1998–99 Education SSA (£ million)

  SSA Change(per cent.)

  Stockton on Tees

  74.022

  77.854

  5.2

  The Wrekin

  59.219

  62.565

  5.6

  Torbay

  44.248

  46.710

  5.6

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  47.071

  48.951

  4.0

  Wokingham

  53.150

  55.573

  4.6

  Isles of Scilly

  1.156

  1.200

  3.8

  Shire counties

  Bedfordshire

  146.083

  154.038

  5.4

  Buckinghamshire

  175.930

  183.785

  4.5

  Cambridgeshire

  170.782

  180.209

  5.5

  Cornwall

  171.300

  179.349

  4.7

  Cumbria

  176.084

  186.094

  5.7

  Derbyshire

  244.681

  257.662

  5.3

  Durham

  184.515

  194.500

  5.4

  Leicestershire

  204.883

  215.263

  5.1

  Norfolk

  257.396

  270.332

  5.0

  Northumberland

  118.090

  123.316

  4.4

  Nottinghamshire

  268.254

  280.511

  4.6

  Oxfordshire

  199.130

  207.934

  4.4

  Shropshire

  91.113

  95.362

  4.7

  Suffolk

  226.258

  237.019

  4.8

  Surrey

  320.831

  338.100

  5.4

  West Sussex

  241.347

  254.553

  5.5

  Wiltshire

  142.019

  149.402

  5.2

  Worcestershire

  180.787

  188.027

  4.0

  Waters
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1997,Official Report, column 36, what progress has been made by the Drinking Water Inspectorate in considering prosecution in the alleged cryptosporidium incident at Bingley in June 1993; and if he will make a statement. [23475]

  Angela Eagle
  The Drinking Water Inspectorate has completed its investigation of this incident involving an outbreak of cryptosporidiois. On 14 January 1998, it wrote to Yorkshire Water Services Limited informing the Company of its conclusions and recommendations arising from the incident. A copy of this letter has been sent to the health authority, local authority and the Yorkshire Customer Service Committee. I have arranged for a copy of the letter to be sent to the hon. Member and for copies to be placed in the library of the House.

  The main conclusions of the Inspectorate were that:
  (i) the epidemiological study carried out by the Bradford Health Authority provided strong grounds for suspecting that water unfit for human consumption was supplied;
  (ii) the Company would not have had a defence of due diligence due to deficiencies in the management of the catchment and the operation of Gilstead Water Treatment Works; and
  (iii) in view of the decision by the Judge in the prosecution of South West Water about an incident involving an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in Torbay, not to admit as evidence the report of the epidemiological study, a prosecution cannot be mounted against the Company under Section 70 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

  The Inspectorate's investigations uncovered some serious deficiencies in the Company's operations. Although Gilstead Water Treatment Works has since been closed, the Inspectorate considers it vital that the
  454
  Company demonstrates that it has improved its operational procedures and performance in order to protect public health and therefore it has asked for an urgent reply from the Company to its recommendations.

  In the light of the judgment in the Torbay case and the Inspectorate's conclusions on this incident, I have asked the Inspectorate to advise on what steps, including changes to the legislation, can be taken to secure successful prosecution when it is believed that water unfit for human consumption has been supplied.

  Concorde
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent inspections have been conducted to establish the air worthiness of Concorde. [23375]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are seven Concorde aircraft on the UK register, all operated by British Airways. They are all subject to regular airworthiness inspections under the British Airways Concorde Maintenance Schedule, which is approved by the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of the storms of early January. [23560]

  Ms Armstrong
  None. The information is not collected centrally. Local authorities have statutory powers to deal with emergencies and are expected to budget accordingly. They may apply for additional financial assistance where there is a case for doing so under existing rules.

  Ferry Safety
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages of introducing guidelines for safe ferry departures from port in inclement weather independently of the captains of the ships concerned. [23321]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Marine Safety Agency, Mr. Robin Bradley, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Dr. Alan Whitehead, dated 20 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Question about guidelines for safe ferry departures.
  The decision to sail should always lie with the master of the vessel. He is best placed to make such a decision on account of his knowledge of the ship and its area of operation, his experience and professional judgement, and in the exercise of his responsibilities. The importance of the master's discretion for safe navigation has been recognised in recent amendments to the SOLAS Convention, prompted by the ESTONIA disaster. These require that the master is not constrained by commercial pressures from shipowners and charters from taking decisions necessary for the safe navigation of his ship.
  New regulations require that all limitations on the operation of the ship are readily available to the master on board the ship. These limitations must include any restrictions on areas of operation, weather restrictions, sea state restrictions, and restrictions on speed and permissible loads. In addition, early implementation of the

  455
  provisions of the International Safety Management Code on all passenger ferries operating in Europe requires a proper assessment to be made of actual and expected weather conditions, using both official forecast and direction observation, before the ship sails.
  I am satisfied that adequate information is available to the master to allow him to decide if his ship should set sail and may navigate safely, that in the interest of safe operation the decision must rest with the master, and that there are safeguards to protect his discretion.

  Employment (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people were employed by Northumberland County Council(a) full time and (b) part time, excluding teachers in each year since 1992. [23991]

  Ms Armstrong
  The numbers of people employed by Northumberland County Council (excluding lecturers and teachers), at June of each year, from 1992 to date are:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1992

  n/a

  n/a

  1993

  3,263

  5,722

  1994

  3,256

  5,972

  1995

  3,744

  5,218

  1996

  3,646

  5,533

  1997

  3,478

  5,363

  Source:

  Joint Staffing Watch. The introduction of a new survey form in June 1995 changed the way in which staff are recorded so that where an employee is doing two or more jobs in an authority, each job is counted separately. As a result, figures for 1995 and later years are on a different basis from previous years.

  Classic Cars
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow the continued use of classic cars when leaded petrol is withdrawn from general sale. [23827]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To meet concerns raised by owners of classic car owners about supplies of leaded petrol from 1 January 2000, when the proposed EU ban comes into effect, the Government have negotiated a derogation to allow continued supply to a limit of 0.5 per cent. of total petrol sales to be distributed through "specialist interest groups". For widespread use of many older, non-classic, cars whose owners currently use leaded petrol, the British Standards Institution are consulting on a specification for unleaded petrol containing a non-toxic lead replacement additive.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assurances he has sought from the Civil Aviation Authority that the air traffic control system in the United Kingdom will be fully millennium compliant. [24249]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 19 June 1997, Official Report, column 277.

  Bus Employees Superannuation Trust
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Statement of Claim has been received by his Department in the legal claim brought by the Trustee of the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust against his Department; what legal advice he has taken on the merits of the claim; what future action he proposes in respect of this matter; and if he will make a statement. [24126]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Statement of Claim has been received. The advice of Counsel has been obtained and Ministers are currently considering next steps on this matter in the light of that advice.

  Marine Safety
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many shipments and how much plutonium was transported via United Kingdom destinations on roll-on roll-off ferries between 22 December and 12 January; and what advice he has received from marine safety experts on this transport. [24091]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  One such notifiable shipment took place carrying 42.809kg of plutonium. I am advised that the ship used carried the usual certification and a document of compliance under the International Maritime Organisation' sCode for the Safe Carriage of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Flasks on Board Ships (INF Code) and the packages used were approved by my Department in accordance with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.

  Air Routes
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the relationship between effective competition on routes between(a) Heathrow and European destinations and (b) Heathrow and North American destinations. [24263]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. If the question is referring to the competition analysis of the proposed British Airways/American Airlines alliance, and whether this should include an assessment of European routes from Heathrow, it is a matter for the relevant competition authorities, not my Department.

  Dangerous Chemicals (Rail Transport)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to publish new guidelines on the transportation of dangerous chemicals by rail through residential areas. [24247]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  An extensive study,Major Hazard Aspects of the Transport of Dangerous Substances: Report of the Sub-committee of the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances (HSC, ISBN 0 11 885676 6), published in 1991, found that the risks of such transport were tolerable. Regulations Approved Requirements and Guidance on the transport of dangerous goods are regularly reviewed in the light of technical developments and lessons learned from reported incidents.

  457
  Additionally, the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail Regulations 1996 will soon be revised in accordance with Commission Directive 96/87/EC to apply the latest provisions of the COTIF regulations concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by rail (RID).

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the current guidelines for governing the transportation of dangerous chemicals by rail through residential areas; [24254]

  (2) if he will list the safety responsibilities of (a) Railtrack, (b) English, Welsh and Scottish Railways and (c) European Vinyls Corporation Ltd., as they relate to the transportation of vinyl chloride monomer by rail in the Vale of Glamorgan; [24257]

  (3) if he will list (a) voluntary and (b) statutory procedures governing the de-canting of vinyl chloride monomer from a freight tanker which has (i) been de-railed, (ii) tipped on its side and (iii) collapsed the bogey and cannot be safely lifted back on to the rail track; [24258]

  (4) if he will list the current codes of practice governing the transportation of dangerous chemicals by rail through hazardous industrial areas; [24259]

  (5) if he will list the current regulations governing the transportation of dangerous chemicals by rail through residential areas; [24260]

  (6) if he will list the current regulations governing the transportation of dangerous chemicals through hazardous industrial areas; [24261]

  (7) if he will list the current guidance notes governing the transportation of dangerous chemicals by rail through hazardous industrial areas. [24262]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The current regulations, which apply to transport throughout Great Britain, are as follows:The Carriage of Dangerous Goods By Rail Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2089),
  The Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Classification, Packaging and Labelling and Use of Transportable Pressure Receptacles Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2092).

  The Regulations set out the duties and responsibilities on all parties concerned with the transport and dangerous goods including vinyl chloride monomer. These are supported by the following Approved Requirements and Guidance:
  Approved Tank Requirements—The provisions for bottom loading and vapour recovery systems of mobile containers carrying petrol;
  Approved Carriage List—Information approved for the carriage of dangerous goods by road and rail other than explosives and radioactive material;
  Approved Requirements and test methods for the classification and packaging of dangerous goods for carriage;
  Carriage of Dangerous Goods Explained Part 1—Guidance for Consignors of dangerous goods by road and rail, packaging, labelling and provision of information;
  Carriage of Dangerous Goods Explained Part 3—Guidance for rail operators, and others involved in the carriage of dangerous goods by rail.
  458
  Regulation 23 of Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail Regulation 1996 requires train operators, facility owners and infrastructure controllers to establish and follow safety systems and procedures which enable them to deal with incidents safely. The details are set out in Railway Group Standards which are produced and published by Railtrack plc, following industry consultation, and which are enforceable through the Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 1994.

  In addition, all parties operating on the railways must comply with the general provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and other related regulations. In particular, in relation to the transportation of dangerous goods by rail in the Vale of Glamorgan, Railtrack plc is responsible for:
  control of the movement of trains on its network;
  maintenance of the railway infrastructure;
  complying with the terms of its Railway Safety Case (accepted by the Health and Safety Executive under the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994);
  accepting and monitoring compliance with the Railway Safety Case of train operating companies;
  establishing standards to ensure safe operation and emergency arrangements on its network; and
  compliance with those aspects of the CDG Rail which apply to an infrastructure controller.

  Similarly English Welsh and Scottish Railways Ltd. is responsible for:
  the safe operation of its trains;
  compliance with its own Railway Safety Case and any relevant Railway Group Standards; and
  compliance with those aspects of CDG Rail applicable to a train operator.

  European Vinyls Corporation Ltd., must comply with its responsibilities as consignor under CDG Rail.

  There are separate requirements for the transport of radioactive material and for the transport of explosives.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the terms of reference of the Railway Inspectorate's inquiry into the Cadoxton derailment in the Vale of Glamorgan on 27 December 1997; [24248]

  (2) what steps he will take to ensure that the inquiry undertaken by the Railway Inspectorate into the Cadoxton train de-railment will consider (a) the underlying and (b) the systems causes of the incident; [24251]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the scope of the inquiry by the Railway Inspectorate into the Cadoxton de-railment on 27 December 1997; [24253]

  (4) if he will publish in full the report of the inquiry undertaken by the Railway Inspectorate into the Cadoxton derailment in the Vale of Glamorgan. [24245]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no terms of reference for the investigation by the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate into the incident at Cadoxton, South Wales. Following HSE's normal practice, the inspectorate will conduct a thorough investigation with a view to establishing both the immediate and any underlying causes, including systems failures; learning any lessons and taking any action which appears necessary to prevent a recurrence or to improve
  459
  the way any future incidents are handled. The HSE have advised that the findings (and any recommendations) of HM Railway Inspectorate's investigation will be published by HSE.

  Front Door Steps
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account he has taken in respect of flooding when drafting regulations in respect of front door steps. [24173]

  Angela Eagle
  The risk of water ingress at front door steps, including flooding, is one of the considerations being taken into account in considering what guidance might be reasonable to make front doors accessible for disabled people, in the event of regulations being made to improve the accessibility of new housing for disabled people. It is hoped that it will be possible to make a fuller statement on this shortly.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the objectives of the Government's policies for the Green Belt. [24172]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government are committed to the Green Belt and our policy remains as set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 2 (PPG2). The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open for as far ahead as can reasonably be foreseen. The protection of Green Belts must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead, although local planning authorities may propose alterations to Green Belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland to produce a concordat setting out arrangements for relations between his Department and the Scottish Executive after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [23552]

  Mr. Prescott
  Officials from my department and the Scottish Office are discussing the need for a non-statutory agreement between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Scottish Executive covering the exchange of information, advance notification and joint working in line with the principles set out in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament".

  Dereliction (Planning Powers)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance to local planning authorities on how they can use their planning powers to help prevent dereliction. [24523]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have, today, published Circular (02/98) which provides guidance to local planning authorities on the practical measures that they can take to help prevent land in their areas from becoming derelict.
  460
  The Circular also brings local planning authority's attention to new Regulations, the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Regulations 1997(SI 1997/3006). These give powers to local planning authorities to place a charge on land in order to help them recover the costs incurred in clearing sites under the derelict land provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  I believe that local authorities and developers will welcome these Regulations and the advice in the Circular as positive measures to help prevent and tidy up derelict sites.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the voting arrangement for admitting opt-out Schengen states applying to join Schengen were discussed at any point during the treaty negotiations at Amsterdam in the presence of United Kingdom delegates after the private meeting had taken place between the Dutch Presidency and the Spanish delegation. [23223]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to previous statements made on this subject, in particular my reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), 12 December 1997,Official Report, column 710.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what hour(a) the Protocol integrating the Schengen Acquis into the Framework of the European Union (b) the protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland pertaining to Schengen and (c) Declaration 45 on Article 4 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen Acquis into the framework of the European Union, were noted as agreed during the course of the Amsterdam negotiations by the Presidency. [23224]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Presidency did not single out either the Protocol integrating the Schengen Acquis into the framework of the European Union or the Protocol on the Application of Certain Aspects of Article 7A of the Treaty Establishing the European Community to the United Kingdom and to Ireland as having been agreed separate from other elements of the text. Declaration 45 was agreed after the Amsterdam European Council by all Member States in the light of the differences of view over Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol and included in the final version of the Treaty signed by all Member States on 2 October 1997.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 1997,Official Report, column 649, what official response followed the letter of the Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the United Kingdom Permanent Representative of 16 July last. [23612]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The official response was in the form of a letter from the UK Permanent Representative to the Permanent Representative of the Netherlands.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Turkish government as to the continuing imprisonment of elected members of the Turkish National Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [23801]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have raised the imprisonment of the four former Democracy Party (DEP) MPs with the Turkish government on a number of occasions. We have made it clear to the Turkish authorities that the imprisonment of democratically elected politicians for the non-violent expression of their views can only damage Turkey internationally.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on compliance by Turkey with judgments under international conventions in respect of human rights. [23767]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Turkey is a State Party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and is therefore under an obligation to comply with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Responsibility for supervising the execution of the Court's judgments lies with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. We welcome the undertaking given by the Government of Turkey that they will honour their obligations in respect of the Convention and the judgments of the Court.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the level of civil and political rights afforded to women in Afghanistan. [23820]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There is little respect shown for civil and political rights in general in Afghanistan. Women and girls have suffered particularly in Taliban-held areas by being prevented from working and receiving education. We have urged all factions to respect human rights, especially the rights of women. We subscribe to a common donor position which ensures that support goes only to aid programmes which actively attempt to promote the equitable participation of both men and women.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the nature and extent of the United Kingdom's diplomatic contact with Afghanistan. [23821]

  Mr. Fatchett
  No UK diplomats are based in Afghanistan. UK diplomats based in London and at the High Commission in Islamabad regularly meet representatives of all the Afghan factions to raise human rights and other concerns. Afghanistan is represented in the UK by a Chargé D'Affaires with whom we have working level contact.

  US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he raised with Vice-President Gore, in this meeting on 15 January, the further joint release of official documents concerning the 1958 United States/United Kingdom Mutual Defence Agreement on Atomic Energy Matters. [23799]
  462
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not meet Vice-President Gore and did not raise this issue in his other meetings.

  Multilateral Disarmament
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the record of the vote at the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1997 on the resolution on multilateral disarmament, indicating how the United Kingdom voted, and the reasons for its vote. [23838]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Nations General Assembly did not adopt a resolution on "multilateral disarmament" as such on 9 December 1997. The United Kingdom did, however, support resolutions tabled by Japan on the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons, tabled by the USA and Russia on bilateral arms negotiations, and resolutions on Nuclear Weapon Free Zones in Central and South Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.

  The United Kingdom also supported resolutions on anti-personnel land mines, small arms, the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures, conventional arms control at regional and sub-regional level, and regional confidence-building measures. For the reasons given in my reply to the my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) on 24 November 1997, Official Report, column 398, the United Kingdom voted against a Malaysian resolution on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to publish the second of the reports to Parliament on Hong Kong and the implementation of the Joint Declaration. [24719]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The second report in this series, covering the period July-December 1997, was published today and a copy of the report has been placed in the libraries of the House. The report includes a foreword written by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the report to the House.

  Ireland
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the potential areas for co-operation between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom identified in the joint statement by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in the margins of the European Council at Noordwijk on 23 May 1997. [24720]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach discussed progress in the margins of the European summit in Luxembourg on 13 December. Copies of their joint statement and report summarising progress since the European Council in May have been placed in the libraries of the House.

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the recommendations of the UN Committee on Social, Cultural
  463
  and Economic Rights following its deliberations on the most recent United Kingdom Periodic Report; what response the Government will make to each; and to which Government departments, agencies and other bodies these recommendations have been, or will be, communicated. [24090]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Committee's written Observations in United Nations document E/C.12/1/Add.19 are currently being edited. When finalised, they will be available on the Internet. An unedited version has been placed in the libraries of the House.

  Copies have been sent to the Departments involved in preparing the United Kingdom's report: the DfEE; DTI; Department of Health; DETR; DSS; Home Office; Northern Ireland Office; Scottish Office; Welsh Office; DfID; Office of Science and Technology; MAFF and DCMS. We will consider the Committee's Observations and will report on progress under them in our fourth periodic report in June 1999.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he has received on measures required to take account of General Comment 5 on Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee. [24089]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are aware of the views of the Human Rights Committee as set out in their 1981 General Comment Number 5.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that the introduction of a judicial element into the process for extending detention will be one of the matters considered in the forthcoming consultation paper on counter-terrorism.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland to produce a concordat setting out arrangements for relations between his Department and the Scottish Executive after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [23548]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Officials from his Department and the Scottish office are discussing the need for a non-statutory agreement between the FCO and the Scottish Executive covering the exchange of information, advance notification and joint working in line with the principles set out in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament".

  Ethics and Morality (Policy)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his holding answer of 15 January 1998, on the role of ethics and morality of his foreign policy, for what reasons he was not able to give a substantive answer on the day named. [24380]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  It is accepted practice to issue holding replies where circumstances merit it.
  464

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what correspondence with(a) the Commission, (b) the General Secretariat of the European Council and (c) foreign ministries of European Union states has occurred as a consequence of the matters leading to the letter of the Permanent Representative of The Netherlands to the United Kingdom Permanent Representative of 16 July; and if he will make a statement. [23582]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Although there were contacts with a number of member States, the Council Secretariat and the Commission, correspondence in writing was with The Netherlands, which held the Presidency at the time of the Amsterdam European Council.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter dated 9 December 1997, concerning the husband of a constituent, reference IMM/D2969, and appeal reference TH/2894/96; and for what reason no acknowledgement was sent. [24109]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary sent a letter to my hon. Friend about this application on 19 January.

  Letters from Members have been acknowledged by a card since mid-November. My hon. Friend should have received such a card and I am sorry if this was not the case.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what powers of electronic intercept Europol will possess under the Treaty of Amsterdam; and if he will make a statement. [22672]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 12 January 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  Europol will have no such powers. It will be a central co-ordinating body within the European Union for the exchange and analysis of criminal intelligence. It will have no operational powers and its staff will have no executive policing functions. The Amsterdam Treaty envisages a developing role for Europol, but one centred on facilitation of and support for the operations of the member states' law enforcement agencies.

  Immigration (Cubans)
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Cuban nationals granted entry visas in the past two years have exceeded the period of time in the United Kingdom specified in their visa. [22566]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that comprehensive information on the number of persons who overstay their period of leave is not available. Data are, however, available on the number of persons issued with a notice of intention to deport on the grounds that they have overstayed. No more than two Cuban nationals were issued with such a notice between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 1997. These data are provisional.

CULTURE,MEDIA AND SPORT

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland to produce a concordat setting out arrangements for relations between his Department and the Scottish Executive after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [23545]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have not yet had such discussions. However, they will take place as necessary in due course.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which he or any other Minister in his Department has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23261]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: There have been no overseas visits on which I or Ministers in my Department have been accompanied under rule 83 of the Ministerial Code.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Competitiveness White Paper
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her dialogue with business in preparation for the Competitiveness White Paper. [24652]

  Mrs. Beckett
  This Government recognise that business itself is often best placed to advise on what it needs to prosper. That is why I am committed to forging a strong partnership with business to raise national prosperity.

  The White Paper on Competitiveness, to be published later this year, will be a key element of that process, not least because, for the first time, it will be a White Paper drawn up in partnership and in consultation with business. The White Paper will set out the Government's policy towards business for the long term—based on promoting strong markets, modern companies and an enterprising nation.

  The work of preparing for the White Paper is being carried forward through six business-led groups. They are looking respectively at how Government and business can work together to improve investment performance, encourage innovation, use best practice, adapt to the Information Age, and ensure that EU policies best serve our competitiveness needs.

  The Working Parties comprise around ninety people. Their membership reflects the different strands and diversity of business in Britain today: people drawn from small business as well as large; people from different sectors, backgrounds and experience; people who have in the past had few opportunities to influence policy development; but above all people who can contribute practical ideas.
  466
  I have placed details of the membership of the Competitiveness Working Parities in the House of Commons Library.

  Millennium Dome
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Minister with responsibility for science and technology has invited (i) British scientists, (ii) scientific organisations and (iii) companies to contribute to the content of the Millennium Dome. [24374]

  Mr. Battle
  My officials have put specific proposals to the New Millennium Experience Company reflecting the view of companies, the science base and Foresight Panels that the Experience should be a showcase for British creativity, excellence in leading edge science and world class products and services. The Department is also promoting and funding the Millennium Products Awards Scheme to identify state of the art products and service, of which 200 will feature in the Dome.

  Business Angels
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to encourage business angels to invest in small private companies. [23553]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Department continues to look at ways of encouraging business angel activity in the UK. It is important to raise awareness of business angel finance and to provide effective mechanisms for bringing together business angels and businesses seeking this type of investment. My officials are working closely with business angel networks, clearing banks and others to encourage greater co-operation.

  Coral
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had with the Office of Fair Trading with regard to the purchase of Coral by the Ladbroke Group. [24368]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has had no discussions with the Office of Fair Trading concerning this merger.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what she expects the Office of Fair Trading to announce its decision on referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to Ladbroke Group with regard to their purchase of Coral. [24369]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  It is for the Director General of Fair Trading to advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on whether or not the merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He will advise in time to allow a decision to be taken by the statutory deadline of 30 April 1998.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the purchase of Coral by the Ladbroke Group. [24370]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will take a decision whether or not to refer the purchase of Coral by Ladbroke in the light of the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.
  467
  My right hon. Friend has stated that her general policy will be to consider each case of its merits and to refer mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission primarily on competition grounds.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list all overseas visits made since 1 May 1997 on which she or any other Minister in her Department has been accompanied under Rule 83 of the Ministerial Code, indicating(a) who accompanied him or her and (b) the cost to public funds of each such visit. [23265]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: Since I May, DTI Ministers have been accompanied at public expense on the following overseas visits:

  The President of the Board of Trade was accompanied by Mr. Lionel Beckett.

  Cost £

  15–22 November 1997

  India and Australia

  7,000

  10–21 January 1998

  China, Hong Kong and Pakistan

  5,600

  The Minister for Trade was accompanied by Lady Clinton-Davis.

  Cost £

  21–29 September 1997

  Korea and Japan

  6,130

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 21 July 1997,Official Report, column 451, if the four licence applications for the export of sub-machine guns and other automatic weapons to Indonesia have been granted; how many weapons these applications cover; who they were destined for; and which company supplied them. [23050]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: Of these four applications, three have been refused and one is still pending a final decision. Inquiries are being made under the non-statutory Code of Practice on Access to Government Information as regards the disclosure of further information. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Directory Inquiries
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the benefits and disbenefits to the consumer of BT's monopoly of directory inquiries. [23380]

  Mrs. Roche
  The regulation of directory inquiries is a matter for OFTEL. OFTEL is currently carrying out a review of telecoms directory services and products. In September, OFTEL issued a consultative document which assesses customers' needs and privacy concerns, whether 468
  these needs are met by current arrangements, whether they would be better met by introducing competition into this market, and what the barriers to competition are. The document sets out proposed remedies to address these barriers so that competitors can enter the market. OFTEL is due to issue a Statement on directory information services and products this year and the Department will consider it at that time.

  Minimum Wage
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the effects of the minimum wage on the pay of women in East Anglia. [23284]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have received representations on the effect of the national minimum wage on women's pay from a number of organisations who share the Government's view that women throughout the United Kingdom will benefit from its introduction.

  Aviation Industry
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on Government investment in the aviation industry in Scotland, including air traffic control. [24124]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  As my hon. Friend is aware, the major new air traffic control project in Scotland is the New Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre at Prestwick. This is being developed under the Private Finance Initiative, and will not involve Government investment, but will nonetheless provide a state of the art service, with the capacity to deal with increasing levels of air traffic well into the next century. The Government have also approved more than £30 million of projects in connection with the New Scottish Centre; these projects will connect the Centre with the rest of the UK's air traffic control network, and allow it to realise its full potential.

  Financial support to the aviation industry is also made available by the Scottish Office in the 1997–98 financial year as follows:

  (i) Up to £7 million to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.; and

  (ii) £350,000 in support of lifeline air services currently operated by Loganair Ltd.

  The Department of Trade and Industry's Civil Aircraft Research and Technical Demonstration programme and Launch Aid scheme also provide support to companies throughout the UK that meet the criteria.

  London Art Market
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the state of the London art market. [21462]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: My Department has received representations about the Commission's proposals to harmonise artists' resale right in the EU, and the liberalisation of auctioneering services in France.

TREASURY

  Budget Date
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he took of(a) public holidays in any part of the United Kingdom in fixing the date of his Budget and (b) the relevant precedents. [24170]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  A number of factors are taken into account in deciding the date of the Budget. These include the availability of economic data; international meetings; the timetable for developing budgetary policy and national events including public holidays. On balance, I decided that 17 March would be the most suitable day for this year's Budget. The Budget was also held on 17 March in 1987.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what increase in national average earnings would result from a national minimum wage at one half of average earnings with(a) full restoration of differentials, (b) half restoration of differentials and (c) one-quarter restoration of differentials; [24413]

  (2) what increase in national average earnings would result from a national minimum wage at 40 per cent. of average earnings with (a) full restoration of differentials, (b) half restoration of differentials and (c) one quarter restoration of differentials. [24412]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The effect of the minimum wage on national average earnings will depend on a number of factors, including the level it is set at, its coverage, and the state of the labour market when it is introduced. The terms of reference of the Low Pay Commission ask it to take into account the wider effects on the economy, including the effects on inflation and employment, in making its recommendations on the minimum wage.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the Government will exempt earnings up to the level of the minimum wage from income tax; [24298]

  (2) if he will raise tax thresholds to a level which ensures that no-one pays income tax on pay up to the minimum wage level. [24297]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Decisions on tax are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the basis for the calculation of the Retail Prices Index. [23394]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) advises me on methodological questions concerning the Retail Prices Index (RPI) and also services an RPI Advisory Committee (RPIAC) to which I refer major methodological issues. The RPIAC is convened if and when required.
  470
  The ONS recalculates weights for the constituent elements of the RPI at the start of each year using the latest available figures from the Family Expenditure Survey (FES). For example, from February 1998, the RPI weights will use information from the FES for the period July 1996 to June 1997. This allows the ONS to reflect the most up to date spending patterns available and to introduce new goods and services into the index.

  Ministerial Travel (Trains)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he last used a train in the course of his official duties. [22936]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: I last used a train in the course of my official duties on 10 November 1997, when I travelled to Birmingham for the CBI Conference.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department made of the likely changes to the capital structure of companies arising as a result of the abolition of repayable tax credits on dividends received by pension funds and from the abolition of advance corporation tax prior to these changes being introduced. [22893]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The capital structure of companies depends on many factors. The changes in company taxation announced in the July 1997 Budget and the proposals made in the Pre-Budget report in November are unlikely to have a significant impact in the short term. Longer term effects are expected to reflect the benefits to the economy and to companies of deciding their capital structure under a more neutral tax system.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's estimate of the corporation tax revenue consequences arising from the change to the capital structure of companies resulting from the abolition of repayable tax credits on dividends received by pension funds and from the abolition of advance corporation tax. [22889]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The current view remains that any change in capital structure would not significantly affect the published estimates of corporation tax revenues.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department made of the corporation tax revenue consequences arising from the change to the capital structure of companies resulting from the abolition of repayable tax credits on dividends received by pension funds and from the abolition of advance corporation tax at the time of making these changes. [22890]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Any change in capital structure would not significantly affect the published estimates of corporation tax revenues.

  Publicly Financed Bodies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that all publicly financed bodies comply with accounting standards on off-balance sheet transactions. [23459]
  471
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The relevant accounting standard for dealing with off-balance sheet transactions is Financial Reporting Standard 5 "Reporting the substance of transactions", which forms part of Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) in the UK.

  The Treasury already requires departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies to prepare their accounts and public expenditure returns in accordance with GAAP, to the extent that it is meaningful and appropriate in the public sector context. It is the duty of the responsible Accounting Officer to ensure that this requirement is adhered to.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has for the anticipated revenue from(a) insurance premium tax and (b) higher rate insurance premium tax for the year 1997–98. [22620]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest estimate for receipts of insurance premium tax in 1997–98 is £1.1 billion. No separate estimate is available for receipts at the higher rate.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the number of jobs lost in the(a) travel agency sector and (b) retail sector since the introduction of higher rate insurance premium tax. [22622]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have received a number of representations from the travel agency and retail sector about this tax measure, some of which express concerns about the possibility of consequential job losses. I have not received any representations about actual job loss which can be attributed to this measure.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the(a) benefits and (b) disadvantages of reintroducing a single rate of insurance premium tax to remedy distortions in the insurance market. [22624]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The higher rate of insurance premium tax, set at the same rate as the standard rate of VAT, has prevented the tax loss (and distortion of trade) previously suffered where suppliers of taxable goods and services switched margins into ancillary sales of VAT exempt insurance. To return to a single, low rate of insurance premium tax would re-open this tax loophole and there are therefore no plans to go down this path. However, the impact of this tax measure is being kept under review.

DEFENCE

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown of arms sales to the Philippines in each of the last five years. [22995]

  Mr. Spellar
  The estimated value of UK defence sales, including services, to the Philippines in each year since 1993 is as follows in £ million:

  1993: 0.85

  1994: 0.05

  472

  1995: 83.71

  1996: 3.34

  1997: 0.65.

  These figures are based on voluntary returns from industry, are expressed in current prices, and relate to new contracts signed rather than to financial receipts or actual deliveries.

  The figure for 1997 may not be complete as full final quarter information will not be available until April of this year.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the value of arms sales by each member of the European Union in each year since 1990. [22809]

  Mr. Spellar
  The value of UK defence exports in each year since 1990, in £ billion, is estimated at:

  1990: 4.8

  1991: 3.6

  1992: 5.3

  1993: 7.1

  1994: 4.5

  1995: 5.0

  1996: 5.1

  1997: 5.2

  These figures are expressed in current prices and relate to contracts signed rather than to receipts or actual deliveries, and are based on voluntary returns from industry.

  Other EU countries publish export figures on various bases, but no consistent and comprehensive official figures for EU-wide exports have been published. The World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfer, published by the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, provides details on world defence equipment deliveries.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure, in which financial years, was committed by the recent signing of the Memorandum of Understanding on the European Fighter Aircraft project; what proportion of the total estimated expenditure on EFA this represents; whether such expenditures will be subject to exchange rate variations, and what is the present estimated unit cost of each of the 232 EFAs. [22983]

  Mr. Spellar
  Signature of the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) on 22 December 1997 committed the UK and its collaborative partners to the Production Investment (PI), Production and Support phases of the Eurofighter programme. We estimate the cost to the UK of PUProduction and initial support will be approximately £11.5 billion (at 1997 prices) which is some 72 per cent. of the total procurement cost. Contractual negotiations are currently being finalised with the aim of signing the relevant contracts in the coming weeks. Expenditure will occur during the period 1998 to 2014 when the last aircraft is scheduled to be delivered to the Royal Air Force. Aircraft will be ordered in three tranches and, with a few exceptions, the underlying funding principle is that each nation will pay for the work carried out in its own country. The extent of expenditure which will be subject
  473
  to exchange rate variation, therefore, will be relatively small. The Unit Production Cost of each aircraft is some £40.2 million at 1997 prices.

  Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected maximum(a) offensive payload, (b) range and (c) cost of (i) the Joint Strike Fighter and (ii) the Sea Harrier. [22895]

  Mr. Spellar
  US Department of Defence projections for the Short Take Off, Vertical Landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter include a maximum offensive payload in excess of 15,700 lbs, a range of at least 550 miles and a unit production cost of $35 million (£21.6 million) at 1994 prices. Comparable figures for the Sea Harrier F/A2 are 5,000 lbs, 300 miles and £14.5 million.

  MV Gaul
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any naval personnel were on the fishing vessel Gaul on its final fishing trip; whether any had sailed on her on earlier trips in the 1970s; and whether any of his Department's equipment was installed on her. [23529]

  Dr. Reid
  No Royal Naval personnel were on board during the Gaul's last voyage. There is no evidence that personnel or equipment had been embarked on the vessel at any time.

  Poor People
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will carry out an assessment of the impact of his Department's current policies on the(a) income, (b) employment opportunities and (c) living standards, of the poorest 30 per cent. of the population. [23334]

  Dr. Reid
  We have no plans to do so. The Department carries out assessments of the impact of its policies in terms of overall value for money and upon the defence industries and regional employment. Such assessments do not attempt to separate the effects upon the poorest 30 per cent. of the population, or any other sub-division of the population by income.

  Helicopter Pilots
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances the instrument flying qualifications of Army helicopter pilots are recognised by the Civil Aviation Authority. [23942]

  Dr. Reid
  The CAA recognises the training given to Service helicopter pilots, which, after qualification, permits military helicopters to fly in most civil controlled zones. Once they have left the Services, helicopter pilots who wish to obtain a civil licence, must re-test to gain the appropriate CAA qualification.

  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training to fly, using instruments in bad weather conditions, helicopter pilots receive. [23937]

  Dr. Reid
  Instrument flying training for potential helicopter pilots starts at the Joint Elementary Flying Training School where about five and one half hours of instrument training is given. Helicopter pilots then receive 23 hours of theoretical, simulator and flying training at 474
  the Defence Helicopter Flying School, RAF Shawbury. After instrument flying qualification, helicopter pilots receive further instrument training on particular helicopter types at respective Service training squadrons. Indicative examples are as follows:

  Simulator

  Actual flying

  Royal Navy Sea King ASW

  9 hours

  9 hours 15 mins

  Army Lynx

  7 hours

  6 hours 12 mins

  Royal Air Force Chinook

  11 hour

  3 hours 30 mins

  Thereafter, all military helicopter pilots undertake regular further training and are tested every 12 to 13 months on a common tri-Service instrument rating.

  Intelligence Gathering
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Hull Trawlermen signed the Official Secrets Act in the 1970s. [23944]

  Dr. Reid
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1997, Official Report, column 214, concerning intelligence gathering by trawlers, which three Hull trawlers were used for specific intelligence gathering; on what date in 1973 these operations ceased; and how many trawlers were used in non-specific intelligence gathering. [23948]

  Dr. Reid
  MV Arctic Galliard, MV Lord Nelson and MV Invincible were used for specific intelligence gathering on a combined total of five occasions in the 1960s and 1970s. The last such use was in September 1973.

  Incidental intelligence gathering occurred throughout the Cold War period as trawlers went about their normal business of fishing. No records have been found of the names of the trawlers concerned.

  Trident
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amount was allocated from the Trident(a) procurement and (b) operating budget towards the cost of the order for Trident-related equipment placed with the United States of America for US fiscal year 1998. [23978]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Trident procurement orders for the UK during US fiscal year 1998, which include the seven missile bodies announced last October, are currently expected to cost up to $157 million over the duration of the various contracts. Orders placed this year by the US in respect of the operation of the UK Trident programme are expected to take the total up to some $260 million, but such costs are in support of the programme at large and are not tied to an individual year's procurement.

  "The Armed Services Forum"
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what editorial independence will be granted to the editor of the journal "The Armed Services Forum". [24095]
  475
  Dr. Reid
  No constraints, other than those laid down in Queen's Regulations, will be placed on the independence of the editor of the Armed Services Forum by the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which serving officer or civil servant gave permission to Major Eric Joyce to publish the journal "The Armed Services Forum". [24093]

  Dr. Reid
  Individual Service personnel do not need formal authority to publish such a journal. All Army personnel are entitled to publish any magazine, journal or periodical provided publication does not contravene Queen's Regulations.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs to his Department will be incurred by the publication of the journal "The Armed Services Forum". [24096]

  Dr. Reid
  The proposed publication of the Armed Services Forum will be an entirely private venture. No additional costs will accrue to the Department.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the members of the editorial board of the journal "The Armed Services Forum". [24094]

  Dr. Reid
  The proposed publication of the journal "The Armed Services Forum" is a private venture and the composition of the editorial board will be a matter for the publisher.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ministerial responsibility he had for the decision to give permission to Major Eric Joyce to publish the journal "The Armed Services Forum". [24097]

  Dr. Reid
  Major Joyce does not need formal authority to publish his journal "The Armed Services Forum". His request was clearly a matter for the Military authorities and was dealt with in the normal way, without consulting Ministers. All Army personnel are entitled to publish any magazine, journal or periodical provided publication does not contravene Queen's Regulations.

  Journals and Magazines
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the guidance given to serving officers who edit journals or magazines about current British defence policy and the organisation and culture of the armed forces. [24098]

  Dr. Reid
  No specific guidance exists for serving officers who produce defence related journals or magazines on defence related subjects. Queen's Regulations cover the requirement for clearance before publication. A copy of QRs is in the Library of the House.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland to produce a concordat setting out arrangements for relations between his Department and the Scottish Executive after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [23549]
  476
  Mr. George Robertson
  My right hon. Friend and I have agreed that there is likely to be a need for a non-statutory agreement between the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Executive covering the exchange of information, advance notification and joint working in line with the principles set out in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament".

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Museums
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the arrangements applying to the merger and reorganisation of museums in Northern Ireland. [22737]

  Mr. Worthington
  I refer my hon. Friend to the draft Museums and Galleries (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 which is currently before Parliament for consideration. The draft Order was considered by the House of Commons Standing Committee on 10 December 1997 and is due to be considered in another place in the near future. The Museums will shortly announce the appointment of a Director-Designate and, following the recent public advertisement, the Government are moving towards the appointment of the Trustees of the merged institution, in accordance with the public appointment procedures.

  Maze Prison
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she relaxed the search regime for visitors to HMP Maze between 1 May and 25 December 1997. [24372]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many head counts took place in each block of HMP Maze between 1 May and 25 December 1997. [24371]

  Mr. Ingram
  Each day there are two formal head counts a.m. and p.m. These took place on every day during the period in question except for four occasions when non co-operation by prisoners resulted in sanctions being applied by management.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times she has(a) visited RUC headquarters and (b) met the Chief Constable of the RUC. [22176]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Since I took office I have met the Chief Constable on 40 occasions at different locations. I have not yet visited RUC headquarters.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Committees (Legislation)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 January 1998, Official Report, column 42, if he is prepared to treat all proposals for primary legislation as questions which significantly engage the collective responsibility of the Government
  477
  because they raise major issues, or because they are of critical importance to the public, as set out in the Ministerial Code. [23535]

  The Prime Minister
  The way in which proposals for primary legislation are considered by my Government will depend on the nature of the proposals.

  Welfare State Roadshows
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Prime Minister what will be the cost to the Exchequer of the series of welfare state roadshows which he announced on 11 January. [23134]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: The cost of visits to promote understanding of the Government's policy on welfare reform will be met from the Prime Minister's existing visits budget. A final figure for this cost is not yet available. The cost of visits to promote understanding of the Government's policy on welfare reform within the Labour Party will not fall to the Exchequer.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister if paragraph 83 of the provisions of the ministerial code concerning travel at public expense by Minister's spouses also applies to such travel by Minister's partners who are not spouses in circumstances where the Minister has a spouse; and if he will make a statement. [23384]

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish guidelines to govern the arrangements applying when a Minister's personal friend other than a spouse may accompany him on official business at public expense. [23486]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The guidance on travel in the Ministerial Code remains unchanged. Public funds may be used only where it is in the public interest and with my prior consent.

  Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what position Her Majesty's Government took and for what reasons, at the International Criminal Court Preparatory Committee meeting held in New York in December 1987 in respect of(a) chemical weapons, (b) biological weapons and
  (c) nuclear weapons. [23408]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: At the Preparatory Committee meeting in December 1997, the UK delegation supported proposals to include within the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court war crimes under existing customary international law. For that reason, the delegation supported the inclusion of the use of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; these included bacteriological (biological) agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict, and chemical weapons as referred to in the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. For the same reason, the delegation did not support the inclusion of the use of nuclear weapons.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish any written permission given under paragraph 70 of the Ministerial Code for the travel of Mrs. Gaynor Regan at a cost to public funds. [23849]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: No. It is not the practice to publish exchanges of ministerial correspondence.

  Strategic Communications Unit
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if the predominant flow of information in respect of deciding initiatives will be from individual departments to the Strategic Communications Unit or vice versa; [24365]

  (2) if the Strategic Communications Unit can decide which government policies merit the greatest promotion; [24315]

  (3) what will be the role of the Strategic Communications Unit in determining the timing of announcements by other departments; [24366]

  (4) whether individual departments will be required to clear press statements and news releases with the Strategic Communications Unit before their issue. [24314]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 14 January 1998, Official Report, columns 233–40.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the role of the Minister without Portfolio in the Strategic Communications Unit. [24367]

  The Prime Minister
  The Strategic Communications Unit will report to me via my Chief Press Secretary. The Minister without Portfolio will have an interest in the work of the Unit in view of his responsibilities for co-ordinating the overall presentation of Government policy.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what budget has been allocated to the Strategic Communications Unit, in respect of(a) personnel costs, (b) administrative costs, (c) the costs of publications and (d) other costs. [24313]

  The Prime Minister
  The budget of the Strategic Communications Unit has not yet been finalised.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of letters addressed to him by hon. and right hon. Members which receive replies are signed by him; and upon what basis he decides to reply personally. [24401]

  The Prime Minister
  My office aim to acknowledge correspondence within three working days and provide a substantive response within 15 days. The response to any correspondence is considered on an individual basis.

  Unpaid Bills
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of government and public agency bills and of what total value were not paid within 30 days over the last six months. [24244]
  479
  The Prime Minister
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Government departments and their agencies are required to aim to pay all their bills on time and to monitor the percentage of bills paid on time. Figures for departmental payment performance for the period 1 June 1996 to 31 March 1997 were given by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General on 27 November 1997, Official Report, columns 662–63. Figures for 1997–98 will be published before the Summer Recess.

  The Government take the issue of late payment very seriously and are introducing legislation on a statutory right to interest on the late payment of commercial debt to address the problem.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what guidelines he has issued concerning the format and policy aims of concordats between Whitehall Departments and the proposed Scottish Executive; and if he will make a statement; [23556]

  (2) what discussions he has had with ministers concerning concordats between Whitehall Departments and the proposed Scottish Executive; and if he will make a statement. [23557]

  The Prime Minister
  The principles upon which we expect non-statutory agreements between Departments of the UK Government and the proposed Scottish Executive to be based are set out in paragraph 4.13 of Scotland's Parliament. I took part in discussions which led to the publication of that White Paper.

SCOTLAND

  Glasgow City Council
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Glasgow City Council about the state of finances in the Council; and if he will make a statement. [21715]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have had a number of discussions with Glasgow City Council in recent months.

  Highlands and Islands
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the European Union regarding future financial assistance for the highlands and islands. [21723]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend met Commissioner Wulf-Mathies on 8 January 1998 and 9 October 1997, Commissioner Flynn on 1 December and President Santer on 18 September 1997. Discussion of European Structural Funds formed part of the agenda on all occasions.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland to discuss the future role of the Scottish Parliament. [21724]
  480
  Mr. McLeish
  My right hon. Friend will meet key figures in the CBI in Scotland on 30 January to consider the role that the CBI can play following the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. This follows on from meetings my right hon. Friend and Ministerial colleagues have had with CBI representatives since I May to discuss the Government's plans to establish a Parliament.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on his estimate of the cost of setting up a Scottish Parliament. [217261

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Office has received a total of 10 letters; eight from members of the public and two from hon. Members.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the costs of a Scottish Parliament. [21740]

  Mr. McLeish
  My right hon. Friend announced on Friday 9 January that the Parliament would be sited at Holyrood in Edinburgh. The estimated construction costs of the building will be around £50 million. Site acquisition costs, fees and VAT must be added to this. The actual costs will depend on the final design, the level of fees negotiated and the price of construction, which will be determined by competitive tender.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances a Minister answerable to the Parliament of Scotland would(a) attend with a United Kingdom Minister and (b) lead in European Union Council meetings. [21725]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Government intend that Ministers of the Scottish Executive will have a role to play in relevant Council meetings and could speak for the UK in appropriate cases, at the discretion of the UK Minister. This would mainly arise in cases where EU business is being discussed which predominantly affects devolved areas.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his statement of 12 January, 1997, Official Report, column 29, on what basis he maintains that relations between Edinburgh and London will be based on consent and co-operation in the matter of financial resources. [23308]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The creation and operation of a Scottish Parliament within the framework of the United Kingdom can take place only on the basis of consultation, consent and co-operation. The financial arrangements are no exception to this.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the 1998–99 revenue support grant settlement for Scottish local authorities. [21728]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of letters from hon. Members, local authorities and members of the public. We also have regular meetings with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with individual councils.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Scottish Enterprise regarding inward investment. [21730]

  Mr. Wilson
  Locate in Scotland's policy is overseen by a Supervisory Board which I chair and on which Scottish Enterprise is represented by its Chairman and its Chief Executive. The Board meets regularly to discuss inward investment and related issues.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of inward investment projects in Scotland from south-east Asian countries. [21732]

  Mr. Wilson
  Most of our inward investors from the Far East are well established, are serving buoyant European markets, and source many of their inputs locally. There is no reason to believe that their Scottish operations will be adversely affected by the current turmoil in Far Eastern financial markets.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the CBI in Scotland to discuss the future of Locate in Scotland. [21734]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend will be meeting representatives of CBI Scotland on 30 January to continue the excellent dialogue between the Government and CBI Scotland on matters important to Scotland's economic well being. Inward investment and the work of Locate in Scotland regularly feature in these discussions.

  EU Fisheries Council
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of the EU Fisheries Council he has attended since 2 May 1997. [21731]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture, the environment and fisheries has attended both of the EU Fisheries Councils convened since 2 May 1997, on 30 October and 18–19 December.

  Welfare to Work
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress with the welfare-to-work package in Scotland. [21733]

  Mr. Wilson
  The New Deal for 18–24 year-olds was launched in the Tayside Pathfinder area on 5 January and arrangements for implementing the programme in the rest of Scotland from the beginning of April are already well advanced. The New Deal for the 25 years and over age group is due to commence in June.

  The New Deal for Lone Parents is already available to those claiming Income Support in the Clyde Valley and will be expanded nationwide from October of this year.

  Public Spending
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums of money are to be transferred to the Scottish block for public spending in Scotland in consequence of the inclusion of council tax benefit and housing benefit. [21735]
  482
  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Block will include expected expenditure on housing benefit and council tax benefit at the time the Scottish Parliament comes into operation.

  Education Funding
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the discretion which local authorities will have in the use of additional funding for education. [21736]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Local authorities have indicated that they share the Government's priority for education and agree that the additional revenue funding included in the 1998–99 revenue settlement should be used to improve the quality of Scotland's schools. I therefore expect that authorities will use their discretion to do so. The additional capital grants of £8.9 million this year and £26.7 million in each of the next four years are being made available only for capital spending to improve the fabric of schools in Scotland for the installation of information and communications technology equipment. It has been made clear to authorities that this should be additional to the capital they would otherwise have spent on schools.

  Public Services (Funding)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has(a) made and (b) evaluated in respect of the scale of funding for Scottish public services relative to that elsewhere in the UK. [21737]

  Mr. Dewar
  None.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Government expect to implement the recommendation of the Pennington report into food hygiene matters. [21738]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Government have accepted all the recommendations of the Pennington Report and most have now been implemented.

  Out of an extra £19 million available for Great Britain I have allocated £5.8 million in Scotland to allow increased enforcement and help to accelerate the implementation of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) food safety systems, both of which were major recommendations of the Pennington Report.

  A Consultation document proposing a licensing scheme for butcher's shops will be issued shortly.

  Traffic and Transport
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the traffic and transport problems of Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland. [21739]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Office supports a range of research into the transport needs of Aberdeen and its surrounding areas including the Aberdeen Sustainable Transport Study currently being undertaken in partnership with local transport operators and Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils. This work will inform our
  483
  proposals for an integrated transport system appropriate to the needs of Scotland which will be contained in our White Paper to be published in the spring.

  Tuition Fees
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received in support of the Government's plans to introduce tuition fees for university education. [21741]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government's proposals to introduce a student contribution towards the cost of tuition, building on the recommendations of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, received support from a range of bodies. In Scotland, they included the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals (COSHEP), the Association of Scottish Colleges, Bell College of Technology, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and Renfrewshire Council.

  Other Government Departments have also consulted widely on the Government's proposals.

  Designed to Care
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he has received to his White Paper "Designed to Care". [21729]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Since the White Paper "Designed to Care" is not a consultation paper, no formal responses to it have been received. General reactions to it have been very favourable.

  Road Traffic Offenders Act
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will amend the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to bring the procedures for issuing fixed penalty notices in Scotland into line with those in England and Wales. [22533]

  Mr. McLeish
  Differences in the procedure for issuing fixed penalty notices between Scotland and England and Wales reflect differences in legal systems. We have no plans for altering Scottish procedure in order to bring it into line with that in England and Wales. The arrangements for the conditional offer of fixed penalties for endorsable offences in England and Wales, introduced from 1 July 1992 under the Road Traffic Act 1991, are however similar to Scottish arrangements for fixed penalties, in that inspection of driving licences will be a matter for the courts rather than the police, as is required for other fixed penalties.

  Nursing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has sent to the Royal College of Nursing's representations that there should be one United Kingdom-wide system of registration and regulation of the nursing profession. [23305]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The Scotland Bill provides for legislative competence in respect of the regulation and registration of the nursing professions to be reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. The Royal College of Nursing is aware of this position.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Calendar
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Council what representations she has received on establishing procedures to allow for advance publication of the dates of parliamentary recesses. [21746]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I am well aware of the desire on both sides of the House for predictability about the dates of recesses. I indicated last Thursday that the next recess will fall in the week beginning 13 April and that I would give more precise details nearer the time.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Council what representations she has received regarding reform of the parliamentary calendar; and if she will make a statement. [21747]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Modernisation Committee is currently considering what improvements can be made to the parliamentary calendar. Inevitably the representations received from a variety of Members are not all compatible.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council what is the Government's policy on restructuring the parliamentary calendar. [21756]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Government await the Modernisation Committee's recommendations on the parliamentary calendar.

  Parliamentary Day
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Council what recent representations she has received relating to the timing of events within the parliamentary day. [21750]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Modernisation Committee has received a number of suggestions about the timing of parliamentary business, including the sitting times of the House.

  Smoking (Palace of Westminster)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress he has made in developing a comprehensive policy on smoking in the Palace of Westminster. [21752]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission is responsible for the terms and conditions of the staff of the House and their working environment. Currently individual heads of the six House departments seek to agree an acceptable smoking policy with staff. The Board of Management is carrying out a review of this policy, at the request of the Commission.

  Policy on smoking in shared areas of the parliamentary estate, such as corridor and lifts, is a matter primarily for the Administration Committee. Smoking policy in restaurants is a matter for the Catering Committee. Smoking in the offices of hon. Members' and their staff is a matter for Members themselves.

  Office Costs Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Council what steps she is taking to review the office costs allowance. [21754]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I would not expect this issue to be revisited until the Senior Salaries Review Body's next scheduled review of parliamentary pay and allowances in the year 2000. However, in its 1996 report the SSRB did make a number of Development Recommendations related to the Office Costs Allowance and work has been continuing on these.

  European Legislation
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the House of Commons scrutiny of European legislation. [21755]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I shall very shortly be publishing a memorandum on Scrutiny of European Union Business.

  Minister without Portfolio
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council if she will create a slot for oral questions to allow the Minister without Portfolio to answer to the House on his wider responsibilities beyond those relating to the millennium dome. [21751]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I have already announced that the period for the Minister without Portfolio to answer questions on the Millennium Experience will be extended to 10 minutes from Monday 9 February 1998. My hon. Friend has no other responsibilities for which he is the lead Minister accountable to the House.

  Limited-term Contracts
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what proportion of the House of Commons Commission's employees are on limited-term contracts. [21748]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  There are approximately 1,300 (1,292) House of Commons Commission staff in post, of whom 85 (6.5 per cent.) are on limited-term contracts of some form, including casual staff, staff on period appointments for up to five years and staff on secondment from Government Departments or other organisations.

  Research Assistants (Passes)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the present system of allocating passes to hon. Members' research assistants. [21749]

  Mrs. Roe
  The principles underlying the issue of photo-identity passes to Members' staff were last considered by the Administration Committee in February 1996, in the context of requests by individual Members for extra Research Assistants' passes. The then Committee continued to endorse the recommendations of the Services Committee, contained in its Second Report of Session 1987–1988 (HC 850), as agreed by the House on 30 January 1989.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the latest estimate he has made of the total cost of millennium compliance in the House of Commons. [23642]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: A working group of technical staff has been established to address the compliance issue for systems provided for departments of the House. An estimate of the costs of corrective action will be available after the completion of the programme of tests, later this year. The Finance and Services Committee is monitoring progress.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many staff are working on the millennium compliance of all systems in the House of Commons. [23643]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The size of the working group of technical staff is currently six, representing each department of the House. The number of staff required to ensure compliance of all systems will be determined by the outcome of the testing programme. Members are responsible for the compliance of their own information technology equipment.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Key Stage 2
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the results of the latest Key Stage 2 tests in English, Maths and Science in a form which allows the performance of each school in a local education authority area to be assessed. [23526]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Each local education authority in England is required to publish the results of Key Stage 2 assessment in 1997 in the form referred to on or before Friday 23 January.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland to produce a concordat setting out arrangements for relations between his Department and the Scottish Executive after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [23546]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Officials from my Department and the Scottish Office will be discussing the need for a non-statutory agreement between the Department for Education and Employment and the Scottish Executive, covering the exchange of information, advance notification and joint working in line with the principles set out in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament".

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors underlay his decisions(a) to pay tuition fees for medical and dental students in

  487
  the fifth and subsequent years of their courses and (b) not to pay tuition fees for veterinary and architecture students in the fifth and subsequent years of their courses. [24246]

  Dr. Howells
  The decision to pay tuition fees for medical and dental students domiciled in England in the fifth and subsequent years of their courses is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  The Government cannot, however, take responsibility for the supply of those professionals such as vets and architects who are employed predominantly in the private sector. That is a matter for their employers, who will be free to introduce bursary schemes for tuition fees or other arrangements to support students, if they wish. We shall, however, continue to meet the majority of the costs of veterinary and architecture courses through grant provided to institutions by the Higher Education Funding Councils.

  Polish A Levels
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of students entered for A level Polish for each of the last 10 years broken down by examination board. [24108]

  Dr. Howells
  The numbers of students that attempted GCE A level Polish since 1992, the earliest year for which data are available, are:

  1992: 73

  1993: 93

  1994: 105

  1995: 106

  1996: 110

  1997: 98

  The only entries in any year for GCE A level Polish were with Edexcel (Education in Excellence), formerly ULEAC (University of London Examinations and Assessment Council).

  Sign Language
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what means the Government intend to improve the literacy levels of deaf children of primary school age whose first language is Sign Language.[23347]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  All mainstream primary schools, and the majority of special schools, will be involved in the implementation of the National Literacy Strategy, which begins this year. The strategy is an ambitious programme for achieving our national literacy target for 2002: it will be overseen by a group including Special Educational Needs interests. Part of the group's role will be to ensure that the widest possible range of children benefit, including those with all types of disability.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources are available from central Government to produce bilingual educational video materials for primary school children whose first language is Sign Language. [23348]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Schools and local education authorities are responsible for meeting the needs of all children with special educational needs, using the funding 488
  available to them including principally that channelled through the local government finance settlement. Some LEAs produce their own video materials for use by signing children; others use materials produced commercially.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of children in Northumberland schools are entitled to free school meals. [23993]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In January 1997 15.3 per cent. of pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in the Northumberland Local Education Authority area were known to be eligible for free school meals.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the pupil-teacher ratio has been in Northumberland each year since 1992. [24020]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Overall pupil-teacher ratio for maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools

  Northumberland local education authority area

  1992–97

  Position in January each year

  1997

  18.6

  1996

  18.9

  1995

  18.7

  1994

  18.8

  1993

  18.4

  1992

  17.4

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Standards
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Food Standards Agency will have responsibility for the controls over the sales of food and dietary supplements. [24309]

  Mr. Rooker
  The White Paper 'The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change' proposes that the Food Standards Agency will take responsibility for policy and legislation on the compositional standards of foodstuffs and the labelling of food at the retail and catering level, and where appropriate propose legislation on nutritional aspects of food (including labelling and claims), dietary supplements sold as food, fortified foods and functional foods. The general enforcement of legislation in these areas will continue to be carried out by local authorities.

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the consistency of the Agenda 2000 proposals for CAP reform with the requirements of the World Trade Organisation. [24312]
  489
  Mr. Rooker
  The Government believe that the Agenda 2000 proposals for CAP reform are a welcome step in the right direction. The proposals will generally address the problems which arise from the EU's current WTO commitments arising from the part of the GATT Uruguay round. In our view, however, they would not prepare EU agriculture fully for the next round of WTO trade negotiations, which are due to start at the turn of the century.

  International Whaling Commission
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who will represent the United Kingdom at the intersessional meeting of members of the International Whaling Commission to be held in Antigua. [24099]

  Mr. Morley
  The United Kingdom will be represented at the intersessional meeting of IWC Commissioners, to be held in Antigua from 3 to 5 February, by the UK Commissioner, Mr. C. I. Llewelyn.

  Beef
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the occasions since 1 January on which Customs and Excise personnel have inspected loads of imported beef to ensure compliance with standards applied in the United Kingdom. [23775]

  Mr. Rooker
  Checks to ensure that imported beef meets the necessary health requirements are not the responsibility of Customs and Excise officers. Checks are carried out by the Department or authorised local authority officers at Border Inspection Posts and at places of destination. Details of the number of checks are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Whales
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the likely impact on the populations of each whale species of the Irish proposals presently before the International Whaling Commission; [23542]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the likely level of trade in illegal whale meat should the Irish proposals before the International Whaling Commission be accepted. [23402]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: It is not possible to assess the impact of the Irish proposals until more detail is available on how they might be implemented. The Government have serious reservations about some aspects of the Irish proposals, in particular the possible authorisation of coastal whaling. As I have made clear, we would consider changes to existing IWC rules only if these contributed positively to whale conservation and led to a significant reduction in the number of whales currently being killed.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reassurances he has(a) sought and (b) received from (i) South Korea, (ii) Indonesia and (iii) Taiwan that they will not resume commercial whaling should the present Irish proposals before the International Whaling Commission be accepted. [23401]
  490
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The Government are opposed to a resumption of commercial whaling, and we have not approached these countries on this issue. Taiwan and Indonesia are not, in any case, members of the International Whaling Commission, and are not legally bound by the IWC's moratorium on commercial whaling.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent communications he has had with(a) Norway and (b) Japan in respect of the Irish proposals before the International Whaling Commission; and if he will make a statement. [23541]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: I have had no recent communications with the Norwegian or Japanese Governments on whaling issues. The proposals put forward by Ireland at the last IWC annual meeting in Monaco are to be discussed further at an intersessional meeting of IWC Commissioners in Antigua from 2 to 5 February. The UK will be attending this meeting. We have already expressed our reservations about these proposals.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the likely impact of(a) climate change, (b) ozone depletion, (c) air pollution and (d) industrial fishing on whale populations over the next 10 years. [23400]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The IWC's Scientific Committee has established a Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns which has identified eight topics of particular importance to its work on effects of environmental change on cetaceans: climate/environmental change; ozone depletion and UV-B radiation; chemical pollution; impact of noise; physical and biological habitat degradation; effects of fisheries; Arctic issues; disease and mortality events. At its latest annual meeting the IWC endorsed the work of the Scientific Committee and the Standing Working Group and asked those bodies to produce detailed scientific proposals for future work on environmental concerns on a multi-annual basis. The UK has played a leading role in encouraging the IWC and the Scientific Committee to examine the effect of environmental factors on cetaceans, and will continue to be actively involved in this work.

  Pigs
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the advantages of introducing a quota system for pig herds. [23843]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: No. I have no intentions of introducing a quota system for pig herds because it would not be in the interests of the pigmeat sector to do so.

  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors underlay his Department's decision to impose a stall and tether ban on the pig industry; and what account was taken of practices in other European Union countries in formulating this policy. [23845]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: That the use of close confinement systems for pigs presents welfare problems has been recognised for a number of years. In 1991, following overwhelming parliamentary

  491
  support for a Private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body), the then Government made Regulations banning these systems from 1 Janaury 1999. It is our intention to seek at least equivalent standards in the forthcoming review of the EU Directive on pig welfare.

  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has evaluated into injuries arising from the loose housing of pigs. [23844]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The Department funds a substantial programme of research and development on pig welfare. This covers a wide range of issues including the avoidance of aggression, and resultant injuries, in various dry sow group housing systems.

  Agricultural Workers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural workers are currently covered by the provisions of the Agricultural Wages Order; how many of these he estimates have a disability; and how many incapacity permits under the Order are currently in force. [23739]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: It is estimated that at June 1997 some 170,000 workers were covered by the provisions of the Agricultural Wages Order in England and Wales. It is not known how many have a disability.

  The Agricultural Wages Act 1948 does not define disability but defines an incapacitated worker as a person who
  "is so affected by any physical injury or mental deficiency, or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause, that he is incapable of earning that [the agricultural minimum] rate".
  At 31 December 1996, 102 permits issued to incapacitated agricultural workers were in force in England and Wales.

  Factortame Judgment
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names of the persons who are entitled to receive compensation from Her Majesty's Government as a result of the Factortame judgment, with the amounts of the entitlement in each case and the likely date of payment. [23603]

  Mr. Morley
  The Divisional Court ruled in July 1997 that the Government were in principle liable to pay damages to the applicants in the Factortame litigation. The Government are appealing against that judgment, and the appeal is due to be heard in March. No detailed claims for damages have yet been received.

HEALTH

  Nursing and Midwifery
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 1997, Official Report, column 735, (1) what Students' Union facilities will be made available in Portsmouth to students on courses administered by Southampton and Bournemouth universities under the new contract; [22908]
  492
  (2) if the provision of Students' Union facilities were part of the contract specification for pre-registration nursing and midwifery education; what were the minimum standard set; and how they are to be met by the new contract. [22909]

  Mr. Milburn
  The provision of Students' Union facilities has never been included in contract specifications for pre-registration nursing and midwifery education in the Portsmouth area. Arrangements for the provision of these facilities are a matter for the educational institutions concerned and the local branch of the National Union of Students, which is independent of the University.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what budget the £9 million initiative for National Health Service dentistry is being funded. [22993]

  Mr. Milburn
  Funding for the Investing in Dentistry initiative has been added to the overall financial provision for the General Dental Services.

  Hip Replacements
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the maximum waiting time for hip replacements in the Somerset Health Authority area. [23527]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information from Somerset Health Authority indicates that the maximum waiting times for hip replacement operations at the main hospitals in the Somerset Health Authority area are 10 months at Taunton and Somerset Hospital and 12 months at Yeovil District Hospital.

  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average maximum waiting time for hip replacements on the NHS in England and Wales. [23528]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on current maximum waiting times for hip replacement operations for all health authorities in England is not available centrally.

  Questions relating to Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many powered indoor-outdoor wheelchairs have been provided since April 1996. [23329]

  Mr. Boateng
  Health authorities have reported that 1,276 powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs were issued between April 1996 and March 1997; and a further 2,179 were reported to have been issued between April 1997 and September 1997.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been distributed to health authorities in respect of the powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair scheme since April 1996. [23330]

  Mr. Boateng
  Health authorities received £6 million in respect of the powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair scheme in 1996–97; and will receive £7 million in 1997–98, £8 million in 1998–99 and £6 million in 1999–2000.

  Mental Health Action Zones
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to create mental health action zones; and if he will make a statement. [23474]

  Mr. Boateng
  In our guidance on Health Action Zones (HAZs), we stated that HAZs may wish to include a focus on one or more client groups including people with mental health problems. We anticipate that this will be a feature in some of the bids for HAZ status due in by 23 January.

  Poor People
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will carry out an assessment of the impact of his Department's current policies on the(a) income, (b) employment opportunities and (c) living standards, of the poorest 30 per cent. of the population. [23335]

  Ms Jowell
  We have asked the former Chief Medical Officer, Sir Donald Acheson, to carry out an independent inquiry into inequalities in health. His remit is to review the latest information on inequalities and thus identify priority areas for future policy development. His report will be published later this year and will be used to develop the White Paper on the Government's new health strategy, alongside the responses to public consultation on the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", which we expect to publish soon.

  We envisage that action to reduce inequalities in health will be developed through the establishment of health action zones, healthy living centres and health improvement programmes, as well as by other means.

  Utting Report
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Health when the Government will publish their response to the Utting Report; and if he will make a statement. [23371]

  Mr. Boateng
  A Ministerial Task Force is being established to address the recommendations in Sir. William Utting's report "People Like Us". We shall announce the terms of reference and membership of the Task Force shortly. The first job of the Task Force will be to prepare the full Government response to Sir William's report.

  Electromagnetic Fields
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the current research into the health risks of electromagnetic fields created by overhead electricity lines or electricity sub-stations. [23912]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department obtains advice on the health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and other sources including its own funded research. The primary focus of concern has been on power lines and childhood cancer where the results have not shown a proven link. The NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation conducted an extensive review of the subject in 1992 and concluded that there was no firm evidence of a carcinogenic hazard from exposure that might be associated with residence near major sources of 494
  electricity supply, the use of electrical appliances or work in the electrical, electronic and telecommunication industries. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment has endorsed the Advisory Group's report. A supplementary report in 1994 was published by the NRPB to take into account the results of epidemiological studies from Scandinavia, France and Canada. Copies of the Advisory Group's report and the supplementary documents are available in the Library.

  Several epidemiological studies are currently under way to investigate childhood cancer in relation to various possible causes including electromagnetic fields. The largest study of this type in this country is the United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study which is funded in part by the Department with technical support provided by the NRPB. The Department is also funding two pilot studies, one of adults and one of children, looking at cancer incidence near power lines.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Kent County Council may expect reimbursement for sums paid to asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [23774]

  Mr. Boateng
  We expect to lay Special Grant Reports before the House at the end of this month and will hope to receive approval by the end of February. Local authorities will be invited to make claims for grants by the end of February and, provided that approval is given, payments should be made before the end of this financial year.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total sum paid through East Kent Social Services to asylum seekers resident in the(a) Thanet travel-to-work area and (b) Dover travel-to-work area since 1 December 1997. [23772]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to give these details as the Department will not know the number of asylum seekers receiving support, or the total expenditure, until claims for grants are received from authorities. Local authorities are not required to supply a breakdown of expenditure by area so, even once claims for grants are received from Kent County Council, it will not be possible to supply the breakdown requested.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the legalisation of the use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes. [21753]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1 September 1997, the Department of Health has received representations from members of the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics, 28 Private Office cases from Members of Parliament and 38 Treat Official correspondence from members of the public and voluntary organisations. The British Medical Association has also presented its report on the therapeutic uses of cannabis to the Government.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish an inquiry into breast cancer screening in the South Humber Health Authority area, following the recent recall of women who have been screened. [24107]

  Mr. Boateng
  Problems with the quality of a small number of mammograms taken on one machine in Humberside were identified quickly by the regional quality assurance programme. In the light of this, the trust, local health authorities and regional office took swift action in ordering a re-reading exercise of 15,000 mammograms. A number of women have now been called for another mammogram as a precautionary measure, and they should have their results within two weeks. The machine used to take the initial mammograms is being replaced and is no longer in use.

  We are pleased that the regional office, the local health authorities and the trust concerned have acted quickly to minimise distress to the women involved. We are also pleased that the quality assurance system in place in Humberside did its job properly in identifying the problem promptly, enabling rapid action to be taken to put it right.

  We do not plan to instigate an investigation. A review of the performance of all breast screening programmes is currently under way in response to the results of investigations into the breast screening service in Exeter and arrangements for quality assurance for the breast screening service as a whole. These reviews will be completed by the end of this month, and, where necessary, action plans to improve the quality and dependability of the service will be agreed by the end of February.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been identified as suffering from excess vitamin B6 in the last 10 years. [24308]

  Ms Jowell
  We do not formally collect information on people exposed to excess vitamin B6.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the lowest annual salaries for junior hospital doctors. [24252]

  Mr. Milburn
  The annual salary for doctors in training comprises a basic rate of pay plus additional duty hours, paid at the rates appropriate to their contracted working pattern. The rates listed show the minimum rates of pay (as of 1 December 1997) for a junior doctor with no additional duty hours and then the minimum salary rate plus the normal number of additional duty hours (ADH) for an on-call rota:

  £ per annum

  Minimum salary

  Minimum salary plus ADH— on-call rota

  House Officer

  15,440

  21,613

  Senior House Officer

  19,260

  26,964

  Specialist Registrar

  21,530

  30,142

  Senior Registrar

  24,800

  34,717

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland to produce a concordat setting out arrangements for relations between his Department and the Scottish Executive after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [23547]

  Ms Jowell
  Officials from the Scottish Office and the Department of Health are discussing the need for a non-statutory agreement covering the exchange of information, advance notification and joint working in line with the principles set out in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament."

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Claimant Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each non-means-tested benefit(a) the number of people currently receiving the benefit and (b) if it is taken into account for claims for (i) income support, (ii) housing benefit, (iii) council tax benefit and (iv) assessment of tax; and if he will indicate the date from which each benefit was taken into account in respect of (i) to (iv). [22082]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about the number of recipients of non-means-tested benefits is in the table.

  Benefit

  Total recipients

  Attendance Allowance1

  1,199,000

  Disability Living Allowance1

  1,924,000

  Invalid Care Allowance2

  371,000

  War Disablement Pension3

  262,305

  War Widow's Pension3

  58,364

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit4

  244,798

  Incapacity Benefit5

  1,718,400

  Severe Disablement Allowance5

  368,560

  Retirement Pension6

  10,709,300

  Widow's benefit6

  283,600

  Child Benefit7

  6,954,575

  Child Benefit (lone parent)7

  1,049,325

  Guardian's Allowance8

  2,206

  Child's Special Allowance8

  38

  Jobseeker's Allowance (contribution based)9

  251,000

  Statutory Maternity Pay10

  90,000

  Statutory Sick Pay10

  305,000

  Maternity Allowance11

  11,860

  1 Source is 5 per cent. data and figures relate to 31 August 1997.

  2Source is 100 per cent. data and figures relate to 1 October 1997.

  3 Source is 100 per cent. data as at November 1997.

  4 Figures are based on a 10 per cent. sample and include a rating factor for late returns. Figures are at 30 March 1996.

  5 Figures are taken for a 5 per cent. sample and exclude a small number of cases held clerically. Figures are at 31 August 1997.

  6 Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample as at 30 November 1997.

  7 Figures are based on a 4 per cent. sample as at 3 December 1997.

  8 As at 31 December 1996, figures are based on a 100 per cent. count.

  9 As at February 1997 from a 5 per cent. sample. This excludes cases with underlying entitlement who receive income-based Jobseeker's Allowance.

  10 Figures are not available as this information is not collected for Statutory Maternity Pay or Statutory Sick Pay.

  11 Figures as at 31 May 1997.

  497
  Income Support and Housing Benefit were introduced in 1988 and Council Tax Benefit from 1992. Assessment of entitlement to these benefits has always taken account of non-income-related benefits, with the exception of Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance'. In addition, £10 week of a War Disablement Pension or War Widow's Pension' is disregarded. Certain other allowances paid with the War Pension may also be disregarded—for example, those based on the need for care or mobility and the supplementary pension payable to those widows of members of the Armed Forces whose service ended before 31 March 1973. Guardian's Allowance is fully disregarded in Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit.

  The following only non-income-related benefits are taxable. These benefits, with the year of their introduction, are Incapacity Benefit (after 28 weeks) (1995), Invalid Care Allowance (1976), Jobseeker's Allowance (contribution-based) (1996), Retirement Pension (1948), Statutory Sick Pay (1983), Statutory Maternity Pay (1987), and Widow's Benefit (1988).

  Note:

  1The position with regard to Attendance Allowance (AA) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Income Support is slightly more complex. A person in receipt of Income Support with preserved rights in a residential care home will have their AA or DLA care component fully taken into account when assessing their Income Support.

  2When calculating entitlement to Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit local authorities have discretionary power to operate a local scheme which enables them to disregard, in total or part, any war disablement or war widows pension not subject to the mandatory disregards.

  Asbestos-related Disease
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received on protection for asbestos-related disease sufferers, aside from mesothelioma victims, in relation to the provisions of the Social Security Bill in respect of the backdating of claims to one month. [22691]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We have received a number of representations about the proposed changes to the backdating rules in the Social Security Bill regarding claims to benefit from asbestos related disease suffers. Representations include those from TUC, Occupational and Environmental Diseases Association, a number of MPs and other individuals.

  Supported Housing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects the review of funding for supported housing to be complete; if she will estimate (a) the total numbers of those dependent on the housing costs which form part of the review in each region and nation and (b) the percentage of those who are over pensionable age; and if she will make a statement. [236481]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the form requested. We hope to have more information about the numbers of benefit recipients in supported accommodation from research which is currently under way.
  498
  We have recently sought stakeholders' views on the best means of translating our objectives for the long-term funding of supported accommodation into a modern, practical and sustainable funding system. Over 200 responses were received which are being considered. We are looking to implement a sustainable funding system as a matter of urgency although I cannot, at this time, say when the review will be complete.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated cost to the Exchequer, in a full year, of extending the payment of invalid care allowance to all carers for eight weeks after the death of the person cared for in line with the eight week extension of carers' premium paid under similar circumstances to those in receipt of income support. [23555]

  Mr. Denham
  The estimated programme cost of such a measure is £5 million.

  Source:

  Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) Unit Quarterly Statistics; DSS ICA cessation forecasts.

  Note:

  Costs are net of impact of income-related benefits in payment but assume no change in the income-related benefit rule whereby the carer premium can continue for a further eight weeks after ICA ceases.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will require payments to asylum seekers to be made through benefit offices rather than through social services offices. [23773]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Those asylum seekers who are eligible to claim Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based), Housing Benefit and Council Tax, are paid through the Benefits Agency's network of local offices and through local authorities.

  The Courts have ruled that local authority social services departments have a duty to support and accommodate destitute asylum seekers under the National Assistance Act 1948. Decisions about the provision of personal social services are the responsibility of local authority social services departments.

  We are committed to reviewing all aspects of arrangements for asylum seekers, including the provision of accommodation and support. The review will set the direction for the future. In the meantime, the current mix of social security benefits and social services support will continue to ensure that no asylum seeker needs to be left destitute.

  Under-Secretary of State for Women
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the official engagements which the Under-Secretary of State for Women has undertaken since 1 December 1997 and how many days she was in the Department between 1 December 1997 and 12 January 1998. [24255]

  Ms Ruddock
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave her on 20 November 1997,Official Report, columns 292–94, and 11 December 1997, column 669 respectively.

  Contract Cleaners
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what rates of pay are offered to contract cleaners in(a) South Western and (b) North Eastern DSS offices. [244111]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is commercial in confidence.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter dated 1 December 1997, concerning a constituent, reference 4/3644/15. [24110]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply will be sent to my hon. Friend by the end of the week, following detailed inquiries about his constituent's case.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Uganda
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects her Department has supported in Uganda to promote democracy. [23946]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development is supporting democracy in Uganda through a £250,000 civic and voter education project to improve Ugandans' awareness of their democratic rights and responsibilities, and to strengthen the capacity of the Ugandan Electoral Commission. A project is also under preparation which will improve the administrative capacity available to the Ugandan Parliament.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  E-mail
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what assessment he has made of the accessibility of Government Ministers and civil servants by e-mail; [23570]

  (2) how many (a) Cabinet and (b) other Ministers have an e-mail address. [23567]

  Dr. David Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 10 November 1997,Official Report, column 441.

  In addition, I would add that officials in CITU and CCTA are currently reviewing the situation in conjunction with Departments and agencies. Once this review has taken place, we will be looking at the most appropriate way of placing a comprehensive listing of ministerial e-mail addresses in the public domain.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of civil servants have an e-mail address. [23568]

  Dr. David Clark
  Whilst this information is not held centrally, I am pleased to report that there are nearly 2,000 departmental, agency and NDPB connections to the 500
  CCTA e-mail service, many of which act as shared e-mail addresses for teams of civil servants rather than for individual officials.

  In addition, just over 4,000 civil servants currently have e-mail access to the Government Secure Intranet. On present estimates this figure is expected to rise to between 10,000 to 15,000 by mid 1998.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he proposes to increase the proportion of Ministers and civil servants who are connected to the Internet. [23569]

  Dr. David Clark
  This is essentially the responsibility of individual departments. However I am pleased to report that the Central IT Unit in my Department has established a Government Secure Intranet service which will increase the proportion of Ministers and civil servants who are connected to the Internet. I intend to make a further announcement of this matter in due course and I will write to my hon. Friend at that time.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crown Dependencies
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for a review of financial regulation in the Crown Dependencies. [24698]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today invited the Home Office and the Island Authorities to carry out a review of the financial legislation and regulatory systems in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The purpose of this review is to assess the contribution made by the current laws and systems to the economic and social well-being of the Islands themselves, and the United Kingdom.

  The review will be conducted by Mr. Andrew Edwards, formerly of Her Majesty's Treasury, who will work alongside the Constitutional Unit of the Home Office and the Island authorities. it is expected to take about six months. Its terms of reference are:

  Objective

  To review with the Island authorities their laws, systems and practices for:

  (i) regulating banking, insurance and financial services business and collaborating with overseas regulators;

  (ii) deterring, investigating and punishing financial crime. including money laundering and fiscal offences, particularly cases with an international dimension;

  (iii) registering companies;

  with a view to assessing the contribution which they make to the economic and social well-being of the Islands themselves and of the United Kingdom.

  Area to be Covered

  The review will cover the following main areas:

  (i) Financial Regulation and International Regulatory Co-operation.

  Description and assessment of the current legal and institutional arrangements for licensing, supervising and regulating the full range of financial business, including banks, investment banks, other credit institutions, insurance companies, investment services companies, bureaux de change, international business companies and company

  501
  registration agents and accountants and lawyers carrying on financial business (e.g., providing custody services or investment advice):

  Examination of practical implementation of these activities and the resources devoted to them, in relation to the number and size of firms regulated and the nature of the business;

  Arrangements for the regulatory authorities to share their own confidential information with overseas regulatory authorities, and vice versa;

  Arrangements for the authorities to obtain other confidential information to assist overseas regulatory authorities with their investigations and vice versa.

  (ii) Financial Crime

  (a) Money Laundering

  each Island's money laundering legislation:

  the number of suspicious transactions reports received in each Island each year and how these are dealt with;

  arrangements for collaboration between the Island Authorities and overseas authorities including the sharing of suspicious transactions reports;

  (b) Criminal Investigations

  collaboration between the Island Authorities and overseas authorities in investigating suspected financial crime (including fiscal offences);

  Review

  Announcement

  Expected completion date

  Joint review with Northern Ireland Office to consider permanent UK wide counter terrorism legislation

  Autumn 1997

  Autumn 1998

  Review of the law relating to bribery and corruption. "Prevention of Corruption—Consolidation and Amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1889–1916: A Government Statement"—issued June 1997

  June 1997

  Early 1998

  Strategic Review of National Police Training

  12 March 1997

  Ongoing

  Inter-Departmental Review of Police Pensions

  23 October 1993

  Ongoing

  Review of Arrangements for Confiscation of Criminal Assets

  Autumn 1997

  Ongoing

  Review of Firefighters' Pension Scheme

  March 1994

  Ongoing

  Review of Community Fire Safety

  November 1996

  Ongoing

  Review of Prison Nursing Services

  No formal announcement

  February 1998

  Review of long-term future of organisation of Prison Service Health Care

  No formal announcement

  Mid 1998

  Review of Prison Service Drug Strategy

  No formal announcement

  March 1998

  Review of Prisons Investigations Strategy

  No formal announcement

  First stage completion April 1998

  Review of the operation of release of prisoners on temporary licence

  No formal announcement

  Mid 1998

  Review of Government proposals on reform of Youth Justice System

  Summer 1997

  Results of review reflected in Crime and Disorder Bill December 1997 White Paper—"No More Excuses" (Cmmd. 3809) November 1997

  Review of measures to deal with anti-social behaviour

  Summer 1997

  Results of review reflection in Crime and Disorder Bill

  Results of review reflected in Crime and Disorder known sex offenders who pose a continuing risk

  5 November 1997

  Results of review reflected in Crime and Disorder Bill

  Review of measures on Community Safety

  September 1997

  Results of review reflected in Crime and Disorder Bill

  Inter-Departmental Review of the Treatment of Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses

  13 June 1997

  March 1998

  The Future Role and Funding of Local Civil Protection in England and Wales

  24 July 1997

  Ongoing

  502
  the willingness or otherwise of the authorities to secure prosecutions;

  (c) Asset Confiscation
  collaboration between the Island authorities and overseas authorities in tracing, freezing or confiscating assets held by suspected or convicted criminals based overseas.

  (iii) Company registrations
  each Island's legislation, systems and practices for registering companies.

  Consultation and Comparisons

  In undertaking these tasks:

  (a) to have regard to other examples of offshore regulatory laws, systems and practices, such as Gibraltar and other United Kingdom dependencies;

  (b) to consult Her Majesty's Treasury and others as necessary.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the reviews being undertaken by his Department, the dates on which they were announced and, in the case of those which have been completed, the date of their completion. [23196]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested about reviews is set out in the table:
  503

  Review

  Announcement

  Expected completion date

  Control of Unscrupulous Immigration Advisers

  Manifesto Commitment

  Not yet known. Consultation paper being prepared for publication in January

  Review of Immigration and Asylum Appeals

  Internal Review

  Internal Review completed; results to be published for consultation; consultative document being prepared

  In addition, my Department is carrying out a Comprehensive Spending Review, and contributing to cross-Departmental reviews of the criminal justice system and of illegal drugs, in accordance with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's statement of 11 June 1997, Official Report, columns 1143–44. The statement said that these reviews were expected to take 12 months to complete. My Department is also carrying out a review of those non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) for which the Home Office is the sponsoring Department. This review is part of a Government-wide exercise which is referred to in the Government's public consultation paper "Opening Up Quangos" issued in November 1997.

  High Security Prisons (Cutlery)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which high security prisons stainless steel cutlery is routinely supplied for the use of prisoners. [22912]

  Ms Quin
  None of the six dispersal prisons in England and Wales, which hold the highest security category prisoners, routinely supplies stainless steel cutlery for use of prisoners. For reasons of security, cost and hygiene, plastic cutlery is provided for inmates' use.

  Human Rights Bill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposals in the Human Rights Bill on(a) the Church of England and (b) the Church of Scotland. [24300]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We gave an assessment of the implications of the Bill for the Churches in the course of proceedings on the Bill at Report Stage in Another Place on 19 January.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if in respect of the Advisory Panel, which advises on appointments to the Animal Procedures Committee, he will list members'(a) names, (b) qualifications and (c) other employments; and how often the Advisory Panel meets. [24303]

  Mr. George Howarth
  To date, the Advisory Panel has only met to consider candidates for the post of Chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee. The members of that panel were as follows:Miss Carolyn Sinclair—Director of the Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate in the Home Office.
  Mr. William Mumford CB—Deputy Under-Secretary of State for Research Establishments,. Ministry of Defence, (retired); Chairman's Panel, Civil Service Selection Board, 1989–95.
  504
  Professor Margaret Brazier LLB OBE—Chairman, Animal Procedures Committee; Professor of Law, University of Manchester.

  A new panel will be convened shortly to consider candidates for appointment as members of the Committee. It is expected that the new panel will consist of the new Chairman of the Committee. Professor Michael Banner MA DPhil, Mr. William Mumford and an official from the Home Office. Professor Banner is the FD Maurice Professor of Moral and Social Theology at King's College, London.

  The Advisory Panel will not meet regularly. It will meet only when new members of the Committee need to be appointed.

  Street Traders and Pedlars
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to announce the outcome of the review of the legislation applying to street traders and pedlars; [23769]

  (2) with which bodies he has consulted on the review of the legislation applying to street traders and pedlars; and on what dates; [23771]

  (3) what plans he has to review the Pedlars Act 1871. [23770]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Deregulation reviews of street trading legislation and the Pedlars Acts 1871 and 1881 were undertaken by the previous Government. I have not yet had an opportunity to look closely at the issues arising out of those reviews but I hope to be able to make my views known during the next few months. Copies of the consultation letters dated 1 July 1994 and 31 October 1994, together with the names of the bodies consulted, have been placed in the Library.

  Handguns
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has issued a D notice in respect of moneys to be paid in compensation for the ban on full-bore handguns. [24171]

  Mr. Michael
  No, and no such consideration has ever been given. There has been a great deal of misinformation circulating about matters relating to the new firearms legislation and its implementation. The operation of the Compensation Scheme has always been transparent, with the terms of the Scheme itself having been subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and regular and bona fide reports on payments progress issued to the public on request and to Parliament through answers to Parliamentary Questions and letters to MPs.
  505
  Defence Advisory Notices are agreed by the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee. I understand that there are six standing notices, none of which has been—nor could be—applied to the Firearms Compensation Scheme.

  The Defence Advisory Notice System is a means of providing advice and guidance to the media about defence and counter-terrorist information, the publication of which would be damaging to national security. The six standing notices are issued by the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee to editors, publishers, programme makers and officials and form the basis of the voluntary code designed to avoid the publication of detail which would damage national security. Guidance on the application of the notices to particular circumstances is given by the Secretary to the Committee.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how many the number of asylum seekers now resident in the(a) Thanet travel-to-work area and (b) Dover travel-to-work area has changed since 1 December 1997; and what is the total number of asylum seekers now resident in each area. [23768]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available and it is not possible to calculate this information from the data held without disproportionate use of officials' time.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the risks faced by police forces if they have year 2000 problems within their business and operational processes and systems. [24381]

  Mr. Michael
  It is for individual chief officers of police to assess the risks for their administrative and operational functions of the Year 2000 problem. They are currently assessing the scale of the problem and taking action where appropriate, with the help of the Police Information Technology Organisation. Police forces are also pursuing Year 2000 compliance with the other bodies responsible for systems whose failure might have policing implications. If, during their audit of information technology systems, a force establishes that there is a problem which cannot be, or is unlikely to be, resolved before the millennium it will be expected to establish contingency plans to ensure the continued delivery of policing services.

  Immigration
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to answer the letter of 14 July 1997 from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon regarding the case of Mr. Mikhail Nikoniko (Home Affairs Reference Number: 13529/97). [23491]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 15 January 1998. We had a draft of an earlier reply but I was unhappy with some of the details and asked for some further consideration and this has caused some delay.

  Diarmuid O'Neill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the forthcoming report of the Police Complaints Authority on their investigation into the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Diarmuid O'Neill. [24092]

  Mr. Michael
  No. The courts have ruled that investigating officers' reports, which are submitted to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) and the appropriate disciplinary authority, are covered as a class by public interest immunity. The completed report will be sent to the Coroner for the purposes of the inquest and to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider whether there are grounds for criminal proceedings against any person. The PCA will also consider the report to decide whether any disciplinary action should be taken.

  We have made it clear that we wish to increase public confidence in the complaints system by introducing more openness, and we are examining how this might best be done in the light of the recently published report by the Home Affairs Select Committee on police complaints and discipline.

  Terrorists
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom cannot be used as a haven for persons planning or preparing for terrorist activities in foreign countries; what plans he has to introduce legislation similar to that proposed in the Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill in the 1996–97 session of Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [23319]

  Mr. Straw
  Countering the activities of those who may be seeking to assist terrorism outside the United Kingdom is a high priority for the police and Security Service. If there is evidence that organisations or individuals are supporting terrorism, action is taken under the criminal law or under Immigration Act powers.

  On 30 October last year, I announced the Government's intention to publish a consultation document which will propose permanent United Kingdom-wide legislation designed to deal with all forms of terrorism, including foreign terrorist groups and their supporters. The Government also intend to bring forward legislation to make it illegal to conspire in the United Kingdom to commit terrorist acts abroad.

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has held since 1 May concerning the immigration status of persons allowed into the country as personal servants of foreign residents; what recent information he has as to the possible abuse of such persons by their employers; and what plans he has to introduce steps to alter their status or otherwise increase the protections available to them. [23320]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have held several meetings with Kalayaan, the organisation which represents overseas domestic workers and which continues to report cases of abuse, and with Anti-Slavery International. We are reviewing the conditions under which overseas domestic
  507
  workers accompanying employers to the United Kingdom are admitted with the aim of increasing their protection and reducing the possibilities of abuse.

  Pronto Lottery
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards Pronto; how this relates to its policy towards gambling on fruit machines; if he will set out the reasons for the differences in policy; and if he will make a statement. [23856]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I set out the Government's policy towards frequent lottery draws in my reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) on 13 November 1997,Official Report, columns 639–40.

  I subsequently published a draft Bill to restrict their frequency on 7 January, inviting interested parties to comment by 30 January.

  Successive large scale on-line lottery draws, running in a rapid series through the day and operating simultaneously in a large number of different outlets, would have many of the characteristics of hard gambling. It is long-standing public policy that the harder forms of gambling should be confined to premises specially licensed and appropriately controlled for that purpose. The Government do not wish to see other types of premises become significant gambling venues.

  Gaming machines in pubs are restricted to £10 maximuhi prizes and subject to other strict statutory controls which ensure that they remain an ancillary facility there.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors lay behind his decision to impose restrictions on the new Pronto lottery game; and what representations he has received in respect of his decision to impose these restrictions. [23187]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I set out the Government's policy towards frequent on-line lottery draws in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) on 13 November 1997, Official Report, columns 369–40.

  I subsequently published a draft Bill to restrict their frequency on 7 January, inviting interested parties to comment by 30 January.

  I will report the outcome of the consultation exercise after the responses have been received and evaluated.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland to produce a concordat setting out arrangements for relations between his Department and the Scottish Executive after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [23551]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend has had no such discussions, but I expect that they may take place in due course between the Home Office and Scottish Office on the need for a non-statutory agreement with the Scottish Executive.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific improvements for the public will be forthcoming following the loss of 1,200 jobs at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the introduction of a new computer system, with special reference to the length of time taken to deal with applications and inquiries; and if he will make a statement. [23916]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Over time, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's customers will benefit from a faster and more consistent response to both applications and inquiries. The actual levels of services which will be provided in any year will depend on the available resources and demand. The implementation timetable for the new system, casework performance targets, staffing levels and the number of job reductions for 1998–99 have not been finalised.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for possession of cannabis there were in each year since 1971. [24041]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information for 1986 and 1995 (the latest available) is given in the table. Data are not available in the form requested prior to 1986.

  Number of prosecutions for possession of cannabis, United Kingdom, 1986–1995

  Year

  Number of prosecutions

  1986

  11,493

  1987

  11,878

  1988

  14,049

  1989

  17,654

  1990

  19,281

  1991

  18,470

  1992

  14,875

  1993

  18,846

  1994

  24,025

  1995

  24,386

  Source:

  Home Office, Crime and Criminal Justice Unit, Research and Statistics Directorate.

  Prison Sites
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sites in the North-West region were considered as possible sites for prison building prior to the selection of a site at Winwick; and what discussions were held with Warrington Borough Council and other local authorities prior to the selection of this site. [23316]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: As part of a national review, 81 sites have been assessed in the North- West. There were no discussions with Warrington Borough Council prior to the selection of Winwick Hospital as a possible site for the construction of a new prison.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are currently used by the Prison Service to decide between various possible sites for prison development; and what plans he has to change those criteria. [23315]
  509
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: New prisons must be located conveniently for the centres of population or regional catchment areas that they will be required to serve. A site's shape, size, topography and the availability of services must support an economic and practical development. The ownership and availability of land are key factors in choosing a potential site. Crown-owned land is considered along with commercially available sites. There are no plans to change these criteria.

  Prison Places
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of prison places likely to be required over the next 10 years for people from(a) Warrington, (b) the North-West, (c) Manchester and (d) Liverpool. [23317]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The Prison Service's current practice is to forecast eight years in advance. The figures that follow are therefore forecast for eight years and not 10 years. The number of prison places forecast for males in 2005 is: 380 from Warrington, 12,700 from the North-West; 2,700 from Manchester; and 1,620 from Liverpool. The estimated figures are only for the male population as the female population is too small to project in a regional local way as requested.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what controls exist over the holding and supply of data by mobile phone companies of information pinpointing the locations from which calls are made from individually identifiable mobile phones. [23619]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The circumstances under which the four mobile telephone operators may disclose personal information which they hold on computer for their own purposes (including for billing, fraud prevention and statistical analysis) are regulated by the Data Protection Act 1984, by the Telecommunications Act 1984, and by the terms of their Telecommunications Act Licences which require them to take all reasonable steps to ensure the confidentiality of consumer information.

  Section 45 of the Telecommunications Act, as amended by the Interception of Communications Act 1985, provides that public telecommunications operators commit an offence if they disclose any information concerning the use made of their telecommunications services by any other person except where disclosures are made for the prevention or detection of crime, for the purpose of any criminal proceedings, in the interests of national security or in pursuance of the order of a court. It is for the individual operator to satisfy himself that one or more of those exceptions apply before releasing any such information.

  European Parliamentary Elections
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 25 November 1997,Official Report, columns 812–13, whether he will publish the calculations on which his statement, regarding the proportionality of the Sainte-Lague and d'Hondt divisors, was based; if he will
  510
  calculate the number of seats that would be won by each party in Scotland under the (a) d'Hondt and (b) Sainte-Lague divisors using the 1994 European Election results; and if he will make a statement. [23498]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The calculations were based on the votes cast in the 1994 elections to the European Parliament in six of the 11 regions for which the European Parliamentary Elections Bill provides.

  In five of the six regions the choice of divisor made no difference to the final allocation of seats. In Scotland, the effect was as follows:

  d'Hondt:

  4 Labour, 1 Conservative,

  3 Scottish National Party

  Sainte-Lague:

  3 Labour, 1 Conservative,

  1 Scottish Liberal Democrat

  3 Scottish National Party.

  During the Bill's Second Reading debate, I gave the House figures which suggested that the two divisors produced different results in the London region.

  Revised calculations show that both divisors produce the same result in London. I apologise for the original error.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what divisors were used to calculate the allocation of seats between the regions of England in the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. [24043]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: No divisors were used. The allocation of seats to the English regions set out in Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill was arrived at by dividing the total English electorate by the number of English seats (71) to produce an average figure. Seats were then allocated to regions in such a way as to ensure that the sum of the divergencies from this figure was as low as possible.

  Gurkha Wives
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the review into the position of Gurkha wives seeking to join their husbands when stationed in the United Kingdom. [23510]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As a concession outside the Immigration Rules, the spouse (together with any dependent children under the age of 18) of a Gurkha serviceman stationed in the United Kingdom would normally be admitted to the United Kingdom and allowed to remain here for the duration of her husband's posting.

  Metropolitan Police
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the estimated cost to the Metropolitan Police of its work in combating terrorism in each of the last three years. [23509]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that, for reasons of security, it is the policy of the Metropolitan Police not to publish the costs of combating terrorism. All Metropolitan Police officers have a part to play in combating terrorism.
  511
  The Metropolitan Police receive a special payment in recognition of the fact that they incur costs relating to their national and capital city functions. The report of the recent "Review of the Special Payment to the Metropolitan Police Service", conducted by the Home Office, identifies the current costs of the national and capital city functions of the Metropolitan Police, including some anti-terrorist costs. A copy of this report is available in the Library.

  Emergency Services
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many uniformed police officers were on patrol and how many vehicles were in service in a 24 hour period in(a) London and (b) Twickenham at (i) the latest date for which figures are available and (ii) the same date in the previous year. [23506]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis has provided the following information:

  Uniform constables performing street duty

  Twickenham

  Metropolitan Police Service

  Average per day in September1997

  56.5

  14,155.0

  Average per day in September 1996

  57.1

  14,306.9

  1As a result of problems with the Met's computer system these figures do not include the following Divisions: Brixton, Chingford, Forest Gate. Hackney and Shoreditch and Golders Green.

  Number of available vehicles

  Twickenham

  Metropolitan Police Service

  Average per day in January 1998

  21.4

  3,734

  Average per day in January 1997

  21.0

  3,760

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fire-fighting appliances are currently on operational duty in London; and how many there were for each of the last five years. [23507]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I understand from the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority that there are currently 177 pumping appliances and 46 special appliances operational in London. The figures for the last five years are:

  Pumping appliances

  Special appliances

  1 January 1993

  189

  51

  1 January 1994

  189

  43

  1 January 1995

  189

  43

  1 January 1996

  189

  43

  1 January 1997

  177

  48

  Prisoners (Health Care)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison establishments in England and Wales have a formal policy which states that 512
  the seclusion of mentally ill patients within the health care centre should be governed by guidance in the Code of Practice for Mental Health of 1983. [23854]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The seclusion of mentally disordered prisoners in health care centres is governed principally by guidelines issued to all establishments by the then Director of Prison Medical Services in Janaury 1990. Additional guidance, elaborating on those guidelines, has been issued subsequently.

  Prison health care centres are not hospitals for the purposes of the Mental Health Act 1983. The care of mentally disordered prisoners in them is not directly governed by provisions in that Act, or guidance in the Code of Practice issued under it. Copies of the Code of Practice have, however, been issued for the information and consideration of prison doctors.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prison establishments in England and Wales have produced a health care plan for prisoners setting out the aims and objectives of the Prison Health Service. [23853]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The aims and objectives of health care in prisons are set out in centrally published Health Care Standards which apply to all establishments. Many establishments reflect these aims and objectives and philosophy of care in patient information literature or other local plans. However, statistics are not available centrally about the proportion that do this.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a patient's charter in respect of the provision of health care within the Prison Service. [23852]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 Janata), 1998]: The provision of health care in prisons is governed by published standards. There is no national charter although some prisons have locally produced charters.

  The Prison Service and the National Health Service (NHS) have established a joint working group to advise Ministers on the options for the future organisation of prison health care with a view to achieving standards and practices comparable to those in the NHS. The issue of a patient's charter for prisoners will be among the options the group will be considering.

  Assaults
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that individuals reported to have assaulted their wives or partners should be automatically referred to the Police for investigation and possible prosecution. [23000]

  Mr. Michael
  Victims are urged to report crimes to the police. In respect of crimes not reported by the victim, the decision on whether to commence, or consider commencing, an investigation into the alleged criminal offence is an operational matter for the chief officer in whose force area such a breach of the law is alleged to have been committed.

  Licensing Controls
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to relax licensing controls in central city areas; and what consultation he has had with residents of such areas. [23664]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no plans for such changes. Any proposals to amend the licensing laws would require wide consultation.

  Security Service Files
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if files held by the Security Service showing the involvement of individuals with the Soviet International propaganda front network will be preserved for their historic value; and if the subsequent political careers of those individuals will be a factor in assessing the historic value of their files; [23673]

  (2) if Security Service files on (a) the 1926 General Strike and (b) the 1984–85 miners' strike are to be preserved for their historic value; [23622]

  (3) if files compiled by the Security Service and setting out the extent to which individuals co-operated with domestic or foreign fascist or communist organisations or regimes are to be preserved for their historic value; [23674]

  (4) if Security Service files on the activities in the United Kingdom of (a) the World Peace Council, (b) the World Federation of Trade Unions, (c) the World Federation of Scientific Workers, (d) the World Federation of Democratic Youth, (e) the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, (f) the International Organisation of Journalists, (g) the International Union of Students and (h) the Women's International Democratic Federation are to be destroyed; [23677]

  (5) if the Security Service files which are planned to be destroyed will be individually evaluated for their historical significance; [23679]

  (6) what are the criteria for deciding that a Security Service file is of no historical value and should be destroyed; [23680]

  (7) if the possible re-emergence of anti-democratic regimes abroad has been assessed as a factor in determining the policy towards destroying Security Service files on previous British supporters of such regimes; [23678]

  (8) if Security Service files on the activities of (a) the British Union of Fascists, (b) the Communist Party of Great Britain, (c) the Union Movement, (d) the Communist Party of Britain, (e) the Revolutionary Socialist League/Militant Tendency, (f) the British Peace Assembly, (g) the British-Soviet Friendship Society, (h) the British Peace Committee, (i) the Workers' Revolutionary Party, (j) Class War and (k) the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist) will be preserved for their historic value. [23676]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service retains only those records which it needs to carry out its functions or which are of historical importance. It is a matter for the Director General to decide upon the detailed criteria to be adopted in either case, taking account of the requirements of the Security Service Act 1989, the Public Records Act 1958 514
  and central guidance on the identification of records likely to be of historical interest. The Service currently applies the following criteria in deciding whether a record is likely to be of historical interest, although each file is examined individually and considered on its merits as a whole:

  (a) major investigations,

  (b) important subversive figures, terrorists and spies,

  (c) individuals involved in important historical events,

  (d) causes celebres in a security context,

  (e) files which contain original papers of historical interest,

  (f) major changes of Service policy, organisation or procedures,

  (g) files which are in some way "period pieces", e.g. they illustrate clearly Security Service attitudes/techniques of the time.

  (h) milestones in the Service's history.

  It would be contrary to the interests of national security to confirm or deny whether the Security Service holds records on any particular individuals or organisations.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his letter of 8 December on Security Service files, what steps he will take to ensure that(a) no files are destroyed by the Security Service except after proper review and (b) files which are destroyed are those which are either no longer required by the service to carry out its statutory functions or are judged not to be of historical importance or both. [23675]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service Act 1989 provides that the operations of the Service are under the control of the Director General and it is a matter for him to decide which files should be destroyed in accordance with stated policy. I have every confidence that he will continue to carry out his responsibilities in this area with due regard to the operational needs of the Service and the requirements of the Public Records Act 1958, taking account of any central guidance on the preservation of records of likely historical interest.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the criteria which were adopted by the Security Service at the end of the Second World War for the preservation or destruction of files relating to sympathisers with the defeated adversary. [23620]

  Mr. Straw
  In November 1945, the Director General of the Security Service ordered a review of the Service's records to identify which could be summarised or destroyed. He set down the following principles to guide officers in the review process:"(a) There is a paramount necessity to restrict the records of the Service to matters which are now its proper concern. Superfluous information impedes work rather than assists it. The test is whether or not the matter recorded would have any value if brought forward at a later date and if considered in a different context.
  (b) In reviewing papers for destruction, due regard should also be given to the necessity for preserving information of historical interest, and also that which may be of value in a future emergency as showing how matters of policy and principle were decided. This applies also to methods of inquiry adopted in specific cases or classes of cases. The possible interest of Divisions and Sections not primarily concerned with a particular file must always be borne in mind".

  Crime Statistics (Collection)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for ensuring that crime statistics are collected on a common basis by all police forces. [23457]

  Mr. Michael
  Statistics of recorded crime are based on rules for classification and counting which are standard for all police forces in England and Wales. A comprehensive set of counting rules is issued centrally and used by police forces to maintain the consistency of recording some of the more complex and potentially difficult offences, such as multiple, continuous and repeated offences.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) regularly look into recording practices during force inspections. The Home Office also has a police statistics liaison officer who regularly visits statistics officers in the forces to discuss current issues and to monitor current procedures.

  Periodically, the Home Office rules and police recording practices are reviewed to ensure consistency and to determine whether updates are necessary. Recently, both HMIC and a joint Home Office/Association of Chief Police Officers working party have undertaken such reviews. Their recommendations are being adopted in a package of measures for implementation on 1 April 1998, which were announced by my right hon. Friend on 1 October 1997. More detail was given by the Home Office's Director of Research and Statistics on 14 October.

  The main measures comprise the logical extension of the coverage of recorded crimes (or notifiable offences) to include all indictable and triable either way offences: the revision of the counting rules for certain offences; to move closer to the concept of one crime per victim; a move to financial year publication; and less emphasis in publications on the overall total of recorded crime in favour of individual offence groups.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much Government money was spent on the Commission for Racial Equality in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 and what estimate he has made of the annual gross costs of enforcing the Race Relations Act 1976 in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97. [23473]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Total Government payments to the Commission for Racial Equality were(a) £16,006,000 in 1995–96 and (b) £15,436,000 in 1996–97. The Commission estimates that approximately one quarter of this was spent on enforcing the Race Relations Act. We have no way of estimating the gross costs of enforcing the Act which would include the activities of a wide range of organisations and individuals.

  Pigot Report
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Video Evidence (The Pigot Report, 1989) will be implemented in full. [23372]
  516
  Mr. Michael
  The recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Video Evidence which have not been implemented are currently being considered by the Steering Group on Child Evidence as part of the review of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses which was announced by my right hon. Friend on 13 June 1997.

  Young Offenders Institute (Colchester)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his response to the report by board of visitors to the young offenders institution at the Military Corrective Training Centre at Colchester. [23302]

  Ms Quin
  I will respond to the Colchester Board of Visitors' annual report once we have made a final decision about the future of the establishment. Ministerial responses to the Boards of Visitors' Annual Reports, which take the form of a letter to the Chairman of the relevant Board, are not ordinarily published. However, I do encourage those Boards who place their annual reports on to the Penal Lexicon similarly to place my response.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the young offenders institution at the Military Corrective Training Centre at Colchester. [23301]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 15 January 1998,Official Report, column 284.

  Prison Site (Colchester)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to make a decision on the possible establishment of a prison at Colchester; and if he will name the site which has been under investigation. [23300]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 November 1997,Official Report, column 689.

  If the Prison Service assessment indicates that the site involved offers potential, I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Police (Complaints)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of complaints against the police have been (i) upheld (ii) dismissed and (iii) dropped by the complainant during the last year for which figures are available. [23536]

  Mr. Michael
  The proportion of completed complaints against the police which were upheld (substantiated) was 2 per cent. in the twelve months from April 1996 to March 1997. Twenty seven per cent. of complaints were investigated but found to be unsubstantiated, 32 per cent. were informally resolved and 39 per cent. were either withdrawn or granted a dispensation by the Police Complaints Authority.

  Sunday Observance Act
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the Sunday Observance Act 1780; and if he will make a statement. [23471]
  517
  Mr. George Howarth
  I am considering proposals from the entertainments industry to remove the prohibition in the Sunday Observance Act 1780 on charging for admission to public dances which are held on a Sunday.

  Lewes Prison
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of Lewes Prison, if he will list for each year from 1985 to 1997 inclusive(a) the budget available to the prison, (b) the (i) average and (ii) maximum number of prisoners, (c) the number of suicides reported and (d) the number of prison officers deployed on average; and if he will make a statement. [23727]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The management structure and retention of records have changed significantly over the past seven financial years and it is not possible to provide, without incurring disproportionate cost, the budget allocations prior to 1990–91. Table A details the allocations made to Lewes prison between 1990–91 and 1997–98.

  The figures reflect the closure of wings for refurbishment in 1991–92 until the reopening of C and G wings in March 1997. The other critical factor affecting budget allocations is the increasing devolvement of cash allocations for operational requirements to local level from 1992–93 onwards. In view of this, it is difficult to draw comparisons between the different financial years.

  It is not possible to provide the actual maximum number of prisoners held at Lewes between 1985 to date, but the operational capacity, which is the nominal maximum number, is shown in table B.

  The term employed by the Prison Service to refer to an apparent suicide is self-inflicted death. This includes all those deaths where it is clear that the person has acted specifically to take his/her own life. Between 1985 and 1997, there have been a total of 10 self-inflicted deaths at Lewes. The details are as follows:

  1986
  Two deaths—inquest verdicts: accidental death.

  1989
  One death—inquest verdict: suicide

  1990
  Two deaths—inquest verdicts: suicide and accidental death

  1992
  One death—inquest verdict: misadventure

  1993
  One death—inquest verdict: suicide

  1995
  One death—inquest verdict: suicide

  1996
  One death—inquest verdict: open

  1997
  Two death—inquest verdict: suicide and accidental death.
  518
  Statistical data relating to the numbers of prison officers employed at Lewes between 1985 and August 1990 are not available. Table C details the information which is available from September 1990 to date.

  Table A: Budget allocations for Her Majesty's Prison Lewes

  1990–91 to 1997–98

  £ million

  Financial years

  Running cost budget allocation

  1990–91

  6,310,000

  1991–92

  3,763,000

  1992–93

  6,794,000

  1993–94

  8,320,000

  1994–95

  8,918,000

  1995–96

  8,870,000

  1996–97

  8,942,000

  1997–98

  9,192,000

  Table B: Average population and operational capacity for Her Majestry's Prison Lewes

  1985–97

  Calender year

  Average population

  Operational capacity

  1985

  519

  1565

  1986

  542

  1587

  1987

  563

  1587

  1988

  575

  1587

  1989

  542

  1587

  1990

  508

  1587

  1991+

  436

  475

  1992+

  362

  525

  1993+

  326

  375

  1994+

  339

  377

  1995+

  306

  325

  1996+

  303

  334

  January 1997 to November 1997 only2

  447

  496

  1 Given that operational capacities are always under review, these figures are an estimate.

  2The decrease in the number of prisoners held at Lewes is because of the rolling programme of wing refurbishment.

  Table C: Average number of prison officers at Her Majesty's Prison Lewes

  1990–91 to 1997–98

  Financial year

  Average number of prison officers

  September 1990 to March 1991

  171

  1991–92

  176

  1992–93

  176

  1993–94

  170

  1994–95

  167

  1995–96

  170

  1996–97

  167

  1997–98

  162

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what budget he plans for Lewes prison for the forthcoming year; and what estimate he has made of the maximum number of prisoners that will be held in Lewes over that period. [23728]
  519
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The budget allocation of 1998–99 has not yet been decided for Lewes. The Governor was given an indicative budget allocation of £8,631,000 and £8,470,000 for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 in June last year and has made plans to operate the prison within this cash limit. He has also bid for additional funds to preserve some regime services. The outcome of these bids will be known later this month.

  The Operational Capacity for Lewes prison is 496 and the Governor has based his planning assumptions on a 98 per cent. occupancy, a daily average population of 486 prisoners.

  Internal Police Investigations
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will repeal those sections of the Local Government Act 1992 which prevent the publication of internal discipline investigations by individual police forces; [23412]

  (2) what plans he has to make public reports relating to investigations into the sexual harassment of women police officers at Harrogate Police Station in the early 1990s; [23362]

  (3) what plans he has to introduce legislation to ensure that internal police disciplinary investigations are not automatically subject to public interest immunity; [23364]

  (4) what plans he has to allow individual police authorities to decide whether to publish the finding of internal discipline investigations within individual police forces. [23363]

  Mr. Michael
  None of the information relating to internal police investigations is held by my right hon. Friend and its disclosure is therefore a matter not for him but for the police authority or the chief constable.

  Public interest immunity arises only in the context of court proceedings. It does not arise as of right but requires there to be both a risk of harm if disclosure did take place and a balance between the risk of harm and the interests of justice. So far, the courts have accepted that the risk of harm in disclosing public investigation reports justifies their non-disclosure but the matter has to be considered in the context of each case.

  The publication of information under the Local Government Act 1992 relates to information on standards of performance. The Local Government Act 1972 gives the public a right to certain information, including information about meetings held by the police authority. It is not a free standing right to inspect documents held by the authority. Where information does fall to be disclosed under the 1972 Act, there are exemptions which prevent disclosure about certain matters which includes information about particular employees/office holders.

  The Government are considering extending the range of information available to the public. Their proposals were set out in the White Paper "Your Right to Know" which was issued for consultation on 11 December 1997.
  520
  We have made it clear that we wish to increase public confidence in the complaints and discipline system and we will consider how this might be done in the light of the report published last week by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

CABINET OFFICE

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what severance pay has been given to Mr. Stephen Bayley, former Creative Director of the New Millennium Experience Company. [23926]

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what severance pay has been granted to the former Creative Director of the New Millennium Experience Company. [23921]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) does not propose to make any severance payment to Stephen Bayley, the former creative consultant to the Company.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he plans to advertise for a replacement to the position of Creative Director of the New Millennium Exhibition Company. [23227]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company have no plan to replace Stephen Bayley as creative consultant to the Company.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the Creative Director of the New Millennium Exhibition Company. [23228]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Mr. Bayley and the New Millennium Experience Company jointly announced on Friday 9 January that the basis of Mr. Bayley's association with the project had been changed by mutual agreement.

  Mr. Bayley's former role was to advise the New Millennium Experience Company on aspects of the content of the exhibition. The intention was that he would continue to advise the Company on an ad-hoc basis.

  In the light of Mr. Bayley's subsequent comments, the New Millennium Experience Company will not be asking him to undertake any further work.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is the date of the official launch of the New Millennium Exhibition Company. [23225]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I announced that Millennium Central Ltd. would be renamed the New Millennium Experience Company on 26 June 1997 at the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. The Company's Articles of Association were amended as a result on 30 June 1997.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what meetings he has had with members of the ethnic minority communities to discuss the contents of the Millennium Dome. [23577]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company fully recognises the importance of making the Millennium Experience at Greenwich relevant and accessible to all sections of society, including ethnic minority communities, and is considering a number of proposals from ethnic minority groups. In February, I shall be attending a meeting of the Churches and Other Faiths sub-group of the Millennium Co-ordinating Group, on which all the main faith communities are represented. Various organisations which have strong ethnic minority representation, such as the Evangelical Alliance, the Inner Cities Religious Council, the Inter Faith Network and the Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland, are also members of the group.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when he plans to announce the nature of the exhibition in the Millennium Experience Dome. [23715]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company plans to reveal further details of the Millennium Experience in the first quarter of this year.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio which British women's groups he has invited to contribute to the content of the millennium dome. [24256]

  Mr. Mandelson
  A number of eminent women—on the Board of the New Millennium Experience (NMEC) and within the design companies contracted to NMEC—are involved in the creation of the content of the Millennium Dome. As Ms Jennie Page—the Chief Executive of 522
  NMEC—confirmed to the Minister for Women at a meeting on 18 December 1997, the Company is convinced that the involvement of such women will ensure that women's interests are addressed.

  Disney Corporation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what meetings took place in the United Kingdom between representatives of the Disney Corporation and the New Millennium Experience Company during the course of 1997; when and where such meetings took place; which(a) Ministers, (b) officials and (c) representatives of the New Millennium Experience Company were present at the meetings; and what was discussed. [23933]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have had one meeting in the UK with a senior executive from the Disney Corporation since taking up my appointment as shareholder of the New Millennium Experience in June 1997. No officials or representatives of the New Millennium Experience Company were present at the meeting.

  A range of discussions, meetings and site visits between senior staff at NMEC and various Disney enterprises have taken place on matters of mutual interest.

  Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when he plans to give a substantive response the Second Report of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (House of Commons Paper No. 340), 11 December 1997. [23216]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I will publish a response to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee Report on the Millennium Dome, including a timetable for the implementation of its recommendations, before the end of February, the deadline set by the Committee.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
David Staffurth, Lord Bishop of Salisbury—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Oxford and the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Armed Forces: Recruitment
2.41 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What special steps are being taken to recruit entrants specifically from the unemployed to fill the estimated 10,000 vacancies in HM Armed Forces.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, we are committed to recruiting high quality, well motivated personnel, irrespective of their employment history, to meet the Armed Forces' manpower requirements. The Armed Forces are participating fully in the Government's New Deal initiative. We are confident that we will in that way be encouraging young unemployed people to consider a rewarding and worthwhile career in the Armed Forces.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that helpful reply, especially in relation to the New Deal. Given the difficulties expressed by the Armed Forces about applicants failing to satisfy recruitment criteria, is my noble friend prepared to consider some more flexible approaches to bringing unemployed people into the forces? Would he be prepared to consider bridging courses, access courses, or using short-term trial engagements? Vacancies have doubled during the past two years, during which time there seems to have been increasing criticism of the forces' image and human resources management practices, especially in relation to race, gender, and promotion issues at all levels. Is he confident that there are mechanisms in place to promote organisational and cultural changes by which recruitment may be assisted rather than hindered? If not, what proposals for change does he have?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am happy to bring to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces the interesting suggestions that my noble friend has put forward. The Armed Forces are already engaged, in the sense that all three services have identified two New Deal pathfinder areas. They have tri-service initiatives in areas of London and the West Midlands. Each service has started a dialogue with some colleges of
1370
further education in their selected pathfinder areas to see whether there may be some courses that they can help to develop to assist recruitment. With respect to the other points made by my noble friend in relation to harassment on the basis of gender and colour, of course we have never got things perfectly right, but I can assure him that those matters are taken most seriously in the MoD, and at the highest level in all three services.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does the Minister agree that recruitment and retention are part of the same coin, and that were the Armed Forces to retain personnel. recruitment would be less of a problem? Will the Minister assure the House that Her Majesty's Government put the right stress on pay, conditions of service, accommodation, time between operational tours, and adventure training, so that our highly trained and highly motivated service personnel will stay in the Armed Forces?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Earl is right to identify recruitment and retention as being two sides of the coin. We are doing everything we can to improve retention. To that end, we have introduced many new arrangements; for instance, trial engagements and assisting people by extending the period of training for those who do not move quickly through the early stages. I am afraid that the problem of over-stretch has been with Her Majesty's Armed Forces for many years and I wish that I could see an answer to it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in recruiting for the Armed Forces, will the Government stress three advantages for young people who join? They are, first, that they will he serving their country; secondly, that they will learn valuable skills; thirdly, that they will have an interesting and enjoyable life.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. Those thoughts are uppermost in our minds as we attempt to recruit unemployed people. I am sure that what he says is right. Our problem is not only in convincing young people but also their parents.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, will the Minister—
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, there is probably time for both my noble friends to ask a question.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that 10,000 below establishment is a significant figure? Will he confirm that the fighting efficiency of our forces has not been reduced as a result of that shortage?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, Ministers in this Government, as in preceding governments, take a shortfall in the establishment seriously. Our fighting fitness would be improved if we could make that up, and it is one of the Government's main priorities to do just that.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the purpose of Her Majesty's Armed Forces remains the defence of the realm rather than the advancement of social engineering?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord has such a subtle mind that I do not follow the second part of his question. However, I agree with him in the first part.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that I have nothing against Her Majesty's Armed Forces? However, as we approach the millennium, is the situation not reminiscent of the 1930s when we urged our youngsters to join up in order to leave the dole queue? Have we not failed a whole generation, because Britain is a wealthy country and by now such youngsters should have been well trained and in gainful employment?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that my noble friend has nothing against the Armed Forces of this country. I am sure that that is true of every other Member of this House. As regards the 1930s, I am sure my noble friend will agree that we should bear that sad period in mind as a lesson to us all that we should not necessarily disarm too much just because there is no immediate threat on the horizon.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what has been the result of the crash recruiting courses for the unemployed which were started quite recently at Catterick by the Army? Has any recruiting been achieved and are the courses still continuing?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, certainly the courses still continue but, without notice, I cannot give the noble Lord the figures in answer to his question. However, I shall try to pass that information to him as soon as I can.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is my noble friend prepared to consider raising those matters with the appropriate employers' organisations and the trade unions? I feel sure that those bodies would be able to give him extremely useful advice on this important subject.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, as always I am grateful to my noble friend for his imaginative suggestion. However, I am fairly confident that my right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is already doing just that.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House about the success or otherwise of the "gender free and gender fair" programme for the introduction of recruits into the services?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, we operate a totally gender-neutral recruiting policy in all the services. The opportunities for females to serve in different parts of Her Majesty's Forces is being extended every month.

Asylum Seekers
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the number of asylum seekers who have entered the United Kingdom from abroad and who cannot now be accounted for or traced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, approximately 14,000 asylum applicants are currently recorded as having breached the conditions of their temporary admission, temporary release or restriction order, or having lost contact with the Home Office. The available information relates only to those asylum seekers who made their application at the port of entry, and those in-country applicants against whom enforcement action has been initiated. No equivalent information is available on in-country applicants who have not been subject to enforcement action, some of whom may also be found to have lost contact with the Home Office.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reply which helps to clarify the situation in view of the press report that the figure was about 55,000. Together with illegal immigrants who have managed to slip into the United Kingdom undetected. are not all those persons concealed in the community providing business for the underground industry which supplies false identities and documents for activating social security benefits and false addresses?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the matters identified by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, are of great concern to the Home Office. On 21st August last year an inter-departmental committee was set up to deal with many of the issues involved. It may be that the figure to which the noble Lord referred as having been stated erroneously in the press derives from the fact that there are 50,000 cases outstanding of persons still awaiting a decision on their asylum applications. It is a lamentable fact that 12,000 of those date back to 1993 or even earlier.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House when he expects the interdepartmental committee to reach its conclusions? Is it considering an amnesty for those cases which have been outstanding for a large number of years?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we expect the committee to report within a couple of months. We believe that there are grave principled difficulties in relation to an amnesty because it rewards wrongdoing and penalises those who have legitimately gone through the lawful system.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, when the Government publish their report in two months, will it

1373
include information on the benefits available to genuine asylum seekers so that this country may again provide decent asylum for people who are entitled to it in accordance with our very worthy tradition?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the review will of course include an examination of the arrangements for providing accommodation and support to asylum seekers while their applications are being considered. We want a system which will be fairer, firmer and faster than the present arrangements.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is absolutely intolerable that as many as 12,000 applications should have been outstanding from as long ago as 1993? Does he agree further that when the immigration and nationality directorate takes such an unconscionable time to make up its mind, the applicants are at least entitled to a better explanation of the reasons for the delay than just that the Home Office is continuing its inquiries?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, one of the purposes of the review, which I take it has the general approval of your Lordships' House, is to study what changes are necessary in the light of present and past experience. In the meantime, the Home Office has the duty and responsibility to operate the law as it stands. We want to know what are the facts and how circumstances may be improved.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in addition to the 14,000 people who have sought asylum and vanished, is the Minister able to put a figure on what I understand to be the many thousands of people who have come to this country—and I include those who have come from my own country of Australia—on a visitor's visa and who have never been seen again? The Minister may have seen the programme on television about an Australian who, having gone to America, was not allowed to return here because he never had any right to be here in the first place. Is the Minister able to put a figure on how many of those over-stayers there may be?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in the nature of things, I cannot put a precise figure on all those who engage in illegal activities. It surprises me that anyone from Australia would come here with illegitimate intent bearing in mind that many people who went to Australia went from this country for precisely that activity.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I give an assurance to the noble Lord that my noble friend Lady Gardner is not one of those illegal immigrants. She is here for exactly the right reasons. We are very happy that she has come here and we welcome her on our Benches in this House. I take the Minister back to the original Question asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. In response, the Minister quoted a figure of some 14,000 while my noble friend quoted a figure which he has seen in the press of some 55,000. I suspect that the two figures are different because they are approaching the issue from a
1374
different angle. Will the Minister address the original Question? What is the estimate of the number of asylum seekers of whom the Home Office have lost track and of those who have come in without the Home Office even knowing about them? Perhaps the noble Lord will address that Question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was not suggesting for a moment that the noble Baroness is here as an illegal immigrant because, as I understand it, she is a life Peer. Of course, there may well be hereditary Peers who, by necessary definition, are descended from illegal immigrants. I answered the original Question which was put precisely, as always, by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He asked what is the estimate and I said that it is approximately 14,000 because I do not pretend to omniscience.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a lay member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Is the noble Lord aware that cases are now being listed for hearing for October 1999? Is he really surprised that people are disappearing into the population when they have to wait so long for a hearing? Have the people undertaking the review spoken to members of the tribunal, including the chairman and the president?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do know that the study has been subject to very wide consultations. Of course I take precisely the point that has been made. It is intolerable that people should be left in doubt and in limbo for a very long period of time. That is precisely one of the points being addressed by the interdepartmental group which is carrying out the study.

Firearm and Shotgun Certificates: Register
3 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the establishment of a central register of all persons who have applied for a firearm or shotgun certificate or to whom a firearm or shotgun certificate has been granted or whose certificate has been renewed, as required under Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, plans for the preparation of a central database of applicants and holders of firearm and shotgun certificates have been delayed. That has partly been caused by a shortage of funding in the present financial year, and partly by the need to prepare a detailed police-user requirement. An outline document has already been produced and arrangements are in hand to prepare the detailed document. That will enable full costs to be identified before the project is considered by the relevant police committee to assess the operational priority. I cannot give your Lordships a firm date yet for the eventual implementation of the system, but I shall be in a better

1375
position to do so in the new financial year. I expect, and hope, that most of the detailed planning work will take place over the next few months.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that the Dunblane tragedy was caused by the total failure of the existing police licensing system, one consequence of which has been the payment of over £160 million of taxpayers' money in compensation for all the pistols that have been handed in? Is the Minister aware that the national register, which is required under the Firearms Act, would make less likely another Dunblane or indeed Hungerford? Is he also aware that this was an amendment to the legislation by your Lordships' House which had all-party support, against, I may say, strong briefing from the Home Office? It is now 11 months since the Act has been in force and progress has been painfully slow.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, anyone who read that most valuable report by Lord Cullen on Dunblane would find it difficult to come to the simplistic conclusion that it was entirely attributable to the total failure of the licensing system, to use the noble Lord's phrase. In fact, I respectfully suggest that the noble Lord did a notable public service by insisting, most graciously, that Section 39 of the first Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1997 should become law, and indeed it did. On my understanding, it came into force on 1st October 1997, so, although the delay is regrettable, it is not as great as suggested. The Government see great virtue in such a register. I have indicated—I hope candidly—the necessary steps which need to follow before the register becomes fully operational, which is what the Government wish.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the cost of setting up a central register is unlikely to exceed half a million pounds, which is peanuts when set against the £160 million mentioned by my noble friend Lord Marlesford? In the light of that fact, will the Government now push ahead urgently with this important requirement?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the figure that has been given is generally accurate. The estimates that I have are between £300,000 and £500,000. As your Lordships know, every time I answer a Home Office question some Member of your Lordships' House will say, "This scheme is only half a million pounds and it is peanuts". However, half a million pounds may be peanuts; but it is a big bag of peanuts by the end of the year.
Lord Henley: My Lords, half a million pounds might be peanuts to some people but I accept that it is a large amount of money for the Home Office, especially when it is setting up such a scheme. However, can the Minister tell the House just how much compensation is due to those who are entitled to it under the Firearms Act, how much has actually been paid and when the
1376
final sums will be paid? Having answered that, will the Minister then come back to the question of when they will be able to deal with the scheme as suggested by the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, especially in the light of the fact that it is now six months since that came into effect and bearing in mind that Section 39 of the Act says very firmly that, "there shall be established", but we have still not seen such a scheme established?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are two components to the noble Lord's question. The first relates to the compensation scheme and I can readily update him in that respect. Up until 19th January the FCS (the compensation scheme) had received 40,021 claims and, by the same date, 26,341 payments had been made. Turning to the specifics which derive from the Question, we hope that the scheme will be in existence, both efficiently and properly researched, by the end of the year. For the reasons that I have already outlined, I cannot be any more specific.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether I am right in thinking that, under the terms of the Scotland Bill, the Scottish Parliament will be able to decide, first, to opt out of a central national register for firearms; and, secondly, that it will be able to set its own licence terms, which could be either weaker or stronger than those which exist in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to take specific advice on that question and write to him as soon as may be possible. The short answer to that question is that I do not know the answer to either A or B.

Teachers: Recruitment
3.5 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What difficulties are being experienced in the recruitment of more teachers.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the supply of an adequate number of well-trained and motivated teachers is central to delivery of the Government's plans to raise standards. To ensure this supply, we must raise the status of teachers and standards in the teaching profession. The Government are aware of the challenge that they face on this complex issue, with a particular challenge in the recruitment of secondary teachers of maths, modern languages and technology, where recruitment to training courses has fallen short of targets for several years. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is reflecting on the proposals put forward in report of the Education Select Committee in the other place and will shortly be publishing the Government's response to that report.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Will she accept that there has been a disappointing response to the recent very extensive advertising campaign for teachers? Does my noble friend agree that there are two aspects of the problem: first, in the short term, this must include—and I hope my noble friend will agree—higher salaries for teachers? In that respect, will my noble friend consider the abolition of tuition fees for all trainee teachers? Secondly. in the long term, will my noble friend also agree that there must be improved conditions and opportunities, which would certainly include help in the classroom, a reduction in the workload and better career flexibility?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend raises several questions. Those Members of your Lordships' House who have seen the advertising campaign of the Teacher Training Agency carrying the message that "No one forgets a good teacher" will agree that that is very powerful; indeed, it is one that I believe is bearing fruit. Therefore, I cannot agree with my noble friend that there has been a disappointing response to the campaign. It is perhaps rather too early to judge what the effects will be. However, there has been an increase in the number of applicants for places to study for the PGCE this year. That suggests that the campaign may well be paying off.
So far as concerns teachers' salaries, that is a matter for the school teachers' review body which will shortly he making recommendations to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. As regards tuition fees for teachers in training, the Government are introducing a bursary scheme for PGCE students. The real shortages are to be found at the secondary rather than at the primary stage. Something like 80 per cent. of secondary teachers are trained through the PGCE. My noble friend also spoke of improvements in the classroom. Yes, of course, there are a number of things which need to be done to support teachers, including a reduction in the amount of unnecessary bureaucracy which denies teachers time to teach.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister consider that it is fair to provide a bursary for teachers who take a three-year degree followed by a one-year PGCE, while a young person taking a Bachelor of Education course over four years will have to pay £1,000 in tuition fees for each of the four years? Does the Minister agree that, by and large, that is an advantage to those who teach in secondary schools but a serious disadvantage to those who teach in primary schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, just to clarify the position, I should point out that teachers who take a B.Ed. may do so on a three-year or a four-year course. It is, of course, only on the four-year course that they will have to pay the £1,000 tuition fee if their parents can afford to do so. That applies only in that fourth year. We should be absolutely clear about that. PGCE students will get a bursary. The reason for that is that the B.Ed. courses for primary teachers are heavily oversubscribed. There is no shortage of people coming
1378
forward for those courses, whereas some of the PGCE courses, particularly those in maths, modern languages and technology, are undersubscribed.
Lord Hunt of King's Heath: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that while recruitment and the remuneration of teachers is important, it is equally important to raise the status of teachers in the minds of the general population? Does she agree that, while it is important that we continue to root out poor performance, we need to give much more attention to the success achieved by so many of our teachers?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I strongly agree with what my noble friend has said. It is extremely important that we all recognise the enormous value of good teaching in our schools and the good job that the vast majority of our teachers do, often in difficult circumstances. They should be praised for that. It is also important that we introduce new developments such as a new grade of advanced skills teachers to offer a career option to excellent classroom practitioners who do not want to become head teachers. That, again, will raise the status of the ordinary classroom teacher. The Government hope that the establishment of a general teaching council to act as a voice for the profession—which we shall discuss in Committee later this afternoon—will also help.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, to what extent are the experience and expertise of certain people who have taken early retirement being used to fill gaps in these subjects?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is, of course, important that anyone who works in either a primary or a secondary school is adequately trained. Where possible encouragement is given to people who have taken early retirement and want to enter the teaching profession, provided they become qualified. The numbers of people available to do that are perhaps slightly less great than those who might like to help in a school on a voluntary basis. The Government are considering whether more use can be made of people who would like to support teachers in the classroom on a voluntary basis.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, despite what she has said about bursaries for post-graduate certificate students, in future approximately half of newly qualified teachers will leave college with a debt of between £10,000 and £12,000? Does she feel that this will encourage people to enter teaching?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, anyone who enters higher education can expect to earn substantially more as a result of becoming a graduate. Many teachers, particularly if they are successful and rise up the profession, will earn substantial sums of money. Those who stay at the lowest levels of pay will, of course, not be required to pay back their loan until they reach those categories of pay that require repayment. The system is an income contingent one. It is important to remember that.

Business
3.13 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as many of your Lordships will be aware, proceedings on the Report stage of the Human Rights Bill were not completed last night. It was agreed through the usual channels that further consideration on Report should be taken on Thursday, 29th January after the Report stage of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill. This date was originally set down for the Third Reading of the Human Rights Bill and therefore I hope that the change will prove convenient for those of your Lordships interested in the Bill. A further date for Third Reading of the Bill will be agreed through the usual channels and announced in the normal way.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to he printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 27th January
Lord Richard: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on 27th January to enable the Motions standing in the names of the Lord Kimball and the Lord Willoughby de Broke to be taken before the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill.—(Lord Richard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Boston of Faversham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The General Teaching Council]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I. line 11, at end insert—
("( ) The principal aim of the Council shall be to maintain and enhance the standard of teaching and the quality of learning in schools.").
The noble Baroness said: As the noble Baroness and the Committee will be aware, when we debated this matter at Second Reading I said that I supported in
1380
principle the establishment of a general teaching council. I think that was a view which was agreed throughout the Chamber. Looking at this matter in some detail, I was somewhat surprised to note that there did not appear to be any aims set out in the Bill as to what exactly the council is expected to do. Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendment No. 2, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The first part of that amendment reads almost exactly the same as my amendment.
I hardly think my amendment requires a great deal of explanation because it is perfectly clear what it aims to do. I should like to think that there could be no possible disagreement among ourselves on these aims. Perhaps the Minister could say why a measure such as this was not included in the Bill as it is important to set out somewhere that we believe that the general teaching council should promote good, high standards in education through the teaching profession. This is not a complicated amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, Amendment No. 2, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Maddock, is, I believe, at the beginning word for word the same as the amendment of the noble Baroness. However, we may have gone a little further in spelling out the matter. I believe that the noble Baroness said there was no need to explain the amendment as it is self-explanatory. I am sure that is true but nevertheless it is important in that much of today's debate on this and subsequent amendments will concern the nature and the constitution of the general teaching council.
I believe that there is a wide welcome, certainly in the profession, and, I think, in this Chamber, for the establishment of the general teaching council. So far, so good; but simply setting up a general teaching council in itself is not enough. What is important is what it will do and what its functions are. It is important that it is seen to be independent and not, as I said on Second Reading, a rather toothless poodle of the Secretary of State. It is important that it commands the confidence of the profession. The amendment which I shall move today is the start of that process.
It is important that the purpose and the function of a general teaching council is enshrined in legislation. We have stated that in our amendment. As I have said, the first part of it reads word for word the same as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. However, we also say that the council needs,
"to safeguard the interests of young people as learners".
It is important that that is recognised specifically. It is also important—perhaps even more important—that the council enables the,
"teaching profession to exercise responsibility for the standards and quality of its professional service".
That is crucial if the council is to gain the acceptance and support of the teaching profession. For those reasons it is important that the Bill recognises that that is what the principal aim and purpose of the general teaching council should be. I am sure that the Minister

1381
will agree with the sentiments. I hope that she will also agree with the importance of providing this in the legislation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I strongly support the general purpose of the two amendments. Amendment No. I states simply the aim of the council; and I can see no reason that it should not be incorporated in the Bill. Doubtless the Minister will tell us what she thinks about that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that the council should enable the teaching profession to exercise responsibility. However, I do not think that the council as recommended in the Bill goes far towards that aim. We shall doubtless go through the various functions of the council as we go through the Bill. But it is purely a consultative body. It is very much a creature of the Secretary of State. We shall decide whether that is right as we go through the Bill. But as the Bill stands I do not think that it would be right to incorporate paragraph (b) because it does not describe what the council does. I wish that it did.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will help me to consider his amendment with the seriousness that I am sure he would wish. Does the noble Lord want the council to enable the teaching profession to offer advice, or does the noble Lord mean in paragraph (b) that it is the council which will offer advice? My point is genuine; I do not seek to raise a pedantic point. I do not understand what the words of paragraph (b) mean.
Lord Tope: I shall try to clarify them. As the Bill stands—we seek to amend this at later stages—the role is simply advisory. I seek to provide that the council should have given to it the responsibility for maintaining the standards of the teaching profession, in much the same way—I do not wish to draw too close an analogy because I do not know enough about them—as the General Medical Council or the legal profession.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord has not followed my point. I am sure that it is my fault. At the end of paragraph (b) the amendment states, "and to offer advice". Does that mean that one wants the council to offer advice; or is the provision governed by the words at the beginning of the amendment,
"to enable the teaching profession … to offer advice"?
Lord Tope: I am sorry. I misunderstood the question. The intention would be for the council to offer advice.
Lord Glenamara: I warmly welcome this part of the Bill. It is the only part of the Bill that I welcome. I think that I am the only person who in the past has tried to set up a teaching council. The attempt came to grief because the unions fell out among themselves. That was 30 years ago. But I very much welcome this provision.
Having said that, I deprecate the fact that this is an ungenerous way to make the provision. As I see it, a general teaching council gives a measure of home rule to the teaching profession. If it does not do that, it is
1382
really not worth while. There are plenty of bodies to give advice. This body should govern the teaching profession. Therefore it must control ingress to the profession and egress from it and not simply be able to give advice on those matters.
The second point of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, goes a little way towards that aim. I very much welcome the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. We had a Question today on recruitment to the teaching profession. The Minister said that she believed the establishment of a teaching council would go some way towards giving the profession confidence.
However, unless the teaching council has a greater measure of responsibility than at present, it will not serve that purpose. The raising of morale will result as teachers feel that they have some responsibility for the standards of the profession. On those grounds, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
Lord Quirk: I most certainly strongly support the first part of this Bill in relation to the general teaching council. I echo the words of other noble Lords who have wished to see a strengthening of the role of the general teaching council which to some extent is in both the first two amendments: the spelling out by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, of the principal aim of the council, being thus and so, but more particularly with the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to see the council made responsible. I think that this sense of responsibility, the additional powers to the general teaching council, will be very much welcomed in the teaching profession.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I, too, support the noble Baroness's amendment. It is important that in a precise and clear way the aim of the council is described. The problems that face the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, show the dangers of not giving a narrow and precise definition. At later points in the Committee I shall be worrying at other broad definitions.
We have to be cautious of replacing the Secretary of State entirely by the teaching council. To a degree, I shall support certain of the Government's ideas in seeing an evolutionary approach as being better than writing this council in letters of stone from the beginning.
I utterly share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, of the value of the proposal. However, the problems of 30 years ago, which I, too, remember, could occur again if we rush at this too quickly. Therefore there will be points where I and my noble friends will be pulling in a little the Liberal horses.

1383
In general, I advise support for the precise amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I share the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the vagueness of paragraph (b) in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
Lord Peston: I had read the Bill slightly differently from other noble Lords. I had thought that the proposed teaching council was more than a consultative body. When the Minister replies, I hope that she will say in terms that it is more than a consultative body.
Having read all the paragraphs under Functions of the Council, I make two points. First, as regards the operation of the register, in due course we shall debate how people come off the register. I regard that as more fundamental than getting on to the register. The teaching council will do a good deal more than simply being consultative.
Secondly, as Clause 2 of the Bill stands, the council does not wait for the Secretary of State to ask its view. I read the Bill as providing, "We will tell you our view". The matters on which the council comments are substantive—not least to do with recruitment and numbers. Unless the Minister tells me that I have misread the Bill, I do not have the worries that other noble Lords have.
I am not against the amendments in content, but if any noble Lord asked me why we want to improve the quality of our teachers, I would say that it was because we wished to improve the quality of our education. I see no need to write that into the Bill. It seems to be restating the obvious. The point of setting up the general teaching council is to improve the quality of our teachers. We strongly believe that that is the way to improve the education system in our country. So again, unless my noble friend the Minister tells me that I have misread the provision, I do not see the point of the amendments.
Finally, I hope that a considerable number of practising or former teachers will be on the council—a matter that we shall debate in due course. I therefore hope that this body will be recognised as teachers taking responsibility for their own service. Other people will also be brought in. Those of us who have been independent members of other such bodies believe that we did a good job. I hope that there will be similarly independent people on the council. In my view there ought to be a majority, but there will certainly be a substantial number, of teachers on the council; and they will be the ones giving leadership and taking responsibility. I am glad that the amendments were tabled that my noble friend has an opportunity to clarify these matters. However, speaking personally, I hope that she does not accept them.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: Speaking as one of the "Liberal horses" to whom the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, referred, perhaps I might say a brief word in defence of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Tope. I remember—although I hope that no one will ask me
1384
to find the reference in Hansard because it would take me some time—being told by a Minister in this Chamber that teaching was not a profession because it was not self-governing. That is precisely the point that my noble friend's amendment seeks to address and which, so far as I can see, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, does not quite address, although it comes close to it.
It is our concern that teaching should be a self-governing profession, that it should be able to exercise, through the general council, some of the powers of the General Medical Council or the Bar Council; in fact, that there should be a degree of genuine internal self-government.
The way in which the general teaching council is to be constituted reminds me a little of an obstreperous three year-old who is kept in leading reins because the traffic around it is so dense. That is not particularly dignified.
It reminds me also of the description in 1066 And All That of Poyning's Law—that the Irish should have a parliament and the English should pass all the Acts in it. The Secretary of State seems to have set himself up to be the English. He is not all of them.
Baroness Warnock: I wish to say a word in favour of the second amendment. What we have heard so far shows that there is a genuine ambiguity, a genuine difference of opinion as to how the general teaching council is to be considered. We have heard on the one hand that it is nothing but an advisory body, and on the other that it is to take responsibility for standards and the registering and de-registering of teachers.
If that ambiguity is possible, as previous remarks seem to show, then the word "responsibility" should be used on the face of the Bill, so that it is clear from the Bill that teachers are to be given responsibility for standards in their own profession. The issue will arise again and again. The matter should be made clear. It is made clear in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I do not wish to prolong discussion on these two amendments. The principle underlying the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness. Lady Maddock, is wholly admirable.
However, sub-paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 2 is ambiguous. It should surely be the role of the council to exercise responsibility for the standards and quality of professional services in teaching and to offer advice. As the amendment reads at present, it is the teaching profession that will offer advice, and I do not believe that is the intention. After all, the council, in its constitution, will, and should, have a majority of members from the teaching profession; but it will also have a substantial number of lay members and others in order to enable it to fulfil its functions. For that reason alone, I am afraid I am unable to support the second part of Amendment No. 2, although the principle underlying both amendments is wholly admirable.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may add a general point which applies to most parts of the Bill. This is a skeletal Bill. One of the difficulties that I suspect we shall have is that we shall all have our own views as to what form we believe this body should take and there will be a scramble to put everything on the face of the Bill. I suspect that the Minister will stonewall throughout the day in response to any ideas that we have about putting matters on the face of the Bill.
I hazard a guess that there is very little disagreement among Members of the Committee on all Benches about the main aims of this body: it should concern itself with the quality, standards and promotion of teaching as a profession. The differences will arise in regard to the way in which we want to achieve that.
It is a great pity that on this, as in many other parts of the Bill, even with regard to the professional qualification of head teachers—with which, as we have already seen from the first evaluation, there are difficulties and problems—and the student fees arrangements, there has not been a constructive debate, with the framework set out by government, and consultation before we returned to this place to put this piece of legislation on the statute book.
What we are doing is putting a framework on the statute book. We shall not know the shape of this body or its remit. That will be in the hands of the Secretary of State to devise well after the Bill has received Royal Assent. That is a great pity. This Chamber has much to contribute in making this body, which is the aspiration of all professional teachers and the will of this House, work in a more practical way.
However, we are where we are, and we have to consider the matter. No doubt the debate on the amendments on the Marshalled List will go some way at least to informing the consultation that will have to follow. In the meantime, like my noble friend Lord Pilkington, I wish to support the aims of my noble friend's amendment, which is absolutely fundamental. In the absence of the consultation that is yet to take place. words along those lines ought to be written on the face of the Bill as a fundamental remit for this body.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has already answered the point as to whether it is the council or the teaching profession which should advise. The point has been clarified; namely, that there is a mistake in the drafting, and it should be the council which advises the Secretary of State on these matters.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the noble Baroness replies, it may help to clarify the points just made by my noble friend if she will tell the Committee whether she considers that paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 2 sets out the purpose of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that he hoped that the Committee would make that the purpose of the Bill. I am not sure that it is correct to move an amendment on that basis.
I do not believe that that is what the Bill suggests. Should the Committee change the purpose of the Bill in the course of its proceedings—I rather doubt that we shall be able to—or change it even slightly, then later
1386
we might add a provision to the declaratory clause at the beginning of the Bill. Will the noble Baroness say whether she really thinks that the Bill as proposed is designed to enable the teaching profession to do these things? I do not ask that to be awkward; I believe it would be helpful.
I agree absolutely with the noble Lord. Lord Peston. I probably over-simplified the matter. The council as designed is not only advisory but consultative, and it is designed to keep a register, although we shall question whether its job in keeping the register is adequate and has a real purpose. That is another point. I agree with the noble Lord; I absolutely take his points. It would help if we could know what is the Government's view of paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 2.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in replying, will draw on the experience of the General Teaching Council in Scotland, which has existed for well over 30 years and operates quite satisfactorily.
I am not sure that I see the necessity for the amendments that are being discussed. After all, the functions of the council are set out quite clearly in Clause 2 of the Bill and parts are developed further in Clauses 3, 4 and 5. Surely that tells us what the purpose of the general teaching council is to be.
Lord Monkswell: My concern with these amendments is that it is implied that the general teaching council will be the only body to determine the standard of teaching and quality of learning in schools. We should recognise that, apart from the teachers in schools, a range of other factors go to ensuring the standard of teaching and quality of learning. I mention as examples the fabric of the buildings and the working environment of teachers and pupils. Is it the object of the proposers of the amendments that the general teaching council should be the authority which advises the Government on the capital expenditure programme for school buildings? That seems to be the implication of the amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: First, perhaps I may say how grateful I am for the general support from all sides of the Chamber for this measure. It is something that many of us have looked forward to for some years. Some of us are even old enough and have been around long enough to remember the attempt by my noble friend Lord Glenamara to set up a teaching council in the late 1960s.
The amendments seek to set out in primary legislation the objectives for the GTC. The GTC will play an important role in raising the status and standing of the teaching profession. In doing that, we want to strengthen the role of the profession and to improve the general competence of the teaching profession. We hope that the GTC will contribute to our drive to raise standards.
The principal aims for the GTC envisaged by these amendments certainly match our intentions. Perhaps I could say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that the principal objective is as laid out in the amendment of the noble Baroness Lady Young.

1387
One way of achieving that objective is set out in paragraph (b) of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. However, as my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Gordon said, we had not thought it necessary to specify objectives in primary legislation. It remains our view that it is not strictly necessary for the purposes of the legislation to do so.
At the same time, in picking up one or two other points that have been made, perhaps I may say that of course we want to see the profession play an important role in setting its own standards and having ownership of them. We expect that, after consultation, there will be a good representation of practising teachers on the GTC. I am sure that consultation about membership will confirm that that is what is wanted. It is important that we should give responsibility for standards to the profession and involve teachers in ensuring that we have the highest possible standards.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I shall try to avoid stonewalling throughout the day with respect to proposals made in amendments. As she readily accepted, the shape of the GTC and its final remit will be the result of further consultation which the Government have already promised to the teaching profession and to the many others who have an interest in these matters. In considering the outcome of these consultations, the Government and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will want to take into account what is said in this Chamber during the course of our debates during the various stages of the Bill.
I should like to consider further these amendments. I do not want to stonewall and reject them out of hand: I believe that they basically reflect what we intend. Some Members have indicated that there might be one or two ambiguities in the amendments. If we decide to put on the face of the Bill a simple and clear objective, it is important that we are absolutely sure that there are no ambiguities and that the objective is clearly understood. I hope that, on that basis, the amendment will be withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can we take it from what she said that she will accept amendments to the Bill on this issue? More precisely, is the noble Baroness saying that she accepts the amendments in principle and will come back with a form of words that would satisfy my noble friend?
Baroness Blackstone: I have said that we shall consider further whether we can come back with a suitable amendment to put on the face of the Bill without its leading to ambiguity and uncertainty. The drafting of the amendment must be clear and acceptable.
Baroness Young: I very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for what she has said. It has been a useful debate. I cannot speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but I believe we are all agreed about this matter. A point I would emphasise, and which perhaps I did not make clear at the beginning, is that we
1388
must all agree that, if we are to raise educational standards and to have a good education system, it must be based on the teachers. They are the only ones who can deliver this. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The purpose behind my amendment was not just to state the obvious—although in a sense it is stating the obvious—but to make clear to the teachers that there is a recognition of the essential role that they play and of the importance of raising their status in society.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I recognise that these amendments need to be correctly drafted. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could come back with an amendment at a later stage. This is an issue on which we are all agreed and on which we are trying to do something constructive. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Glenamara: I do not believe that we are all agreed. A fundamental question is raised about the council. Is it to be purely consultative, as it is in the primary legislation, or is it to be responsible for having a measure of the governance of the teaching profession? Perhaps Members would look at Clause 2(4). Even in the special case where there is doubt whether a teacher should be able to continue, the Secretary of State will make the decision. The council can advise him, but he will make the decision. I know from experience that that is one of the powers that the Department for Education has never been able to give up. That power should be in the hands of the teachers themselves; they should be able to decide whether or not a person is able to continue to teach. Earlier in the clause it is provided that the council will advise the Secretary of State on the standards of conduct for teachers. The teachers themselves ought to be responsible for the conduct of the profession. I will not go on. I hope that the noble Baroness appreciates that this is the fundamental question with regard to this proposal. Unless it is to be more than a consultative body, we may as well pack up and go home; it is not worth the trouble. I hope that the Government will take that point on board.
Lord Tope: First, I begin by agreeing wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. This is at the root of the issue. I am grateful for the support that my amendment, to which my noble friend Lady Maddock also put her name, received from all corners of the Committee. Whether or not the provision should be on the face of the Bill is open to debate, although I believe quite strongly that it should be. While clearly I agree with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young—she uses the same words as I use—the additional part of my amendment is also important and I hope that it will be considered.
I am sorry that the wording is ambiguous. I do not claim to be a legal or parliamentary draftsman. It was my intention that the council should be the vehicle by which the teaching profession takes responsibility and so forth. As a layman, that seemed clear to me. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whose knowledge of legal matters is much greater than mine, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, looked at it. I am happy to see whether

1389
we can improve the drafting. If the Minister and her advisers will do the same, then when we come to Report stage I hope that we shall have a form of wording that is unambiguous.
I hope, perhaps with a little less optimism, that the Government also recognise the extremely important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. On the basis of the general shared intention in your Lordships' Chamber and the non-stonewalling response from the Minister who agreed to look at this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line I, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4 which is strictly consequential upon it. This is the first of long series of amendments I tabled to probe the regulation-making powers in the Bill which are pretty extensive. I hope to save some of the time of the Committee—after last night that is a worthwhile objective—by making my general points about regulations on my first amendment. Thereafter, I hope that I shall be able to say as little as I beg to move", and play it by ear after listening to the answers.
My first anxiety about the regulations is the obvious one that one cannot discuss and amend the detail. The second point is that we may be creating powers whose extent we do not foresee. I was struck by the department's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in relation to this Bill. In paragraph 22(f) of the memorandum the department says that the Government are introducing tuition fees under existing legislation. I wonder what legislation. I certainly have no idea and I have scrutinised the drafting of educational legislation over the past 10 years with a certain amount of care and suspicion. I did not know that I had voted in favour of legislation to allow the setting up of tuition fees. When I know under what powers that is being done, I should like to look back at the wording of the Bill and see where my vigilance was insufficient. It does not encourage me to relax it at present.
I gave the noble Baroness notice before Christmas of the three questions I want to ask on each of these amendments. My first is: what could be done under the powers which are here being conferred? What is the utmost extent of what a government, not necessarily this one, could do with these powers if they wanted to? I hope that the example of the tuition fees indicates that that concern is not redundant.
I hope to obtain a fairly straightforward answer to my second question which is: what is it that the department actually wants to do with these powers? When I receive the answers to those two questions my third question will be, in a number of cases: why is the department asking for powers more extensive than are necessary to do what it at present intends to do? Those three questions I shall ask with each of my probing
1390
amendments. What I do thereafter, either now or at a later stage of the Bill, will depend on the answers I receive.
More generally, there is a difference of view among those with an experience of drafting as to how far regulation-making powers may be given. I have a copy of the report of the Hansard Society Committee, Making the Law, published in 1992, the committee chaired by the late Lord Rippon of Hexham, former chairman of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this House and indeed its founder. It was Lord Rippon of Hexham who taught me the importance in these matters of separating form from substance. That is why I am beginning my probing into regulation-making powers on issues with which I have considerable sympathy with the objectives which the Government hope to achieve. Lord Rippon said:
"We emphasise that statutory delegation should never leave an Act hare of everything except a framework of ministerial powers, with all real substance being left to ministerial regulations etc. This has been done (see the legislation on student loans in the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, for example): it should not be repeated. The main principles of the legislation and its central provisions should appear in the Act itself'.
I am not certain that the main provisions appear in this legislation so I want to know what is being done.
I come to the specific point which is taken up in the amendment: the setting up of the general teaching council which will be constituted in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State. Why does it have to be constituted by regulation? Why cannot it be constituted by the Bill? That question may have a good answer. If so, I should like to hear it, specifically in relation to the words I have taken up in the amendment:
"Regulations under this subsection may"—
"may" not "shall"—
"authorise the Council to make rules with respect to such matters relating to their constitution as may"—
"may" not "shall"—
"be specified in the regulations".
As far as I understand it, it would be intra vires to confine those regulations to authorising them to restrict the allocation of their paperclips. I do not suggest that that is the policy intention. But I should like to know whether it would be intra vires, under those words, to restrict the powers that much. I also want to know how far the powers they could be given could be extended. When I know what could be done under these words, I shall be in a position to judge whether they are the right words in which to confer the powers. I still do not see why it is necessary to use a regulation-making power to confer them at all.
I shall look forward to the Minister's answer with a great deal of interest and I hope that I shall not have to wait long to read it. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I share some of the anxieties expressed so clearly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, relating to the unfettered powers of the Secretary of State in relation to this Bill. I speak with the experience of having spent 18 years on the General

1391
Medical Council and seven years as its president, although I appreciate that that model cannot be directly applicable to a general teaching council.
As the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said, one of the anxieties about the Bill as at present drafted relates to the fact that so much will be left to be covered by regulations, which are not dealt with specifically on the face of the Bill. At Second Reading I posed a question which I wish to pose again today. The other regulatory authorities concerned with professional self-regulation in the UK—medicine, dentistry, nursing, midwifery and, more recently, osteopathy and chiropractic—are answerable not directly to a Secretary of State but to the Privy Council. That has always been regarded as a cherished position which the professions in question have held on to if only because they have felt that their regulation would no longer be subject to the political whim of a Secretary of State or of a particular political party. It would be interesting to know why, in the instance of this profession, self-regulation by the Privy Council, with the constitution and other rules being made by Order in Council, has not been followed.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, Clause 2(1) states:
"The Council shall from time to time advise … the Secretary of State".
But it does not say that the Secretary of State is required to accept that advice. Equally, with regard to other issues such as the possibility of erasing teachers' names from the register of teachers where the persons concerned "have ceased to be eligible for registration" or "have failed to pay any such fee, or otherwise", the Bill leaves so much to be dealt with by regulation. For this reason, while I have not put down any amendments at this stage, I would be interested to have the Minister's advice as to why the council has not been given much more in the way of teeth and why the Secretary of State, and not the Privy Council, is to be responsible for making regulations.
4 p.m.
Lord Tope: Perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, which have been grouped with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Russell. My amendments relate to Schedule I to the Bill and specifically to paragraph 3, which deals with the chairman and members of the council. In part my concern has been echoed by the two previous speakers about the words "regulations may", but also—and perhaps more so—about the point we were discussing earlier. I refer to the independence of the general teaching council. If it is to be seen as an independent body, the Government must learn to trust it, although sometimes it may be uncomfortable to do so. Part of that—I have put down amendments which reflect the same point—is trusting it to make its own rules and regulations, to elect its own chairman and to determine his period of office, and so on. In other words, it should be a trusted, professional and responsible body which is able also to regulate its own affairs and not be subject to prescription from the Secretary of State. That is the purpose of the
1392
amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Maddock. This is an important point and it is part of a wider consideration to which I am sure we shall return time and again during this discussion.
Lord Peston: One reason why I am so enamoured of your Lordships' House is that we have certain rituals. One of the rituals is that when you are on the other side of the House, where I spent a great many years—too many years—you always complain about regulations. It is a standard thing. You get up and say of every Bill, "Too much is in regulations". I made goodness knows how many such speeches. If there is some catastrophe and I end up on the Benches opposite again, which I do not expect to happen in my lifetime, I am sure I will make exactly the same speech.
I look forward with great interest to my noble friend's reply but I think I can guess precisely what it will be. It will be a fair copy of the kind of reply the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, used to give. That does not get away from the substantial matter that this is still an interesting topic, particularly if we were in a more philosophical mood. But we are not. We have a Bill before us and we have to consider it as it is.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is my old sparring partner. I am grateful to him for giving way. There is a difference. It is that the whole Bill is a Henry VIII Bill. In fact the whole of the Education (Schools) Bill is a Henry VIII Bill. It is the volume of Henry VIII legislation which most concerns us. I remember the noble Lord's colleagues bringing the House to a halt because I had not produced, on behalf of the government. the draft legislation so that when the House came to discuss Henry VIII clauses it would be aware of what was going to be in the Bill. We have had a plethora of background papers in the past day or two but we still do not know what the shape of this body will be. We shall be passing the powers to set it up but we do not know what the shape of the body will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, has made an important point. There is a fundamental question to be decided. But I do not think we will be able to decide it because the Government have set their face against a body with powers. They have decided that it is to be an advisory body, and that, presumably, is what will go through. However, there should be a debate about the nature of this body and whether it should have powers and teeth. We should be dealing with those powers in detail on the Floor of the House in this debate. Sadly, we are having a debate in a vacuum. There is a difference between the fun we had when I was sitting on the Government Front Bench and what is proposed in the Bill.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Baroness. She confirms my point about the ritual and related matters. I would make exactly the same speech she has just made if I were sitting opposite. However. I do not believe we are debating in a vacuum. We are debating the substance. My noble friend Lord Glenamara has made some substantial points. He was not prevented from making them and the points at least are being made at this stage.

1393
It so happens that I could he persuaded that certain provisions should be in the Bill. I am simply making the point that that is not the way we go. If I may refer to past history, I led for the Opposition on what I regarded as the most infamous Bill of all. I refer to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I thought it was a constitutional monstrosity. but I was soundly defeated on that.
I see the first amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as nullifying the Bill. If subsection (3) of Clause 1 is deleted, no council will be set up at all. He cannot mean his amendment to be accepted. He is putting it forward in order to debate the question of regulations generally. As the Bill stands, with no further amendment, if the council cannot be set up by regulation, it cannot be set up at all. I am sure the noble Earl does not want that to happen. I am not sure which of my noble friends is to reply but I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say.
Perhaps I may raise a point which I was going to raise on the next amendment. I refer to the role of the Privy Council. I was going to inquire whether it would be appropriate for the council to be set up by the Secretary of State or whether, following other examples, it should be a Privy Council matter. I should be quite happy to see that point replied to now rather than in a few moments.
The last point I would like to make—again, I welcome my noble friend's reply—is that I regard this as the first stage in setting up the teaching council. Someone else has used the word "evolutionary". I believe it may even have been the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, from the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that this is an evolutionary matter. We are not setting it up once and for all but in order to get the matter started and to gain experience. I believe that we are setting it up partly in order that the teachers themselves can gain experience in becoming self-regulating as a profession. Again, I had not read the Bill—it may be that I have misunderstood—as saying that in due course the general teaching council will not evolve to do many more things on an obviously self-regulatory, professional basis. So I am less pessimistic than one or two others about this.
I said also at Second Reading that my view is that this provision gets us started with something that is dear to our hearts. There is more that I would like, and once this provision has been achieved, it may well be that I and my noble friends will ask to have other matters added as the basis of experience. I am not pessimistic. I do not believe that Members of the Committee should attack the Bill because it is not yet doing everything that deep in our hearts we want to see happen.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I join in supporting this group of amendments because at the moment I believe that the Bill, as it is drafted, has gone too far in the direction of relying solely on regulation. I well remember in the past 10 years, when the present Government were on the other side, that they joined with the rest of us who worried in particular about the excessive powers being given to the Secretary of State. I remember at the time of the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, there were 200 to 300 extra powers being bandied around as accruing to the
1394
Secretary of State. I remember that Members of the House on this side were as worried as any of us. So I am genuinely surprised to see them defending it. I much respect the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but the fact that he refers to it as a ritual is not a very good answer to the arguments that we are dealing with at the moment.
The noble Lord said that this provision is going to be evolutionary. I understand that. But do we take it from that that there will be another Bill following on to extend it, or how else will it happen?
Lord Howie of Troon: Like my noble friend Lord Peston, I follow the rituals of the House. but with one difference. I make the same speeches regardless of which side I am sitting on and, unfortunately, frequently in the same words, which is rather a pity.
This is a very important debate because we are not only dealing with the council as a council but with the definition of teaching as profession. If the council is set up in such a way that the teaching profession is not self-regulating—and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Glenamara and with the remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Walton of Detchant, as regards the Privy Council—it is not a profession at all. The word "profession" becomes debased if it is used in that loose way: it becomes a mere occupation.
It may be that my noble friend Lord Peston is right and that this is the first evolutionary step which will take the teaching profession away from being an occupation to becoming a true profession. But if it is to be a profession, the Secretary of State must not have this key role in it. He is no doubt important in terms of education as a whole, but he must not have this fundamental regulatory function as regards the profession. At some stage, which I hope is soon, the profession will become self-regulated and will then be on a par with the other professions in this country such as medicine, architecture, the law and even engineering, if I might mention it. I hope that we can get to the position we want very rapidly. I support the idea of the council, but I hope that it is the first step in a fairly quick march towards self-regulation and the establishment of teaching as a true profession.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right. He is doubtless much better informed than I am that the Government do not want to go further at the moment because they do not feel that they can trust the teaching profession fully to involve itself in a general teaching council with powers such as those possessed by the council in Scotland. I spoke about this at Second Reading at some length.
I have to take the Government's word for it. I do not know what the situation is in England and Wales from experience, but I pointed out that the Scottish council is working quite well. There are some aspects that I would like to refer to as we continue our discussion.
As regards the noble Earl's amendment, he has an extremely important point. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I believe that as regards Clause 1(3) we are debating in a vacuum. We do not know how the

1395
council is going to be constituted because it is to be done by regulation. That makes things rather difficult. If the noble Baroness is going to tell us that she is waiting for consultation, perhaps she can tell us that she hopes to change the provision on the face of the Bill when that consultation is over. It seems to me a great pity to leave Parliament in a vacuum throughout the legislation on this issue because we do not know what we are doing. This is not so much a point about the responsibilities and opportunities for the teaching profession but about Parliament and whether it should accept this extreme use of regulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, suggested and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, endorsed the point—it depends which side of the House one is sitting on as to what one says about it. But I would simply point out to them that perhaps when they have been sitting behind the Government for some time they will find that the best way to get change on this matter is to talk to them privately. That is what we used to do. Many of us felt strongly about this matter. I feel no different now, but I did not always go on about it in the House because I was told that the Government wanted to get on with the Bill and did not want to hold things up, so I consulted privately. The noble Lords may be doing that already, but it is a very effective way to proceed. I support this amendment in so far as I believe that the noble Earl is bringing out an extremely important point.
Lord Glenamara: I support the noble Earl. I am not going to follow him, but I agree entirely with what he said. I cannot recollect any Bill brought forward under the previous government—I am not one of their supporters—which relies so heavily on regulations as this one does. The reform legislation brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, when he was in the other place pointed out the governance of the institutions involved in the greatest detail. The minutiae was all there. I do not know why we cannot do that in this case, perhaps not to the same extent, but we could do something in that direction. This Bill, which in part deals with student loans, tells us nothing at all except that the Minister is going to make regulations. For the most part they will be subject only to the negative procedure in Parliament. I believe that is very unfortunate.
As regards this provision, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton. The Privy Council is about the most undemocratic body in the country, but as an ex-Lord President I am very attached to it. It is a great safeguard of our freedoms in many ways. If one of the new universities wants to change its name or anything else, it has to get approval from the Privy Council. I do not know why the Privy Council could not have been brought in to this proposal. It would have given the teaching profession a bit of class and status. Instead, all we have is this dreary provision about the Secretary of State making regulations. In this part of the Bill he is making regulations about the form of the council, who should be on it, how many people are on it and all the rest. That is a matter for the teachers themselves.
1396
The Secretary of State is going to be a great super-national nanny. The teaching profession should be trusted. One should trust the teachers. After all, four years ago the then government trusted the polytechnics to become universities and they were put in charge of their own affairs. If one body functioning in a town in Britain can be trusted to run its own affairs, then surely the teaching profession can.
For some years now, a body organised by the teachers themselves has been planning a general teaching council. I cannot imagine why the Government have not followed its model in the main, but there it is. I believe that we should have tried to follow that model which is very different from this proposal. I very much hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance on that point.
My only other point is that I certainly agree that the council should not be composed entirely of teachers. However, teachers must form the majority. We cannot pretend to be giving teachers regulatory power over their own profession if they do not have a majority on that body. Please can we be assured that the teachers will form the majority on the council?
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I, at least, am free from hostages to fortune in this debate. I must agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the regulations. I shall not refer to them generally but, in relation to this Bill, it is an enormous tragedy—the Government will regret it—that Ministers have decided to use regulations so extensively.
I say that because, as I said earlier, I support the evolutionary approach, but that approach is being taken against a profession of great sensitivity which has felt that in the past it has not been given all that it wanted. Had the Government issued more detailed regulations so that the teaching profession could have seen them, I am quite sure that it might have accepted the need for an interim period while the council worked out its procedures. One important element of setting up an executive with its support staff is the question of who will be secretary to the council. That is a crucial appointment. By not issuing detailed regulations now, the Government have made the tasks of that council much greater and have decreased the possibility of it being accepted.
I prefer an evolutionary approach because such a body is new to England. I emphasise that we are dealing with a profession which is completely different from those of the law and of medicine, in particular with regard to numbers. There are 460,000 teachers in England and the teaching profession covers a wide variety of people. One cannot simply set up such a body in this way. It is as though the Government were to set up a body for the medical profession to include also masses of ancillary health workers.
I support the delay, but I hope that we can return to this to put more flesh on the bones, otherwise the Government will be making a rod for their own back. However, it is for those reasons that I cannot support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. One is caught in a cleft stick. One does not

1397
know where one is going. The Government will not tell us. We must hope that the teachers will accept this. Even a good nanny would not do that.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may begin by addressing the questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in moving the amendment. The noble Earl began by asking what could be done under the regulations if the Secretary of State chose to go to their outer limits. I cannot answer that question. It makes no sense to try to expose the outer limits of what may be done under any regulation-making power. That poses a quite impossible question. We could all start to fantasise about it—
Earl Russell: Whichever parliamentary draftsman drew up the words must have done so with a point in the words which sets limits to the powers. The Committee has a right to know what those limits are.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sorry, but I must repeat what I have just said. I do not think that it is possible under any regulation-making power to expose what the outer limits of that power might be.
Perhaps I may turn to the noble Earl's second question about what the department will actually do. I assume that the noble Earl has seen the note that was placed in the Library setting out the issues that will be covered in the regulations. The difficulty in this debate is that the Government have made a firm commitment to consult. That commitment has been welcomed by the teaching profession, the teachers' unions and the local education authorities. We must await the results of that consultation. We want to listen to the views of the profession. The profession is not a single entity. It consists of many different individuals, many different groups of teachers and a range of trade unions. My noble friend Lord Glenamara admitted that he was unable to set up a teaching council 30 years ago because of disputes between the teachers' unions. That is exactly what this Government are trying to avoid. We want to get agreement through the consultation process so that the council can get off to a really good start and so that nothing will be set out in regulations and legislation in advance to preclude our reaching such an agreement.
Perhaps I may admit to being something of a Fabian gradualist in this respect. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said. We must approach this matter with care. We must build. It may well be that in 10 years' time the final shape of the general teaching council will be rather different from what it is when it is established. As my noble friend Lord Peston and one or two other speakers have said, it is sensible to approach this from an evolutionary basis. I have no doubt that as the council establishes itself and beds down, it will build on its work. It may start with a slightly more limited remit compared to its eventual remit, but it is extremely important that at this stage in the debate we do not limit the power in the way in which the noble Earl suggests. That would constrain the consultation and I am sure that noble Lords would not want us to do that.
1398
I was asked a specific question about the role of the Privy Council by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. My noble friend Lord Glenamara then picked up the point. I think that the answer to the question is that there has not been any tradition of Privy Council involvement in education at school level. Of course, there has been such involvement at university level—
Lord Glenamara: I do not think that the Minister is correct. Until the previous government altered the arrangement, every school inspector was appointed by name by the Privy Council, by the Queen in Council.
Baroness Blackstone: That is, of course, true of the inspectorate, but when they were in Government. noble Lords opposite decided to get rid of HMI. Speaking as somebody who has run a university for some years, I am not so sure whether it is a good idea to involve the Privy Council in this. For all its great strengths, the Privy Council is one of the slowest-moving public bodies ever invented. We do not want to find that we cannot make progress in developing the general teaching council because the provisions to do that are sitting in some outer office of the Privy Council. I believe that, just as in Scotland, in England the Secretary of State for Education should have such powers rather than the Privy Council.
As my noble friend Lord Peston said, the amendments—this is certainly true of Amendments Nos. 3 and 4—would remove the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations about how the GTC should be constituted. If we remove that power, we shall not be able to make any progress whatsoever in developing the GTC. That cannot make any sense.
Most important of all, I believe that these amendments would constrain and pre-empt consultation with the teaching profession and other interests about the composition of the council. We need to hear their views in detail. However, I recognise the concerns that have arisen during the debate about the types of issues to be covered by the regulations. That was why I placed a note in the Library which sought to set them out.
In response to the noble Lord. Lord Tope, the Government do not suggest in any way that the teaching council should be seen as other than a trusted and professional body. That is what it should be. At the same time, to say that the Secretary of State has no role, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, suggested earlier, would be an irresponsible abrogation of his responsibilities, especially as we are talking of a totally new body that needs to develop its approaches to a number of issues. There are very important issues here, like the barring of teachers involved in child abuse. I do not believe it is right to say that the Secretary of State has no role in matters such as that.
A question was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, as to whether there would be another Bill. In the long-term it may be that new legislation will be required. That must be true of any area that we debate. But there is no intention to bring forward another Bill in the near future because we shall set out in regulations how the council is to work. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about

1399
the composition of the council. As the note placed in the Library indicates, the regulations will be used to set out the framework within which we envisage the GTC should make its own arrangements. There will be a good deal of scope for the GTC to do that. It is right that this framework is set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State as the GTC will be a public body, not a private teachers' association. It will have a very important regulatory role and it should therefore have proper public accountability about which the Secretary of State and Government can feel confident. In setting out in regulations the framework for the composition of the GTC, the arrangements will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We can therefore ensure that we are content with the arrangements so that there is representation of all those with an interest in high standards in education while allowing the GTC scope to make its own arrangements on the details.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, the regulations will be made only after wide-ranging consultation, and the constitution of the council will be set out in those same regulations. We shall very carefully consider the issues that arise during consultation and try to achieve a consensus before proceeding. All of the key interest groups will have an opportunity at that stage to comment on the provisions. I cannot therefore support amendments that would leave absolutely everything to the GTC to determine for itself.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may raise one or two matters. A moment or two ago the Minister said that the body would have important regulatory functions. As I read all of the information that came before me as background reading for this debate and the Bill itself, it appeared to me that the body would have no regulatory functions whatever. All of the amendments on the Marshalled List today are about giving the body regulatory functions. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether she is asserting that the body will have important regulatory functions and, if so, what they are.
As I understand it, secondary legislation in the form of these regulations takes its powers and authority from primary legislation. Therefore, what we do during the passage of this Bill through both Houses is very important in that it sets the framework for secondary legislation. The noble Baroness said that the Government were committed to consultation. I have absolutely no reason to doubt that. At the moment we are almost consulting to a fault because there is so much consultation taking place. But would it not have been better to have had that consultation with the teaching profession and then put the detailed proposal to the House so that the House could properly determine the fundamental question remaining at the end of the passage of the Bill; that is, whether this body should have powers or whether the body is there to advise the Secretary of State.
I sit here with copious papers from all the teacher unions. We know what each of them thinks about the setting up of the GTC. They differ one from the other, and many of the amendments on the Marshalled List
1400
today in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, are based on the desires of the teacher unions to have this body. But the common thread throughout all of this is that if there is to be a general teaching council, teachers want it to be a regulatory body with powers over teacher training and promoting the profession.
This takes us back to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which is a very important one; namely, the extent to which these powers can be exercised by the Secretary of State. We need to have some idea of the extent of those powers. For example, at the end of the day having passed this skeleton Bill, which is all it is, will we have a body that has all of the powers that noble Lords have talked about today? Does the Bill allow for a body with powers over teacher training, entry to the profession, dismissal and the discipline of teachers, or is the secondary legislation limited to codifying those areas where the body can advise the Secretary of State? If powers are to be given to this body, will it have to come back to the House for primary legislation? The answers to those questions are very important because the context in which we discuss all of these amendments this afternoon will be based on the answers given by the noble Baroness.
Earl Russell: I should like to reinforce the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I thank the Minister for a very long and carefully considered reply. I told her that this amendment was probing in the first instance. I take her point that if the words are removed altogether unless they are replaced with something the general teaching council will not go ahead. That was not my intention.
But there is one point on which I believe that there must be a misunderstanding between us. The Minister said that she was not prepared to answer the question as to the extent of the vires conferred on her by this Bill. What is the extent of what we are authorising the Secretary of State to do if we pass these words'? That is an important question. The Minister is asking the Committee to give her powers. She will be accountable to the House for the use of those powers. In any normal transaction it should be possible, if one asks for powers, to answer the question, "Power to do what, may I ask?" I appreciate that Ministers always want flexibility but I do not see why we should confer regulation-making powers on Ministers at all if they are not prepared to tell us the extent of those powers.
The reply of the noble Baroness is also out of line with the answers given by other departments. As recently as last Tuesday the Department of Social Security, which makes plentiful use of regulation-making powers, organised a briefing meeting in the Moses Room, for which I thank it very warmly. I raised the equivalent question about a regulation-making power in that Bill and was answered very quickly. I was told that there was a block in the wording which ensured that the consequence that I feared was not within the vires conferred by the legislation. I found that answer convincing and I accepted it instantly.

1401
I should like to put one specific question about these vires. Is it necessary for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to set up a general teaching council at all? The word is "may", not "must". Clause i provides:
"There shall he a…General Teaching Council".
It does not say when.
The commencement clause is open-ended. The Minister might do well to read the memorandum submitted by Sir William Wade, printed in the first report of your Lordships' Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, in which he said that an open-ended clause might amount to an improper delegation of power in that it left it in the Minister's discretion whether the Bill came into force at all. With a "may" in the regulation-making powers, that is doubly the case. It strengthens the point that what Sir William Wade was addressing was the criminal injuries compensation provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which, as we all know to our grief in many subsequent late nights, were never brought into force.
Is there anything in the wording of the Bill that means that the Secretary of State "must" bring the GTC into effect? I noticed also that the Minister did not answer a Question I asked her about when the powers to bring in tuition fees were conferred. That Question has been down for Written Answer for over a week, so someone in the department must have notice of it. If I am considering conferring powers to do things that I do not foresee, at the very least I might have an answer to the question as to when I was a party to conferring on the Government powers to do something I do not want them to do, which I never for one moment foresaw that they could do under the powers that I was conferring. Before taking the matter any further, I should be grateful to have some answers.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising all those questions. I return to what I said before. In any legislation of this sort, particularly where a new body is being introduced, there is always a need for regulations to set out how it should operate. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested that the consultation should have been done before the Bill was introduced. We could have approached it that way. I accept that that would have been one way of approaching the matter, but it would have delayed the introduction—something that everyone on all sides of this place would like to see introduced.
Baroness Blatch: We are having a kind of chicken-and-egg debate. Is the Minister suggesting that we can get on with establishing the body more quickly ahead of the consultation than at the end of the consultation? Whichever way round it is done—Bill and then consultation, or consultation and then Bill-1 cannot see how the timetable is telescoped in any way whatsoever.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness was an experienced Minister who was a member of the previous government for a long time. She will know that the opportunities for any government department to bring
1402
in legislation are limited. Only so many Bills can be introduced in any one Session. We had the opportunity this Session to bring in a Bill concerned with both teaching and higher education. To have left it out because we had not yet consulted on the minutiae of what the GTC would look like would be a great pity. Our intention—this answers another point raised by the noble Earl—is to have the GTC fully operational by 2000. That is what we have agreed to do. However, it is important that we should get on the statute book that we need and want a GTC. Otherwise we shall be unable to do it by 2000. That is an important point to remember. It is a commitment that we are determined to make.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked whether extra powers would be introduced. The answer to that is no. The GTC can only have the powers that are laid down in the regulations, although it will be possible to add additional powers by order, but only where they are related closely to those on the face of the Bill. Otherwise we would need new primary legislation. I hope that that is clear.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to intervene again, but it is important to get this straight. It is not clear. The Bill as it stands confers on the Secretary of State powers to make secondary legislation. Under the Bill as it stands, is it possible to end up with a body that is anything from one having advisory powers only, on the one hand, or all the powers that have been talked about in the course of the debate, on the other? Is it limited at all? If we are allowing for regulations to give us any kind of body—from one extreme to the other—it is important that the Minister sets that out now.
Baroness Blackstone: Yet again, of course I cannot set that out at the moment. As I have said repeatedly, we are consulting on these matters. We are consulting on the constitution, the membership, and the powers of the GTC. Until we have done that, it is indeed open. The noble Baroness is right when she implies that under the Bill there is a wide range of possibilities. I readily and happily admit that. That is helpful, because it means that we can listen to the views of the profession, and, as she said earlier, views are varied. We shall need to take them all into account, and discuss and negotiate with the different sections of the profession what seems to be the most sensible way of moving forward. I hope that that reply is helpful. It is designed to be.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It may be me, but it is not entirely clear. I am not asking the Minister to tell me what powers this body will have at the end of the day. I am just asking her whether the secondary legislative powers which are going to be given to the Secretary of State will include the power to create a body that has, on the one hand, advisory powers only, or will the power be wide enough to create a body that has all the powers necessary for dismissal, teacher training, and the promotion of teaching as a profession? If the teachers

1403
all come back and say to the Minister—as I suspect that they will—that they want a body with powers and teeth, do the secondary legislative powers allow for that?
Baroness Blackstone: As I understand it, they do. At the initial stage, the Secretary of State will not want to give the GTC all those powers for the reasons that we have made clear—until it is well-established and has some experience of playing an important and significant role in raising the standards of teaching and of the teaching profession in this country. It is important that we do not rush into anything. I am now reading a note that has come from my civil servants—the powers and functions are set out in the Bill. The noble Baroness asked whether secondary powers might result in a range of different roles for the GTC. The answer is that the powers and functions are set out in the Bill. Clause 1(4) sets some parameters. We must consider the range of interests to be represented, for example. The Bill does not otherwise set limits. It would be hard to do so without constraining the scope for consultation.
Earl Russell: The Minister does not need to justify a regulation-making power. We are too early to consider that question. We cannot decide whether we need a regulation-making power until we know: a power to do what? I want an answer to that question. I want an answer to the question whether there is anything in the Bill that means that the Minister "must" introduce a GTC. I want to know when we conferred upon the Government the power to introduce tuition fees without additional legislation.
Those are three perfectly fair questions. The first will recur on about 20 amendments in the remainder of the Bill, and I shall ask it again. May I have an answer, please?
Lord Peston: As I am anxious to live to the end of the debate on this Bill, perhaps I may say that I believe that the noble Earl is wasting the Committee's time. I have taken it for granted as a minimum that regulations are about the Bill. Clause 1 deals with the setting up of a general teaching council. Clause 2 and later clauses deal with its functions and related issues. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that that will be the role of the regulations. That appears to be logical, to present no trouble, does not put us in constitutional conflict and should not encourage the noble Earl to raise the same point 20 times. The matter is elementary and logical.
Furthermore, I understand my noble friend to be saying that if, for example, the Committee amended the functions of the council and the Government accepted that, logically, the regulations would relate to the new amended functions. There is no theoretical difficulty, let alone constitutional difficulty, with that. I hope that my noble friend will now be able to say a final word so that we can move on to other matters.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I follow the major problem raised by the noble Earl. Can the Minister tell us whether by regulation we could end up with a council
1404
which decided who could teach and who would be barred, such decisions being taken purely by order? That is a major part of what the council might become and I hope that that will be the case. However, can it occur without primary legislation?
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, believes that we are wasting time. However, the debate will be prolonged because the Bill is skeletal and it is important that we know what is in the Government's mind when they legislate. The lives and work of almost half a million teachers will be directly affected by the outcome of the deliberations in Parliament.
I have looked at the powers and functions of the Bill. I pressed my questions so persistently because there is no power in the Bill other than to advise. Clause 2 provides that:
"Thc Council shall from time to time advise".
It then lists the matters on which it shall advise. Subsection (3) provides that:
"The Council shall also advise the Secretary of State",
and the matters are listed. Subsection (4) provides that:
"The Council may be required under subsection (3) to advise the Secretary of State on any matter relevant to a decision by him".
Contrary to what the Minister said, there is nothing in the Bill that allows any secondary legislation which will flow from it to confer upon the council regulating powers or responsibilities.
I believe that the advice we have been given is wrong. The only way in which secondary legislation in the hands of the Secretary of State could confer on the council the responsibility for, for example, teacher-training responsibility, the promotion of teaching and the dismissal and discipline of teachers would be to amend Clause 2. That is why we are here today.
Lord Peston: I interrupt the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, because she is missing my point. I was addressing the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which is concerned with regulatory powers. I was saying that it appears to be obvious that the regulatory powers will relate to the provisions of Clause 2 and beyond. I was making the additional point that if the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, persuaded the Government to change Clause 2 the regulatory powers would have to be adjusted.
I do not say that the Government will change that, but technically the noble Earl's questions about regulations—not those of the noble Baroness about the powers per se—are a red herring. Unless for many years I have misunderstood your Lordships' procedures, regulations will be about the provisions of the Bill—end of story.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has created a confusion about what the regulations will be and what the regulations could be. I make no apology for asking the Minister what could be done under

1405
the powers that she is asking the Committee to confer. 1 shall ask that question again every time a regulation-making power is requested.
I had not intended to detain the Committee so long because I had not expected to wait so long for an answer. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but the Minister should not count on being so lucky again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 6, after ("shall") insert ("specify the criteria he is proposing to use to make appointments and in any event shall").
The noble Lord said: This amendment represents a more elementary and milder access to some of the problems which were raised in the previous group of amendments. I take it for granted that all that could be ultra vires would be the introduction of regulations which did not correspond to the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I take for granted the fact that the regulations will correspond to them. I shall not comment on tuition fees, about which I have views, because we shall deal with them another day.
I wish to give my noble friend the Minister an opportunity to say broadly what the Secretary of State has in mind. I take her point about consultation. As someone who has spent most of his professional life as a professor, the word "consultation" does not come easily to my lips. I tend to take the view that I know what is right and that is what people ought to do, but that is by the way!
However, it would not be attractive for the Secretary of State to proceed on an ad hoc basis. It would be reasonable if either today or after consultation my noble friend told the Committee specifically what the Secretary of State has in mind. Perhaps I may give examples. The first chairman will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that because I do not see how the council will get off the ground. I should like to know the kind of person we are looking for as chairman. One does not place that requirement on the face of the Bill, but one could impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to let us know in due course. Are we looking for someone with a teaching qualification? Is that the criterion or is it another kind of person? The Bill provides that the council will reflect the interest of teachers. Does that refer to teachers in post, teachers who are retired or teachers undertaking other work? There are many such matters that come under the heading of "required criteria". In particular, I advert again to the "general public". To my mind, I should have preferred the words "lay person" rather than "general public". I reiterate that I should rather those people were chosen by the Privy Council than by the Secretary of State, as has happened with other professional bodies.
Again, on the criteria, I see the expression,
"such other interests as in the opinion of the Secretary of State".
I should prefer something spelt out more explicitly rather than to have a reference to "such other interests". What are those interests? What is meant by "as in the opinion of and so on?
The last matter that I raise under that general rubric—and again, it may well be that I have misread the Bill and buried in it is the answer to the question—is how many people will he on the GTC. That sort of information is often in very small type but I cannot see how many people the Secretary of State has it in mind to appoint. I should like to know the sort of numbers we are talking about.
For those reasons, Ip believe that it is useful to mention the word "criteria". I do not believe that the debate we had on the previous amendment was terribly helpful because we fell into dealing with the technicalities which does not do a great deal in relation to improving the Bill or the general teaching council. A brief response from my noble friend or other contributions may well help in connection with this amendment. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I was interested in the amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Peston and Lady David. I do not believe that the amendment is advisable or necessary at this stage, although I suspect that it is a probing amendment. The Secretary of State intends to appoint the first chief officer but has no intention at present to appoint the first chairman. That is a matter for the regulations. We shall consult on how the chairman should be appointed and, indeed, on what sort of person the chairman should be. I am sure that many people will have views about that matter which they will wish to put forward. Clearly, the chairman must be somebody who has an absolute commitment to the highest possible standards in the teaching profession and should also have some knowledge of the teaching profession's role and functions and what it does. But we have not yet made any formal commitment to any particular criteria because, as I say, that is a matter for consultation. The same applies to the question of my noble friend about how many people will be on the GTC. There is no final decision about a precise number. Clearly the body should be sufficiently large to represent a wide range of interests and in that sense have the confidence of the profession. At the same time, it should not be so enormous that it cannot properly do its work without being bogged down with huge amounts of unnecessary paper, bureaucracy and so on. I repeat that the Bill does not specify that any members of the council shall be appointed by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I do not believe that it is necessary to refer in primary legislation to the criteria that he would use in making such appointments. It may be that part of the membership should be appointed directly by the Secretary of State but we shall consult on the case for that. If so, any such appointments would be subject to—and again, I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive the shorthand—established Nolan principles. That is extremely important if everybody is to be confident about the quality of the membership of the GTC.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to say something more on this issue. In a few

1407
moments we shall deal with a group of amendments which are all directed to the same point; namely, the number of interests which need to be represented. I find it extremely difficult to put that into a context when I do not know whether we are talking about a body comprising about 20 to 25 people, which would seem to me the absolute minimum number that one might have, or something in the order of 60 to 70 people with a very broad range of interests represented. At present, the noble Baroness seems to think that she can leave us with absolutely no idea at all as to what size of body we are talking about. The Government must have some idea in mind of the numbers. They need not commit themselves at this stage because I understand the point about consultation. I have some sympathy with the point made by my noble friend Lady Blatch that perhaps the consultation should have come before the Bill which might have been a more normal order of proceedings. However, that is not what we are dealing with. We must be told what size of body we are talking about so that we know to what extent it is reasonable to insist that it should be representative of this, that or the other. I do not believe that the noble Baroness can leave it at large as she has at the moment.
Lord Quirk: There is one respect in which it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is absolutely right in asking for criteria to be spelt out. We are talking about a very large profession—half a million. I refer to teachers in schools covering the period of mandatory education. But as we all know, there is the Association of University Teachers. Once the word "teaching" is used, the breadth is quite extraordinary. Clause 1(4) states, "membership reflecting the interests of … teachers [and] employers of teachers". Therefore, surely we should know the composition of the general teaching council. What kind of teachers will be members of the general teaching council? We should have good reason to understand that "teachers" means teachers of pupils in mandatory education and "employers of teachers" means employers of such teachers, not a bunch of vice-chancellors or something.
Baroness Young: We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for tabling the amendment. It has drawn one clear statement from the Minister; that is, that the Secretary of State is to appoint the first chief officer. That is the first concrete evidence we have had of anything at all, without making any commitment about the chairman, although I see that in the schedule we learn a bit about the chairman. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that she has put all Members of the Committee in a very difficult position. I can see that it is very tedious to go over and over these points. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not in his place but the points which he raised were very real. I am one of those who think that it would have been wiser to have gone out to consultation on all this before bringing forward a Bill. I was slightly surprised to hear the Minister say that the Government had not done that
1408
because of the difficulty of fitting a Bill into the legislative programme. I seem to recall the words that this Government stand for "Education, education, education". Have we not heard those words? Therefore, I should not think that there would be too much difficulty fitting an education Bill into the parliamentary timetable. But that is not a matter for Members on this side of the Committee to debate. The fact is that we are being asked to buy blind. None of us is tabling amendments to be difficult. We want a general teaching council to work, and to work effectively for the aims which we all wish to see. But it is very difficult to know what we are debating when we know nothing. We do not know the powers, their limits or who is to be on the council. My noble friend Lord Jenkin made the very important point that we do not know whether the council will comprise 20 or 100 people. We have no idea. In those circumstances it is very difficult to be constructive and helpful. I believe that the Minister should take all this away and come back to the Committee with a much clearer picture of what we are attempting to do.
Baroness David: We are now coming to the more specific amendments which I think will give the Minister a chance to let us hear the thoughts of the Government and the Department for Education. I plead with Members of this Committee to get on with it so that we can perhaps get some answers.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I express a mild measure of surprise at the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She indicated her pleasure at having extracted a statement from the Minister that the Secretary of State will appoint the first chief executive. I am surprised at her pleasure because that information is to be found in the first schedule to the Bill. Indeed, if the noble Baroness had read the Bill, she would have seen that.
Baroness Young: I really do not need the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to tell me about reading the Bill. I have read it. I was making the point that I welcomed the fact that we had a clear statement on the matter. I recognise that it is in the Bill; indeed, there is also something in the Bill about the chairman. We do not need to be lectured on whether or not we have read the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It is quite obvious that the noble Baroness made a thoroughly bad point from which she is trying to recover.
Baroness Blatch: I find what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has just said to be quite rude.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Shocking!
Baroness Blatch: Indeed, if the noble Lord wishes, I shall use his own word—shocking. My noble friend was making the point that the only clear answer we have received this afternoon was one that we already knew;

1409
namely, the one that we are just discussing. We have spent much time this afternoon pressing the Minister to answer questions and are having great difficulty in eliciting answers on certain points.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Perhaps I may speak briefly from these Benches and say that I should like to echo what has just been said. We must have something more concrete on the face of the Bill, although I am not sure whether that should be in the form suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Unless we do so, we are in a vacuum. I understand and applaud the consultation; but, like other Members of the Committee, I have doubts about the way that it has been done. It is certainly profoundly unsatisfactory for Members of this Chamber, and indeed for those in another place, that we are not able to get down to the concrete detail. At some point we shall really have to push for something more concrete. I certainly look forward to the debate that the noble Baroness, Lady David, indicated we are about to have on the detailed amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady David for what she has said. It would be most helpful if we could move on to the more concrete amendments where it will be easier to give Members of the Committee a little more information where it is available. However, I have to keep returning to a point I have already made. I do not wish to be boring about this and keep repeating myself, but if people keep asking the same kind of questions I shall have to do so. We have made a commitment to consultation. We want to be a listening government. We want to hear what people have to say about the details. Nevertheless, there are one or two points that I can perhaps answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, raised the question of whether the provision will cover teachers who are providing only mandatory education. The answer is no. The council will certainly cover nursery teachers. It will certainly cover teachers of children and young people over the age of 16.
On the question of size, it would be quite wrong for me to specify a particular size for the council when we have said that we want to hear people's views in that respect. It might be a relatively small executive board, rather like many non-departmental public bodies, with as few as 15 members. I personally feel that that would be rather small and that it would be most difficult to get proper representation of all the parties who will want to be involved. It might be quite a substantial council in terms of its size which does represent many interests, like the Scottish GTC which has around 50 members. Alternatively, the General Medical Council has over 100 members. My personal view is that that would be too large. But, frankly, I do not think that my personal view as a Minister in the department concerned is relevant. It is most important for us to hear people's views on the matter.
I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that that is genuine. We want to have a great debate about the GTC with all of those who are interested. Indeed, part of that debate is taking place this afternoon. If people have views about the size of the council,
1410
I hope that they will express them when we consider the more detailed amendments which are to follow. On that basis, I very much hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment so that we can move on.
Lord Peston: I thank my noble friend the Minister. I do so especially for her reassurance that our right honourable friend the Secretary of State is actually interested in our views, as well as those of other people. I am delighted to be reassured in that respect. This was a probing amendment. However, I left out one point from my notes in my opening remarks. It is an important point and one that I forgot to make. I trust that I may make it now in the hope that it will be read from the record by the Secretary of State.
Where subsection (4) refers to "the general public", I intended to add the word "independent". One of my real concerns is that the lay people should be independent of both the Secretary of State and, for that matter, our party; and, indeed, of the teaching profession. I believe that there is a role in all these professional bodies for truly independent people who can come to the task with an open mind and often say the unsayable to the professionals. That is something that I have done myself. Having said that, I thank all Members of the Committee for their contributions to the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young: moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("() pupils in schools,
() the parents of pupils in schools,").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to make it quite clear that this is a probing amendment. I speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who, unfortunately, is unable to be present today. We are now considering subsection (4) where we are looking at,
"the desirability of the Council's membership reflecting the interests of',
various parts of the whole education system. The point which could not fail to strike anyone is that, on reading the first part of the Bill, at no point is the word "pupil" mentioned. It seemed to me—and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—that that was something which should perhaps be looked at, if not corrected. At the end of the day, the whole purpose of this is for the benefit of pupils in schools or anywhere else. As I said, it is simply a probing amendment and one which is worthy of consideration.
I should also like to make it clear that so far as I am concerned—and I believe I can speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—we are not talking about representatives of pupils. But, in this whole matter, that is something which should be considered as, indeed, should the question of parents of pupils. Everyone is most conscious today of the important link between the support of parents for teachers and for pupils. They are all linked together as part of the education system. I should be most interested to hear

1411
the Minister's thinking on that matter. It is a probing amendment and one which I know is of particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I wonder whether the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, listened to the winding-up speech of my noble friend Lord Whitty on Second Reading when he said that the GTC,
"will bring together and reflect the interests of all of those who have a stake in ensuring the highest possible standard of teaching. It will include parents and employers".—[Official Report, 11/12/97; col. 352.1
Therefore, I believe that we have in that speech a commitment that parents will be involved.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I should like to refer to a point that I made on Second Reading; namely, the very substantial involvement of the Churches in the whole enterprise of education, especially their involvement in maintained schools. Something like one-third of all primary schools are in the voluntary sector, and something like one-fifth of all schools are in the primary sector with around one-third of teachers receiving their initial teacher training in Church colleges of higher education.
I simply want to make the simple point that each of the categories under consideration, including those mentioned in the amendment, reflect substantial Church involvement. Clearly the Churches were consulted when the embryo GTC was being formulated. I made the point on Second Reading—and will just repeat it—that in any consultation the Churches should be among those who are consulted because we have such a substantial interest in the matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is an enormous menu of suggestions here. The Government have their own list of interests on the face of the Bill which they feel should be represented. I believe that the experience in Scotland is important here. Whatever may arise from discussion, I do not believe that Parliament should let the Bill go without establishing that this body should contain a majority of teachers. I should hope that those teachers would reflect the interests of all teachers both in maintained and in independent schools, and that they would be practising teachers. I know that the National Association of Head Teachers feels strongly about that. Someone may speak on that later.
I wish to draw the attention of the Government to something that has just happened in Scotland which the noble Baroness may or may not be aware of. It has been reported in the education press—I am sure this is correct—that the general teaching council in Scotland has just proposed a code of practice for teachers. That is an important move. The membership of that general teaching council contains a majority of teachers and the majority among the teachers are members of the Educational Institute of Scotland, which is the largest teachers' union in Scotland and includes head teachers, as the Minister is probably aware.
1412
It is interesting that the Educational Institute of Scotland has thrown out the recommendation I am discussing. As I understand it, that means that teachers on the general teaching council are acting absolutely independently of their union and are not politicising what they do. That is what I have been told by the registrar of that council. The teachers have acted in an objective way and have done what they feel is right and is their duty; namely, to propose a code of practice. However, that has been rejected by the union, which is by far the biggest union in Scotland. I do not know what will happen next but that is what has been reported.
That demonstrates that the Government should not be fearful of the way teachers will behave if they have a majority on the general teaching council. That is an important point. It is not enough for the Bill to state that the teachers should have a majority. In England and Wales there is a greater variety of kinds of school than in Scotland, where I believe almost all the schools involved in the general teaching council are state schools; and we do not have grant-maintained schools. That experience is relevant to the situation we are discussing. I hope that the Government will think about that. I believe that the Bill should not leave Parliament before it establishes a majority of teachers on the general teaching council. It is a matter of principle that Parliament should decide. Whatever teachers may say, it seems unlikely that they will want anything other than that. The Government should concede that point during the passage of this Bill, if possible during its passage through this Chamber. That is something that I feel strongly about.
Lord Peston: What are the other people who have amendments in this grouping doing in terms of speaking?
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I think I can explain the position. I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 15. I hope that in doing so I shall give pleasure to all Members of the Committee as they all want flesh on the bones. I intend to give them all much juicy flesh. I hope that the Minister will support every word I say.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 relate to teachers outside the maintained sector. If this body is to mirror the pattern of other professional bodies—doctors and lawyers have been mentioned—it is absolutely inconceivable that the Government should restrict it to employees of the state. The body is not just concerned with schools that are supported by the state but with the whole of education. It is important that that is understood and seen to be the case. Every teacher ought to be able to share the advantages conferred by the council and should be able to contribute to it and feel part of it. It is good for the whole profession that there should be interchange between the two sectors. I am particularly glad that the Minister and many of her colleagues have expressed a desire to have closer co-operation with the independent sector. Therefore it would be unfortunate if that was not included on the face of the Bill.

1413
I have also mentioned the composition of the council. These are probing amendments, but I hope that the Minister can put her own flesh on the skeleton. I have included people outside teaching. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and others have said that that is necessary and I agree with him. Teaching is not quite so specific a profession as medicine and law. As regards law, some feel that the legal profession is often too tightly controlled by members of that profession. As regards education I think the community at large will feel that that is even more the case. For those reasons I have suggested wider participation in the council. I have proposed a list of participants. I hope that other Members of the Committee will make further suggestions. Members of the Committee may wonder why I have included inspectors of schools. They may ask, is it not like putting the gamekeeper with the poacher? There is always a danger with such a body that there may be conflict between the profession and the inspectorate of the profession. In the history of English education there has often been conflict between those two bodies. If the council is to improve that relationship and to improve education generally it is desirable that it includes chief inspectors.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has talked about disagreement in Scotland. I gather that there was a further disagreement where a Scottish teaching council turned down national curriculum tests. That could constitute a classic example of conflict between the inspectorate and the council. These things are better resolved in discussion. That is why I believe members of the inspectorate should be included in the council. I can only underline what the right reverend Prelate has said; namely, that voluntary aided and voluntary controlled schools should be represented. I might even go further and say that there should be representatives of the Churches who play a large part in aided schools—financial and otherwise—in making appointments and other such matters. I would also extend the participation to Jewish and Moslem schools. There could be conflict in those areas and the council will be involved in those areas. I should like to include representatives of commerce and industry on the council and one can think of members of various academic bodies too. This matter falls within a wide tradition of English regulation of education. When our predecessors in the previous century reformed many institutions of education and established new governing bodies they made sure that the members of those bodies were widely representative of the academic community and the community at large. Those are my suggestions.
I refer now to the way in which the participants should be chosen. It would be bad if the teaching side of this body were dominated either by the unions or by one section of the teaching profession. As the Committee is aware, certain teachers' unions tend to have a higher representation among people who teach in certain parts of the teaching profession. Some have higher representation in secondary education while others have higher representation in primary education. That has often caused conflict between the unions.
1414
I propose a system of constituencies to avoid that conflict. I do not wish to go into the full details of this but I can think of a constituency which represents voluntary controlled and voluntary aided schools. I can think of a constituency representing primary schools and others representing secondary schools, colleges of further education, kindergartens and so on. But within those constituencies the electors should be the teachers in the schools. In other words, it should not be a body nominated either by the union or by the executive. In this way one would involve the whole teaching profession. One would have a widely based body. One might wish to consider representation of headmasters.
I suggest three proposals: first, the inclusion of the independent sector; and, secondly, a widely based body. I do not say whether there should be a majority of teachers. If half the body was composed of teachers, in effect it would constitute a majority since representatives from teacher training colleges would belong to the same profession. That is a matter of detail. Thirdly, I propose the constituencies.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I, too, respond to the invitation. The noble Baroness indicated that this was part of the consultation process. After many years in another place and some years in this Chamber, I find it a rather odd way to approach legislation. Legislation should consist of a series of clear proposals and Parliament should be asked to decide whether they are acceptable or acceptable with amendments. I do not recollect ever having taken part in a process the like of which we have today. However, if that is the process, we have to ensure that we make the best of it.
Amendment No. 14, grouped with Amendment No. 6, refers to disabled people. My noble friend Lady Blatch will remember occasions when we discussed special education. A number of noble Lords were concerned with the revised process and the ability of parents to choose which kind of schools their disabled children should go to. I refer to children with a variety of handicaps, including behavioural. We found ourselves at loggerheads with the Department for Education. In the end, as a result of some effective debate, I think primarily in this House, a code was established which was largely acceptable to the interests of those concerned with the education of disabled children. I do not think that my noble friend will attempt to deny that it took a bit of a battle.
That is why I believe it is important to have on the face of the Bill a provision that one of the interests which should be reflected in the general teaching council is that of disabled people. Primarily, the council must include those interested in the education of disabled children and young people. However, the interests of disabled teachers are also involved.
The point has been made by the National Deaf Children's Society that children who suffer from a sensory handicap have great difficulty in identifying with effective role models. I should have thought that no one was better qualified to talk about that than the Secretary of State for Education. He has succeeded in the most astonishing way in overcoming his handicap of blindness. He constitutes a role model of a remarkable

1415
kind. I have the highest admiration for his personal qualities, as I have said to his face and will say again. In a Bill coming from Mr. Blunkett, I should not have thought it necessary to ask for specific mention of disabled people. But the reference is not in the Bill now. I hope that by the time the Bill leaves this House it will be.
My concern has tended to involve the area of visual handicap. For the past eight years I have chaired a body called the Visual Handicap Group representing all the major national bodies concerned with blindness and partial vision. We have made a number of important strides forward in raising the profile of the needs of that part of our population. If one includes the elderly visually handicapped—they are not much concerned with the Bill—the number involved is now almost a million. However, in my constituency there was a remarkable school for deaf children—the Sir Winston Churchill School for the Deaf. Over the 23 years that I represented that constituency. I found myself dealing again and again with the placement of individual children, teachers of children, relations with the local authority, and so on. So I have some experience of trying to integrate the special education of people with a sensory handicap into a national system. It used to be said to me that families came to live in my constituency for no other reason than that their children should be within reach of the Sir Winston Churchill School for the Deaf because it was such a remarkable place.
However, as regards people with mobility handicaps, the Redbridge College of Education has made a particular effort to open its gates and courses to people who suffer from a variety of physical handicaps—notably wheelchair users, and so on. The college and the London Borough of Redbridge are very proud of that.
I believe that it is necessary to set out clearly that that is an interest specified in the legislation which needs to be taken account of when appointments or elections are made. In his winding up speech at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, suggested that members of the council will be elected. We have no idea who the members will be or what the electoral body will be. Nevertheless, some will be appointed after consultation with all the relevant interests.
Perhaps I may take a moment or two to draw to the Committee's attention the difficulties of handicapped teachers in getting past the barriers to become teachers in ordinary schools and therefore a role model for some of the pupils. The National Deaf Children's Society has a substantial list of deaf people who have successfully become teachers. But I am told that they have had to fight hard to overcome the prejudice of higher education institutions against disabled teachers. Deaf people face barriers in entering initial teacher training created by the lack of information on the part of higher education colleges about their abilities to manage the classroom situation effectively and narrow definitions of the "fitness to teach" medical regulations.
The society draws my attention to the case of a deaf student who applied to do a post-graduate Certificate in Education at a university in northern England. She had a struggle to convince the admissions officer that she
1416
could manage both the academic and teaching practice component of the course. Despite excellent academic references from the mainstream school, she was refused admission, due partly to the failure of the admissions officer to understand how she proposed to overcome the difficulties on the course and through the medical officer's narrow interpretation of the medical regulations. Despite the fact that the medical regulations state that deaf people have to be able to understand, not hear, speech at six metres and therefore can use lip reading to assist them, the medical officer made the student lip read him while holding a document in front of his face making it impossible for her to see his lips. Those are the kind of misunderstandings that need to be addressed if we are to offer the best possibilities for pupils with handicaps such as deafness or blindness and for teachers who want to teach, and can teach extremely successfully, despite their handicap.
For that reason I very much hope that the Government, whatever they may say about the total number, the method of appointment, the chairman or any of the other matters, will see the merits of writing into the Bill, whether at this or a later stage, a clear declaration that the interests of disabled people must be represented on the council.
Baroness Maddock: I wish to speak primarily to Amendment No. 10 but many of the issues raised by it touch on other amendments on the Marshalled List. I agree with those Members of the Committee who said that we need to clarify some of the detail today. What is most important about setting up a general teaching council is that we send a clear message to teachers that we are serious about setting up a general teaching council in which they can have faith and which will do the job they want it to do; namely, make sure that people regard them as members of a profession. That is why it is important to examine many of these amendments—although it is clear that some Members on the Government Benches would prefer us not to go into too much detail for the moment.
As was discussed at Second Reading, for many years now we on the Liberal Benches have been strong advocates of a general teaching council. In our discussions over the years we have been quite clear as to how we see the membership of that council. It must include a wide variety of people who have a legitimate interest in education—representatives of local education authorities, parents, governors and people in higher and further education.
As we have heard, there is agreement in this place and outside that the majority of members of a general teaching council should be drawn from the teaching profession. We discussed this matter at Second Reading. It is not good enough simply to say, as was said then, that the voice of teachers will be central. That has to be recognised on the face of this legislation. Otherwise, we shall not be setting up the sort of professional body which most of us believe is the aim of this Bill. Unless we set it up as a proper professional body, the general teaching council will not be able to speak with legitimacy on behalf of the teaching profession. Without

1417
recognition of the majority interests of practising teachers, it will not be able to play the sort of role that the Government would like to see.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to clarify matters in regard to the way in which the amendment we have tabled was portrayed in the Times Educational Supplement. I wish to make it quite clear that what was written there was not in fact what our amendment seeks to do. The amendment makes it clear that "at least half the membership" of this body will be teachers, and not the employers of teachers, as stated in the TimesEducational Supplement.
Outside this Chamber, those in the teaching profession know that we are discussing the matter, and they have sent in their views as to how they think the council should be constituted. I consider that part of the consultation to be well under way. We could consider the points that they have submitted by way of consultation on this matter. I hope that the Minister will take that to heart.
There is a variety of opinion. For example, the National Union of Teachers believes that the general teaching council should have rather more than 50 per cent. teachers. I hope the Minister will examine more carefully the views expressed outside this Chamber and give us the opportunity of providing more detail on this point. It is very important that it is stated on the face of the Bill in order to give teachers confidence that we are setting up the sort of organisation that they want.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Quirk: May I echo the word "confidence"? It seems to me absolutely vital that we get right on the face of the Bill the constitution of the GTC. The GTC has to have the confidence of the teachers of this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, pointed out earlier. It is welcome that in Amendment No. 15 something like a half of the GTC should be teachers, and that this will therefore assure us that the body does have the confidence of the teaching profession.
But it also requires the confidence of the general public. I should like briefly to speak to Amendment No. 10 and Amendment No. 13, bringing in "representatives of commerce and industry" in one amendment, "commerce and industry" in the other amendment. We must not forget that it is commerce and industry that are going to be the employers of the products of our education system and their view is terribly important. It is also the body of people that have drawn attention to many of the defects in our education system which have led to the very welcome spate of legislation about education since 1988. So I would very much hope that a specific reference to commerce and industry appear in subsection (4) of Clause 1.
As to Clause 15, yes, indeed it is important that we recognise there are different types of schools. When it gets down to the detail of appointing to the council by reference to representations of these subsections, I fear
1418
that we might well have a GTC of more like 1,000 rather than 100 if all of these splinters are going to be represented. But the spirit of the thing is surely correct.
Lord Walton of Detchant: A number of noble Lords have spoken about Amendments Nos. 7 to 15 inclusive, with the exception of Amendment No. 8 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to which I have added my name. I shall refer to that in just a moment.
There is just a danger in all the well-argued points made in the last few moments that the membership of the council might become excessively prescriptive and restrictive. That is an anxiety of which we must be aware.
Reference was made to the constitution of the General Medical Council, for example. I wholly appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford; namely, that the teaching profession is very different. But there are 120,000 registered medical practitioners subject to regulation by that body, covering a very wide range of interests and activities, from medical journalism through to medicine, surgery and an enormous range of specialties.
When I last inquired, that particular council had 102 members; 52 are registered medical practitioners who are elected by single transferable vote in an election every five years. That election is based upon constituencies established throughout the United Kingdom. There is no right of representation of any sectional interest, professional association, trade union or other body—though it happens, of course, that the British Medical Association, the Medical Women's Federation and the Overseas Doctors all nominate people for election. As matters turn out, every one of the interests that one might think of within the medical profession finds individuals being elected to that body.
There is a majority of doctors—52; the other 50 members are made up of 25 appointed by the medical schools and universities and by the Royal Colleges, which have a direct interest in undergraduate and postgraduate education. But the remaining 25 are lay members nominated by the Privy Council, including lawyers, accountants, Members of Parliament, trade union members, nurses and others, covering an enormously wide range of interests representing the public. That is a model not to be followed directly, but one which gives a useful guide to the possible constitution of the council.
I wholly agree that it is very important that there should be a majority of teachers on this body. The majority need not be great, but it is a principle that we should follow very carefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested that they should be practising teachers. I agree that it is right that the teachers should be people who have had experience in a wide range of branches of the teaching profession. My only concern is that service on such a teaching council is likely to be a demanding and arduous task.
It could well be that teachers who have taken retirement at the age of 60 could make a valuable contribution to the work of such a council. Under regulation, all the other regulatory authorities, such as

1419
the GMC, the GDC, and so on, have a statutory retiring age of 70. We perhaps have a catch-22 situation here. Rather than use the word "practising", I would prefer to have it prescribed in the Bill that the individuals who are to be members of this body from the teaching profession should be registered teachers. However, until the Bill becomes law, there will be no register. I hope that some means can be found of overcoming that problem because registered teachers would be the proper group from whom members of this body should be drawn.
Lord Peston: I believe that the usefulness of this debate is simply to put on record the kinds of considerations that Members have put forward. I hope that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will take due note of them. However, there are two matters which require more than that. Whether the GTC has too few powers—as my friend Lord Glenamara said it has at this stage—or not, eventually it must become more powerful and must become the self-regulatory body of the teaching profession. It seems to me that a minimum requirement for that to happen must be that in the first instance teachers should comprise a majority of the membership, and in due course perhaps even larger than just a simple majority. I add my voice to those of Members who take that view.
Secondly, although I am aware of the technical difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Detchant, put forward, I had taken the view that he was right in the amendment standing in his name and that "practising" should be the relevant word. One of the difficulties is that, in my experience, when one is a member of a body such as this it becomes a full time job; one can no longer practise and one becomes a professional member of the body. I should have liked to have had more detail on the nature of the body, such as whether there will be limitations on how many years an individual can serve. I believe strongly that there should be a maximum period of service on such bodies, with no possibility of renewal. That would at least mean that a member would have to go back to teaching one day. I therefore like the word "practising". I see no difficulty about having registered teachers, as well; but the main point is that the majority of the membership should be practising teachers.
Thirdly, following the initial remarks of my noble friend Lord Glenamara, if the teaching profession is to have the position that it wants in this regard, it must in the end choose its own membership of the general teaching council. The word "election" has been used. I should certainly like to see election rather than selection and both rather than choice by the Secretary of State.
I regard our job today as being to let the Secretary of State know what we think ought to happen. To go back to the remarks of my noble friend the Minister, I regard this as part of the consultation process. We do not need to divide; we simply want to express our views in the hope that the Secretary of State will read them, or, more
1420
to the point, that my noble friend the Minister will stand over him and say, "This is what they said; you really ought to do it".
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Perhaps I may briefly respond with regard to my amendments and those of my noble friend Lady Young. I believe that the process of consultation has begun. I should like to underline what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. The Secretary of State and the Minister now have a lot of information at their disposal. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, gave examples of area constituencies; I spoke of more narrow constituencies. Having heard the debate, I believe it would be very much appreciated by the Committee if, at least in this matter, the Government would put something on the face of the Bill. That should be easy to do with my question about independent and state schools, for example. I realise the complexities of putting together such a body, but I believe that, if the department and the Ministers put their minds to it, it should be possible to put more detail in the Bill. These are probing amendments, and I do not intend to press mine. However, I have to say to the Minister that, if the Government do not intend to include more detail, I might have to ask my colleagues to vote to put something on the face of the Bill. It would be helpful, and would spare us some late nights, if the Government were to bring forward an amendment between now and Report stage.
Baroness Maddick: Perhaps I may once again reiterate the importance of including some detail in this clause. The noble Baroness talked earlier about wanting to involve people in a true consultation. This matter is a minimum point. If it is not on the face of the Bill, teachers will not be as enthusiastic as they might be about the general teaching council. For that reason, I, like others, press the Minister to put something on the face of the Bill in this clause.
Baroness Blackstone: I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that we have had a useful debate and that it is helpful to hear views aired in the Committee about who the members of the general teaching council should be. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will want to read the debate and to take it into account.
However, Members will perhaps not be surprised to hear that I shall resist the amendments; I believe that they would unhelpfully constrain and pre-empt the consultation which we have promised with the teaching profession and the other interests about the composition of the council. We must, of course, be sure that we have the right balance of interests on the council in order to ensure that it has the confidence of the profession and the whole education system. However I believe that at this stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, said, it would be unnecessarily prescriptive to put any of these amendments on the face of the Bill. I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord said about the General Medical Council; that is certainly a model that we need to consider in some detail.

1421
As the note which we placed in the Library indicates, we shall issue a consultation paper in March inviting views on a range of issues associated with both composition and membership. I am happy to offer Members a commitment that in that consultation we shall invite views on the case for ensuring that the membership should reflect a wide range of interests, including those suggested in the amendments before the Committee today.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that we shall also consult on the right balance of teachers and non-teachers in the membership; but I am clear that a significant part of the membership should be serving teachers. I can see a great deal of merit in those other interests which have been mentioned during the debate—commerce, industry, denominational interests, the independent sector—having a role to play in the council. We also invite views on the merits of those who are consumers of our education system, such as parents of pupils, being represented on the council. I personally see a great deal of merit in that. I believe that at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Whitty made it clear that it was our intention that parents should be represented on the council.
I note also that some of these amendments reflect a concern about the involvement of independent schools in the GTC. It might be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, if I clarify our position on that. I know that representatives of the independent sector, such as the Independent Schools Joint Council, want to ensure that teachers in independent schools are not excluded from the GTC. We are equally keen to involve the independent sector in the council. The Government made clear their intention to build bridges between the state and private sectors. All teachers in the independent sector who have qualified teacher status will be eligible to register with the GTC on a voluntary basis.
Perhaps I can say also to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that we see no reason at all why representatives of school inspectors should not be members of the council. In relation to constituencies, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. We must be careful that we do not involve so many constituencies that we end up with an enormously complex electoral college. Some of us have experience of electoral colleges and they can lead to difficulties. That is something that must be looked at with care.
In addition, it will be open to the council to involve others—such as experienced independent sector teachers without a full teaching qualification (we are all aware that there are more teachers in private schools who are not fully qualified in the sense that they have a specific teaching qualification)—in its activities, and some form of associate membership may be introduced for those people. Our consultation will seek views on the merits of any further measures to ensure that the distinct interest of the independent sector is properly represented on the council.
I am sympathetic to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the council should reflect the interests of disabled people. Indeed, I was touched by some of
1422
the examples that he gave of the fantastic work that is done by some teachers who themselves have disabilities. I was grateful also for the generous but entirely appropriate remarks he made in relation to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The Government are committed to supporting comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people against discrimination in society or at work, developed in partnership with all interested parties. As Members of the Committee may remember, they recently set up the Disability Rights Task Force to consider how best to secure those rights. On a related theme, we also published a Green Paper setting out our vision of how we intend to raise education standards for children with special needs.
I am not yet convinced that amending Clause 1(4) is the only or the best way of ensuring that the GTC contributes to those aims, which I know will be shared by the noble Lord. Clause 1(4) is not intended to provide a detailed or exhaustive list of all the interests which will be reflected in the council membership. That clause underlines our intention that it should be a general teaching council rather than a general teachers' council. The categories listed are intentionally broad and are intended to cover the wide range of real and important interests which will have a role to play in the GTC. It would not be appropriate to include a long and detailed list in Clause 1(4).
I am not sure that it would be sensible to pre-empt the consultation when we shall certainly seek views on the issues. That would allow us, for example, to seek views on whether the GTC should include people with knowledge and experience of special educational needs. Given that the GTC is about regulating the teaching profession and raising standards in the interests of the public in general, and parents and pupils in particular. the right focus may be on special educational needs. It would be better to put the flesh on the bones through the consultation and subsequent regulations rather than try to do it now in primary legislation. We shall certainly be consulting on the matter and I share the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, of ensuring that those interests are not forgotten.
I am confident that the clauses as drafted lay down the core requirements for the council's membership and I should not wish to see our flexibility for meeting the wishes of the profession and the education system further constrained by primary legislation.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps she can respond to one small point. The noble Baroness used the phrase yet again that this body will regulate the teaching profession. Can I ask a straight question? Is this a body that is being given powers to regulate the teaching profession? If so, Clause 2 needs to be amended.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I can clarify that point. Under the Bill the GTC has powers to advise and register. It would need more primary legislation if a whole lot of new regulatory powers were to be given to it. However, the GTC will be able to advise the

1423
Secretary of State about all kinds of regulatory matters and the Secretary of State will want to take seriously the views of the GTC on all of those matters.
Baroness Young: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 15 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert?—
("() No regulations made under subsection (3) shall come into force until they have been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 16 requires that no regulations made under subsection (3) shall come into force until they have been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. I always thought that that was a good piece of advice that we received from the scrutiny committee. However, am all the more concerned that it should now appear on the face of the Bill. The debate that we had and the response to my question makes it all the more important that regulations made under this part of the Bill should come before both Houses of Parliament.
The GTC will not be a regulating body if the Bill goes through in this form. The Secretary of State remains the regulator; the body remains an advisory body. If it is to change to be a regulatory body, then Clause 2 needs to he amended. Indeed, amendments have been tabled to come immediately after my amendment which may give the body powers, though if we are to give the body powers through the schedule, Clause 2 will have to be amended as a consequence of that.
The constituencies that were talked about in the course of the debate on the last amendment gave me reason to believe that this is an important amendment. The noble Baroness gave reasons why none of those categories should appear on the face of the Bill. I mentioned the constituencies of different types of schools—independent, maintained, comprehensive, grammar, city technology colleges and specialist schools. A small category of schools such as the technology colleges—of which there are only 15—supported by the present Government could be left outside of the council. We seek some assurance that all types of schools will be represented including, as the right reverend Prelate said, supported by my noble friend Lord Pilkington, voluntary controlled and voluntary aided schools. Given the absence of any detail in the Bill, people will want to look for some evidence that the Government are serious about making sure that the council will be inclusive rather than exclusive.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, wished—I have no reason to doubt his aspiration—for the body to become more independent and more powerful. There is no way that that can happen under the Bill. If it is to become more independent and more powerful, there needs to be another piece of primary legislation. Room will have to be found for another Bill in a future legislative programme. Unless the Government accept the amendments, we are talking about an advisory body.
1424
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that the debate is useful. It certainly is useful. It will send a clear message to the Secretary of State as to how Members of this House feel about the Bill. We are not having a cosy debate about education. From time to time we have very illuminating debates on educational matters but we are part of the law-making process. We are making legislation. If we are making legislation, the dots, the commas, the powers, the functions and the way in which the proposals are to work are very important. Detail matters. That is why I have the fall-back position that if we cannot have more detail on the face of the Bill there should be an affirmative procedure for any regulations made not just in this part but throughout the Bill. We shall fight very hard to put some detail on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I strongly support the amendment and the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Blatch. As the Committee stage has proceeded, I have become increasingly disenchanted to the point where one wonders whether one is taking part in something perilously like a farce. As my noble friend said, we must be satisfied that what leaves us commands the support of the majority of the House. In that case the specific amendments need to be discussed, points need to be argued in detail and provisions placed on the face of the Bill. It appears that the Government have set their face against that. I seriously wonder whether one would not do better to write a letter to the Secretary of State saying that this is what we think the teaching council should be, as we appear to be just part of the consultation process. I make my protest. I do not think this is a sensible way for this House to conduct itself on legislation.
I come to the particular point of the amendment. Since we have no specific proposal on the face of the Bill but only the most general words and the responses of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, as to what she thinks might or might not form part of the consultative document to be published in March—that is about as far as she is prepared to go—we have to insist that every set of regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure—this is the kind of issue on which this House can so insist—so that they have to be debated in both Houses. They cannot be amended, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said in our earlier debate. We recognise that he has been very skilful in previous parliaments in devising procedures which enabled him to require that regulations should be amended. But that is the kind of process into which, in the end, the Government will drive this House. We must have the affirmative procedure.
In looking at this subsection of the Bill, I rather suspect that Ministers have said, "We are going to have to give way on this. Let us put it in as the negative procedure and then we can appear big-hearted and make the concession at a later stage". I have done it; I have no doubt my noble friends have done it: and, if anyone can remember that far back, the party opposite has done it. I see the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his place; I am sure that he did it when he was last in office. It is a normal thing. I say to the Minister that on this point

1425
there can he no alternative. If we are not to be allowed to debate the detail of the Bill other than as part of a peerage consultative stage of the process, which is what it amounts to, then when it comes back with the details it must be properly debated in both Houses.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: I think that the remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Jenkin of Roding, about our proceedings being farcical were just a trifle harsh. I would not want him to stop saying it but I think he was going too far.
Perhaps I may refer to the nature of the Bill itself. My ambition, which I thought was shared by virtually all your Lordships, is to see the teaching profession as a self-regulating profession. We have all made speeches of that kind and I am convinced that must be our objective. What lies before us is how we get there from where we are now. I have said several times that I am willing to go with the Government in the sense of saying that we should get started this way, subject to the one proviso—I was not overwhelmingly happy with the reply just now of my noble friend—that a majority of the council must be elected by practising teachers. That is a minimum requirement. Subject to that condition being met, I would want to go along the general lines of the Bill, bearing in mind that the pressures will he to go along the lines set out by my noble friend Lord Glenamara—taking more time than he would like, and perhaps even more time than I would like, in the evolutionary process. That is my general position. The central question is self-regulation. The central amendment, whether it is done on the face of the Bill or by the Government bringing forward regulations, must be that a majority of the council be elected by practising teachers.
Perhaps I may turn to the specific amendment. Despite "rituality", if there is such a word in the language—namely, we say what we do according to which part we have been assigned in life—I do not change my view. I would have argued from the Opposition Front Bench exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has argued. I hope my noble friend the Minister will say not necessarily that she can accept the amendment but that, with no promise, she will go away and think about it. I hope that she will at least give us the encouragement that when we argued it ourselves we were sincere and therefore we ought to respond sincerely when the argument is put to us.
Lord Tope: I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He spoke to us earlier about the ritual that takes place in the House from time to time when the two sides change. I speak from the same Bench on which I have sat since I arrived in your Lordships' House. I do not feel any need to explain why I adhere to the view that we always had. I look forward to the time when we can end this ritual and when my colleagues and I are on the opposite sides of the House. We can then say in Government that we meant what we said in opposition.
The Minister has explained to us that, primarily for reasons of pressure of parliamentary time. the Bill has had to come before us at this time, that the Government
1426
have had to take the opportunity of a legislative slot and that, of necessity, it is therefore a skeletal Bill which needs to have flesh put on the bones following the consultative process. I hope that is an accurate reflection of what the Minister said.
Whether that is the right way round is a matter of opinion, but we are where we are. We are dealing with a skeletal Bill. I tend to feel that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke a little strongly. This is a useful debate. However, it is only a useful debate if we are able to demonstrate that we are not part of what has just been called a peerage consultative process but that we are part of a legislative process. That is what we are here for. It is not just a consultation session; it is a legislation session. If it has to be this way, when the Government have concluded their consultation and decided the form and nature of the GTC, that will be right and proper. Were I on the other side of the House, I hope that I would still be arguing that it is right and proper that the House should have the opportunity to review and comment on the regulations and ultimately to pass, amend or deny them. I certainly support this amendment. I agree with previous speakers that it is a very important one, on which I hope the Minister, if she cannot accept it today, will reflect because it represents the views of all sections of the Committee on the process.
Baroness Young: I hope very much that the Minister will accept this amendment and also the very important point that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has made about the teachers being a majority on the general teaching council. Based on what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, I believe that we would all agree on this issue.
Perhaps I may now return to the amendment before us. This is a serious matter. 1 have been an education Minister and so has my noble friend Lady Blatch. We all know the difficulties of legislation and we have all had the experience of taking Bills through the House. My noble friend Lord Jenkin has also had a great deal of such experience. But in all the education Bills that I had to take through the House, I am quite certain that none of them appeared as this Bill does. We are a House of Parliament. We are deciding the law of the land, which everyone has to obey. It is not a sixth-form debating society and neither is it a pressure group arguing for something. That is an organisation in a completely different position.
These are very serious matters indeed. No one is being critical about the issue. We are all trying to be constructive about something which we regard as important. So in a sense we are all on the same side. But we are not being offered anything that is clear cut. We are actually buying blind and, as a House of Parliament, we are being asked to buy blind. I believe that is what lies behind the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkin. He was quite justified in saying that. I hope that the Government realise how serious this matter is. When people come to look at it they will see that it is impossible to make serious decisions about it.
The very least we can do is to put in what my noble friend Lady Blatch has suggested. which is a kind of long-stop power. Nobody believes that it is a very good

1427
provision, but it is certainly better than nothing. It is clearly going to be the only provision that we shall get. I believe that a great measure of responsibility rests on the Government because they are not going to get the benefit of the advice of Parliament on any of these matters. We shall come to all this again at a later stage. If anything goes wrong, the Government will have absolutely no recourse to anything that has been said or debated because there is very little input that we can make. The kind of generalised statement, "We shall take into account everything that has been said", does not mean much at all. The only general statement that means anything is that there should be a majority of teachers on the general teaching council. So this is a long-stop provision. It is the very least that we can do. I hope very much that the Minister will accept it.
Lord Butterfield: Perhaps I may enter the discussion for a short time to say that when the question of the general teaching council first came before this House I was then a Cross Bencher and one of those who moved that it should be accepted. It was not acceptable at that time. One of the matters that has emerged clearly in my subsequent discussions over the years with the prime movers behind the general teaching council is their concern that the regulations should include an indication that at least half the members of the council should be elected by teachers. They are very concerned that the teachers could be swamped if the regulations subsequently go against their interests.
Lord Whitty: I do not want to go over again the substantive concerns that lie behind the request for us to adopt the suggested procedure. They have been debated at length. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to changes in function beyond what is on the face of the Bill. This amendment as it stands does not address that issue. Any change in function would indeed require a change in primary legislation. As I understand it, this amendment deals with the composition and constitution of the council. In that regard—
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is entirely wrong about what I mean. My amendment means that any regulations made about this part of the Bill shall come before both Houses of Parliament for consideration, debate and approval. That is what I mean.
Lord Whitty:I do not believe that the amendment actually says that. However, I understand what the noble Baroness is driving at. Before we go to the procedural issue, may I say that it is clear from what my noble friend has said that we shall be consulting very widely on the composition and constitution of the council. We intend to issue a consultation document in March. We shall then consider carefully the issues which arise during consultation. We shall try to achieve consensus, including taking into account the points made by Members of this House. All the key interest groups will have an opportunity at that stage to comment on the provisions.
1428
The noble Baroness requests the affirmative resolution procedure. We have to be a little careful about that. That is a procedure which is used sparingly, and quite rightly so. Only half-a-dozen or so examples exist in the education field. It would be unusual for orders specifying membership to be dealt with by the affirmative resolution procedure. On the face of it, it does not appear that our approach is likely to be novel or contentious enough to require such heavy use of parliamentary time and such a substantial procedure.
However, I take the points that a number of Members of the Committee have raised. We shall consider carefully the remarkable consistency of my noble friend Lord Peston on these matters. Perhaps some Members opposite have not been quite so consistent when dealing with similar propositions when in government. Nevertheless, I understand the concerns. I believe that in practice the Secretary of State would not wish to establish a framework for the composition of the GTC that does not command the confidence of the teaching profession, the general public, the council itself and this House. Indeed, without that consensus and confidence the role that we all expect of the council would be impossible to carry out.
Moreover, the amendment as it stands does not deal simply with the initial constitution of the council: it deals with any subsequent change. It will require Parliament to debate the regulations again each time they were changed. That is contrary to the evolutionary process which I thought we all favoured. We would not expect frequent changes in the composition. It could involve the use of parliamentary time to examine very minor changes. For example, in our consultation last year it was suggested that some major and specified trade unions and other representative bodies in the education world might be able to nominate some of the council members. If, after consultation, that was thought sensible and then at a later date some of the organisations named in the regulations changed their name, merged or changed their function, it would be necessary to come back and debate it again in both Houses of Parliament. Another possibility in this context is that the council itself would ask for the framework to be fine tuned if some elements did not prove to be workable in the way that the legislation intended.
Therefore, I am not persuaded that, in the form of this amendment, an affirmative resolution is sensible. It could seriously inhibit the organic development of the general teaching council in a way to which a number of Members of the Committee have referred. However, we should further consider this issue because of the concerns reflected here this afternoon to see whether there is any other form of assurance. We need to come back to this issue at a later stage of the Bill. I take on board the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peston and others. We shall consider this further, with the leave of the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: We shall certainly return to this point. I am not surprised that the noble Lord has argued against the amendment because he has completely misconstrued itဤ
Lord Peston: Before we get somewhere where we do not want to be, perhaps I should point out that I did not

1429
hear my noble friend arguing against the amendment in the terms just used by the noble Baroness. Perhaps a slightly more modified response would help us to get to where we want to go. I do not want to advise the noble Baroness, but perhaps she will reflect on that.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but I repeat that my amendment has been completely misunderstood. It does not refer simply to the composition of the council. If the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reads the amendment, he will see that it states:
"No regulations made under subsection (3) shall come into force until they have been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
Subsection (3) states:
"The Council shall be constituted in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State".
So, we are talking about the setting up of the council and not simply about its composition.
Perhaps I may take the noble Lord back to the very beginning of the Bill. Clause 1(1) states:
"There shall he a body corporate known as the General Teaching Council (in this Chapter referred to as 'the Council"'.
As I have said, subsection (3) states that it shall be set up according to "regulations". We are saying that, because we have had no details whatsoever, we should like to see any details arising from the consultation even though that consultation will not take place until well after the Bill has passed through both Houses. We should see the details of those regulations and Parliament, which I believe is sovereign in these matters, should have an opportunity to see, comment on, debate and, if necessary, vote on the detail.
I said earlier—I repeat it because I mean it sincerely—that I have never doubted the Government's intention to consult. They have consulted widely already. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, myself and many others in the Chamber are in receipt of many detailed, thoughtful and fully argued representations which give full responses to the suggestion that there should be a general teaching council.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question before we move on to the next amendment. I am not a betting lady, but if I were I would bet that at the end of the consultation process, with one voice will come at least one message: there should be a GTC and the GTC should have powers. That is what has come out of every representation that we have received from teaching and education bodies. This Bill does not allow for that. It does not allow for anything other than a talking shop. It allows for an advisory body only. Therefore, my question is this: if, at the end of the consultation process, there is an unequivocal response from those who are interested in these matters that there should be a general teaching council with powers, and the Bill has already
1430
passed through both Houses of Parliament, what will be the Government's response, given that they have genuinely said that they want to work with the teachers?
Lord Whitty: I thought that my noble friend had indicated on several occasions that these are the GTC's initial functions and that we want to see an organic development of those functions. As I have just said, if there are substantial changes in functions under subsection (2), primary legislation will be required. The noble Baroness is right in that respect.
However, with regard to the initial matter raised by the noble Baroness about subsection (3), my point was that that subsection relates to the constitution only. I agree that it is not simply a matter of the composition. It relates to the way in which the council will operate. Subsection (2) deals with the functions. That is why I said that the amendment as drafted does not address the problems raised by the noble Baroness. I reiterate that we are prepared to take account of the concerns expressed about the constitution of the council and that we shall return to the matter at a later stage. In the light of that, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Although I did not get a straight answer to my question, I certainly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [General Teaching Council]:
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 24. line 38, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Council").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 19, I should like to speak also to the batch of amendments on the Marshalled List up to and including Amendment No. 25. I shall not detain the Committee for long on this substantial group of amendments because they all address the same general issue to which we have already referred several times today. Again, they relate to the independence of the GTC. These amendments refer to particular powers which are given to the Secretary of State which we feel that the Government should trust the GTC, as a responsible body, to carry out for itself. I do not think that I need to go through each amendment and refer to each specific power. Each relates to a specific power as listed in Schedule 1.
If the teachers, and others, are to believe that the GTC is being treated seriously and as a responsible body, there must be a limit to the amount of supervision from the Secretary of State. In our view, that limit should be well below that set out in the Bill in which the Secretary of State is given the power to determine, or at least to approve, the remuneration of the GTC's staff. That is excessive. The purpose of this batch of amendments is to recognise that we trust the GTC as an independent

1431
body which should be given the power to manage its own affairs without undue supervision from the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am afraid that I must resist these amendments. Although we intend that the GTC will eventually become self-funding, initially the GTC will be in receipt of significant public funds. The Secretary of State must be accountable for these funds. It is right, therefore. that his consent should be sought on the financial arrangements for staff and members.
The GTC will be a public body. The provisions here governing its employees' terms of employment, pensions and other expenses are, as they should be, in accordance with rules which apply across the public sector. These rules are designed to safeguard the efficient and proper use of public money. They provide also for proper accountability to Parliament. There may be scope, when the GTC becomes self-financing and its systems of financial control have bedded in, for seeing whether some of these safeguards might be relaxed.
However, I/b do not envisage a circumstance where the Secretary of State will be in disagreement with the GTC, its members and staff about the pension arrangements. The involvement of Ministers in pensions allows GTC staff to become members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, which is widely recognised as an excellent pension scheme. The provision also ensures that if the council wishes to make other arrangements, they should not be excessively generous to the detriment of teachers paying the registration fee; and they should not generate future liabilities which some might then expect a future government to underwrite.
Amendment No. 21, which is part of this batch of amendments. has not been mentioned. There would be great practical advantage in having a chief officer in place as early as possible to oversee the full establishment of the council. We are in favour of the Secretary of State appointing the first chief officer. All subsequent appointments would be a matter for the council. For those reasons, I must resist this group of amendments.
Lord Tope: In view of our earlier debates, I cannot say that I am surprised that the Government are resisting these amendments. I regret it, but on this occasion I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 25 not moved.]
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 26. line 2, leave out ("The Secretary of State may") and insert ("Parliament may authorise the Secretary of State to").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 26 is very much in line with the sentiment expressed many times in the Committee today that Parliament should regulate the actions and powers of Ministers. I am grateful to the noble Lord who has just made it quite clear that the Minister will be responsible for significant funds and that he should be properly accountable to Parliament. If so, perhaps the Government should accept this
1432
amendment this evening. However, I do not believe that I shall have any better luck than others this evening. This is a serious point. Unless there are sufficient funds to enable the general teaching council to operate properly it will not be able to do what we want it to do. If we have a government that is minded to cut off the funds available to the general teaching council—if I may dare to suggest it—that body will not be able to operate. It is important that it has sufficient funds with which to operate. At the same time, I and my noble friends believe that this matter should be scrutinised by Parliament and that the Minister should not be given carte blanche. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The effect of this amendment is a little unclear. It suggests that the Secretary of State would be required to obtain the consent of Parliament. It does not set out the form of that consent or its frequency. I note from the comments of the noble Baroness that she has shifted the goal posts from the immediate period when there is funding by the Secretary of State to a period when the GTC will be funded solely by registration fees, although it is possible that the Secretary of State may still wish to make specific payment to that body, possibly by way of contract, to fund research projects or similar activities to aid policy making. I do not believe that it is an appropriate use of parliamentary time for us to debate such specific grants which may he in operation at that second stage. That practice would also reduce the capacity of the Secretary of State to judge the relative needs of the GTC against other claims on resources in the educational area.
The accounts of the GTC, including any grants that it has received, must be published and will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Therefore, Parliament will be able to scrutinise and comment upon the level of grants made to the GTC. In accordance with the normal practice, the GTC will also be expected to produce an annual report which will give a rounded picture of its activities in each year. The GTC has built-in accountability for its funds. I therefore resist the amendment and ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the noble Lord for his full answer. In view of the commitment that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 26. line 8, at end insert—
("() The Council shall establish a committee to advise the Secretary of State on matters related to teacher training, and shall ensure that—

(a) the committee's membership is at least half comprised of qualified teachers or those providing teacher training; and

(b) the Secretary of State is advised of any recommendation made by that committee in relation to the provision of teacher training.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 27 and speak also to the other amendments in this group. Amendment No. 27 requires the general teaching council to set up a separate teacher training committee

1433
to discharge its responsibilities in that area. The amendment ensures that the committee has the necessary expertise in teacher training. In its current state the Bill envisages the general teaching council having an extremely limited range of functions, in particular in relation to teacher education and training. If the general teaching council is to operate effectively and be the voice of teachers it must have a central role in influencing the standards of that profession, especially the training of teachers and in-service teacher training. A separate teacher training committee which reports to the council will be able to focus its attention on these matters. I believe that it will provide a great deal of scope for involving teachers in their training and in preparing advice to the council and Secretary of State.
The remaining amendments in this group deal with other important matters, such as recruitment, teacher support and the professional development of teachers throughout their careers. Amendment No. 29 is an important matter because it adds to the independence of the general teaching council. It enables the council to take the initiative in offering advice and allows it to choose who receives its advice. We believe that the general teaching council should be an independent body. It is important that it can advise Ofsted and whatever teacher training agency there may be; or it may be that it needs to advise a local education authority. As the Bill stands at the moment, the present or any future Secretary of State for Education can tie the hands of the general teaching council and restrict its influence in this area. I hope that the Minister will look favourably upon this amendment so that, even if we do not get something on the face of the Bill tonight, this matter will be looked at carefully.
Amendment No. 31 is concerned with support and recruitment. The problem of recruiting teachers was raised earlier today during Questions. There was some discussion, not agreement, about whether the recent advertisements had been successful. It is important that we bring teachers into the debate and give them the ability to help with recruitment and supply. At the moment there are great concerns within the teaching profession about this matter. The general teaching council needs a key role in promoting the profession and encouraging suitably qualified people to enter it. I believe that if accepted this amendment would achieve that. In the past there have been problems about forecasting how many teachers are required and about supply targets. When I entered teaching many years ago there was an incredible influx of teachers. I believe that we are still suffering from certain things that we did wrong at that time. To have a wider group of people in charge of looking at the number of teachers to be recruited may avoid some of the events of the past.
Amendment No. 32 is also concerned with the advisory role of the GTC and deals more specifically with recruitment targets and adds to the other amendment to which I spoke previously.
As regards Amendment No. 34, here we request that the general teaching council looks more carefully not just at recruitment but at the career development of teachers. This area has been neglected in the past and it has given rise to difficulty in schools. If teachers are
1434
missing from schools because they are on courses or are undergoing training in the present climate it is difficult for those schools to have others standing in their place. I believe that this could be dealt with very effectively by teachers working with the Government through the general teaching council.
Referring to Amendments Nos. 35 to 37, this is a rather long list. Despite pressures, we have resisted adding further to it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has said, we have been inundated with information about how teachers want the general teaching council to be set up. We have resisted as much as we can. I am seeking to deal with them as quickly as possible because they are fairly self-explanatory. These amendments spell out other areas in which the general teaching council should have its say. It is vital that it has the authority to publish what it says, and in part that is what these amendments are about. Curiously, Clause 7(3) provides similar powers to the general teaching council for Wales. I shall be interested to hear the reply of the Minister. Do the Government intend to end the situation in Wales or will the situation change here? I hope that she will clarify the position when she replies to these amendments.
The grounds for suspending or dismissing teachers constitute an important matter with which teachers should be involved through the GTC. We have had many changes in recent years. The Government have said that they want to change what is happening in education. The fact that we are discussing tonight a Bill which many people have described as a skeleton without any flesh, and that consultation is going on while we are discussing it, shows that the Government themselves recognise that there will be a great deal of change in education. For that reason, it is important that the GTC is set up properly so that it can enable everything that we all want to take place in education to happen properly.
I shall not detain the Committee any longer. As I said, many of the amendments are self-explanatory. They relate to important matters that many people outside this place—not just myself and my noble friends on these Benches—want to see in the legislation. Teachers, in particular, want to see them. I beg to move.
Lord Glenamara: I do not want to prolong the debate. I shall raise just one point. Earlier I complained that the Bill was turning the Secretary of State into a great national nanny, because he is keeping everything in his own hand. If the amendments were to be agreed to, Parliament would be doing the same thing. Surely we should trust the teachers on the GTC to work out their own procedures and the things that they want to do, and not lay everything down in the Bill. It would be a mistake to try to dot every i and cross every t about what the GTC should do. Please, do not let Parliament do what we are accusing the Secretary of State of doing.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Amendment No. 41 is included in this group. I shall put everyone's mind at rest. I have made my speech about disabled people, and I do not intend to make it again. The Minister gave a fair reply about the disabled. I hope that the extent and

1435
method of how the interests of disabled people may be properly represented on the council, and what the council's functions should be with regard to them will figure in the consultation. Having put the case for this at length on an earlier amendment, I am prepared merely to say that it applies equally well here.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford:I believe that I shall be the one that hits the jackpot, because I do not doubt that the Government will agree to Amendment No. 40. I think they will agree because they entered power with a belief in open government. I suggested the amendment because, even if we accept that the body is advisory, it is crucial for its evolutionary development that, if the Secretary of State refuses to take its advice—I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, that it must develop its own procedures—we know why the Secretary of State has refused its advice.
If the Secretary of State decides in good time that he is not going to introduce further primary legislation, because he says that the body has proved to be inadequate, and, "I want it to remain advisory", we should all want to know why. If, for example, the body suggested something similar to what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, put forward, and the Secretary of State said, "No", then it should be on the public record. I should be amazed, and I have been amazed many times in my life, if, with a government who professed open government, the Minister or her colleague were to refuse the amendment. I hope that I shall have achieved the record tonight and have my amendment accepted. I look forward to it.
Baroness Blackstone: The GTC will be a new professional voice for the teaching profession. It will bring together and reflect the interests of all those who have a stake in ensuring high standards in teaching. It will be a powerful new partner in our drive to raise standards. In that respect, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Glenamara for what he said about the GTC's role in developing its own procedures.
The GTC will provide advice to the Secretary of State on the matters related to teaching listed at Clause 2(2): standards of teaching; standards of conduct for teachers; the role of the teaching profession; the training, career development, and performance management of teachers; recruitment to the teaching profession; and medical fitness to teach. It may also advise on individual cases of teachers' misconduct.
From time to time, the Secretary of State may also require the council to advise him on other matters related to teaching or ask the GTC to advise other bodies which are involved in work which affects the teaching profession on the matters in Clause 2(2).
I do not think it right that the advisory role of the GTC should be expanded to cover all other aspects of education of which one might think. In the initial years at least, the advisory role of the GTC should be clearly focused on teaching. I hope those taking part in this Committee will agree with that. We need to give the GTC time to develop and establish itself before its role expands any further. This is too important a
1436
development to rush. We must be wary of asking the GTC to do too much too soon. Nor should we duplicate the advisory responsibilities of other public bodies, which already look to teachers—and will certainly now look to the GTC—to inform their advice.
I do not therefore see a major role for the GTC—at least at the outset—in advising on school funding, the school curriculum, syllabuses, examination and testing. There are, of course, close links between such issues and the practice of teaching. The GTC would take account of that, but there is a danger that the body would lose focus if given such a broad remit, especially when there are other bodies working in those areas.
I do not believe it would be helpful to give the GTC a role in advising on the grounds for suspending and dismissing teachers. There is already provision at Clause 2(2) for the GTC to take a role in advising on standards of conduct for teachers and the performance management of teachers. We might, for example, expect the GTC to provide advice on a professional code for teachers. Clause 2(4) also provides for the GTC to advise on cases of teacher misconduct. Beyond this, however, I do not feel that the time is ripe for the GTC to take a role in advising on the suspension or dismissal of teachers for incompetence. Our consultation exercise on the GTC—we have already had one consultation exercise—revealed very mixed views on such a role, and we have, of course, recently agreed new procedures with employers and unions. It is for line managers and employers to identify teachers who are not performing to standard, or who ought to be dismissed for other reasons. I therefore think that a role for the GTC on those issues is adequately covered in the existing clauses.
The GTC may already advise on the continuing professional development of teachers under Clause 2(2)(d), so there is no need to add a further specific item to the list in Clause 2(2). Clause 2(2)(e) also already enables the GTC to advise the Secretary of State on the promotion of the teaching profession.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, mentioned Wales. She may have based her amendments on looking at Clause 7 of the Bill. This allows the GTC for Wales once established to undertake the roles of promoting teacher recruitment and teachers' continuing professional development. This would enable the Welsh GTC to perform an executive role in undertaking promotional campaigns, as well as the advisory role set out in Clause 2. In England, these functions will remain with the TTA as part of its statutory responsibilities and the major remit we have set out for it. The TTA also undertakes these functions in Wales, but only at the express request of the Secretary of State for Wales rather than as a statutory duty. It performs no other functions in Wales, so the TTA unit for Wales has a very small number of staff. Clause 7 will allow the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh assembly to determine which body could most effectively perform these functions in Wales.
In England, the TTA has now become well established. We have appointed a new board under the excellent chairmanship of Professor Clive Booth and we

1437
have set out a demanding remit for the agency. The TTA has a key role to play in our programme to raise standards in schools. I believe that it would be wrong at this stage to undermine its crucial work by preparing to limit its functions. There will be scope to review the relationship between the GTC and the TTA once the GTC is established. If experience shows that we need to consider the balance of statutory duties performed by the GTC and the TTA then we may return to that in the next Parliament.
Likewise, the power to advise on recruitment at Clause 2(2)(e) is sufficiently wide to enable the GTC to advise on recruitment targets and the provision of advice on teacher demand and supply. We have recently published details of how the department's teacher supply model works as part of the process of opening up discussion in this area.
I turn to how advice is formulated, delivered and responded to. Paragraph 2 of Schedule I already allows the GTC to undertake conferences, lectures, publications and other similar initiatives which are calculated to facilitate the carrying out of its statutory functions, including the giving of advice. These would generally he on a relatively modest scale.
It may be that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has based this amendment on Clause 7(3) which specifies that the Welsh GTC can undertake such activities. The difference here is that Clause 7 refers to the promotional work which the Welsh GTC may be required to undertake. That is an executive role rather than an advisory one. In that case, we felt it should be put beyond doubt that the Welsh GTC could organise conferences and publish material as promotional activities in its own right. The provisions of the schedule allow the GTC for England and Wales, and later perhaps for England alone, to undertake all the activities listed in the amendment where this is part of the process of formulating its advice. Clause 2(5) also empowers the GTC to publish that advice. I believe that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
The GTC's role in advising the Secretary of State will ensure that teachers have their say in how their own profession develops. It will speak with the authority of the teaching profession, and Clause 2(5) empowers the GTC to be able to publish its advice. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that there will be clear expectation, reinforced by our continuing moves towards open government, that the Secretary of State would respond to such advice. It should, however, remain a matter for the Secretary of State to determine how and when he should do so. I do not. therefore, agree that it is necessary to include such a duty in primary legislation.
It is also proposed that the council should be free to determine which other persons or bodies it should advise on matters under Clause 2(2). Where the council wished to offer advice to a person or body, I find it difficult to conceive of a situation in which the Secretary of State would not be prepared to consider and agree to such advice being offered. Any published advice by the GTC will, of course, be available to other bodies. I therefore believe that the proposed amendment is unnecessary.
1438
I would also certainly expect the Secretary of State to consult the council before designating a third party to whom the GTC should offer advice. I envisage that the GTC will be content to provide advice to others to ensure that teachers have their proper say with government and their partners about how their profession develops. Those bodies would similarly be free to take account of the GTC's published advice.
Paragraph 9 of Schedule I enables the Secretary of State to make regulations which would require the council to establish a committee for any such purposes as the regulations specify and to set out the membership and procedures of such a committee. As the document I placed in the Library indicates, we will consult on the case for requiring any statutory committees to be established. I would not like to pre-empt that consultation, but, in general, we are keen to allow the greatest flexibility to the GTC itself to determine for itself its own organisation. My noble friend Lord Glenamara indicated that that would be right.
We would want to keep any prescription to the minimum. It is possible, for example, that the Secretary of State will require the council to establish a committee to provide advice on individual cases of teacher misconduct. In general, however, it will be for the council to consider what committees it requires and the membership and procedures of such committees.
Clause 2 enables the GTC to advise the Secretary of State on matters related to teacher training. It will therefore be for the council to consider whether the best approach to fulfilling that function is to establish a committee on teacher training as proposed in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. These are matters which the council is best placed to decide and the amendment would constrain it unnecessarily. The amendment is also unnecessary since such provisions could be made, if appropriate, through regulations were they proved to be necessary.
I do not believe the council needs the power to initiate advice on all matters related to teaching. Clause 2(2) already sets out a very broad remit, and to widen it from the outset risks the GTC losing focus, especially during the early years when it is still establishing itself. Allowing the Secretary of State to request advice on other teaching matters provides a useful flexibility if over time that remit proves overly restrictive in any respect. The council could of course suggest topics on which it would welcome a request from the Secretary of State.
I do not believe that this threatens the autonomy or independence of the GTC. I cannot envisage a circumstance when the council will not wish to advise on a matter related to teaching when required to do so by the Secretary of State. It is also worth noting that Clause 2(3) triggers Clause 2(4), which sets out the GTC's role in advising on individual cases of barring teachers on misconduct, ill-health grounds or educational grounds. The Secretary of State will need to be able to require the GTC to advise on these cases.
I am prepared to give further consideration to the noble Lord's proposal to place the council under a general duty to have regard to the requirements of

1439
disabled people. I know that similar statutory duties are already placed on other bodies such as the Teacher Training Agency, the Higher Education Funding Council and the Further Education Funding Council. We will want to consider whether such a duty is appropriate, given the GTC's range of responsibilities. The TTA has a major role as a funding agency, for example, which the GTC does not.
The GTC has a role in advising on issues of medical fitness to teach. There are, and there will remain, some medical conditions which would prevent someone from following the very demanding profession of teaching. We must take particular care in cases where teachers' medical conditions could pose a risk to their pupils or themselves. We would need to ensure that any general duty on the GTC would not inhibit its ability to give clear and impartial advice.
On a technical matter, I should also wish to consider whether Clause 2 was the right place in which to make such an amendment. The wording of this amendment would seem to extend across all the GTC's functions, and not just its advisory role.
I conclude by saying that I am supportive of the general intention behind the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, and several other noble Lords have worked hard on the establishment of a GTC for many years. Without their very real valuable work and commitment, we might not be discussing today the establishment of just such a body, and I should like to record my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and to others.
The Bill gives the GTC a very real and significant role in advising Ministers. Its advice will carry the weight of the teaching profession and help to restore the morale of teachers. I understand the desire to push ahead quickly and give the GTC a wide and impressive remit. But for the reasons that I have outlined, I do not believe that the time is yet ripe for the sort of additional duties set out in these amendments.
The Bill gives the GTC a clear and focused role. I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me for taking a little time to respond to this group of amendments in setting out that role. We must be wary of giving the GTC too much to do too soon. For now, we should focus on establishing the GTC and building its standing among the teaching profession and the public. Once it has established its track record, then perhaps we can start to consider how best the role might be expanded. If experience shows that we need to revisit primary legislation in order to underpin the major and wide-ranging role that we envisage for the GTC, that could be addressed in the next Parliament.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Before the noble Baroness sits down, does she not feel that even from the beginning there is a certain lack of symmetry in the
1440
GTC being empowered to establish and maintain a register but to have no role in suspensions and dismissals?
Baroness Blackstone: No, I do not believe that there is any lack of symmetry in relation to individual dismissals and suspensions but we shall come to that later in our deliberations in Committee.
Baroness Maddock:I thank the Minister for that extremely detailed and helpful answer. In particular, I am grateful to her for pointing out so clearly how the Welsh teaching council will operate and the difference between that and the GTC here. As part of the consultation exercise, that will be very helpful to people outside. I hope that, despite what the Minister said this evening, should views be expressed through the consultation which are in favour of some of the measures proposed in the amendment, the Minister will look favourably upon them. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 28:
Before Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL

(" .—(I) 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: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 33, 39, 43, 49, 51 and 52 which are consequential upon it. At the outset of my remarks, I make it clear that this is a probing amendment. However, this issue has recurred throughout our debates and it has been raised most clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara.
This amendment, which I tabled at the request of the National Association of Head Teachers, would give the council its full responsibility as a council rather than as an advisory body. In moving the amendment, I am perfectly clear that that is not what the Government intend. However, I believe that we should look hard and long at the arguments that there are for making the council responsible, as my amendment provides, for standards of teaching, the standards of conduct for teachers and medical fitness to teach.
In doing that, the amendment makes it quite clear that the Secretary of State would have power to require the GTC to seek his advice or the advice of bodies designated by him on those matters. Subsections (3) and (4) place with the GTC the power to determine whether a person is qualified to teach; to determine provisions in relation to licensed teachers; and prohibiting or restricting the employment or further employment of teachers along similar lines to those proposed by Clause 8 in relation to the GTC for Wales.
The proposed clause requires that paragraphs (a), (b) and (f) of subsection (2) be deleted, along with subsection (4) of that clause and subsection (3) of Clause 5. References to the Secretary of State in relation to directions given by virtue of Section 218 (6) of the Education Reform Act 1988 must also be removed as a consequence.
These are really major issues. However, it is quite clear that they are extremely focused points. They do not spread over a great area. It is a matter of principle as to whether or not one believes that the GTC must be more than an advisory and administrative body. I believe that the Government are saying in effect that they will set up an advisory body and at some time, not named, in the indefinite future, it could become a body like the General Medical Council or the Law Society, but they do not know when that is likely to be.
The issue of principle is quite clear. Teachers will see their body as a second-class body right from the outset. I do not believe that we need to pretend that it will be anything other than that. I put the matter in those crude terms because frequently that is the way in which advisory bodies are looked upon. It is worth looking at the powers which I have suggested in the amendments to see whether or not we believe that teachers cannot be trusted to deal appropriately with those conditions.
The first is in relation to the standards of teaching. In view of all the back-stops there are in teaching now—league tables, statutory tests, inspections and everything else—it would become quite clear if standards of teaching were falling. The GTC would then consider what it was going to do about that, because there are other measures.
The more important issue is the question of standards of conduct for teachers. If an organisation has its own responsibilities, it seems to me fundamental that it should regulate itself. In regulating itself, one of its most important tasks would be to decide who is in and who is out. Of course, in the case of teaching it is terribly important that if a teacher is to be dismissed for misconduct—I am not now talking about a teacher who simply teaches badly but I am talking about what we all understand as misconduct—the GTC should be the responsible body to deal with that.
As long as we feel that the GTC is not a responsible body to deal with that, we are weakening it all the time. We are also creating quite a lot of bureaucracy. As a matter of interest, if the GTC is to be advisory, I should like to know how the matter of a dismissal will work. Let us suppose there is a case of misconduct and the GTC advises, "Teacher X should be dismissed". What will happen then? The matter goes to the department
1442
which then goes through all its processes. Does it then go back to the GTC and then something happens, or does it stop with the department?
What particular purpose is served by having the view of the GTC on such matters? I do not know whether that is one of the ministerial responsibilities of the noble Baroness, but it was one of my less happy responsibilities when I was in her place at the Department of Education. I cannot quite see what purpose would be served by having yet someone else giving advice on what are really very tragic but most important matters from the point of view of the safety of schoolchildren. We are discussing a most serious matter. Therefore, it will be most interesting to know how all that will work in practice.
It seems to me that the same applies as regards the issue of determining matters relating to "medical fitness to teach". Again, this is a measure to determine whether a teacher is medically fit to teach. It is something for which presumably one would obtain outside professional advice. That is why we feel that a GTC would not be able to undertake the task and that it would only be able to act in an advisory capacity.
The other point I wish to raise is one which was touched upon in the Minister's response to the previous group of amendments. Indeed, she covered so much in her reply that I shall have to read most carefully in Hansard what was said because it was somewhat difficult to take it all in. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised the point as regards Wales. It seems to me—I should like to know whether I have read the Bill correctly—that there is a read-across to what will happen in Wales and it looks as if the council in Wales could from the start have more powers than that in England. We already know that the council in Scotland has more powers than the council in England. My English nationalist spirit is now rising and I ask myself whether that is fair. A certain noble Lord is tempting me to say something about this, but I shall be careful because I can say things.
However, rather more seriously, we should know the nature of the council's powers in Wales as opposed to those for the English council. As a matter of natural justice, I feel that the two organisations ought to have similar powers because the situation could give rise to great difficulties. It would be most helpful to have a clear explanation as to what the powers of the Welsh council are and what the powers of the English council are, so that we know where we stand. That is the serious point about the whole matter.
In summary, it would be helpful to know, and to have on the record, an idea of the timetable envisaged for the development of the GTC as regards when it will reach the stage that I have suggested in the amendment with full powers on a par with those of the General Medical Society and the Law Society. It is most important for us to be able to say to teachers that that is our ultimate objective and that we expect to reach that stage within a relatively short time.
Moreover, at the stage when those full powers belong to the GTC, it will be important to know how the Government will make the judgment as to whether or

1443
not the council has succeeded as regards its advice. How does one judge whether its advice was good or bad? Does one judge it by the fact that every time advice was given the Government accepted it and, therefore, it was very good? Alternatively, although the council's advice may be very good, the Government may not accept it. Does that mean that the advice was not so good and, therefore, merited a black mark, thus holding up the council in its development? These are big and important issues which need to be determined.
As I said, this is a probing amendment and clearly one that I shall not press to a Division this evening. However, it is a serious amendment and one which relates to an important consideration which is being demanded, as others will know better than me, by many teachers. If we want to create an organisation which gives teachers the respect that we want them to have, we need to think most carefully about giving it the powers of a fully responsible, self-governing organisation. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant:I warmly support the amendment for a variety of reasons, as I believe it is a fundamental one and one which strikes at the very heart of many of the concerns that have been expressed in Committee this evening. For several years I chaired the Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education. In our report published in 1993, entitled Learning to Succeed, we said:
"It is important that those who are actually teaching have a degree of control over and responsibility for their own profession and involvement in the process of change. The Commission, in line with a wide range of individuals and organisations that have provided it with evidence on the teaching profession, recommends statutory self-regulation of the teaching profession through a General Teaching Council. Most professions in Britain have such a body and Scotland has had a GTC since 1966. A GTC south of the border might eventually have more extensive powers, but its initial functions should, we suggest, be: maintenance of a register of all teachers with qualified status; responsibility for professional standards of discipline and conduct, taking appropriate action in cases of serious misconduct and ill-health: [and] a statutory source of advice on issues such as professional training and development, qualification level of teachers, and changes in curriculum and assessment".
The register of teachers is included in the Bill, but I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin; namely. that to have a register and to have a GTC responsible for maintaining it but not having the authority to suspend or erase the name of a teacher from that register on good evidence is illogical.
The purpose of the amendment is to give the GTC authority over professional standards of discipline and conduct and over issues relating to ill health. As matters stand, under Clause 2(4) any recommendation or advice given by the GTC to the Secretary of State relating to the potential dismissal, suspension or erasure from the register of a teacher would be subject to a decision of the Secretary of State.
Even though it has been suggested to us that the powers of the GTC might well be extended through subsequent amending legislation, I can only say that I have been lobbied extensively over the past few years by colleagues from the General Medical Council and the
1444
General Dental Council, each of whom have been seeking amending legislation for several years to introduce amendments to the relevant Acts for very important purposes. During the time of the previous government and of the present Government, we have been advised that it is simply not likely, within the foreseeable future, to find legislative time for such amending legislation.
Therefore, if we are to be given an assurance that the powers of the council may be extended, the question is when? I believe it is right that such issues as set out in the amendment should be the responsibility of the GTC from the outset; for example, standards of teaching, standards of conduct and medical fitness to teach. It is clear that the amendment is modified by the council being required to seek advice from the Secretary of State or from other bodies. Indeed, subsection (4) of the amendment says:
"The Secretary of State shall make provision in such regulations for a determination or direction under those regulations to be made by the Council".
I wholly agree it is important that if the council is given those powers, the regulations should specify whether the powers will include the authority to suspend, erase, admonish or even to impose conditions upon the registration of a teacher.
All of those issues are covered by this amendment which I believe is of fundamental importance. I hope very much that, despite what the noble Baroness said a few moments ago to the effect that the Government are opposed to giving authority for these powers to the general teaching council, they will think again. As the national commission recommended, that leaves several other issues in the Bill to be the subject of advice from the general teaching council. I believe that these issues are of such fundamental importance that they should be on the face of the Bill as this amendment proposes.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford:I wish to speak to Amendment No. 51. I address what is really a point of equity. If it is proposed to remove a teacher from the register, that teacher should have,
"a right of appeal to an appellate body. established for the purpose and chaired by a person of high legal standing".
That is an elementary right. I believe that it could be insisted upon in common law on the basis of human rights. In the previous century it was customary when new governing bodies were established that many teachers who were dismissed had a right of appeal. If a person's livelihood is taken away, I believe that some form of appeal should be allowed. If that is not the case. unfortunate circumstances will arise. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to allowing teachers that right.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I intervene briefly to support the amendments, particularly in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I believe that her reference to a second-class body is appropriate to a body which is merely advisory and administrative. I have reflected upon the points made by the Minister as

1445
regards the evolutionary approach. It seems to me that a body which is generally viewed as second class, perhaps by the profession too, is in danger of attracting people who are not of the highest calibre. A body which has executive powers, such as those proposed in the amendment, would draw to itself people of real calibre and ability. I wonder whether an advisory body would attract such people. That makes me wonder whether this idea of evolution will work in relation to the general teaching council. If it begins as an advisory body it will draw to it people who are interested merely in that kind of function. I wonder how it will gain a track record—to use the phrase of the noble Baroness—which will enable it to have executive powers.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I am bewildered as to why the teaching profession in Wales is regarded as having the maturity to undertake executive powers whereas the teaching profession in England is not regarded as having such maturity. Unless the general teaching council has some executive powers it will not command the confidence of the teaching profession, nor indeed—dare I say it—of the general public. I find it difficult to see how it could then evolve into the kind of body which we all hope it will become.
Lord Parry: I believe it will not surprise the Committee to learn that I share some of the reservations that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, about the emphasis in the debate. There is no surprise in that as I was a classroom teacher in Wales when the noble Lord was Secretary of State for Education. I wish to make two points. It seems to me that the debate, both in its scratchy period earlier and in its more mellow and important stages towards the end, has ignored the fact that the proposals the Government are putting forward do not exist in the kind of vacuum that the Committee seems to assume.
I have heard two or three references to Wales and to the better provision that the Committee seems to think is being made in Wales for the Welsh teaching council. One of the reasons that the Welsh education system has evolved as it has is that the local authorities created a system which was geared to providing a standard of education in the Welsh counties that was always the envy of the English regions.
This proposed body will not evolve on its own but in the context of the assembly for Wales. I do not refer to the Welsh assembly because the Chamber recently decided that it was an assembly for Wales and not a Welsh assembly. In that context there will be an evolution in terms of control. The whole stature of the Secretary of State for Wales will itself evolve. At this stage we do not know what duties the Secretary of State will keep to himself and what duties will pass to the assembly for Wales. In ignoring that development the Committee has fallen a little in its standard of debate.
While serious reservations have been expressed, particularly on the other side of the Chamber, about some of the proposals on which some of the amendments have focused, we also have to remember a further point. I have been distracted from what I wished to say about the right reverend Prelate's remarks. I shall therefore leave that matter at this point. The Secretary
1446
of State for Wales may pass functions to the assembly for Wales—that was the point I wished to make—and he may not have the sort of total control that might be feared. My final point that I thought would come back to my mind has not done so after all, and therefore I shall sit down.
Lord Glenamara: Before the Minister replies I wish to say a few words. I wish to support these amendments as strongly as I can. I believe that these amendments should constitute the absolute core of the Bill. Without these amendments, or something very like them, this exercise is a waste of time. There is no point in setting up the GTC unless it has control over who goes on to the register and who comes off the register for misconduct or for whatever reason. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. I implore the Government to concede that point, otherwise the whole exercise is futile. There are plenty of consultative bodies now; we do not need any more bodies to consult. What we need now is a regulatory body for the teaching profession. We owe it to them. They are a responsible body of workers and they can control their own profession.
I ask the Minister please not to leave these powers in the hands of the Secretary of State. Let us imagine the nonsense of a situation where the Secretary of State decides which teacher will be allowed to teach and which teacher will not be allowed to teach, when sitting in the next building there is supposed to be a general teaching council for the whole profession. That is ridiculous. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind and concede something on that because without that we may as well all go home; there is no point in doing this. I as an old teacher ask the Minister please, please, please, please, please—I fought for this all my professional life—to concede this point. I ask the Minister to give the teachers the power to decide who goes on the register and who comes off it.
Lord Monkswell:I hope I may make two points. I know that the Committee wishes to break for dinner but I shall be brief. First, both the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, referred to the dismissal of teachers. I am sure we understood that they meant the withdrawal of teachers' registration and their inability to teach thereafter because they would not be legitimate teachers. I hope that the record will show that that is what the Committee understands by that.
Secondly, we seem to be having a major debate about the difference between control and advice. We live in a monarchy. We are summoned here to give advice to Her Majesty. Ultimately, Her Majesty makes the decision whether to accept our advice. For the past 100 years the monarchy of this country has always accepted our advice, but it is still within her power not to do so. I hope that the advice the general teaching council will offer to the Secretary of State will over time be accepted

1447
as inviolate advice where the Secretary of State effectively rubber stamps the advice as being from the decision-making body.
Baroness Blatch: The monarch will be perplexed when the Bill is presented for approval because it contains no detail. It does not state what will be the outcome. Therefore the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, is pertinent. The monarch will be asked to approve this skeletal Bill and the detail will follow after consultation which has not yet taken place. Indeed, the consultation to take place will not be on the basis of whether the body should have powers because that pass will have been sold by the passing of the Bill as it stands.
However, that was not the point I rose to make. I wish to give notice to the noble Baroness that I wish to place a question on the record. Perhaps the noble Baroness will write to me. I do not ask for an answer now.
The point is important with regard to any Bill which goes through this House. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us specifically on a clause by clause basis which parts of the Bill fall to the reserve matters for the Scottish parliament and those for the assembly for Wales when dealing with secondary legislation. It is important that we now have some detail as to which matters fall to the Westminster Parliament and which to the Scottish parliament and the assembly for Wales.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may answer that question straight away. I shall be very happy to write to the noble Baroness in particular in relation to Wales which is relevant here. I am not sure that Scotland is particularly relevant; it already has its GTC. As regards later parts of the Bill, I have no problem with that request.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that these were probing amendments. Therefore she will not be surprised to hear me say that I cannot support them. I shall probably also disappoint my noble friend Lord Glenamara despite his forceful plea that the Government should accept these amendments. 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 to move immediately down that road. It is a little premature to give a precise timetable. For a number of reasons which I shall set out, I do not think that the time is yet right and it would be wrong to include such an intention on the face of the Bill before we have some experience of the GTC playing a role in such matters.
Registration with the GTC will be a condition of entry to the teaching profession. It is therefore right that the conditions to be fulfilled for registration are set out in the Bill at Clause 3. One of those conditions is that a person should be a qualified teacher. New standards for qualified teacher status were issued by the Secretary of
1448
State last year. They have a crucial role in driving up the quality of teaching. We are committed to these standards and they need time to work through the system. We need to ensure that the GTC register is a robust and reliable list of persons with the necessary skills to teach, based on the new standards.
Our approach is not novel or unusual. The basic registration arrangements are often laid down in legislation for other professional bodies. And the regulations on registration may of course allow the GTC to make its own arrangements on many issues. That is to say, they will set a framework within which the GTC will be free to make its own more detailed rules. The criteria for admission to the register are simple but nonetheless rigorous. Teachers must hold qualified teacher status, must not have been barred from practising the profession and have paid a registration fee. One either holds QTS or one does not. Similarly one has either paid one's fee or one has not. These issues are not matters for interpretation on which an appeal can be based. Those barred from the profession will have had an opportunity to make representations before being barred. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. To introduce an appeal mechanism of the kind proposed would be unnecessary.
Nor would it be appropriate to give the GTC full responsibility at the outset for de-registering teachers and thereby barring them from the profession. I need not remind Members of your Lordships' House that these are important and sensitive duties. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who has had extensive experience of them, they do not fall within my policy responsibilities. Indeed, no part of the Bill that we are considering in Committee today which relates to teaching falls within my policy remit. The Secretary of State's ability to bar or restrict the employment of people in schools is a crucial child protection measure as well as upholding high standards within the profession. Any new proposals then face a difficult test: we must be certain that they would improve on the existing system and would not generate any new uncertainties or loopholes. I hope that my noble friend Lord Glenamara accepts that.
It is important to retain the best features of a system which has worked well. It is true that other professional bodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, said, have the power to de-register; but these powers have generally been introduced in very different circumstances—to regulate a profession where little or no regulation previously existed. Moreover, in none of these other professions is child protection such an important consideration, although I accept that it may be of some importance in medicine.
There is also a range of technical difficulties in giving the GTC full powers to bar or restrict employment under Section 218(6) of the 1988 Act. The existing powers cover anyone working in a school who has regular contact with children, not just teachers. And they cover further education colleges and independent schools as well as the maintained sector. So the Secretary of State has powers to bar a range of people who do not fall within the GTC's remit. I believe that it would be damaging to take the approach proposed in this

1449
amendment where the GTC would take the decision in some cases and the Secretary of State would continue to make the decision in other cases. It could be a rather unfortunate recipe for different judgments, and different standards to apply to different groups of people. I hope that Members of your Lordships' House agree that that would be an unfortunate consequence.
The public have a right to expect that the protection of children will be governed by a coherent, consistent and rigorous barring regime. The present system has worked well, and I think it would be right for the Secretary of State to continue to make the final decision. The GTC would be able to give its professional advice on cases concerning teachers at schools, and the Secretary of State will take due account of that advice.
As my noble friend Lord Parry said, our proposals for Wales are different, in order to reflect the different constitutional framework in Wales, and in particular to give the Welsh assembly sufficient powers to determine the best way forward in Wales. As I have said, a TTA does not operate in the same way in Wales as in England. Therefore, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I do not think that the English need feel too hard done by because we have a TTA which is working well.
As we said at Second Reading, it may be possible to review this area once the GTC has established itself; indeed, I hope it will be. I believe the best approach is to give the GTC an advisory role at the outset which might then be developed over time once the council has proved itself to the profession and the public and developed its experience and expertise in these vitally important areas.
Baroness Young: I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. However, I do not think that she has quite dealt with the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon as to whether an advisory body will attract the best people. At the end of the day, it is the people on it who will make or break it, who are responsible for its success. I pose that as a point that the Government ought to bear clearly in mind. The measure should be: will this body attract the best people?
The noble Baroness is very persuasive over the whole question as to whether the Welsh council will have more powers. One fully begins to see, as devolution proceeds, that the assembly for Wales will be a factor, and this will be one of the ways in which more powers will be given in Wales. That is all right; however, it is an important political point (political with a small "p") that the arrangements for England should not be less effective than those for Wales.
I entirely take the noble Baroness's point about the Teacher Training Agency, and I should like to pay tribute to Professor Clive Booth, whom I know very well; he is an excellent choice. However, the fact is that we do not want different standards as between England and Wales. That would be a most undesirable outcome and a quite unnecessary recipe for difficulties. I hope that the Government will look clearly at the matter.
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and I know that my late noble friend Lord Joseph, when he was Secretary of State, tried hard
1450
to set up a general teaching council. He was not successful either. The idea has been around for a long time. I am bound to say that the more we proceed with this Committee stage, the sadder I feel about the outcome. What the Minister has said is that there is no timetable for moving to a fully self-governing, responsible organisation. Even if we had a timetable, it would require primary legislation, as she said. We all know how difficult it is to introduce a Bill into the legislative programme. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, said how difficult it has been for doctors and dentists to get the amendments that they want. That is a kind of wishful thinking.
To return to the key question about the conduct of teachers, of course everybody understands that child protection is essential. There can be no difference of opinion about that at all. I should have thought that the regulation of the medical profession is similar. It deals with children as well as adults, and with matters of life and death. Teachers act in loco parentis and it is a serious matter.
But are we saying that teachers on the general teaching council would be incapable of or unwilling to make the same difficult and painful decisions about colleagues? Either you think that teachers can do that or you think that they cannot. It is a sad fact that the conclusion on this Bill is that teachers will not be fit to take that responsibility. When we go into the whole question of registration, that makes something of a nonsense of it all.
I will take this amendment back and examine the Minister's remarks carefully, and I shall consider all the points raised. I think we shall all consider carefully what has been said at Committee stage. I have made it quite clear that I have no intention of dividing the House. However, we ought to consider carefully whether this is an issue to which we should return at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again no earlier than 8.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Quarrying Industry
7.55 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their policies on the quarrying industry in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must declare an interest. For the past eight years or so I have worked for Hanson plc, owners of ARC, a large aggregates producer.
The quarrying industry is part of an economy on which every man, woman and child depends. There are about 1,300 quarries in this county. The material they

1451
produce—some 240 million tonnes—is sand of different sorts, gravel, rock and limestone. It is the foundation, in more ways than one, of the United Kingdom construction industry. All our homes, hospitals, sewerage and water systems and our entire transport network—road, rail and air—depend on the products produced by British quarriers. What is more, glass, cosmetics, drugs and many other things in everyday life all contain nuarry products. We tend to take them and their provenance for granted.
In his Budget last July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he would be considering whether to introduce a tax on minerals. The reason he gave was that he wanted to make the quarrying industry pay for its so-called environmental costs. And it is this subject that I wish to tackle primarily this evening.
I suspect that it is several years in government which have led me to be somewhat suspicious of the motives of the Treasury. In my experience, whatever it may say in public, the Treasury is interested in one thing more or less above everything else; that is, raising revenue.
So what about the environmental argument put forward by the Treasury? First of all, whatever the industry's failings in the past—which were no worse than those of any other industry and were, as in most other industries, the result of ignorance not malice—the modern quarrying industry is very different. At many sites over the past few years I have seen evidence that it is both responsible and acutely aware of the need to operate with care and sensitivity to the environment.
Quite rightly, the industry is tightly regulated by government—both national and local. And that system has worked well. Indeed, if she has any doubt about it, I should like to ask the noble Baroness who is to reply whether she would list all the regulations to which the quarrying industry is already subjected—or, if the list is too long, at least to give the House a flavour of its length and possibly place the full list in the Library.
But the industry does even more than is required of it by these regulations. It is in the interests of quarry operators to have good relations with their local communities. They therefore make great efforts voluntarily to minimise the environmental impact of quarries.
The industry has its own code of conduct which covers every aspect of its activities, from blasting times to the safe and clean operation of lorries, the restoration of old sites and many other aspects. Indeed, restored quarries have often been transformed into wildlife havens; some have become sites of special scientific interest, others have been converted into new leisure facilities. I shall be interested to know whether the noble Baroness can list the numbers of SSSIs that either have been, or are, quarries. Where possible, the industry carries out many voluntary environmental schemes which bring benefits to local communities living near quarries.
I would argue that there is no case for a tax to improve the behaviour of the industry. If the Government want to make the industry do more, they can surely use the tried and tested method of increasing regulation. I am sure that
1452
the industry would be happy to work with government to find ways of solving any problems. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, can explain what problems the Government are concerned about.
Unlike so many other industries, quarrying does not even fail the test of sustainable development. There is a plentiful supply of natural raw materials that make aggregates. There is no question of the industry being unsustainable. Neither is the UK wasteful in its use of aggregates. We use less than any other European country except Holland. And, thanks to increased recycling and new building design technology and processes, we use them more efficiently than ever before.
The Government have said that they want to encourage more recycling of quarry products. This is an objective which the industry shares and is working towards. But do the Government seriously believe that a tax will achieve that? And how much more recycling do the Government believe is practicable? Already more than 60 per cent. of construction and demolition waste is re-used; but there is a limit to the availability of materials which can be used again. At the moment about 10 per cent. of the market is made up of recycled materials. The figure is growing every year and will double over the next 10 years. But recycled materials will never be able to meet more than a small proportion of total demand, tax or no tax. The quality of the product simply is not high enough. To use it would be at best wasteful and at worst dangerous. We have to face one stark fact: there will always be a need for what are known as virgin aggregates. Imposing a tax will not change that.
This Government, like the previous one, have said that they want to see more green taxation. I have a certain sympathy with that. The landfill tax is a prime example of a green tax which is right in principle and, with some tinkering which is going on at the moment, will be a powerful tool to improve the environment. But a quarrying tax would not be a green tax. It would not improve the environment; in fact, it could actually harm it.
I therefore offer a word of caution to the Government if they think that they can introduce this tax under the umbrella of green taxation. To do so would bring green taxation into disrepute. It would ill serve the Government if they used the cloak of green taxation to cover up something which is nothing more than a revenue-raising tax. As the Government strive to protect the environment, they must keep business on their side. They will not do so if they misuse the taxation system in this way.
Let me turn briefly to the economic consequences of the imposition of a quarrying tax. Construction is one of the most important economic indicators of a country. In the United Kingdom it has an annual turnover of at least £50 billion, the aggregates industry's share of which is £3 billion. Its importance to the economy was recognised by the Deputy Prime Minister when last year he set up a construction task force under the chairmanship of Sir John Egan. This was a most welcome move. The remit of the group is to find ways of cutting the cost of construction by 30 per cent. That is a laudable aim, to which I am sure all of us subscribe.
How odd, then, for the same Government, though not of course the same department, to be considering a measure which would undoubtedly lead to an increase in the cost of construction. Any tax would have to be passed on by the quarrying industry to the customer. Ninety per cent. of the quarrying industry's output goes to the construction industry. Construction contributes about 10 per cent. of the country's GDP. Do the Government want to put that at risk?
On top of that, 40 per cent. of quarry products are bought by the public sector. Any rise in construction costs would have a direct financial impact on both central and local government. It is the taxpayer who would be left to pick up this bill, while the Government's own social and regeneration programmes would be put at risk.
The Government should make no mistake: if a tax is introduced, every home, school, hospital and factory would cost more to build. Inflation would be fuelled and Britain's international competitiveness harmed.
There would be another feature. The consequence of increasing the cost of home-produced products would also be to encourage cheap imports. In this case it would be not just imports of aggregates but also of products with aggregates in them, such as concrete blocks and pipes, and so on. The only way to prevent this happening would be by tight import controls, but that would be costly and complex to administer, thus reducing the revenue for the Treasury.
I would argue that, if the Government proceed with the tax, their economic logic is seriously flawed. The economic future of rural communities is a subject dear to your Lordships in many respects. The quarrying industry provides 40,000 jobs. Many of these are semi-skilled and the majority are in the countryside, where they are much needed. Any increase in the industry's costs would threaten jobs. Do the Government want to risk this?
In conclusion, I should like to ask a simple question: is this tax really worth the candle? It would increase the cost of building homes, schools and hospitals; it would damage the economy; it would fuel inflation; and it would threaten jobs. Above all, it would fail to do the one thing which the Government say they want to do; namely, to protect the environment. I ask the noble Baroness to recognise the importance of the industry and to ensure that the Government think twice before taking action which could severely undermine a British success story.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on initiating this short debate. First, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
I have a slight doubt about what is defined as quarrying. We understand about aggregates for construction materials, but I suspect that china clay in Cornwall is also classed as quarrying; I do not know whether opencast coal is; there are probably other mineral extractions which are.
I too have concerns about the proposals to tax quarrying, but from a slightly different standpoint. Mineral extraction and the transport of the product to its final destination both tend to be unpopular because they
1454
can be environmentally damaging. But they do not necessarily need to be. I should like to focus on the transport side, which has its own environmental problems. In my view, some means of transport are more environmentally friendly than others.
From some quarries—probably from most—some product has to go by lorry because there is not rail or sea transport nearby. Some of it goes along unsuitable roads. I know of a situation in Cornwall at the moment involving china clay where a proposal to rebuild a long-closed railway has been stopped and the lorries have, very responsibly, a voluntary one-way system through a village. I would not like to live in that village, but I suppose that, if I wanted to walk along a disused railway line, that is the other side of the argument.
From other quarries the product goes by sea. Most of the aggregates for the construction of the Channel Tunnel came by sea from the north of Scotland, which was very environmentally friendly.
A lot of aggregate goes by rail. It is good to be able to report that the number of aggregate trains went up from 11,000 to 14,000 last year, a welcome increase.
I should like to mention two things which are needed for rail to succeed in attracting more aggregate business, which would be beneficial from the environmental point of view. The first is a level playing-field with road transport. We have talked about it before. A 44-tonne limit for general lorry traffic would be disastrous. Rail would lose a large amount of the aggregate business to road. Secondly, aggregates for concrete works need terminal sites in major conurbations because the distribution of concrete in truck mixers is possible only over a short radius. If rail is to deliver aggregates to town centres, it has to have terminal sites.
I know of a case where a concrete and aggregates company tried to buy a site in Battersea which was rail connected. We found that Rail Property Limited, a subsidiary of British Rail, was planning to sell the site to Battersea Dogs Home in preference to the concrete plant. I saw the Minister for Transport, Glenda Jackson, who said that the Government could do nothing about it because of British Rail's obligations under the Transport Acts 1962 and 1968 to operate commercially. They could not instruct or ask British Rail to withdraw the sale.
I was sad about that. I made the point of how impressed I was as to the way the Battersea Dogs Home operated. However, I did not believe that it needed to be rail connected; dogs do not need rail connections and concrete aggregate plants do. I hope the Minister can look into that to see whether anything can be done.
The key is that, when giving planning permission for new sites or extensions to aggregate plants. planners can require transport by rail or sea if practicable. I suggest that one solution to the problems is that they should do that more often.
8.10 p.m.
Lord AmwellMy Lords, I should like to address the issue of an environmental tax on aggregates by considering the effects on the construction industry and its clients. I too should declare an interest. I am a civil engineer working in the construction industry and I have a close interest both in improving the productivity of the industry and in promoting greater environmental awareness among its companies.
A tax on virgin aggregates may be assumed to help in the drive towards greater recycling of materials. But the construction industry is already making great strides with recycling without the imposition of taxes. The watchwords now are "minimise", "re-use" or "recycle". Unfortunately, recycled material usually occurs in small quantities and it needs a suitable construction site reasonably close by or transport costs make re-use uneconomic.
I am not against redressing the balance of transport costs, but only if there is a green argument for so doing. Most recycled materials, because of the small quantities, are carried in polluting and generally unsustainable diesel lorries, while a great deal of the virgin aggregates, as we heard, are carried by trains to local distribution points. So a green tax which has a tendency to put more lorries on the roads would be a curious tax indeed.
Recycled materials can never be more than a small fraction of the total industry demand—we heard a figure of 10 per cent. rising maybe to 20 per cent. An aggregates tax could therefore only ever tip the scales slightly towards recycling, while making the whole of construction more expensive. And it is easy to see how a tax large enough to make a difference in recycling terms could add 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. to the cost of every construction project. That would hit all public sector projects; 40 per cent. of new construction and, for example, the 4.4 million or 5 million new homes needed over the next 15 years. There can be no doubt that inflation would increase. And all that with the most doubtful of green credentials.
There can be other surprising consequences which will not help sustainability. To give one example, building owners have recognised that air conditioning, because of its high energy use and CO, emissions, is quite unsustainable. There is a move towards what is called "natural ventilation" in buildings. That involves using the mass of a building to provide thermal stability against changes in temperature outside. That system demands heavy materials that do not conduct heat well—that means lots of concrete, brick, wood and stone.
The Government, interestingly, have been at the forefront in procuring naturally ventilated buildings. Noble Lords may know that the new parliamentary building above Westminster station has been designed in that way. If the price of aggregates is artificially raised by taxation, then progress towards more natural ventilation and all the real, measurable environmental benefits that that will bring, will take a setback. It will be one notch back in our attempts to reach the Kyoto global warming commitments.
1456
The idea of a tax on aggregates is a poor one. It will add to inflation because it will increase the cost of all construction. It may tip the scales marginally from virgin materials to recycled, but it will only be tinkering at the edges. What is certain is that it will not be a green tax and I urge the Minister to ask her colleagues in the Treasury to think again.
8.14 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, national parks have an outstanding problem of old mineral planning permissions, many granted before or just after the parks were designated in the 1950s. During the passage through Parliament of the Environment Act 1995 I spoke urging a review of old mineral planning permissions and welcomed the provisions that were included in the Act. However, the review does not address the principle of location of permissions that would not be granted by today's modern environmental standards.
I urge the Government to look at how the review is failing, and falling short of its objectives in cases when operators fail to provide information requested from them by the mineral planning authority. I am informed by national park mineral planners that that is a practical difficulty, and there is at present no means to compel operators to provide the requested information. I suggest that the Government consider making permissions null and void if operators persistently fail or refuse to provide information requested by the mineral planning authority.
Compensation is often a subject that mineral planners and quarry operators both shy away from, but it is nevertheless important and needs to be addressed if the Government are serious about achieving sustainable development objectives in the national parks. For example, if planning authorities were to impose a time limit on working—generally 2042 for old permissions—compensation would be likely to be payable. A substantial reduction in the permitted working area, which might be desirable for reasons of landscape impact or nature conservation, would also be liable to attract compensation. Even dormant sites can be reactivated—given a satisfactory scheme of working—and any intention to re-open a site would prevent the issue of a prohibition order.
As time is short, I will write to the Minister about an example of where the old mineral provisions will fail national parks on the ground at Ribblehead quarry near Ingleborough in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. A site that has been acquired with full co-operation of the landowner, following the introduction of the Environment Act, is Winskill Stones, in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. That is a small-scale permission of 26 hectares. The site acquisition cost about £200,000, the majority of which was financed by the voluntary sector. We can see that some of the larger sites in national parks are going to run into millions of pounds' worth of compensation, should park authorities ever seek to revoke them.

1457
In practice then, what are park authorities to do? Should they sanction development that would in principle be in conflict with national park purposes, or severely jeopardise their own existence and viability by compensating operators in return for park protection?
In view of the legacy of old permissions that national parks face, it would seem sensible and fair that any tax should be structured so that there was a premium rate for extraction in sensitive areas, including national parks. The moneys that that would generate could then be used to compensate operators for some of the more damaging permissions in the parks as well as funding research into alternatives to primary aggregate use and the principle of demand management.
Finally, standstill budgets of the national park authorities in England in 1998-99 will mean a reduction in services in some of the parks and fall way short of the recommendation about park funding by the 1991 National Parks Review Panel. The choice for the Government is either to increase the budgets of national park authorities so that they can address the legacy themselves, or ensure that they have the necessary financial tools to address the problem through other means, such as a tax.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice- president of the Council for National Parks. I am well aware of the importance of the quarrying industry and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, pointed out that old quarries can be valuable wildlife sites. But the problem within the national parks is different.
We have strong policies on quarrying in national parks because of the irreversible landscape changes to areas to which successive governments have given the highest status of landscape protection. The difficulty is that the strong policies on quarrying in national parks are defeated by the interpretation of those policies by planning authorities, planning inspectors and by the practice of quarrying companies.
The policies are set out in Mineral Planning Guidance Note No. 6. I only have time to refer to a small extract. Of those areas it says,
"The Government considers that major developments should not take place in these areas and the New Forest. save in exceptional circumstances … and all mineral developments should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed".
In the next paragraph, it states,
"any detrimental effect of the proposals on the environment and landscape and the extent to which that should he moderated;"—
these are the matters to which regard must be paid—
"and in the case of extensions to existing quarries, the extent to which the proposal would achieve an enhancement to the total landscape".
An enhancement may be too much to hope for, but we can at least hope to preserve what is already there.
The intention is that major aggregates developments should not take place in national parks, save in exceptional circumstances, but there is a loophole with regard to extensions to existing quarries which means that in practice extractions are being allowed which
1458
conflict with the test. Recent examples, which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, was able to quote, include quarries in the Yorkshire Dales and the Peak national parks. There is no mechanism to address the historical legacy of supply for national parks, and the amount of aggregate being extracted and sold from a number of parks is at odds with present government policy. I know that the present Government are keen to adhere to the policies of MPG6 and clearly this loophole must be tackled.
I give as an example the case of the North York Moors Park which has been the subject of a recent public inquiry. So far this park has escaped large scale damage, but there has been an application for a major extension to one of its quarries at Spaunton. near Appleton-le-Moors. I know that, because of the public inquiry, my noble friend will not be able to comment at this stage. But the case of Spaunton illustrates the fact that, although the application had neither national need nor lack of alternatives as its driving force, nevertheless it was able to proceed to this extent.
The future could prove devastating if the loophole is not addressed. The level of permitted reserves in national parks is in some cases quite astonishing. For example, the permitted reserves in the Yorkshire Dales park at the end of 1996 amounted to 203 million tonnes. This represents a landbank of over 44 years. Surely it is time to look again at this policy so that parks can opt out of maintaining a landbank where they wish to do so. I hope my noble friend will be able to give a sympathetic answer to these points.
8.21 p.m.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of Anglo-Pacific Resources. We have a fairly substantial quarry in Scotland which extracts silica sand. I should like to address myself purely to that industry. I have a series of questions to put to the noble Baroness in the time allotted.
First, do the Government consider silica sand to be an industrial mineral or an aggregate? In the event of it being an industrial mineral, will it be exempt from the proposed tax if it comes about? If the former, the rest of my points are irrelevant, but I suspect that the Government have not yet made up their mind. Are the Government committed to a policy that values silica sand as a scarce natural resource? This has been recognised by successive governments since the war and as recently as 1966, under the Minerals Guidance Note 15, it was strongly recommended that planners allow the workings of silica sand. Is the proposed imposition of the tax expected to increase recycling or is it simply a way of raising further taxation at the same time as increasing the inflationary pressures in this country? Do the Government believe, as I do, that recycling can be best achieved by further waste package legislation from Europe? Are the Government committed to continued support of import substitution; and are they aware that a tax, at whatever level, will erode this very substantially in the industry? If an aggregate tax is imposed on silica sand, this will simply increase import penetration and prevent the industry from exporting the mineral to Scandinavia, Continental Europe and Ireland,

1459
markets currently served by Continental companies such as Sibelco, which have very predatory sights on the UK and Ireland.
The price of silica sand is rock bottom at present. If a tax were imposed, the glass companies, which are in the throes of a very considerable reorganisation, as the Minister may be aware, may consider either moving offshore or purchasing from outside the UK, as relative merits of supplies are now driven primarily by haulage rates. A tax would imbalance this. At the same time it goes without saying that there would be a considerable number of jobs at stake not only in the aggregate part of the silica sand industry but also in terms of the knock-on effect if certain companies chose to relocate their businesses elsewhere.
The environmental argument for not imposing the tax is extremely strong. More imports with longer hauls to customers will increase congestion and create more pollution. I hope that the Government will think again on the whole issue of aggregate tax and, if not, will exclude silica sand from the tax on the basis that it is an important and strategic industrial mineral which successive governments since the war have valued.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the House will be well aware of my long-standing connection with the construction industry. I do not know whether that is an interest as I am partly retired; but, arising from it, I approve of quarries and am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has initiated this short debate. When I say "quarries", I include almost any hole in the ground. I mean quarries providing stone, slate, sand, gravel, china clay, open-cast coal, and others which I may have forgotten. I regard all of those as quarrying and all of them are crucial.
Almost everything I want to say has already been said except for one thing. I am going to refer to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, a fellow civil engineer, when he drew attention to the 4.5 million houses which are proposed to be built—I wonder whether it is a dream or a reality—in the next 15 years. That means more concrete in foundations, in road kerbs, road paving, buildings and road bottoming. All of those things mean more quarries, despite the efforts the industry has made over many years in recycling. We have already heard how marginal is the effect of recycling. It is important, and no doubt it will increase, but the effect is marginal. There is no doubt that any kind of building programme over the next 15 years will require more quarries of the type I have listed.
There is an environmental problem here. It was well stated by my noble friend Lady Nicol, who worries a great deal about these matters, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. I take a fairly robust view of environmental matters. I regard a quarry as part of the environment—and sometimes a useful and desirable part of it. The problem with environmental people is that they tend to panic and take a short-term view. Changes to the environment and changes in the landscape, to which my noble friend Lady Nicol referred, are long
1460
term changes. They begin with a scar on the landscape and then the landscape recovers in the fullness of time. It does not quite revert to nature but it reverts to somewhere between what it was at one time and where it now is, if that makes sense.
I wish to draw attention to two or three examples of this. They are drawn largely from areas which will be familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald. They may be familiar with a quarry at a place called Craiksland. It is near Symington, which is midway between Kilmarnock and Ayr. The quarry was abandoned 60 years ago and it is now part of the natural landscape. It was used for military purposes during the war but it has been out of action for quite a long time. It has returned to nature and is an attractive part of the country. One would never think it had been a quarry. Just on the other side of the Dundonald hill there is a shale quarry which is a repository for fossilised shells. What fossilised shells are doing 250 feet above sea level, I do not know, but no doubt geologists would tell me.
Lastly, I wish to draw attention to a large china clay pit near St. Austell which is still working but which will be the site of the Eden Project. That is one of the millennium projects in which a very large greenhouse will be built. As a structural engineer, I can say that it will be built along the geodesic forms of Buckminster Fuller. It will provide a very interesting botanical experience. If it were in a different place it could fit into the millennium dome, but I do not suppose it could be shipped from St. Austell to Greenwich. That is a use for a disused quarry.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, quarrying produces minerals, which are fundamental to our standard of living and way of life. Therefore, I was concerned when I heard the speculation about possible taxation on quarrying. The question arises of what would be the considered purpose of such taxation. Is it to do with the green argument and in order to protect the environment? Personally, I cannot accept the validity of that reasoning because the materials produced by quarrying would still be needed. Surely, the environment objective could be sensibly realised through more stringent planning regulations. We need to consider that the United Kingdom is essentially a road-based economy. There is a need to produce the minerals which are essential in the construction of roads and in the maintenance of the existing road network.
Is the intention to make this vital work more costly? I remind noble Lords that I am a believer in the old adage that when you put up the cost of transport you put up the cost of just about everything. Transport is only one aspect. What about the construction industry generally? We should think of all the new housing that is required besides more hospitals, schools and improvements to the existing buildings. So many other improvements are required to the infrastructure, and for their completion they need a ready supply of aggregates. If we follow the speculation at the present time, then the likely outcome is that ultimately the customer will pay the tax. Furthermore, such a tax would be likely to help

1461
fuel inflation. The customer is largely government, whether it be local or national. Ultimately, such cost increases could result in a cutback in projects. Such a programme of events would be detrimental to the Government's aim of renewing and improving schools, hospitals, housing and the infrastructure generally.
The final point I wish to make and to express my concern about is the possibility of increased imports. In order to be meaningful, I understand that the tax levied would need to be in the region of £2 to £3 per tonne for aggregates. I am informed that at the present time imports of cement are in the region of 7 per cent. of the total usage. If taxes were imposed, would we not be in danger of turning that figure into a flood of cheap imports? Our overseas competitors would simply clap their hands. In turn, such a development could well have an adverse effect on the numbers employed in quarrying and related industries. I suggest that such an outcome is one that we could well do without. I am sure that the Government will consider the matter carefully before going down such a dangerous path, for there could be detrimental consequences for the quarrying industry and for the economy as a whole.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I have some mineral rights, but since nobody has ever expressed the slightest serious intention of giving me any money for any of them, I suppose that it is hardly a financial interest although hope springs eternal.
We have had a good debate and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for introducing it. I do not want to go over old ground. We have heard about the significance of the quarrying industry—using those words in their most extensive sense—and the importance to the economy of the country as a whole. It may be obvious to say this, but we are still living in the immediate aftermath of the last general election. We have now for the first time a Labour Government in almost 19 years. When governments change, policies change. That is why the electorate puts in the new government and removes the old one.
The question that we need an answer to is this: what is the attitude of the new government to this important industry? In that context, it is worth remembering that the administration we now have is, in many characteristics, very different from the previous Labour Government of the 1970s. Do the performance and the record of the previous Labour Government provide an appropriate and sensible signpost to the attitudes and actions of the present Labour Government?
Quarrying is an important activity, which puts great stresses and strains on the planning system. A number of noble Lords have mentioned it. I was chairman of the planning committee in the Lake District National Park for a number of years and I am fully aware of it. Quarrying is large scale. It is often required to take place in areas about which people care a great deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Howie, said, its short-term impact and its long-term impact may be rather different. Equally,
1462
the interests of people in the immediate locality can be very different from those who are further away from a proposed or existing site.
A balance has to be struck, and as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, policies made by the previous government as to how that balance should be struck are in place. The question that needs answering is whether, with a new government, we are going to see an evolution or a revolution in planning policy guidance that is going to come from the centre. Once a quarry is permitted, there is then a further set of regulations as to how it can be operated. That was referred to by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. Are we going to see the status quo or are we going to see changes?
Once a quarry is either completely or partly worked out, various conditions will be imposed, normally through the planning consent granted, as to what should be done with it. All these affect the economic viability of the industry. That is significant when we look at the role and significance of this industry in the wider economy.
To turn to questions of more general taxation interest, I agree with my noble friend that the Treasury has an inordinate love of riches, particularly other people's riches. It looks at this industry as a source of additional revenue. In that context, I want to be clear of two slightly different things. First, there is the taxation of the value of the material to be extracted; and, secondly, there is the taxation of the process and associated activities involved in taking the material from the ground and finally delivering it to its place of final consumption.
If any particular activity or product is seen—and forgive the pun—as a quarry for the Treasury, that puts up prices. If the kind of taxation that we saw for development land tax is imposed on economic activities, it makes them more expensive. If heavy taxation is imposed on activities that are also required to carry out extensive works to try to remedy the inherent environmental damage that they do, it makes the quality and extent of the ability to carry out those works thoroughly and properly in the public interest that much less easy.
Finally, the final cost to consumers of the products of the quarrying industry depends on the relationship between taxation, price and the conditions imposed by government. That not only affects the end user, but also jobs and the balance of payments as to whether or not there is going to be import substitution. These are wide-ranging and important questions. I have said already in my remarks this evening that I believe that these are questions on which the House, the industry, those involved in administering the planning system, environmentalists and the country as a whole, should have guidance from the noble Baroness.
8.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for raising this issue and for giving me the opportunity to tell the House

1463
about the Government's policies as they are currently being applied to the quarrying industry. Many specific questions have been asked during the debate. I shall do my best to respond to all of them, but there may be some technical points on which I shall need to write to noble Lords who have asked specific questions.
This is an opportunity to make the Government's position clear and in some ways, I hope, to reassure those noble Lords who have been concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, it is a question of balance. The United Kingdom is rich in mineral resources and quarrying for these has been a traditional industry for many years. Inevitably there is disruption which imposes some costs on those living nearby and often damage to the environment where quarrying takes place to win the sand, gravel and crushed hard rock and other minerals required to supply industry with materials. As has been recognised by the industry and successive governments, it is important to minimise any environmental harm that may be caused by quarrying.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, stressed the undoubted economic and social need for minerals and quarrying. However, the extraction of aggregates—the essential raw material for the construction industry—is a major planning issue because of its volume (over 200 million tonnes per annum) and its environmental impacts. Most other minerals, although mainly extracted in relatively small quantities, give rise to planning issues because of their specialist uses and relatively limited occurrence, though any proposals to extract them can also raise environmental issues. Indeed, the issue of the national parks was raised by both the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and my noble friend Lady Nicol.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, asked about the regulations which apply to the quarrying industry. Quarrying is no different from other industries inasmuch as any development is subject to planning law and to appropriate environmental protection and health and safety legislation. It is, however, different from most other development inasmuch as it is not static. My noble friend Lord Howie of Troon referred to both the short-term and long-term effects. Quarries tend to become deeper and more extended with time. They impact on both the environment and the landscape, as my noble friend Lady Nicol said.
The law which has developed under successive governments over the years reflects that. In particular. several pieces of recent legislation—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Environment Act 1995, the Town and Country Minerals Regulations 1995 and the Compensation Regulations 1997—deal with the issue of ensuring that the operation of quarries with old mineral permissions is brought up to modern standards.
I endorse the extract from Minerals Planning Guidance Note No. 6 which was read out by my noble friend Lady Nicol. New quarrying should, indeed, be the exception. With regard to extensions, MPG6 raises the question of compensation for existing, committed quarrying rights. It is fundamental to the principle of property law that compensation is payable, but there
1464
is the question of the land bank. Perhaps that may be addressed in the review of MPG6 to which I shall refer in a moment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, referred to a review of old mineral permissions. It is the Government's understanding that the powers of the national parks to review old permissions are adequate if used properly and with sufficient vigour. However, I look forward to seeing the letter which the noble Viscount has said that he will send to me. I shall certainly read it carefully and consider the circumstances. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will read with great care the proposals for a higher rate of tax for the national parks, were such a tax to be introduced.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, challenged us with regard to the environmental effects. Regardless of the efforts that have been made, which are welcomed, and the fact that some disused quarries have over the timescale referred to by my noble friend Lord Howie been turned into environmental sites which have been developed, quarries are not often sought-after neighbours because of the noise, dust and transport movements. Their effects on the amenity of an area, despite the benefits to the local economy and increasingly good restoration, need to be taken into account. Even when great efforts have been made to reduce a quarry's environmental impact, some disamenity will often remain. A large hillside quarry cannot be completely concealed from public view.
The principles underlining the minerals planning policy framework are broadly similar throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that noble Lords will understand if I focus on the guidance for aggregates planning in England. The previous government's policy towards mineral planning in England is set out in MPG6, to which reference has been made. We intend to look again at all the policies set out in MPG6, starting later this year. The review will be undertaken with wide public consultation, during which many of the issues raised tonight by noble Lords may be addressed. I should advise my noble friend Lord Berkeley that that guidance includes the policy that planning authorities should make efforts to safeguard existing railhead facilities in urban areas and to identify further potential sites. The onus is on the planning authorities. However, I am sure that that point, together with those raised by my noble friend Lady Nicol, will be considered with great care during the review.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, challenged me to come up with New Labour's policy towards the aggregates industry. We made it clear before the election that, although we accepted the continued need for an appropriate quantity of aggregate extraction, we would want to look again at the forecasts and projections on which the previous government's policies were based. We are concerned that there should not be unrestricted growth in quarry capacity through the planning system, particularly of aggregates, to meet projections of demand that are not based on the principles of sustainable development. We do not think that we should quarry new material

1465
where it is not necessary. The Government want to see as much use made of secondary and recycled materials as possible, as I am sure do all noble Lords who have participated.
Some noble Lords referred to the barriers to recycling some materials. Those barriers are being addressed. Initiatives to exploit recycled materials are themselves often not forthcoming since primary aggregates are relatively cheap both in terms of the overall costs of construction and in comparison with recycled materials. It is in that context that the introduction of a tax on primary aggregates might help to level the playing field, as has been suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, asked whether we thought that an aggregates tax would achieve more recycling. Research so far suggests that there is scope for further recycling and that a tax would be one way of achieving that. The current review of the effects of the landfill tax, especially in respect of recycling, must also be taken into account. Of course, there will be upper limits beyond which recycled material cannot be obtained and used, and we must bear in mind the costs of recycling and that recycling activities can themselves have environmental impacts. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Amwell. We must also ensure that the market can be exploited up to those limits. That means that newly dug sand, gravel or rock should not always be the easy first choice.
Plainly, from the speeches made tonight by noble Lords on all sides of the House there is concern in the minerals industry about the possibility of a quarrying tax. I stress again that while it is under consideration no decision has yet been made. In his Budget Statement last July the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the Government's determination that the environment should be central to the tax system. He noted that the extraction of aggregates involved significant environmental costs and damage to the landscape and he said that he would return to this issue in his next Budget following work on the environmental costs of quarrying. Results of this work will inform whether there is a case for measures, which could include tax measures, to ensure that environmental costs are reflected in prices. This work is in hand and the Chancellor will consider this and all the other factors, including the representations made to him by the quarrying industry and environmental lobbies, in making any decisions. Referring to the question of silica sand raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, I shall ensure that the Chancellor looks carefully at the comments that have been made about the coverage of non-aggregate minerals if he decides in principle to introduce an aggregates tax.
The question has been raised of the aggregates industry's support for the objectives of the Construction Task Force recently set up under Sir John Egan. The Government do not wish to threaten the achievement of these objectives. Following the Latham Report the construction industry recognises that there are more fundamental barriers to its success than the cost of individual materials and components. But on figures to which I believe the quarrying industry would subscribe the present cost of aggregates accounts for only some 2 to 3 per cent. of construction costs. Without anticipating
1466
the Chancellor's decision, any plausible level of tax is hardly likely to undermine the Egan drive to reduce costs by inducing greater efficiency in the construction process.
Noble Lords have expressed concerns that a quarrying tax may threaten semi-skilled and unskilled jobs and that a tax may be an even greater threat to our minerals industry if imports are not subject to the tax. The issue of imports was raised quite strongly. These points will need to be borne in mind by Treasury Ministers in looking at the potential scope of any tax should the Chancellor decide to introduce one. However, as I have said, no decision has been taken yet on a quarrying tax—this is ultimately a decision for the Chancellor—but if there were to be such a tax we have given undertakings to the industry that there would be full consultation on its implementation.
I turn next to the environmental effects of transport dealt with by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. It is absolutely true that the environmental disruption associated with quarrying is often caused by the movement of the materials from the quarry by road, often on narrow country lanes with the associated danger to local residents and others. Much of the industry relies on short haul of materials where there is usually no alternative to road transport, but where it is practical and economically viable the movement of materials by rail is definitely the preferred option. I note the point raised by my noble friend about 44-tonne lorries, with which I am familiar. I also note that many of the larger quarry operators who have to transport their materials over long distances to supply the south-east market already use rail. To encourage the switch from road to rail the Government make available grants towards the costs of rail facilities where there are demonstrable environmental and wider benefits. I encourage the minerals industry to consider this option.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter and giving me the chance to set out the Government's position on quarrying, particularly with regard to the possibility of a quarrying tax. I hope that he and other noble Lords who have contributed are reassured that the policy objective of striking the right balance between the supply of primary materials to meet industry's needs while taking full account of the environmental consequences of quarrying is the right one and that we should explore the fullest range of ways in which to achieve this. Regardless of the final decision on whether a quarrying tax is introduced, the review of MPG6 starting later this year will provide the opportunity to debate all the relevant issues surrounding the planning of aggregates supply.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.53 to 8.55 p.m.]

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 2 [Advisory functions of the Council]:
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 39 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall publish a response to published advice given by the Council under this section and shall give reasons if he intends not to act on that advice.").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Pilkington is not here, but I know that he planned to say that he was disappointed with the Minister's reply on this point. It seems to us that if the Secretary of State responds to advice that he has either requested from the council or that the council has proffered, on a matter relating to teachers, the professional standards of teaching, or whatever, his response to that advice should be published. We accept the Minister's answer that it is likely that he would do so anyway, but it is not every Secretary of State who publishes every response. Because this is a body which is accountable to its membership, it is important that the membership at large, not just the council itself, should learn of the Secretary of State's response to it. We believe that there is an argument for the response to be published. So we would wish to press the amendment, but at a later stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone:I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this amendment.
Baroness Blatch:I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3: [Registration of teachers]:
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert (", and
(c) has met any other requirements of eligibility for registration determined and published by the Council.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 57 are included in this group of amendments. The purpose of Amendment No. 44 is to give the GTC the option of introducing additional criteria, with the agreement of its membership, which teachers must meet in order to be eligible for membership of that body. The GTC is, in the words of the Minister for School Standards, intended to give "a clear professional voice" to teachers who
"for too long have had too little say in determining the shape and future of their profession".
That is why the Bill gives the GTC advisory functions in respect of standards of teaching, standards of conduct, training, and career development. The amendment gives
1468
the GTC the option to introduce additional criteria for membership, as it develops a clear and considered view of teacher professionalism. Such criteria might include, for example, a requirement on members to undertake approved programmes of continuing professional development, or to abide by a code of professional conduct, devised and agreed by members.
I turn to Amendment No. 45, the purpose of which is to allow for a category of professional GTC membership for those who have successfully completed their initial teacher training education, but whose qualified teacher status is pending the successful completion of the induction period.
Clause 4(2)(e) already allows for the division of the register into separate parts. One possible use of such a provision is to allow for those serving their induction period to be granted a form of provisional professional membership. The creation of a category of membership for teachers in their induction period would have a number of advantages. First, it would be in keeping with the requirement that those employed as teachers in the maintained sector, as defined elsewhere in the Bill, must be members of the GTC register.
Secondly, it would clarify that the new induction arrangements propose, not the conferment but the confirmation of qualified teacher status at the end of a successfully completed period of professional practice. That is an important distinction for the maintenance of high national professional standards, because the successful completion of an accredited programme of initial teacher training education therefore remains the basis for the award of QTS. Newly qualified teachers would therefore receive confirmation of professional membership when their qualified teacher status had been confirmed.
Thirdly, it would secure the involvement of newly qualified teachers in the work of the GTC—that is important—covering a wide range of professional matters which have an impact on those serving their induction period—matters upon which those embarking upon their teaching careers deserve a voice. This is an important amendment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to sympathise with it.
The next amendment to which my name is attached is Amendment No. 47, which is an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. It applies to Clause 4, "Regulations relating to registration", and deletes Clause 4(2)(c), which provides:
"the registration, on the establishment of the register, of persons who have not made such applications".
I want to know why we have that subsection in Clause 4.
My final amendment in the group is Amendment No. 57, which is slightly different. It is to clarify that those teachers working in a pupil referral unit, hospital teachers, and so on, are eligible for, or subject to the requirement to take up membership of the GTC. Pupils in the maintained sector, wherever they are learning, should be entitled to professional teaching. This probing amendment seeks clarification that teachers working in pupil referral units, hospital tuition, or other off-site

1469
education provision, will have the same relationship with the GTC as their counterparts in schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch:I wish to refer to Amendment No. 47 and to the Question whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill. There is an inconsistency in the wording of the Bill. Perhaps the Committee will look at Clause 3(2), which reads:
"The register shall contain the name of every person who is eligible for registration and applies to he registered in the register in accordance with regulations made under section 4".
I assume that every person who is eligible for registration and who applies shall be registered. Therefore, if everyone has to register, that provision is superfluous. Can it be that there will be people who are eligible to register, who are required to register but who do not register? How does that fit with Clause 4(2)(c), which states:
"Regulations under this section may, in particular. make provision as to… the registration. on the establishment of the register, of persons who have not made such applications"?
I am not sure how those two provisions fit together. On the one hand, we are saying that registration is compulsory. On the other hand, a register is being kept of people who do not make application: there is a requirement to record in a register the names of those who do not apply. Amendment No. 47 poses the question: is Clause 4(2)(c) superfluous, or is there a meaning that is deluding me? I should be grateful for clarification.
The Question of whether a clause shall stand part of the Bill is traditionally used in this House as a mechanism for eliciting more information. However, I am not entirely confident that we shall receive much more information. If the earlier part of our proceedings is any indication I shall probably go away empty handed. From all that I have read about the GTC, I understand that it will be set up as a body to advise only, with no powers of regulation over the teaching profession, and that membership will be compulsory.
Furthermore, from what the Minister has repeated several times today, I understand that one of the reasons why we have before us a Bill which gives us no detail whatever—detailed consultation will follow which may modify the Government's thinking about what to do, excluding the possibility of a body with powers—is that it is difficult to find a place in the legislative programme. As a former Minister I spent many hours trying to get our Bills into the programme but with no success.
However, the noble Baroness went on to say that the body would develop and over time become independent and receive powers of the kind codified in the amendments tabled today. That will be dealt with by primary legislation in the next Parliament. If the intention is that it will be the kind of body sought by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and that there is to be a long process of consultation, would it not be better to abandon this skeletal outline Bill and go through the process of consultation? I and other Members who have received information from teachers about what they want from a GTC know that the teachers will say
1470
unequivocally to the Government that they want a body with powers. It is crazy to have a Bill with no detail, a consultation process followed by a great deal of disquiet about another body which will be set up and then another Bill before Parliament changing the nature of the body to coincide with what people want. That is one reason why I believe that Clause 9 must be called into question.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made the point about the body having no say over suspension and dismissals. That is extraordinary in the sense that if the GTC is to be set up with the idea that it should represent teachers and have a view about discipline, conduct, professionalism and standards without being able to advise on suspensions and dismissals, the teachers will question that body most strongly.
That leads me to my final point. How can it be that teachers are to be compelled to pay a subscription to fund a body which is to be merely an advisory body and a talking shop? If the Government intend to have two attempts at the legislation—one now and one later—I suggest that it would make more sense not to make membership compulsory in the first instance. However, when it receives powers in relation to entry to the profession, recruitment, promoting teaching as a profession and all the measures included in the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, only then would it be fair to compel teachers to pay a subscription to a body which will serve their interests. That will not be the case if the body is merely a talking shop.
Therefore, I am trying to elicit more information from the Minister as to why membership will be compulsory for teachers. They will not wish to pay for a body which will not do what they want it to do. The Government will not even accept amendments which provide that when the Secretary of State responds to the GTC's advice, that information should be published.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: There are a large number of amendments in this group. The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady David are largely in line with our intentions but are, I would argue, unnecessary additions to the Bill. Other amendments would undermine the effectiveness of the registration. I believe all sides of the Committee, teachers and certainly most people in the world of education wish to see an effective system of registration.
Amendment No. 44 seeks to provide extra qualifications for registration. The criteria for registration are already rigorous. They are: first, having a qualified teacher status, with all that that implies under the Government's new requirements; secondly, not having been debarred; and thirdly, payment of a registration fee. We should not envisage that the council should have powers to extend those three central requirements. The new qualified teacher status requirements were the product of fairly wide consultation and have been broadly accepted. They cover matters ranging from the ability to establish and maintain discipline through to the qualifications for

1471
teaching subjects. Similarly, as the document which was placed in the Library makes clear, we intend that the standards for induction will be the subject of wide consultation with the GTC and others.
That does not mean that the GTC has nothing to say about those matters. It will have a say in how induction is operated. Once it is established, the GTC will offer advice on areas where the qualified teacher status standards should be further clarified or extended. That advice would certainly carry great weight. But that is within the existing three requirements. I do not believe that it is desirable to impose additional primary requirements beyond those already provided at this stage.
As regards Amendment No. 45 in the name of my noble friend Lady David, the regulations under Clause 4(2)(e) already allow for the division of a register into separate parts. It is the Government's intention, subject to whatever emerges from the consultation, that teachers undertaking an induction year should be entered into a separate part of the register. Therefore, we entirely share the intentions underlying that amendment and agree with much of what my noble friend said. However, we do not believe that that needs to be set out in primary legislation. The regulations will be drawn up in conjunction with those regulations which govern induction under Clause 13 of the Bill.
As regards Amendment No. 47, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and my noble friend Lady David, there is a perhaps understandable bafflement in relation to what the clause is intended to provide. However, it is fairly simple. The intention is that it will enable all serving teachers in maintained schools and special non-maintained schools to be registered automatically with the GTC at the point where the register is established. Removal of that paragraph would place an enormous burden on the GTC as regards cost. It would also be a time-consuming exercise if we had to require the GTC to go out and seek applications from almost half a million existing qualified teachers. So teachers will be automatically registered; that is what the clause is intended to do. It may not be all that apparent from the wording, but that is the intention. I hope that Members of the Committee will appreciate that fact and realise that there is no need for amendment. As I said, removal would cause a major problem.
Baroness Blatch:I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation thus far. However, in Clause 3(2) it actually says:
"The register shall contain the name of every person who is eligible for registration",
so they are automatically registered, whether or not they apply. But Clause 4(2)(c) refers to,"the registration, on the establishment of the register, of persons who have not made such applications".
What is the distinction between the two?
Lord Whitty: As regards the first clause to which the noble Baroness referred, that relates to the objective of
1472
the register. It is supposed to include all those who are eligible for registration; that is to say, those who have applied for registration, and those who are already regarded as qualified teachers within the existing system who may or may not go through the application process. It is not the intention to trawl back over all the existing teachers. The distinction between the two clauses is: first, that Clause 3 relates to the objective of the register; and, secondly, Clause 4 refers to how the register will be compiled.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: It seems to me that there is a financial element involved. Obviously the point which has been made from this side of the Committee is the fact that many teachers might feel that a body which is only advisory is not one to which they would wish to belong. If you make it compulsory you get money. As the noble Baroness said, at the moment it is the Treasury which has to pay, but in future teachers will have to pay for it. What is worrying us is the prospect of forcing teachers to abandon their consciences as regards this body and obliging them to join it.
Lord Whitty: As regards the intention of the clause, I was perhaps being too generous to Members on the other side of the Committee. If the intention of the amendment is to delete the mandatory nature of the registration, clearly we have a principled opposition to it. Indeed, there is a distinction between the aims of my noble friend Lady David and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
We believe that all teachers should be on the register. Indeed, the whole objective of the Bill is to ensure that they are contributing to it via the fee. I understand the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness in her opposition to Clause 9 standing part of the Bill, but the technical reason for the clause is that existing qualified teachers will automatically be on the register.
As regards Amendment No. 57, which relates to pupil referral units, I should tell my noble friend Lady David that, although we sympathise with the aim of the amendment, it is unnecessary in terms of putting it on the face of the Bill. The Education Act 1996 makes clear that the definition of "school" referred to in the Bill from the 1988 Act already includes PRUs. Therefore, it would not be sensible to include such a provision in the Bill.
I am not entirely sure whether I am in order in replying now to the opposition of the noble Baroness to Clause 9 standing part of the Bill. However, I shall do so in order to save time later. If it is the intention of the noble Baroness. Lady Blatch, to oppose the Question, then clearly the intention is to remove a major and vitally important part of the Bill. If the intention is to make the registration entirely voluntary, that would negate a large part of the Bill's intention and the benefit that it will bring in improving the standard of teaching and of teacher placement. It would also be a recipe for ensuring that the GTC is exactly what the noble Baroness was hoping to save it from; namely, becoming a marginal body. Certainly the GTC under the Bill is primarily an advisory body. However, in addition, it is a

1473
body which will administer the register. That is a vitally important part of the way in which we propose to administer the teaching profession under the Bill.
If the element of compulsion on mandatory registration were to be removed, that whole objective of the Bill would be lost. This is pretty close to being a wrecking amendment as regards the central objective of this Bill. I ask the noble Baroness not to press her opposition to the Question that the clause stand part when we reach that point. If she does so, she must recognise precisely what she is doing. We shall vigorously oppose such action if it occurs. I ask for the other amendments to be withdrawn.
Baroness David: I thank the noble Lord for his response. I am satisfied for the most part. I was not sure about his response to Amendment No. 44. I am not sure that the noble Lord answered my point that the criteria might, for example, include a requirement on members to undertake approved programmes of continuing professional development. However, I am glad to say that I was completely satisfied by his response to Amendment No. 45. I was going to make the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, made; namely, that teachers might not want to pay the fee to join this body. However, I think that my noble friend has probably answered that point. I did not take part in the clause stand part discussion. On the whole, I am satisfied with the responses. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has made her point over and over again and I do not wish to reply to that.
Baroness Blatch: I make no apology for saying what I said over and over again because I speak on behalf of the teachers who have lobbied both the Government and Members on this side of the Committee. They have lobbied extremely hard. In the past the noble Baroness, Lady David, has spoken out strongly for groups outside this Chamber whom she wished to support. Therefore there is no reason why we should not relate the arguments of the teachers here and discuss them vigorously.
Baroness David:I think we have grasped the arguments by now, if I may say so.
Baroness Blatch: That is a good thing. That is the whole point of today's debate. I understand that the GTC, as it is to be established under the Bill, will be a creature of the Secretary of State. The point that my noble friend Lord Pilkington made is an important one; namely, it will not be the creature that the teachers want, yet they will be compelled to join it. Not only will they be compelled to join it, they will not even need to make an application, money will be sequestered from their salaries. I wonder whether they will be content with that.
Lord Parry: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she withdraw the words "the teachers" as if every teacher in Britain holds the opinion that she says they do?
Baroness Blatch:I used that term generally and I shall withdraw it. However, I refer to the views of
1474
the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the national association of school teachers and women teachers and many other organisations which represent teachers. I believe that those organisations represent a large cross-section of teachers, but of course I do not refer to every teacher in the land.
Lord Whitty:I wish to respond to Amendment No. 44 standing in the name of my noble friend Lady David and my noble friend Lord Peston. Other requirements on acquiring or maintaining qualified teacher training status—which may well include career development and continuing in-service training at a later stage—would come under the general heading of maintenance of qualified teacher status. Therefore we do not need another primary requirement as would be permitted by the provision that my noble friend proposes. In the light of that, I ask her to withdraw Amendment No. 44.
Baroness David:I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Regulations relating to registration]:
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 51 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 5 [Additional and ancillary functions]:
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [The General Teaching Council for Wales]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 4, line 30, after ("as") insert ("Cyngor Addysgu Cyffredinol Cymru or").
The noble Baroness said: The addition of a Welsh language name for the GTC for Wales is a purely technical amendment.
All major public sector bodies in Wales offer services in English and Welsh and it is good practice, in line with the requirements of the Welsh Language Act 1993, for such bodies to have bilingual names. The Welsh name for the GTC is Cyngor Addysgu Cyffredinol Cymru. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Deduction of fees from salaries, etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 57 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Supply of information relating to teachers]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 6, line 34, leave out ("he considers") and insert ("the Councils consider").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to switch to the general teaching council the power to decide what information it needs—for example, statistical analysis and such information—rather than leaving it to the Secretary of State to decide what he will tell the council. That is in line with the whole thrust underlying our thinking on the general teaching council: that the Minister is there to serve and enable the profession rather than the other way round. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I am extremely glad that my noble friends have put down the amendment. The general purpose of the amendment is clear and necessary. When I think of the Secretary of State controlling the flow of information to the council, I am reminded of something my stepmother used to say. "Whenever anyone says, `We thought you ought to know', it is always bad news."
Lord Whitty: I understand the objective of the amendments but I believe that they are unnecessary. Clearly the Secretary of State will consult with the GTC before making any regulations which would require it to disclose any information to others. From the point of view of the Secretary of State and Government, it is also important that the council receives all the information that it requires.
It is essential that we maintain rigorous safeguards around who may or may not practise the profession of teaching, and this will ensure that these safeguards are not weakened by difficulties in transferring personal data. There are sensitive areas here, in particular where a person has been barred or where barring is being considered. It may, for example, become clear that the GTCs for England and Wales need to exchange information with their existing counterparts in Scotland and Wales. All that will be covered by regulations. We shall also be consulting the Data Protection Registrar on any proposed regulations.
I should like to emphasise that the clause expressly limits the supply of information between the GTCs and the Secretary of State to that which supports them in carrying out their respective functions. I must also emphasise that the GTCs and the Secretary of State would remain subject to data protection legislation.
I understand the concern that adequate information should be provided in both directions; but it is also important that sensitive information is not provided which would lead to access regarding individuals or the past careers of individuals. We therefore share the concern that information should not be transmitted more widely than is necessary. However, we will ensure that flows of information under the regulations will ensure that both the GTCs and the Secretary of State can carry out their functions.
Earl Russell: Before we leave this matter, Amendment No. 59 standing in my name is also in this group. Before turning to that amendment, is the effect of the clause as literal as it appears from the drafting—to forbid the general teaching council from gathering
1476
any information not supplied by the Secretary of State? I can hardly believe that that is literally the intention; or, if it were the intention, that it would be enforceable.
Amendment No. 59 bears on the second half of the clause: information which the principal may be required to supply to the Secretary of State. It puts a limit of relevance on such information—that such information shall be relevant to the organisation of the teaching profession and shall not infringe the privacy of any individual.
Information gathering is becoming one of the sicknesses of our society. We all know, especially when we are dealing with the press, that the press is capable of seeing a case for gathering practically any information under the sun. So also, on occasion, are those who gather information on behalf of the Security Services. There are two members of the present Government, incredible though it may seem, who have, I understand, been the subject of monitoring by the Security Services. It was entirely unjustified and totally absurd in both cases. But it does indicate that an appetite for official information may turn into all sorts of unlikely channels. If one looks at what has happened to the teaching profession in the United States, there may be all sorts of political, moral, religious and other inquisitions undertaken at some time in the future.
It would be much better if there were a provision equivalent to the public interest defence, a restriction of information to what is relevant to the serious purposes behind the Bill, to which I make no objection.
Lord Whitty: The noble Earl is perhaps conjuring up problems in relation to this clause which do not exist. As he acknowledges, the clause as it stands limits the flow of information to "relevant" information. Nowhere in that loop of information does it include the Security Services. I can assure him that there are certain Members of the Government who are extremely upset that they were never considered important enough to be under the surveillance of the Security Services. I do not think that those kinds of considerations are involved here. I believe the wording of the clause is tight enough. I will examine it again in the light of the issues raised, and will probably be reassured. I will take the precaution of looking at it again and, if necessary, come forward with a proposal at a later stage.
Baroness Maddock: I am very pleased to hear the answers to both my amendment and that of my noble friend. We may return to the matter at a later stage, and it may be that the Minister returns to it. If nothing is changed, I am afraid that only time will tell whether we are right to be concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Qualifications of head teachers]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 7, line 15, leave out ("requiring") and insert ("encouraging").
The noble Baroness said: There is widespread support for the principle of teachers being better trained and better prepared for headship. I do not want any of my remarks this evening to detract from the importance of that. I simply want to appeal to the Government on the issue of the compulsory nature of the qualification, at this stage, on the face of the Bill. I even appeal to the Government to consider the possibility of a two-stage approach—of leaving it as a voluntary matter for the time being until many of the problems that are being experienced at the moment have been dealt with. It has started very well, I think the noble Baroness will agree. There has been an evaluation and there are elements which are very promising, but there are also some worrying concerns. Perhaps I can refer to some which appear in the evaluation document.
Candidates expressed concern that the training was too academic—I would want to take issue with "academic"—and theoretical. They said that there should have been greater consistency and greater reliability between assessors. That is a very important issue when one is being assessed. Some candidates reported that they would have appreciated better guidance and help in forming their action plans as a result of the needs assessment. Again, there needs to be a real link there. It was said that training and development centres needed to take better account of action plans during training to cater for candidates' individual needs. In some regions a significant minority considered the organisation of training insufficiently well matched to ongoing individualised needs and phase interests.
The evaluation document goes on to say that, while others would have welcomed more support from their head teachers in schools, a number were not getting the support and were too nervous to ask for it because they were concerned about how busy their head teachers were. I have to say in parenthesis that no existing head teacher opposed his or her teachers going on these courses, but there was a tension about getting better support back at their home school. Candidates reported a need for support not just from their own head teacher at that time but for the duration of the course.
The final point I want to make on the evaluation so far is that some candidates commented that they experienced a negative effect when there was a lack of fit between their assessment tasks and school activities, and the training at weekends was a particular inhibitor for many people. It would be a great pity if good potential candidates for headships were inhibited from doing the training because they could not fit it in at weekends, as seems to be expected.
That is one reason why I believe that the compulsory nature of the training as set out in the Bill is worrying. The other reason is rather different. I use the Probation Service as an example here. Some noble Lords—there are not many here at the moment—may remember that when I was responsible for the Probation Service one of the reasons for re-organising the training for the service was that from time to time someone would come along who was so well qualified in almost every way but not completely consistent with the particular diploma that all members of the Probation Service were required to have. The irony of that situation was that it was a requirement
1478
for fully-fledged probation officers to have a social work diploma under CETSWA, yet fully-fledged social workers did not, under the law, have to have that particular qualification.
It must be possible for the teaching service itself to have sufficient confidence from time to time to be able to employ someone as a head teacher who is eminently qualified and a good person to appoint who will have no need to be sent off to do a course of training. We shall debate the duration of the course in subsequent amendments. I say this in the spirit of supporting the principle of better training and preparation. I should like to think that over time it will become the normal qualification, that people will take it in their stride as teachers come through and regard it as part of a progression from being a class teacher to being a head of department and then to becoming a head teacher. However, I think that to make it compulsory on the face of the Bill at this time is precipitate. I wonder whether the noble Baroness or the noble Lord would at least be sympathetic to the notion that it does not have to be absolutely compulsory and that there can be exemptions. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I was particularly drawn to Amendment No. 61 which has been taken with Amendment No. 60. I do not seek to detain the Committee for long but I should like to make one or two pertinent remarks. I was greatly reassured before Christmas when, in answer to a supplementary question which 1 tabled regarding the need for other qualities and experience as well as the possession of a qualification, my noble friend Lady Blackstone offered an assurance which I welcomed, as did other Members of your Lordships' House.
I want to make two or three brief points based on fairly substantial and senior experience as a schoolmaster before I entered the Commons. It is a long time ago but still seems to be relatively fresh in mind. I recall two or three head teachers who were extremely competent in administration and organisation. One of them was so good that he got rid of all of his bad teachers, but did it by giving glowing testimonials. A certain amount of justice followed when the chairman of governors said to him one day, "You will be pleased to know that Mr. So-and-So"— I shall not mention the name, though I could—"applied for the position of deputy head. Given your glowing recommendation I am sure that the governors will all agree". That put him in rather an embarrassing position.
I taught for quite a long time in a senior position and met another extremely able headmaster. He was a marvellous administrator who was highly thought of. It was a difficult boys' secondary modern school. He would ring the bell at four o'clock, put on his hat and coat and be off the premises of the school before any boy left the classroom.
Other qualities are needed. Quite properly, a headmaster should have administrative competence. One of my anxieties in relation to teaching nowadays is that some extremely able teachers spend less time in the classroom and more than they ought fulfilling tasks which should and could be carried out at less cost by people with

1479
clerical skills. On the other hand, an aspiring young teacher needs administrative experience. But if he aspires to the higher levels of salary, he or she must be prepared to devote some of the time and preparation to the studies and occasional commitment of weekends to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred.
A good head teacher must be administratively competent. I see no reason why the Government should not go ahead with their policies rather than hesitate in the way that the noble Baroness suggests. However, the Government should understand—as teachers understand—that the head teacher needs to be not only a good administrator, but he also needs to be able to command the affection and respect of the pupils at the school and the respect and loyalty of the staff with whom he works. He must have and seek to maintain good relationships with the local education authority and be able to work with it rather than against it. I know that the last government were not keen on local education authorities but they are an essential aspect within education. Above all, a good head teacher must seek to maintain the affection and gratitude of the parents and the children.
All those matters are greatly assisted by administrative competence. But, simply because the head is good on paper, does not necessarily mean that he is good with children. That must be the major criteria. Unless the qualification is able to assist those who are good with children to be good as head teachers, then the system will not be as effective as many of us hope.
Baroness David: I am delighted to have had such an interesting and sensible contribution in support of my amendment, to which I have not yet spoken. I am delighted and thank my noble friend.
Amendment No. 61 is designed to clarify that a professional headship qualification will become a prerequisite for consideration for a headship, but that it can be neither a guarantee of fitness for headship nor a guarantee for the holder of a headship position. Responsibility for the appointment of a head teacher will still reside with the governing body of a school.
Research in the field of school improvement and effectiveness points consistently to the importance of leadership in raising educational standards. The proposal to introduce a mandatory requirement for aspiring head teachers to possess a professional headship qualification is therefore a welcome one. But there are concerns in the education service over the shortage of candidates for senior management posts in schools—I am sure we are very much aware of this—and over a tendency for deputy heads to be appointed automatically to the head teacher position as vacancies occur. When I was on the education committee of a local authority we were always terrified that people would propose the deputy for the head teacher appointment when the deputy was not suitable at all and when it would be a good thing to have a change.
It is appropriate that the contents of such a qualification are not fully prescribed in the legislation as the Teacher Training Agency's national postgraduate headship qualification is in its infancy and will require refinement
1480
on evaluation. It will also be important for the GTC, once established, to make a professional judgment as to the proper elements of preparation for headship. We are very much in support of training but we do not want it thought that it is essential for heads to have the qualification or if they get the qualification, that they should necessarily be appointed to a headship.
Lord Parry: The real problem in our schools is the absence from post of many heads who resigned because of the pressures in which they found themselves. We have far more vacancies for headships than we have the headmasters which were so finely described by my noble friend, with her vast experience of education.
Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 60 attacks the heart of the policy on headship training. We have ample evidence from the inspectors of the clear link between the leadership and management skills of heads and the standard of achievement of pupils in their schools. We also know that there is a serious problem of recruitment of heads, to which my noble friend Lord Parry has just referred, and of people who feel they are able to apply for headships.
The aim of the clause is to secure, not immediately but at some future date, that all prospective heads have a minimum requirement that is recognised throughout the profession. We believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure the quality of heads in this way. We recognise that it will take some time for us to get there.
As I said at Second Reading, our intention is that the NPQH currently in trial will be subject to further development to prove its fitness for the purpose for which it is designed before it becomes a mandatory qualification. There are also problems of uptake and ability to attend courses which will also have to be addressed. Nevertheless, the aim must be to ensure that the minimum qualification of a head teacher meets this minimum standard professional qualification.
Clearly, appointment boards have to take into consideration other aspects of the managerial and personal skills of potential heads. But this is a central and minimum requirement. It is also true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out, that the evaluation trials of the NPQH have yielded a number of areas for improvement. That is perhaps not surprising as that is the purpose of running trials. Indeed, the areas to which she referred—procedures, assessment and consistency and the support provided for people going through the scheme—are points which have to be addressed. We shall be addressing them. A number of measures are already being taken.
The uptake of this qualification course needs to be the subject of further propaganda. Rather more people need to be encouraged to take it up. But once the qualification has been refined and recognised in the teaching profession and among prospective head teachers as the essential qualification, we believe that we should move towards making it a mandatory qualification. It would be absurd if, having something in the pipeline, we needed new primary legislation to achieve that mandatory requirement.

1481
With that explanation and the undertaking that there will be time before the mandatory requirement is required, I ask that the amendments be withdrawn. With particular reference to Amendment No. 61, I repeat that it is clear that not only will the minimum qualification be required, but also an assessment of the character and performance of the applicant will need to be taken into account. In addition, I am advised that, as it stands, the noble Baroness's amendment is flawed, in that it does not explain what would happen as regards paragraphs (a) and (b) of the new subsection (2C). Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment as it stands. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw that as well.
Baroness Blatch:I shall be withdrawing these amendments. I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said in response. Is it the intention that there will be absolutely no flexibility at all, even when this measure is implemented, for the head teacher who, perhaps on the initial assessment, requires no further training at all? Is the noble Lord saying that, especially if we build in a minimum requirement and length of course, the applicant has to possess the minimum qualification? Is he saying that there will be no flexibility whatsoever for someone who is eminently suited and for whom the course would be superfluous?
Lord Whitty:I believe that the noble Baroness is already aware that existing heads are not covered by this mandatory requirement, but only prospective heads. When this qualification is up and running, it would be surprising to find a candidate so superbly and absolutely suited to the job who had not gone for this particular qualification. The odd exception would have to be considered but, frankly, I believe that a mandatory requirement as close as could be obtained is what is envisaged here. I do not believe that the kind of circumstances to which the noble Baroness referred are likely to arise very often, if at all.
Baroness Blatch:I am grateful for that. If the situation that I describe arose, the qualification which the noble Lord says will be as close as possible to being mandatory will either be mandatory or it will not. Is it to be absolutely and utterly rigid and will there be no exceptions whatsoever? I do mean to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty: In the long run, when the provision is up and running, it is the intention that there will be no exceptions.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: It is rather a dangerous thing that the Government are doing. As it was pointed out, the business of becoming a headmaster is a very complicated matter if one is a teacher. There are people who have the talents. If one ties the matter down, very many good teachers who could become headmasters will not bother to acquire the qualification. It will become a rigid matter, which is directed by the employers deciding who are the candidates for advancement. Many of the most successful headmasters I have known were regarded by their original employers as too maverick. I hope the
1482
Minister realises that one might be restricting some of the greatest headmasters who have existed in the maintained and independent sector. There are dangers.
Lord Whitty:I believe that many of those historic, great headmasters—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Even the living ones!
Lord Whitty:—both past and present, in the circumstances that we have envisaged, would have decided, as part of their career, to engage in this course. The essential element is that teaching and head teachership is regarded as a professional calling. One would not expect the equivalent argument to be put forward in relation to doctors. There may well be a large number of doctors who have no medical qualification for performing a particular aspect of surgery, but I would not like to be treated by them. Likewise, we need to be sure who our head teachers are to be in future.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: May I ask the noble Lord whether there is a qualification for general secretaries of trade unions?
Lord Whitty: There are very definite qualifications, but they are far too complex and far-reaching for me to explain now.
Lord Hardy of Wath: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that the children should be balloted on who their headteacher should be. I should point out that I was not suggesting that the qualification was unnecessary. I believe that governing bodies or local education authorities—that is, those responsible for appointing a head—may well be happy that he or she has the qualification, but they need to assess whether an applicant can provide other necessary qualities.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Having listened to this discussion and having had much local authority experience of appointing headteachers, I must point out that the Government are forgetting that a great many heads start as deputy heads. Very often, the headteacher may have been unwell or away for some time, so the deputy head may have had a lot of opportunity to prove his ability and will therefore need only a small amount of "topping up", if any, in order to do the job of head. This discussion simply does not reflect the reality of local authority life. The Government should be very careful on this point.
Lord Whitty:I think that I have made our point, so in the light of my explanation, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: As I have said, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("General Teaching Council").
The noble Lord said: In view of the hour, I did not join in the previous debate, but I should now like to say how very strongly we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the Government with regard to the importance of the headteacher qualification. I very much agreed with the Minister's response. Indeed, it is remarkable that we have had to wait so long for there to be a recognised headteacher qualification. We believe that in the fullness of time such a qualification should be mandatory.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, that, whereas the qualification should be an essential requirement for a headteacher, it is not necessarily the only requirement. Indeed, for the reasons that have been very well put, it is not necessarily the most important requirement. Like any other good professional, a good headteacher needs many other qualities in addition to qualifications. I was pleased, but not surprised, to hear the Minister say exactly that in his reply.
In moving Amendment No. 62, I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 65 and 68. The purpose of this group is to give greater strength to the GTC. Amendment No. 62 gives the GTC, rather than the Secretary of State, the responsibility for deciding what should be recognised as a professional headship qualification. I do not want to rehash our earlier discussions, but I believe that that is a proper role for a responsible GTC. I do not want to distract us at this stage, but in the fullness of time—here, I accept the evolutionary principle to which several noble Lords have referred—it may well be that the GTC should have responsibility for all professional qualifications for teachers. However, perhaps that is for the future.
Amendment No. 65 states our view that there should come a time—we are not necessarily prescriptive about the timescale—when all heads, including serving heads, should have been trained and qualified. I, too, have had some experience over the years of local education authorities. Indeed, I believe that probably all of us have had experience of heads who have been in post for a very long time. Sometimes they are superb; sometimes the governing body, the other teachers and the parents cannot wait for their retirement—and they are often the hardest to move because they will never get another post, even if they seek one. If we are to give this qualification the status that it deserves in the fullness of time, all heads should have it. I suspect that that also reflects the Government's thinking.
Amendment No. 68 ensures that a person awarded a professional head teacher qualification must already be a member of the teaching profession and accredited by the general teaching council. That may appear to be self-evident. It may be hard to imagine a head teacher who has not been a registered qualified teacher, but it can happen. Looking to the management aspects of the job, it is not too wild a fantasy to imagine, with the establishment of education action zones and so on, someone from industry with great experience of
1484
management being parachuted into a school. Sometimes there may be a case for it, but I believe that there is a much stronger case for saying that a head teacher should remember that the "teacher" part of it is extremely important and he should therefore have come from the teaching profession and be a registered teacher. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 68. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell:I raised the subject of the minimum requirement for a head teacher's position at Second Reading as being that of a teacher. Because of family illness and other circumstances I apologise to the Committee for being unable to table an amendment in my name on this subject. I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has said in speaking to Amendment No. 68, but I am not sure that it does the job that he intends. The implication of the amendment is that if a person has a general teaching council registration number effectively he will be a qualified teacher of good standing. I am not sure that that is a correct construction of the way in which the register will be compiled. I envisage that the register will have a section for people who have achieved the academic qualification of a teacher but have not yet completed their induction period. They will be allocated a number and will then get on to the register proper after serving their induction period. I can also envisage a situation in which a person may have a number even though he has been struck off or suspended from the register. There may be technical difficulties.
I hope that when my noble friend responds from the Front Bench he will reassure us that every future candidate for a head teacher's position will be a member of the teaching profession and of good standing before he can be considered. I do not need to rehearse the arguments raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but I hope that that assurance will be forthcoming from the Government Front Bench this evening.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his support for mandatory head teacher qualifications. I believe that we should refer to "head teachers" or "heads" in deference to the amazing qualities of so many great many women heads, rather than "headmasters". I am aware that there have been many great headmasters, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will concede that there have been and still are many great women playing this role.
I recognise the widespread wish to see the general teaching council take on a wide range of responsibilities commensurate with its role. We have debated that extensively in Committee today. I have underlined our conviction that it is right for the general teaching council in its initial period to focus on the core responsibilities laid down earlier in the Bill. These amendments constitute further attempts to widen the general teaching council's responsibilities in three distinct ways. The first is by having the council rather than the Secretary of State designate the required professional qualification

1485
for all first-time heads under this clause. We are of course talking about first-time heads. I say to my noble friend Lord Monkswell that people coming forward to be heads need to be designated, properly qualified teachers.
The second is by obliging awarding bodies to supply the general teaching council registration number of successful candidates to the Secretary of State; and the third is by obliging the Secretary of State to consult the general teaching council in his decision about when the headship qualification should become mandatory.
My noble friend has already said on Second Reading—the note we have placed in the Library of this place makes this clear—that our intention is that, subject to further development and continued positive feedback from piloting—which of course is important, and I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said earlier—the national professional qualification for headship will be the mandatory qualification.
We intend that the requirement to hold a mandatory headship qualification shall be brought into force by the end of this Parliament and we shall make an announcement of the intended date of introduction well in advance of that date in order to allow prospective headship candidates adequate time to plan and complete the training they need. We shall therefore need to make an announcement both about the designation of the appropriate qualification and about its becoming mandatory before the general teaching council is established in 2000.
I believe that Amendment No. 68 is a "detail too far" for primary legislation at this stage. Paragraph (b) of subsection (2F) of Clause 12 (3) states that the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations such other information relating to a person gaining the headship qualification (as he may judge necessary). That is the kind of detail which is likely to be covered there, subject to the outcome of the further consultation on the general teaching council's registration arrangements. The background note on the general teaching council that was placed in the Library indicates the consultation that we intend to undertake.
But I can assure the Committee that, once it is established, we would certainly look to the general teaching council to advise on all aspects of the standards of headship, and the conduct and training, career development and performance management of heads. That I would regard as falling within the general advisory responsibilities set out in Clause 2(2) for the general teaching council.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the Minister for her slightly encouraging reply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for what I think was support for the amendment, although with some reservations. I understand his concern. Perhaps I may refer him to Amendment No. 64, which we shall reach in a moment and which addresses the point that rightly worried him. Because of the grouping of the amendments, we are dealing with Amendment No. 68 before Amendment No. 64, but the two obviously relate to each other.
1486
On Amendment No. 68, I heard the Minister say that it was a, "detail too far". I understood her to give an assurance, which is something for which we would be looking, that this is a point which is likely to be covered in the detailed arrangements when they are laid down. With that assurance now on record, I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 64:
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: We can now talk about Amendment No. 64. It would have been helpful if we could have done so earlier. It adds something to the discussion that we have had, because it proposes that we ensure that we do not have short, perfunctory courses being accredited, or allow trainees to spin out their training indefinitely. For the reasons my noble friend Lord Tope has already given, we have seen people from industry parachuted into all sorts of operations, because people thought that they could run them. I spoke at some length on Second Reading about the importance of good head teachers and the qualities that they need. I still hold to that. We on these Benches, and I believe also Members on the Government Benches, believe that head teachers need a proper, wide-ranging qualification for the job. In order to attain such a qualification, it is necessary to have a training period which is neither short nor allowed to spin over for too long. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The Government accept much of what the noble Baroness has 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. We have asked the Teacher Training Agency to look at the possibilities. As part of the further development of the NPQH, we wish to ensure that appropriate recognition is given to candidates who can demonstrate that they already meet some of the elements. Perhaps that goes some way in reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington.
The outcome would be that every candidate must have the NPQH badge, whether or not they have been fast tracked. Therefore, most must go through the full course. I am sure that the Committee will agree with the noble Baroness that there is no merit in serving the time for its own sake. We seek to benchmark candidates against rigorous sets of standards and to award the qualification accordingly.
However, more flexibility is needed. The NPQH already includes needs assessment procedures designed to secure that training and development builds on candidates' prior experience and study. In that sense,

1487
I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The objectives pointed out by the noble Baroness are those in the operation of the scheme.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that reply. He talked about fast tracking and providing the criteria laid down. The fast tracking might be acceptable. However, I hear what the Minister says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 7, line 34, leave out ("unless") and insert ("whether or not").
The noble Lord said: Our view, which I believe is shared by the Government, is that in due course we expect all head teachers to have the appropriate qualification. Amendment No. 67 provides that even head teachers already in post should train and gain the professional head teachers' qualification. It is important that all the head teachers should undergo specific and appropriate professional training. We have talked about the excellent head teachers and I agree with the Minister that there are many who happen not to be headmasters.
However, we know that in some schools there are in post head teachers who are in their early 50s and waiting for retirement in 10 to 15 years' time. Numerous pupils will go through those schools during that time. It is too long to wait for a qualified head teacher to be appointed, so it is proper and appropriate that all head teachers, whether in post or not, should gain the qualification. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I can think of nothing more insulting to the most professional and best of our head teachers—men or women. There are some outstanding examples of such people. To make it a legal requirement that they should be packed off to do a professional headship course is wholly unacceptable and I should not support any such proposal.
There is now an inspection system which includes a rolling programme of schools being visited and revisited regularly over a number of years. If head teachers are not performing well, that should be picked up in the course of inspection. Governing bodies doing their job should also be vigilant in relation to making sure that head teachers are called to account for the performance of their schools. However, to make it a legal requirement that all head teachers in post should be required to do a course and achieve a qualification is frankly unacceptable.
Baroness Blackstone: On this occasion, I am closer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, than I am to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Clause 12 is intended to ensure that those coming new to headship will be appropriately skilled and knowledgeable to carry out their major responsibilities by requiring that they hold a designated headship qualification, intended to be the NPQH.
1488
We certainly share the intention behind the amendment that all existing heads in our schools should be expected to have the highest possible skills of school leadership and professional competence and to raise the performance of their schools and pupils to that of the very best. However, I am sure that the Committee will agree that the best way to achieve that is not to expect all our head teachers—all 25,000 of them—to requalify for their jobs. That cannot be a sensible way in which to proceed.
Instead, as the note we placed in the Library makes clear, we have asked the Teacher Training Agency to develop a separate headship training programme based on the same professional standards for headship which underpin the NPQH for introduction from this September. That is the right way of catering for the training needs of existing heads rather than through accepting this amendment. I very much hope that, in the light of my explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope: Of course I shall withdraw the amendment. I am still not sure that I agree entirely with the Minister. I do not propose that by the year 2000 or some such similar near date all 25,000 head teachers should have qualified in the way I propose. That would be a practical impossibility even if it were desirable and I accept that it is not desirable over that timescale.
But rather than looking two or three years ahead, I am looking 10, 15 or even 20 years ahead. It is hoped that by that time most head teachers will have qualified in the way proposed in this Bill, but there will be some long in post who will not have qualified in that way. I believe that consideration needs to be given to the way in which to deal with that situation. It is not satisfactory simply to say that because they happened to be appointed—and that is not necessarily the same as being qualified—before the introduction of the requirement, they can carry on for ever in that role. I hope and believe that that is something to which in due course the General Teaching Council will return. Nevertheless, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Requirement to serve induction period]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 8, line 15, after ("a") insert ("maintained").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 71. This is a simple amendment which is about ensuring that newly trained teachers will do their induction year in a state school. In recent years we have seen that there are a number of graduates who do a PGCE course at the state's expense who do not have any intention of going anywhere near a state school. We have trained them at the state's expense. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on this amendment.
Amendment No. 71 relates to a provision which we believe should be on the face of the Bill; namely, that the induction period for new teachers should be a

1489
minimum of one year. On Second Reading the Government indicated that it normally would be for one year. However, unless the Government can give us very compelling reasons why someone should be allowed to complete his or her induction period sooner, I can see no objection to the provision being put on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: In my view, this is an unfortunate amendment. Again, returning to the whole idea of building bridges with the independent sector—and I know that the Government genuinely mean to do so—this amendment would not help in that respect. There are people who come out of teacher training college and go into the private sector or teach in non-maintained schools. They later come into the state system, bringing with them that gathered expertise. The idea that all the experience that they have gained counts for nothing in the maintained sector is most unfortunate.
I was quite worried when the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred rather disparagingly to the state having spent money on someone who takes a PGCE course and does not actually use it—or, indeed, does not use it at all in terms of going into teaching—and does not necessarily come into state teaching choosing instead, perhaps, to go into the private sector. Higher education has, hitherto, been a case of educating all sorts of people at the state's expense. Those people may gain a qualification and may use it in the private sector. They go into industry, commerce, law firms or, indeed, manufacturing. The idea that because the state has met that cost and those people have not come back to work for a public authority is somehow not quite right is, I believe, unfortunate.
I hope that the amendment will not be accepted. As long as the period of induction takes place within teaching, and as long as the teacher training qualification itself is bona fide and has been gained on a fully accredited course, I do not see that anything can be gained by actually placing such a requirement on someone who has trained and undergone an induction period in the independent sector.
Lord Whitty: The amendments cover two points: one regarding the location of the induction period, and the other regarding its length. So far as concerns the question of location, while I find myself in some sympathy with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and while it is certainly not the intention in general that anyone should have their induction outside the maintained sector, we need, nevertheless, some flexibility in the matter. That applies particularly to the amendment as it stands as it would exclude an induction period in special non-maintained schools, some of which provide the opportunity for induction for newly-qualified teachers. We would not wish to exclude them.
More broadly, the clause at present does not permit newly qualified teachers to undertake their statutory induction period in an independent school. However, during the consultation period we shall, in an improved relationship with the independent sector, be looking at
1490
the possibility that we may in certain circumstances decide to allow independent schools to provide such an induction period. That would allow those teachers to move to the maintained sector at a later stage in their career, without having to undertake the statutory induction arrangements. That is a possibility and one that we may attain through reasonable agreement with the private sector. It is not a certainty, but we would certainly not wish to limit that possibility on the face of the Bill.
So far as concerns the length of the induction period, again, we should not be too prescriptive here. I am happy to confirm what I said on Second Reading; namely, that it is our intention that the standard induction period should normally be one academic year. Indeed, it is certainly not our intention that it should be less. However, we intend to consult further on the detailed operation of the induction arrangements before prescribing them in detail. For example, we need to establish specific circumstances in which, for individual reasons, the induction period needs to be extended beyond one year.
Also we may need to establish how the arrangements will apply to those new teachers who undertake their induction period on a part-time basis. That is important. We hope to attract more teachers into doing that on a part-time basis. It is therefore important that the Bill is not unduly prescriptive in order to allow for that kind of flexibility. I hope that in the light of that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness replies to those comments I should say that I did not speak to Amendment No. 70 and I shall not speak at greater length because the matter of the duration of the course has been well covered. The Minister has just said that the Government do not intend it to be less than a year but a document that I received only a couple of days ago states that a period of between two terms and a year is being contemplated. The National Association of Head Teachers is concerned about this. The association members say that if there is to be a course they want it to be a proper course and they want it to be one of substance. Are we talking about a full-time course? If it is to be telescoped into, say, one or two terms, will it be full-time if it is done in such a short time, and then perhaps followed by a day a week or so many hours a week? What are we talking about in terms of hours of study as opposed to a period of a year, two years or three years? As I understand the position at the moment, the period could be up to three years. As I said, the document I have received refers to a period of only two terms.
Lord Tope: Before the Minister responds, I hope I may add a few further points. I am sure I heard the Minister say that the Government did not envisage that the induction period would be less than one year. Presumably, by implication, there might be circumstances where it would be more than one year. If he did say that—I am sure he did—I do not understand

1491
what the objection is to Amendment No. 71 standing in my name and that of my noble friend which states that the period,
"shall not be less than one year". I thought those were almost exactly the words that the noble Lord used in replying to the measure. I am puzzled as to why he feels that that is unacceptable or unnecessarily prescriptive. I should have thought it was quite appropriate to include that in the Bill.
Lord Whitty: It is certainly the current intention of the Government that the induction period should not last less than one year, but there could well be special circumstances in which that may be variable. We are, of course, still in the process of consulting. But it is certainly our current intention that that should be the minimum period. Given that we are consulting about varied circumstances both for individuals and schools, I do not think this should be laid down on the face of the Bill. Our intention has now been repeated several times, but we also have to consider the results of the consultation.
Lord Tope: I shall not pursue this much longer but it would be helpful to have some example of what these special circumstances might be. The Government have said many times that they do not envisage the period to be less than one year. Are we not to put it in the Bill simply because once again we are waiting for the consultation before we can legislate? We are here and we are legislating. The Government have stated many times that what Amendment No. 71 states is their intention. Why cannot we now put it in the Bill? Why cannot the Government make clear to those whom they are consulting that that is their intention? What are the special circumstances that could arise that would make that inappropriate?
Lord Whitty: Many different special circumstances may well occur. I can think of one immediately. Someone who is returning to teaching may not have completed an induction year at an earlier stage through no fault of his own. However, that person has already had some experience. I am not sure whether in those circumstances one would wish to insist on a full induction year. The answer may well be that we would wish to do so, but we need some further feedback on this before we lay it down rigidly in legislation.
Baroness Maddock: I return briefly to Amendment No. 69. Dare I say that I am pleased that a little bit of Old Labour lives on in the noble Lord, Lord Whitty? I would have been disappointed if he had not had some sympathy with the point that I made. In my career in politics I have come across quite a few members of Old Labour whom I think would support this amendment. I understand the points that have been made. This matter may arise again when we consider the Bill at another stage.
I refer to Amendment No. 71. At a later stage, on reflection and having listened to the consultation, I wonder whether the Minister will conclude that there
1492
is no earthly reason why we cannot have this provision on the face of the Bill. Every utterance has indicated that this is the correct time. If no one outside the Chamber puts forward objections to it, I hope that that provision will be part of the Bill.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 8, line 20, leave out ("Secretary of State-) and insert ("General Teaching Council").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the debate which has dominated much of the discussion today. The purpose of the amendment is to authorise the general teaching councils rather than the Secretary of State to determine the standards against which a person employed as a teacher at a school is to be assessed for the purpose of deciding whether he or she has satisfactorily completed his or her induction period. It relates again to the point we have been making consistently throughout the Bill: that that responsibility needs to be with the GTC rather than the Secretary of State. We believe that it is right that the GTC should be given the power to determine the standards against which a teacher's competence during an induction period is assessed. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My amendment, Amendment No. 73, is linked with Amendment No. 72. The only reason for my amendment to delete subsection (3) is to find out what is meant by "the appropriate body"—who will be there as part of it.
Earl Russell: I wish to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 72. The Secretary of State is taking so many of the powers which are being exercised through the general teaching council that I rather wonder why he wants the council. When he looks at the general teaching council he will find that it is a little like looking in the mirror. But the trouble with looking in the mirror is that one does it at the wrong time of day: and the Secretary of State may not like what he sees.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for raising an important issue. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The Secretary of State already lays down the required standards for qualified teacher status. It is right that he should also determine the standards against which teachers should be assessed for the purposes of deciding whether they have satisfactorily completed the induction period.
As the note we have placed in the Library makes clear, we intend to consult fully on the new professional standards for induction to ensure that they have the full support of all interested parties. We intend to build on the existing qualified teacher status standards, which are themselves the product of wide consultation already by the Teacher Training Agency. We would certainly take into account any advice from the GTC when it is

1493
established on the content and operation of the new induction standards. Indeed, we have included provision in Clause 2(2) of the Bill to allow the GTC to advise on standards of teaching. But to wait until the GTC is established, in the year 2000, to take its advice would mean an unacceptable delay in introducing the new standards, which we envisage should start from September 1999, and the system will need clear notice some time before then of the standards new teachers will be required to meet.
As the note placed in the Library indicates, we also intend to consult next month to establish effective, unbureaucratic and robust arrangements for the assessment of teachers during their induction period which have the confidence of everyone in the system. As the note indicates, we shall in particular wish to establish the appropriate roles of the new teacher's line manager who is likely to be overseeing and supporting the inductee on a day-to-day basis, the possible role of any advanced skills teacher in that school as a mentor to the new teacher and the role of the head teacher and the appropriate body. With regard to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady David on the appropriate body, it may very well be, indeed is highly likely to be, the local education authority which finally fulfils the role and functions of that body. However, I see no value in seeking to prescribe which organisation should fulfil the role of the appropriate body on the face of the Bill as that would pre-empt the terms of our forthcoming consultation on these issues.
Earl Russell: I had of course understood that it was at present the Secretary of State who laid down the standards. I thought this Government believed in devolution, but I see here only a monstrous regiment of reserved powers. I am very sorry.
Baroness Blackstone: As I have already made clear, the existing qualified teacher status standards are themselves the product of wide consultation by the Teacher Training Agency. It is indeed that agency that has taken an absolutely up-front role in trying to decide what these standards should be. So I cannot accept what the noble Earl says on this matter.
Baroness David: I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister said. She has given me the reassurance that I needed.
Lord Tope: I, too, am grateful to the Minister for her reply, which I shall examine. I still hope that in due course, when the GTC is established, the responsibility will pass there. However, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Inspection of institutions training teachers for schools]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 9, line 3. after ("may") insert (", of his own volition or at the request of the appropriate General Teaching Council,").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment makes it possible for the general teaching council to ask the chief inspector to inquire into any institution or any course which trains teachers or assistants. This is in line with the theme throughout the Committee that we wish to enable the general teaching council to be a body that can take its own initiatives on very important areas to do with the management of its own profession. We should all be concerned that teachers themselves are fully engaged in ensuring that they have the very highest standards in their profession. That is the substance of this amendment.
Lord Whitty: I see that the noble Baroness is moving three amendments. The first, which gives the general teaching councils the powers to request the chief inspector to undertake particular inspections, runs the danger of inspection overload and a conflict between the GTC's priorities and the priorities of the department.
I am of course clear that where the councils can demonstrate that they need particular information from the chief inspector, he will take that into account in designing his own priorities. Indeed, Clause 14(3) already applies in those circumstances. However, it would not be sensible to give the GTCs the direct role of requiring a chief inspector to carry out particular inspections.
Turning to the other two amendments which I understand the noble Baroness is to move, I have slightly more sympathy. We believe that it is implicit in the current wording of the clause that the inspectorate's right to inspect and copy records relates specifically to the records that relate to teacher training. However, for the avoidance of doubt, and recognising that there are certain anxieties in some institutions on this front, I am prepared to recognise the principle behind these amendments and undertake to come forward with some amendments at a later stage, in order, I hope, to allay those anxieties. I trust that in the light of those commitments the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw the amendments.
Baroness Maddock: I am grateful to the noble Lord, but one of the amendments is not in fact mine. Amendment No. 78 stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. However, I hear what he says. I think he was a little confused about the intention of the amendment, which was not to take away the power of the Secretary of State and replace it with a power of the general teaching council, but that the general teaching council could also be involved when it had concerns about training courses. It was an extra rather than an alternative. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved amendment No. 75:
Page 9, leave out line 7.
The noble Baroness said: If it is helpful to the House, I shall scoop up all of my remaining amendments: that is, Amendments Nos. 75, 76, 77, 78 and 80. These are all probing amendments; there is no question of pressing them. Their intention is to seek more information.
The amendments refer to concerns that are widespread throughout the university and higher education sector. The noble Baroness will remember that at Second Reading I had no difficulty with the Government's proposals that teacher training should be inspected. In fact, I believe that there was universal agreement in the Chamber about that. But the noble Baroness will also know that a developed inspection system already operates in higher education under the Quality Assurance Agency. The difficulty we have in practice with regard to how this will work on the ground is the way in which the two systems will dovetail one with the other.
Where there is a free-standing teacher training establishment there is not a problem. Where on a higher education campus there is a free-standing, ring-fenced provision for teacher training, again there is not a problem; it is a very defined area. Where there are courses which are properly identified and funded by the TTA, there is less of a problem. Nevertheless, a great deal of integrated training takes place in the higher education sector.
To take Amendment No. 75 first, my proposal is to take in-service training out of the requirement for inspection. That is not to say that inspecting in-service training is not a good thing, but in-service training takes many forms. Some people do it on their own, of their own volition; they will do distance-learning, work alone or undertake private courses. Some of it is very organised within local education authorities. Some is more formal, when people will go away, funded by their schools or their local education authorities, to recognised courses. It is the variety of in-service training that makes it difficult to have a blanket requirement that it should be inspected. Therefore one would like to see the principle of inspection accepted, but the notion of flexibility would be very important. Higher education bodies, including the CVCP, feel strongly that they would like to see duplication avoided where possible. As the Minister knows, the courses funded by the Teacher Training Agency, for example, may be inspected by Ofsted, as is already written into the current funding agreements between the TTA and higher education institutions. Many in-service programmes are designed to appeal to a wider clientele than serving teachers. The modular structures of many higher education programmes also make it increasingly difficult to single out provision for teachers in this way.
Amendment No. 76 asks for a period of notice. When schools are inspected, they know when it is to happen and they are given time to prepare. There is a great deal of preparation: bringing together all the right materials, making sure that people are available to meet with the inspectors, and so on. The proposal is that any procedural regulations or rules should at least contain the principle that a period of notice should be given. It is important to ensure that institutions are given notice. As initial teacher training is provided in partnership with schools, and sometimes the linking arrangements with schools are complex, time is needed to make the necessary arrangements, not just at the higher education
1496
level but at school level, too. Similarly, if universities are to be required to make documentation and records available, they will require time in which to do so.
Amendment No. 78 refers to documents. There is concern at the width of the powers conferred on chief inspectors, in particular with regard to the access that they will have to university data and records. The principle that they should have access to records is a good one, but the amendment seeks to ensure that institutions only have to provide documentation which is relevant to the inspection and that it should not be a free-for-all to raid university documents and records.
The final amendment, Amendment No. 80, seeks to limit the powers of the chief inspector to inspect only those elements of a course which deal with teaching. This is the problem to which I referred at the beginning; that is, the difficulty of dovetailing in with the higher education inspection system as well. Increasingly, higher education institutions are developing modular courses where students combine an academic subject or subjects with education to qualify for registration as a teacher. It is difficult to distinguish which elements of a course are teaching and which are subject-specific. There is a real fear among many that inspectors will become involved in courses where the majority of students are not potential teachers at all, but are simply students studying other subjects. I had always thought that the quality and extent of subject-specific teaching was fundamental to teaching ability.
I notice the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who is a product of higher education, disagrees. He will be talking about this in a moment as it relates to Scotland, but many people in higher education are concerned about duplication of effort. Duplication of effort is not a good thing. It wastes time, money and resources and that is not good for anybody. I am speaking for England and Wales but CVCP again believes that the Bill, as it stands, would result in unnecessary duplication. The academic component of programmes will in any case be assessed by the quality assurance agency under the appropriate processes for higher education. CVCP also argued that it believes that the interests of the chief inspector should lie with those components of the course which relate to preparing trainees to be effective teachers to teach children.
As I say, the rationale behind the amendment is to make sure that the two inspection systems eliminate duplication but nevertheless meet the objectives both of inspecting higher education generally and inspecting teacher training specifically. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: As Amendment No. 78 has been spoken to, I remind the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 79.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 75 seeks to limit the power of the chief inspector to ensure the quality of teacher training by excluding the inspection of in-service education and training. I am a little surprised to see the noble Baroness seeking to restrict inspection in this way given that it was the last government which expressly asked Ofsted to inspect in-service training of teachers through a formal letter

1497
of assignment. This provision seeks simply to put that existing requirement on the face of primary legislation to underwrite that inspection.
In-service training and education is central to teachers' career development and as a result to pupils' development in the most crucial areas, including literacy, numeracy, information technology and of course in raising the skills of our future school leaders. Because that training is so important, it must be done well and it is essential that Ofsted is able to monitor the provision to see that it continues to be of high quality and that public money is well spent.
The quality assurance agency does not have the appropriate expertise to do that. I entirely accept and agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that we should avoid duplication, but I do not believe that the QAA would be involved in inspecting or even assessing the quality of in-service training provision for practising teachers. Given the importance of Ofsted inspection of this provision, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 76 seeks to establish a minimum period of notice of eight weeks before an inspection. I am advised that notice of Ofsted's inspection varies from half a term to over a year before the forthcoming inspection. It is certainly the case that the chief inspector aims to give as much notice as possible. I understand that Ofsted is currently in discussion with the CVCP and others about clear and agreed guidelines on notice of inspections. I strongly agree with the noble Baroness about the need for proper notice. I am happy to consider bringing forward an appropriate amendment providing for reasonable notice to institutions in relation to this clause, but prescribing a set eight weeks would unnecessarily constrain the discussions between individual institutions and Ofsted. However, I will consider this matter further and return to it at Report stage. I hope that is helpful.
I have listened to the concerns expressed in support of Amendments Nos. 77 and 80. Although I have considerable sympathy on the issue of documentation, I cannot accept Amendment No. 77 as currently drafted and I am not altogether convinced of the need for Amendment No. 80. But there is certainly no wish that Ofsted should inspect subject provision. It is also important that Ofsted should focus on those components of courses which are about preparing and training students to be teachers. However, once again I should like to take this away and consider it further but without making any commitments at this time. In the light of that, I hope the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness because that was a helpful reply. I wonder whether in the gap between this and the next stage of the Bill she will discuss this issue with those in higher education-1 am thinking particularly of the CVCP—who have expressed these concerns and who may well find that between them and the department they can find an accommodation or at least have their fears allayed that this duplication will not be a problem.
1498
The noble Baroness said that she was surprised to see me remove this from the Bill. I was careful to say that I am not arguing the principle and the proposal that in-service training should be inspected, but perhaps I may give an example which is not an outrageous one. If one person goes to the Cranfield Institute to do some in-service training but everything else that goes on in the course he or she is doing has nothing to do with teacher in-service training, is it really necessary to send Ofsted along to inspect the course? What we are saying is that in the application of this policy—the problem is that when it is written on the face of the Bill it becomes a requirement—some sensible flexibility should be applied where teachers are doing one-off courses in the interests of furthering their professional development.
Baroness Blackstone: I can certainly reassure the noble Baroness that it would be ridiculous not to be flexible. To send Ofsted to inspect courses all over the country where teachers happen to have decided that this would be useful in terms of their career development would be patently ridiculous. The purpose of these clauses is to ensure that courses that are specifically designated as in-service training should be properly inspected. I think the noble Baroness has no problem in agreeing that that is important. Perhaps I may also reassure her that discussions are currently going on between the CVCP and Ofsted on the other matters that she raised. I am confident that before we reach the next stage of the Bill agreement will have been reached. But I shall also ask officials in my department to discuss this further with the CVCP. Indeed, if agreement cannot be reached, I shall be happy to have those discussions with the CVCP myself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 80 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
11 p.m.
Clause 15 [Inspection of institutions training teachers for schools: Scotland]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Unlike the remainder of Part I of the Bill, this clause applies to Scotland alone. I ask that it be omitted, having consulted the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals and the Association of University Teachers who feel very strongly about this. They suspect, and I agree with them, that this clause has been tacked onto the Bill to match the provision for England and Wales, which the Committee has just been discussing.
Unlike the previous clause, Clause 15 does not reflect the present situation. Up to a few years ago the inspectorate was involved in the inspection of teacher training, but the system has been abandoned because it was no longer appropriate. My intention is to probe this matter with the Minister. She has very kindly remained in London and. I believe, cancelled an engagement in

1499
Scotland in order to help me in this matter. I do not intend to press it, but I shall listen to what she has to say and decide what I shall do at the next stage.
The inspectorate in Scotland has a very different role from that of the inspectorate south of the Border. It has a considerable influence on the development and delivery of schools' policy. Indeed, there are development officers who work to Her Majesty's inspectorate as their line managers, so they are not independent of what is happening in schools as are their English counterparts. The inspectorate used to be involved in the assessment of teacher training. But for those reasons, and for others, and with the advent of the Quality Assessment Authority, the system was changed.
Indeed, the Scottish principals of institutions were told in a letter dated 24th February 1994,
"Colleges can be assured that statutory powers of inspection are not being continued under the guise of quality assessment".
I ask the Minister to say what has changed. No one in the system or outside of it would claim that there is no room for improvement in teacher training in Scotland. It is clear to everybody that higher education institutions are in no way opposed to the most rigorous scrutiny of their courses. But there are so many tests now that a course must pass that it seems strange that in Scotland's case the Government want to add yet another.
In Scotland initial courses for teachers must pass the following tests. They must conform to the Secretary of State for Scotland's guidelines for initial teacher training courses. I am told that those guidelines were last issued in January 1993 and they are currently being revised. The Secretary of State for Scotland has a statutory power to approve the duration, content and nature of initial training courses. All courses are subject to a validation process—as they would be, no doubt, in England and Wales—under the auspices of a university or a degree-awarding institution.
In Scotland all courses must be acceptable to the Scottish General Teaching Council as leading to registration as a primary or secondary teacher. The Scottish GTC has that power. All school experience must be jointly planned by the training institution, school and education authority. Minimum academic requirements for entry to courses are laid down in the memorandum on entry requirements for admission to courses of teacher training in Scotland, which is subject to annual review. As in England and Wales, the Quality Assurance Agency carries out the quality assurance of all courses leading to professional qualifications such as law, architecture, engineering or whatever it may be.
Teacher training courses must pass all those tests, but in addition there are considerable problems in sorting out those courses which relate particularly to teacher training. That is true especially with regard to secondary teacher training. It is difficult to sort out which courses are relevant to teacher training, and are thus subject to inspection, and which are subject courses mainly for students who have no intention of teaching and who plan to enter some other profession. Such courses are known as concurrent courses. They are attractive to those who are not sure whether they want to teach or to
1500
enter another profession and, as was said earlier, they bring many new teachers into the profession. Surely the best way to assess concurrent courses, and others, is for the assessment authority to do so, as now.
I should be grateful if the Minister could explain precisely why the Government have included this clause and who are the other persons who might carry out the assessments along with members of the inspectorate. If the Government do not convince me that the clause is necessary or desirable, I shall, as I said previously, feel it necessary to return to it later.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry to come at this at such a late hour but, if it is any consolation to the Minister, who looks a bit grey, I have no intention of trying to beat some of my record performances for time, as in the past.
My noble friend has clearly outlined some aspects which require explanation from the Minister. I shall not go over them again. My noble friend outlined the existing position, which does not seem to leave much of a role for inspection of the kind mentioned. That must be particularly true with regard to concurrent courses. They have developed since I left the teaching profession. Many, if not all, teacher training colleges are now part of universities. That is why there are now concurrent courses. They certainly did not happen in my time, which I accept is probably prehistoric—at least from the point of view of teaching. It is a seriously good step forward that many teachers in training receive their subject tuition in classes which are not specifically designed for teachers and where they can mix with others and hear a wider appreciation of the subject. There does not seem to be much of a role there for the kind of inspection mentioned.
Will the Minister confirm that, as I assume, this issue will be totally devolved to the Scottish parliament? If I am right, why can it not be left to the Scottish parliament? Why must the provision be added to this Bill?
I got my final point from a quick reading of the introductory part of the Bill. I notice that there are no manpower implications. If that is so, I come to one of two conclusions. Either, there will not be many inspections or, alternatively, there are a lot of under-employed inspectors. Which is it?
Earl Russell: Not for the first time I follow "marathon man" into the debate, and I am very happy to do so. I am glad that the noble Baroness has persisted with her opposition to this clause. She has given a persuasive account of the differences between the Scottish and English positions, but I would not wish to imply, by not having raised the English clause, that is not a matter of concern. I thought that it was an infernally complicated issue for this time of night. I shall not go into it now.
I should like to comment on two points made by the noble Baroness. First, when dealing with the authority of the Scottish General Teaching Council in this matter she described the way in which I hope in future matters might proceed in England. Secondly, she said that

1501
higher education institutions had no objection to the most rigorous inspection of their courses. I am happy to confirm that, but it must be inspection by those who have both the competence and authority to do it. The proposition that Ofsted has that is not self-evident to me, and that we shall have to debate on another occasion.
Lord Sewel: I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. She is for ever watchful in matters affecting Scotland and does this House a great service in making sure that any legislation that affects Scotland is properly debated and scrutinised.
In reply to one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, this will be a general matter devolved to the Scottish parliament. He asks: why do it now? The simple answer is that the programme of the Government does not stop. We do not have a hiatus until 2000 when the Scottish parliament is up and running. We are determined to maintain the momentum of reform and improvement.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In that case, why do the Government not take advantage of the two idle Standing Committees in the other place that do not have anything to do in this parliamentary Session on Scottish legislation?
Lord Sewel: The Government make use of all the legislative opportunities that present themselves to pursue their programme of reform and improvement in Scotland. That is a clear and unassailable fact.
As the debate has clearly underlined, the Government have a special responsibility for assuring standards in education and quality. A key element of that is the training of teachers and the need to ensure that prospective teachers who emerge from the training institutions are, in the words of the day, fit for the purpose. That is a key responsibility of the Government which they cannot duck. Clause 15 provides for the reinstatement of powers for Her Majesty's inspectors of schools to inspect pre-service and in-service teacher education and training in higher education institutions in Scotland. Basically, it re-establishes the situation prior to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—which is a fair one—is that there has been an institutional shift over the period. Whereas in 1992 teacher training was carried out by distinct and separate colleges of education, in about half the cases those colleges have merged with universities, but I do not believe that that affects the principle of the need to establish proper processes of inspection.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, rightly listed the inspection and quality checks in the system at the moment and in effect asked what had changed and why something new and additional had to be done. Despite those processes, which I readily agree lead to a degree of duplication—that is a concern—there is no effective mechanism to ensure that teacher education reflects government priorities and addresses problems in the teaching and learning experienced in schools. I have no difficulty in making that point strongly. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that their
1502
basic and fundamental priorities in driving up standards are being followed right the way through the system, right into the schools via the production of teachers through the training institutions.
I have made it clear that we are committed to raising standards in schools. It should be beyond dispute that a key element in that is that teachers are prepared properly for their jobs. We are not saying that teacher education in Scotland is poor, rather that there is a gap in the system. We approve all courses against our guidelines before they start, as the noble Baroness said, but we cannot go on to check whether new teachers are being prepared properly for their role in maintaining and raising standards in Scotland's schools. That is the gap. We have come forward with this proposal to fill that vital, missing element.
The noble Baroness asked who the "other persons" could be. It is a provision that exists already in the general requirements covering HM inspectors. They can involve other persons in the inspection of schools. It is designed to give an opportunity to have a multi-disciplinary inspection, led by the inspectorate, but bringing in successful head teachers and fellow professionals in the area who can make a major contribution to the inspection of a training institution. The other persons are not part of some dark, nebulous group; they are people actively involved in education who can make a contribution to the inspection of a training institution, based on their own experience.
The inspectorate is made up of the right people to take the lead responsibility for that task, because only they have the breadth of information and experience necessary to ensure that teacher education takes account not just of best practices in schools but areas of difficulty or weakness and that they are being addressed quickly. It is that breadth and depth of experience that is necessary to deliver a high quality inspection—a good product.
The inspectorate is at that important interface between policy implementation and school practice. It is that experience that also enhances the value of an inspectorate-led inspection of training institutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made the point about concurrent courses. Let me make it clear that in the inspection process there we are interested in the initial teacher education. It is those courses, or parts of courses, which lead to a teaching qualification which will be the subject of inspection. The academic element will not. I appreciate that there is a need for consultation and discussion here. That will be covered in HMI's discussions with institutions about the framework for inspections. That is something that needs to be worked on and clarified in the light of arrangements on the ground.
We are trying to—this is an important step towards achieving the objective—put into place an inspections system throughout the entire school system (the schools and the training institutions) that builds in quality; that enables us to have confidence that we are making progress towards enhancing standards; and doing so in a way which is professionally based and which draws

1503
upon the depth and breadth of the experience of the inspectorate. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her objection.
Earl Russell: The Minister spoke powerfully about driving up standards. Can he tell the Committee whether he has a driving licence and by whose authority it is conferred?
Lord Sewel: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question is that I shall write to the noble Earl.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister gave a very interesting reply. I believe that the universities in Scotland, which will soon have responsibility for all teacher training—few colleges will not be merged—will be fascinated by it. The Minister will be the first to know how fascinated they will be because he was a distinguished vice-principal of Aberdeen University, which is in negotiations with Northern College to merge. He will know what the problems are, but he had the job of explaining the clause and he did that ably.
1504
The universities will be most interested to hear that the Government do not believe that the quality assurance agency can do this job and that the involvement of the inspectorate, which has two roles and is deeply involved in developing schools' policy in universities, is appropriate. It seems to me to be a most extraordinary thing for the Government to be doing in Scotland. I can understand that they are reflecting the situation in England, but they are not doing that in Scotland. The proposal was discarded with everyone's agreement and pleasure. There is no reason to believe that the system will not improve greatly under the universities as they exist.
I shall read exactly what he said, as I am sure will members of the Association of University Teachers, who will be most interested in it. They will let me know precisely what they think about it, as will the principals. I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to the clause, but I shall be likely to return to it.
Clause 15 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  European Union: Forthcoming Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Business
  European Committee of the Regions: Nominations
  European Committee of the Regions: Nominations
  Hong Kong: Second Report to Parliament
  Hong Kong: Second Report to Parliament
  Anglo-Irish Co-operation
  Anglo-Irish Co-operation
  Crown Copyright
  Crown Copyright
  Helplines
  Helplines
  William Morris Academy
  William Morris Academy
  BSE and Scrapie
  BSE and Scrapie
  Common Agricultural Policy: Reform
  Common Agricultural Policy: Reform
  Anthrax: Inoculation Policy
  Anthrax: Inoculation Policy
  Crown Dependencies: Financial Regulation
  Crown Dependencies: Financial Regulation
  Deaths in Custody
  Deaths in Custody
  Methods of Restraint used in Custody: Exhibition
  Methods of Restraint used in Custody: Exhibition
  Derelict Sites: Planning Control
  Derelict Sites: Planning Control
  HM Coastguard
  HM Coastguard
  Railfreight Distribution Sale and Eurotunnel Concession Extension
  Railfreight Distribution Sale and Eurotunnel Concession Extension
  "New Leadership for London": Response
  "New Leadership for London": Response
  London: ERDF Funding
  London: ERDF Funding