What assessment she has made of the damage caused to small businesses by the late payment of commercial debt. [31125]

What representations she has received from small businesses on the damage caused to them by the late payment of commercial debt. [31137]

It is clear that late payment continues to be a major concern to small businesses, with a number of surveys showing that British businesses are less profitable and less competitive as a direct result of late payment. In some cases, their very survival is threatened. That is why we have responded to calls from the small business community and announced a new package of measures to tackle late payment. The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill is an integral part of the measures and is supported by the majority of small firms.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the legislation? Does she agree that small businesses, working in partnership, can help to promote a better payment culture?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If we are to improve the payment culture, there needs to be proper partnership between Government and business organisations. That is why we are working jointly with the Forum of Private Business, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce, the National Farmers Union and the Union of Independent Companies through the better payment practice group to promote a better payment culture. The group has met regularly and already produced a substantial body of work.

May I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the measure, which will be welcomed by industry? I notice that the Bill refers to late payment among small and medium firms. Will she inform the House what percentage of firms will be able immediately to reap the benefit of the measure? Does she agree that the problem of late payment disproportionately affects small and medium enterprises?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the problem disproportionately affects small businesses. That is why, under the phasing arrangements that we propose, small firms will be able to take advantage of the proposals.

We fully support the decision of the Federation of Small Businesses to publish league tables of average payment times of big companies and their large private subsidiaries. The league tables will open to public scrutiny the payment record of Britain's larger companies and provide small suppliers with useful information on how quickly they can expect to be paid when dealing with a large customer. I congratulate the federation on that project and wish it every success.

Will the hon. Lady heed warnings from bodies such as the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce that statutory interest payments may lead to longer contract payment terms between companies and their suppliers? Consequently, will she amend the legislation?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to hint that we have listened and consulted widely. Indeed, we are very grateful for the contribution of the British Chambers of Commerce. We have consulted it all along. If the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to look at the legislation, he will see that it is not possible to opt out of it. We propose to give a reserve power to courts to deem that excessively long payment periods are a de facto opting out. I am sure that he and his Conservative colleagues will appreciate that.

I am sure that the Minister knows that I and my colleagues agree with and very much welcome the Bill. Does she agree that, often, both local and national Government are very bad at paying? I hope that she shares my view that the Government should give a lead in that direction.

I absolutely agree. I was a critic of the previous Government, who had an appalling payment record. The House will recall that the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), boasted of stringing creditors along. When the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)—who speaks on small firms on behalf of the official Opposition—was an Education Minister, almost a quarter of the Department's bills were paid late. That is why I intend to provide in the summer a league table of Government Departments, and I have taken the opportunity this week to remind local authorities of their obligations as well.

What reforms she proposes of the export credits guarantee system. [31126]

The Export Credits Guarantee Department's support is vital in helping exporters of capital goods and projects win valuable business overseas. It seeks continuously to improve the services it offers and does this in partnership with its customers—exporters and banks. I believe this approach works well.

My noble Friend the Minister for Trade announced on 11 February a review of the arrangements for providing finance for capital goods and project exports. A consultation paper has been issued seeking comments over a two-month period. Copies of the document have been placed in the Library of the House.

Would my right hon. Friend concede that there is a lot wrong with the export credits guarantee scheme? Is not the £800 million Iraqi debt an example? Is not the contract in Malaysian ringgits—which, because of the devaluation of that currency, has cost the British taxpayer millions of pounds—another? Can she say something about that? Is there not too much emphasis on defence exports, which some of the countries concerned can ill afford, and not enough emphasis on the export of domestic goods? Is it not time for reform?

With great respect to my hon. Friend, I have to say that, on balance, the ECGD system works well. I understand some of the concerns that he identifies. Obviously, devaluation has an impact to some degree, although payments continue to be made up to date. Some of the ECGD cover in Malaysia is ringgit-related, and so was not affected by the changes that he identifies. On defence exports and defence cover, although there are fluctuations from time to time—depending on the flow of contracts—he will find, on balance, that an average of only 14 per cent. of the cover that the ECGD supplies is for defence.

Has the DTI made any estimate of the number of British jobs supported or the amount of foreign currency earned over, say, the period since the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) came into the House, when he has criticised the ECGD?

Not in so many words. We have not calculated the number of jobs in relation to my hon. Friend's most worthy tenure in this House. I recognise the value of much of the work that the ECGD does, and the right hon. Gentleman may be aware that so successful has it been of late that this year that it has returned more than £400 million to the Treasury.

I acknowledge the excellence of the system and of the ministerial leadership, but may I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the extreme difficulties of a great British exporter—British Steel? The pound is highly valued and it is proving difficult to export against tough competition. Is there any way in which British Steel and like companies may have assistance?

I know of the strong support that my hon. Friend has shown to British Steel over the years. The Government understand the concerns of exporters at this time. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken steps which we believe will lead to a stable but competitive pound in the longer term. I know that some exporters are effective in certain markets—those whose markets are dollar-controlled, for example, have not been affected in the same way—but that many efficient exporters such as British Steel are doing what they can to expand their markets in other countries.

Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that at the moment countries such as France, Spain and Italy do not show any great eagerness to dismantle their public sector support for their exporters? Does she also agree that if we implement changes to the ECGD unilaterally, we will be in danger of going out on a limb and handicapping United Kingdom exporters in the world market? Therefore, will she give us an undertaking that following the consultation no changes will be made to the ECGD regime before it can be clearly demonstrated that other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries are making similar changes to their regimes, as a failure to do so could disadvantage UK exporters?

I understand and share the hon. Lady's concern that we should do nothing that could disadvantage British business, but the whole purpose of the consultation is to hear from British business what it believes will give it a further competitive edge, so it is inconceivable that it is likely to advise us to do something that would damage its concerns and we would certainly not want to take any such steps.

On a note of caution to the hon. Lady, I understand the concern that lies behind her question—she is asking us not to do something unilaterally that would be disadvantageous—but one of the reasons for the review is to find out whether there are steps that the ECGD could take, unilaterally or otherwise, that would give British exporters a competitive edge. I am sure that she would not want us to wait for other people to do that.

If she will request the Home Office reviews of the financial services industries of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey to assess the impact on the UK of legislation on the limited liability of accountants passed by the states of Jersey. [31128]

The Home Office review will be looking into all aspects of financial regulation in the Crown dependencies, including the registration and regulation of companies and other forms of business.

I congratulate the Government and my hon. Friend on at last tackling abuses such as the so-called "Sark lark", whereby someone can pretend to live on Sark and hide a large number of companies and tax liabilities by doing so. However, the issues are complex. For some purposes, the Channel Islands are inside Britain, but outside the European Union. Will my hon. Friend therefore assure the House that we will not legislate on limited liability for accountants before the House has had an opportunity to discuss and debate all those matters and until we have had an assurance that there will be independent regulation of accountants?

I very much agree. That is important and the business manifesto gives a commitment to ensure that there is a framework of independent regulation of the accountancy profession. Of course, we are considering all suggestions on the best way forward, including those of hon. Members—of course, that will be independent of the Home Office review.

Did the Home Secretary consult the Minister before the reviews were announced? Would it not have been courteous if the Home Secretary or the President of the Board of Trade had consulted and discussed the matter with the Governors of the territories prior to the announcement of the review?

The review allows people to give their views on what is happening in their dependencies and domestically here. Of course, the Governors of the dependent territories are entitled to make submissions, as are Members of Parliament and anyone else involved. We will welcome such consultation and views.

If she will make a statement on the role of the United Kingdom in the development of the space exploration programme. [31129]

The United Kingdom has a substantial and highly respected space science community, which is actively involved in defining the priorities for the European Space Agency's exploration programme. British scientists are involved in a wide range of current and future missions, including satellites to study the sun, Mars and Saturn and its moon Titan, as well as observatories trained on other galaxies.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister join me in congratulating British-born space scientist Michael Foale on his achievements on the United States Mir missions? Does he agree that Mr. Foale is an excellent role model in encouraging young people to study science?

Yes. I had the pleasure of meeting Michael Foale when he came back to earth on 18 December. He provides a role model that attracts youngsters to become interested in space research. May I congratulate my hon. Friend, who for some time has chaired the parliamentary all-party space committee and championed those matters in the House? I hope that he will long continue to do so.

Can the Minister assure us that the United Kingdom will continue to channel a large proportion of its space effort through the European Space Agency, which has proved an exceedingly cost-effective vehicle for space science and exploitation, rather than through the Commission of the European Union, which is an infinitely more bureaucratic organisation that does not have the scientific or technological expertise for the job?

I did not envisage that this question would be so controversial. The United Kingdom has a substantial space programme, on which we spend some £45 million. Of that, some £33 million is spent through the European Space Agency, in which we play an active part. British space scientists are actively involved in the Mars and lunar working groups, and we shall watch with interest when, later today, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration makes its announcement about the possible presence of water on the moon. We are—and shall continue to be—involved in those international programmes.

If she will make a statement about the objectives of her Department's review of the utility regulators. [31130]

The objective of the interdepartmental review is to set a long-term, stable framework for utility regulation, which is seen to be fair by all interest groups, particularly consumers. I hope to be able to publish the conclusions of the review on utility regulation in a Green Paper in the near future.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. She will know that, although fuel poverty is a big issue, it was totally ignored by the previous Administration. In April, gas deregulation comes to Yorkshire, where there have already been far too many episodes of bandit canvassers trying to make people sign up to deals on a totally false basis—they have even signed up people who are dead and made children sign contracts. Will she ensure that the regulator takes action against such people?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. When the system of regulation was set up, the Conservative party claimed that it would favour the consumer, but that was not what the legislation said and it has not often been what has happened in practice. It is important that, as competition is introduced into the domestic gas market, the consumer is protected. My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and the director general of the regulatory office are in close contact on this. Action has already been taken to put conditions into the companies' licences to ensure that good practice is followed and that, if it is not, compensation is possible.

Will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that, in the review of the utility regulators, she will do her utmost to strike the right balance between encouraging competition and ensuring that regulation is not unduly suffocating? I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that the Competition Bill—which is about to have its Third Reading in another place—will give the regulators too much arbitrary power.

I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is important to strike the right balance between competition and regulation. Our approach has always been to ensure competition where possible and regulation where necessary. It has also always been our view that that regulation should be transparent, consistent and predictable. The hon. Gentleman is concerned lest the Competition Bill in some way unfairly changes that balance. I do not believe that it will, but the issue will be discussed both when the Green Paper is produced and when that Bill comes to the House of Commons.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Hull's municipally owned telephone service survived nationalisation in 1911. It also survived privatisation in 1984 because, although it may not be popular with the Director General of Oftel, it is cherished by the local population that it serves. In the light of the Oftel report on Kingston Communications, which was published on Monday, will she remind Oftel that its job is to protect the customer, not to promote BT?

I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and I am well aware of how extremely popular the company is in Hull. Currently, other suppliers can enter that market, with the exception of BT—that is the issue on which the director general has sought consultation. I feel confident that, if the existing system is as popular with the local community as my hon. Friend says, it will survive any review. Although I have taken on board his points, I should remind him that it may ultimately fall to me to take a decision in this matter, so I hope that he will forgive me if I refrain from further comment.

Has the right hon. Lady dropped her ill-considered proposal to impose an extra charge on the bulk of consumers in order to pursue her social objectives for a limited number of low-income consumers?

I note the pejorative tone. The hon. Gentleman will see what we propose when the Green Paper is published in the near future. If he is saying, on behalf of the Conservative party, that what happens to low-income consumers of crucial utilities is a matter of indifference, that bears out his party's practice in government. I do not think it wise to advertise that.

If she will make a statement on her proposals on corporate governance. [31132]

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade yesterday urged companies and institutions to achieve higher standards of governance as a matter of best practice. The issue is competitiveness. Good governance is central to the well-run company that works for long-term prosperity in partnership with others. We want companies and institutions to show leadership in delivering best practice. I hope that they will respond positively; if they do not, the Government may have to act.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. When considering what should follow, will he bear it in mind that the performance and value of many companies will depend not only on the capital invested in them but—in many cases to the same extent, and in some cases more—on the scientific, technological, design, commercial and managerial abilities of those employed? Such people are the best informed about the nature of the business of many companies. Will my hon. Friend consider, as a move towards a stakeholder economy, that those employees should have the right to representation among the non-executive directors of major British companies?

The position of successful companies and the Government is clear: we want to promote partnership in the workplace. It is certainly true that successful companies must ensure that both executive and non-executive directors have skills and knowledge of the company, of the markets in which it operates, and of research and development and scientific activity. I am sure that successful companies will continue to do that and will expand best practice to ensure that the boardroom reflects the company's needs, in terms of both its internal activities and its activities on behalf of its customers and wider shareholders.

Does the Minister agree with the Royal Society of Arts, which argues in its document, "Tomorrow's Company", that intellectual property is one of the strongest determining factors in achieving competitive success? If so, is not he concerned about the lack of protection of intellectual property rights? What action are the Government taking to promote those rights in the global marketplace?

That was a nice try to introduce the issue of international competitiveness on this question. The Government make efforts daily, weekly and monthly to ensure that scientists and others in the United Kingdom who want to take new inventions to the marketplace are protected, both nationally and internationally.

Is my hon. Friend aware that institutional investors such as insurance companies and pension funds have neither the expertise nor the inclination to become closely involved in the companies in which they invest? That being so, should not they be encouraged to become more closely involved in the appointment of non-executive directors, the promotion of the more meaningful role of annual general meetings, and the remuneration of directors?

The issue of amending the Companies Act 1989 to introduce two-tier boards has been raised, but at the moment there is no demand for that. The Hampel committee found overwhelming support for the unitary boards that are the norm in the United Kingdom. A wider review of company legislation is taking place, and I have no doubt that in that review the Government will consider a range of measures and eventually reach some conclusions. The most important fact about the review is that it is the first wide, fundamental review of company law for almost 150 years; at the end of it we will produce a set of modern legislative proposals that will ensure competitiveness into the next century.

I warmly welcome the U-turn by the President of the Board of Trade on corporate governance and I agree with her that changes should be achieved by leadership rather than by a stakeholder law. I trust that her hon. Friends are as happy as I am that she has dumped the Prime Minister's stakeholder proposals. The question is simple: given that the spirit behind the President's proposals is to lead by example, and because it is impossible to be President of the Board of Trade and to have a blind trust, will she—in the Minister's view—wind up her blind trust and tell us who has contributed to it since May?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should tell the House whether he had the permission of the Leader of the Opposition before putting that question. There has been no U-turn in the Government's policy on companies. The only thing to be dumped is the Tories, who have been dumped by small, medium and big business. The right hon. Gentleman is a complete joke, nationally and internationally, when it comes to business, and his book is a sign of the shambolic nature of his view of British industry. He owes the House and British business an apology for the comments that he made about President Kohl, a man who leads a country that invests millions of pounds in the British economy, creating tens of thousands of jobs. The right hon. Gentleman owes an apology for his extreme right-wing views to those German companies and the workers who work for them in this country.

The Minister obviously did not read or hear my views, which were not as he described and which have received 205 letters and messages of support. The question remains for the Minister and the President of the Board of Trade: will she wind up her blind trust? The Minister should apologise for the remarks that he has just made, because my interviews were unexceptional and well received.

The right hon. Gentleman obviously does not talk to the Leader of the Opposition, who repudiated his comments and asked the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw them. The right hon. Gentleman is also out of step with the Leader of the Opposition—

What about the blind trust?

I am just coming to that. In his evidence to the Neill committee, the Leader of the Opposition said of blind trusts:

"We believe there is an argument in favour of a form of blind trust that should be examined by the committee."

The Labour party has told the Neill committee that blind trusts should not exist and, when the position is considered by the committee, I am certain that no Labour Member will continue to have a blind trust. The right hon. Gentleman is, once again, out of step with the Leader of the Opposition.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the payment last year of £3 million by United Utilities to one of its non-executive directors falls well short of a high standard of corporate governance?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I do not know whether anyone in Britain—other than perhaps the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—would defend a pay-out of £3 million to a director of a utility selling water to a captive consumer market while failing to meet customer standards and having some of Europe's poorest leakage records. I would not defend that, and I do not know anyone who would.

What progress she has made in her discussions with the European Commission towards the designation of objective 1 areas. [31133]

The Commission expects to publish on 18 March its detailed draft regulations covering the operations of the fund for the period 2000–2006. Those draft regulations will then need to be negotiated in the Council of Ministers and approved by the European Parliament. In the meantime, Ministers have been in regular contact with the European Commission and other member states in order to secure a fair deal for the United Kingdom and its regions.

I thank the Minister for that reply. The Minister may not be aware that today is St. Piran's day, but he is the patron saint of Cornwall and of tin. The Minister is aware, as I am all too painfully aware, that tomorrow will be the last trading day for South Crofty tin mine—the last tin mine in Cornwall and in Europe. In view of the agony and suffering that Cornwall faces, does the Minister accept that the designation of objective 1 areas is as much a political exercise as a technical one? What message can the Minister give me to take back to help the Cornish community at this most difficult time?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have been in close contact on this, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), I am very sad about what has happened to South Crofty. He also knows that the mine did not meet the criteria for regional selective assistance and that we considered the proposal in great detail. However, the Government office for the south west and all local agencies will continue to work closely with local authorities to alleviate the impact of the closure and improve the area's economic position. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about Cornwall. Let me assure him that we are paying close attention to the needs of Cornwall, along with those of the other areas of the United Kingdom. On his proposal, the Government statistical service is still discussing the proposals with Eurostat. It is a technical matter but I will ensure that the House is kept fully informed of progress.

What impact does the Minister think the move towards a single currency by several of our partners will have on Britain's competitiveness? In particular, while Britain has the EU presidency, what steps will we take to ensure that no country in Europe that has not really met the criteria tries to slip into the single currency?

Order. Has the hon. Gentleman read the question? I think that Miss McIntosh has a question on the matter.

Does the Minister share the anxiety of people in North Yorkshire about the reduced numbers involved in the reforms to objectives 1, 2 and 3, and about the loss of the Konver programme? As many of them have benefited from it, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will make the strongest representations to retain it and other such Community instruments in some form in the reforms?

I understand well the hon. Lady's points; they are well understood throughout the Government. We are making strenuous representations to the Commission and are active in ensuring that our views are known to member states.

If she will make a statement about the priorities of her Department in promoting competitiveness during the British presidency of the European Union. [31134]

Improving competitiveness is central to improving prosperity in both the UK and more widely in the European Union. It lies at the heart of our presidency theme of economic reform. All my EU priorities, particularly the central objective of improving the single market, are ultimately aimed at improving the competitiveness of EU industry. In the coming months, I will work to ensure that competitiveness becomes more central to EU policy making. Specifically, in the Industry Council, which I shall chair, Ministers will, for the first time, have a full discussion about the key factors that affect EU competitiveness, and about how Governments and business can work together to improve it. Next week, I will talk to the European Parliament on that very subject.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is by working with our European partners that we can best pursue our British interests? Did not the previous Government's half-hearted approach to all things European, and the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about Chancellor Kohl, greatly damage the interests of British business, consumers and workers?

My hon. Friend is correct. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has displayed, yet again, his extraordinary talent for alienating several groups of important people at one fell swoop. He managed simultaneously to insult the corporation of the City of London, which was not amused to be told to whom to give the freedom of the City, and a leading figure in a major ally with substantial investments in this country. Almost 50,000 British jobs are in German-owned companies, including some 14,000 that came in recent years. He has, yet again, shown his complete disregard for the interests of Britain.

The right hon. Lady will be well aware of my deep commitment to manufacturing industry. She and I have spoken on the same platform in support of it. While I fully support her determination and that of the Government to increase our competitiveness in the world market, does she agree that some of the policies that her Government are following—allowing the Bank of England unnecessarily to increase interest rates, the social chapter, the minimum wage and the Government's vendetta against the transport industry—are hardly likely to make British industry more competitive in Europe and the world? May I remind her that transport costs in Europe are already less than in Britain, and that in the Budget in about a week's time, the Chancellor will increase the cost of transport?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I share his concern for manufacturing and have great respect for his record at least, if not that of the former Government, on manufacturing. Of course we understand the concerns that some manufacturers are expressing, although, as the hon. Gentleman will know, those who are operating in the dollar market are not affected in quite the same way. We are in no doubt that the steps that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken to put interest rates in the control of the Bank of England will, in the long term, be beneficial to British business—a view shared by the business community. Neither the social chapter nor the national minimum wage will damage business, especially not manufacturing.

It is certainly the case that there is great concern among manufacturers about the state of the transport infrastructure. Indeed, it was one of their chief concerns in respect of reduced competitiveness during the lifetime of the previous Government. This Government will begin to address it.

On competitiveness, is it really desirable that one or two individuals should own such vast media outlets, bearing in mind what has just happened to Mr. Patten's book? Would it not be far more desirable to have more competition in the media? I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear very much in mind what has happened over Mr. Patten's book when she considers the appropriate legislation on the media.

As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have taken action to begin to strengthen competition law. I share his view that it is important that there is strong competition in all areas of the marketplace, including in the newspaper industry.

Given that the overwhelming majority of businesses in this country are small—serving a local, regional or perhaps national market—does the right hon. Lady agree with many of them that a single currency would be all cost and no benefit because they do not deal in francs or deutschmarks?

No, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. What is more, neither do a great many people in his party agree. It is evident that on this issue, after the election as before it, the Conservative party is utterly divided. Many of its members, like the right hon. Gentleman, are deeply irresponsible and utterly unfit to hold office again.

What guidance she gives to United Kingdom companies concerning the payment of commissions to third parties to secure export contracts. [31135]

It is often advisable and sometimes legally necessary for exporters to enlist the services of paid intermediaries when seeking to win business overseas. The Department gives appropriate advice to any British business person who requests it.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister share my astonishment that the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Jonathan Aitken, is back selling arms to the middle east? Does she furthermore share my concern that in some of these arms contracts, commissions of 15 per cent. are commonplace and that on multi-million pound contracts, commissions of 25 per cent. are not unheard of? Much of the money washes back into the United Kingdom, lining the pockets of the intermediaries. Does she agree that there is a persuasive case for giving auditors the responsibility for assessing the reasonableness, scale and destination of commissions, and that the Government should act swiftly on the Law Commission report on corruption published last week?

I know that the Home Office will look at the Law Commission report and take it into consideration in its work. My hon. Friend can be assured that the Government are determined to combat bribery, wherever and whenever it may occur. The United Kingdom's anti-corruption legislation is among the most comprehensive in the world and we are working within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Union to ensure that our major overseas competitors enact similar legislation. On the other matter raised by my hon. Friend, it is for the company concerned to decide whom it wishes to employ.

Has the Minister made any assessment of the number of British jobs that would be lost if commission payments were not made? Where does she think those jobs would go—would it be France?

Nothing in my remarks attacks commission payments. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), we realise that there are some circumstances where third parties are needed—for example, in the case of small firms that cannot employ their own staff overseas. That is perfectly legitimate and is part of the process.

What steps she will take to ensure equality of opportunity in scientific careers. [31136]

We would all agree that far too few women are taking up science. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is pursuing the objective of equality of opportunity to increase the participation of women in science, engineering and technology careers, not least through our Department's development unit on women in science, engineering and technology.

There has been a doubling in the number of women graduating in engineering since the mid-1980s—[Interruption.]—but the figure remains only 14 per cent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be a good idea to link his Department's development unit with the women's unit at the Department of Social Security to ensure a more co-ordinated approach and enhanced prospects for women considering that career path?

Yes, it is important that there is close co-operation between the women's unit at the DTI and the women's unit at the DSS. The women into science and engineering—WISE—project has increased the number of women engineering graduates from 7 per cent. to 14 per cent. I heard a gibe from the Opposition Benches that the increase had taken place since 1 May, but it is worth remembering that there are currently 56 Members of Parliament who have science, engineering or technological qualifications, of whom 42 are Labour Members and eight are women.

Although I welcome the figures that the Minister has announced and the fact that there are now more women involved in science careers, the Government should not overlook the fact that, for men or women to get into good science careers, they must do well at school and university. At the moment, there is a problem with boys and young men in sixth-form education, so will the Minister ensure that the encouragement given to girls in the past, which has resulted in success, will also be given equally to young men?

We all agree that there is an all-round problem with encouraging youngsters to get involved in science. However, we need to take positive action to ensure that we do not waste the talents of half of the population, because the figures show clearly that women are not going into advanced science and engineering careers. I should like to draw the House's attention to an article by Susan Greenfield, professor of pharmacology at Oxford university, in The Independent today. She is setting up a conference, particularly for young women, which is to take place on 9 March and is supported by our Department. She makes the point that we should encourage young women, but that we should not overlook the needs of young boys.

What plans she has to ensure that high-technology companies have the opportunity to realise their growth potential. [31139]

The Government are determined to create an environment in which high-technology companies can develop and grow. We are working to improve the climate for investment, to help firms to access and adapt new technologies, and to improve their management and marketing skills, and to encourage real partnership between the science and engineering base and industry.

Experience with Yorkshire Enterprise suggests to me that the smaller hi-tech companies often have difficulty in estimating accurately the costs of their development programmes and, as a result, frequently have to come back to their initial financier for further assistance. Is that a factor my hon. Friend takes into account when looking at the ways in which we can sustain hi-tech companies, which clearly have much to contribute to our economy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I seem to recall that he championed Yorkshire Enterprise, which used European funding to promote several programmes aimed at small and medium enterprises. I share my hon. Friend's view. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the setting up of the McCullagh group, he said that we would work to identify any barriers that might exist to high-tech firms' growth.

It is important that business links, business shops in Scotland and Business Connect in Wales have personal business advisers to ensure that companies develop good business plans. We also need to address these questions to finance houses, to ensure that investment houses back high-tech companies because, although those companies are high risk, they are the seedcorn of the future.

Does the Minister welcome the Green Paper that was published by the Secretary of State for Defence today, in which he describes the defence diversification agency effectively as a technology transfer agency, transferring technology from the Ministry of Defence to industry? I am sure that the whole House welcomes that. However, is that all that the Government will do on defence diversification? Is there no role for the Department of Trade and Industry? Have the Labour Government abandoned all the promises that Labour made to my constituents before the general election?

The Damascene conversions among the Conservatives never cease to amaze us. Before the general election, they opposed any introduction of defence diversification. I am delighted with that conversion. Yes, I do welcome the Green Paper published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and yes, we are consulted and we were involved in drawing it up.

In the Department of Trade and Industry, many other schemes are running which address the development and support of high-tech industries, not least the link awards, which we are making through the science programme, and the foresight programme, developing the blend between the science and engineering base and industry. The present Government are putting the practical partnerships together—something that was sadly lacking under the previous Administration.

What actions her Department proposes to take to help small businesses avoid cash-flow problems. [31141]

What estimate she has made of the damage caused to small businesses by the late payment of commercial debt. [31144]

The Government are determined to ensure that small businesses benefit from the increased competitiveness that a healthy cash flow can bring. That is why we are bringing forward a comprehensive set of proposals to tackle that problem. We also recognise that small firms can maintain a healthy cash flow, and minimise their exposure to late payment and bad debts, by having effective credit management procedures in place.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I pass on to her the appreciation that many businesses in my constituency have expressed of the variety of measures that she has been taking to support small businesses? Will she expand on the measures that are being taken on credit management and debt recovery, both of which are especially important for small businesses?

My hon. Friend will remember that earlier, I spoke about the better payment practice group, which does very good work. That group is about to produce a free guide to credit management and debt recovery, which will be made available through the "Enterprise Zone" and in other ways. It will interest the House to know that we are also supporting the development of an NVQ in credit management, and asking business links and others to assist small firms with their credit management skills.

Given the problems faced by small firms in Bradford as a result of late payment, will my hon. Friend consider commissioning research into best practice and ensure that the results of that research are given to small businesses in my area and other areas?

I can help my hon. Friend considerably. The Department is working with the credit management research group at the university of Bradford which, I believe, is in his constituency, to identify best practice, and to ensure that that information is disseminated to small firms, and to the better payment practice group. I know that the university's work is greatly appreciated, not only in my hon. Friend's constituency, but throughout the United Kingdom, and I know that its work will be very beneficial to the economy of the UK as a whole.

Does the Minister agree that it can be damaging to the cash flow of small businesses if money is diverted from the core tasks of those businesses into irrelevant areas? Therefore, will she pay attention to the European Commission's proposals to impose the introduction of work councils for small businesses with fewer than 50 employees? I understand that the Government oppose those proposals but, because we have signed the social chapter, we have given away our veto, so to speak, which would have enabled us to opt out of those arrangements. What do the Government propose to do about that? Does it not show the lunacy of signing up to the social chapter in the first place?

It is interesting to see the hon. Gentleman taking an interest in red tape and the European Union. He will be aware that the previous Government, of which he was a supporter, gold-plated European legislation coming from Brussels and also imposed burden upon burden on small business. It is no wonder that the Conservatives have lost the confidence of the small business community, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who speaks for them on these matters, admits only too readily and, if I may say so to her, very honestly.

Does the hon. Lady agree with the Hampel committee that small companies need less prescription and form-filling, and more efficiency and competitiveness? They do not require extra interference from Government, extra stakeholders' rights and extra bureaucracy.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is, therefore, a great pity that the previous Government, whom he supported, did none of those things. What did this Government do immediately after coming into office? We immediately made sure that half the members of the deregulation group, which is tasked with cutting red tape in government, represented small and medium-sized business. What a difference from the previous Administration, who talked much but delivered little.

There is a small engineering company in my constituency that has run into cash-flow problems in the past few months. The owner is preparing a report for me, which I am about to pass on to Ministers. It shows that the problems have been brought about by the systematic attempts by large engineering companies to argue about fees, delay payment of debt and force small engineering companies into difficulties. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will tackle the matter, so that I can tell my constituent that this Government will give him help?

My hon. Friend is right. That is why we are introducing the package of measures, including the Bill dealing with payment of statutory interest. I am delighted that so many large firms now take the issue seriously, because they know that it is important for their own competitiveness and that of small firms and the UK economy as a whole. They are taking steps to ensure prompt payment practices.

What assessment she has made of the implications of the draft multilateral agreement on investment for developing countries. [31142]

The Department for International Development has commissioned a study of the implications of the multilateral agreement on investment—MAI—for developing countries, which will be made available in good time for the OECD ministerial meeting at the end of April.

I thank the Minister for that reply, and I thank the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry for her helpful contribution to a recent Adjournment debate on that subject. Given the timetable and the widespread interest in the issue, can the Minister say whether the report from the Department for International Development will be available for debate in Parliament or in Committee, and available for consultation with non-governmental organisations, before the meeting of Ministers in April?

I can confirm that the report will be available before the meeting in April.

Has the Minister seen the statement from the OECD on the previous meeting which, in effect, announced that the MAI negotiations would have to continue for one more year, and which stressed in its opening paragraphs the importance of fair labour standards and environmental protection—issues put on the agenda by the Labour Government? Does he agree that that contrasts with the conspiratorial secrecy in which those negotiations were conducted under the previous Administration? Can he assure the House that Labour Ministers will continue to report to Members and the House on the conduct of the MAI negotiations?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Not a single Conservative Member bothered to turn up and participate in a recent debate in the House on such an important subject. It was left to Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. May I make it clear that unless we are satisfied that the MAI will not undermine environmental protection and labour standards, we shall not sign it.

Does the Minister share the stated view of the Secretary of State for International Development that the main reason for the Government's support for the insertion of a social clause in any international trading or investment agreement is simply to appease the British trade union movement?

The hon. Gentleman gets sillier every time he speaks in the Chamber. We are trying to provide an international agreement that will ensure for both developing and under-developed countries an improvement in environmental and labour standards. The only contribution that the hon. Gentleman can make to the debate affecting the lives of tens of millions is a stupid schoolboy remark, which is not even worth answering.

What steps her Department is taking to help British businesses prepare for economic and monetary union. [31143]

My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, who is a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the Treasury, has been appointed as the Minister responsible for these preparations. He has worked with the Treasury to produce a booklet for business, which will be widely distributed. My noble Friend is now working with the Treasury to emphasise the need for firms to prepare for the single currency in all their regular contacts. There is a Euro preparations unit, which is staffed by the Treasury, the DTI and the private sector, to reinforce that message. We are planning an awareness and information campaign.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in his book on the single currency, which is that Britain should not just stay out, but should attempt to derail the system? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an approach would be extremely bad for the interests of British businesses, that it would cause turbulence in export markets, that it would weaken links with European suppliers and that it would be a wholly irresponsible and kamikaze thing to do?

I entirely agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. However, those outcomes would be entirely consistent with the behaviour of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who seems to be doing everything that he can to scupper the Conservative party's chances.

I note that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), has recently said that the Conservative party seems to be suffering a collective nervous breakdown on the single currency, and that the party cannot happily hold together while those different views are expressed. I share his view. Like my hon. Friend, I condemn the irresponsibility of the right hon. Member for Wokingham. I am sorry that it seems to be so entirely characteristic.

Clause 5 was the subject of some interesting discussion last Thursday. Briefly, the clause will enable the Secretary of State to appoint the day of commencement of the Bill's provisions, by way of a statutory instrument. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) tabled several amendments that would delay the commencement of the Bill's provisions. He would like Parliament, through the affirmative resolution procedure, to decide whether the Act should be brought into force, even though Parliament would have already approved the measures. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) explained that there was no justification for the use of the affirmative resolution procedure in that case and no precedent for such a measure.

The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire would also like us to wait until the Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Jenkins commission on the voting system have reported, even though neither body is considering issues related to elections to the European Parliament.

It has also been proposed that parties must secure democratic approval at regional level of the party lists and the order in which the candidates' names appear. I know of no instance of a Government interfering in the internal affairs of political parties. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire may wish for that, given his party's difficulties, but I do not think that he seriously wants it. The Conservative party is clutching at straws and seeking to delay commencement by any means possible. Clause 5 simply allows the date of commencement to be determined in the usual way.

Clause 6 provides that, if enacted, the Bill will become the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1998.

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

With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Application of this Act to elections to be subject to implementation of section (Conduct of elections (training of election staff))—

'.The provisions of this Act shall apply only in the case of an election held more than twelve months after the requirements of section (Conduct of elections (training of election staff)) have been met.'.

The new clauses deal with training for the new election system. Their purpose is to uphold our valued tradition of well-conducted elections, which the Minister will join me in wanting to maintain. They simply require the Secretary of State to publish a training manual for persons concerned in the conduct of the elections and to establish and publish details of a standard of proficiency for them, and that the system is in place in good time for the European parliamentary elections.

In all fairness, the Government must accept that the new system will be unfamiliar both to electors and to those charged with the conduct of elections. As we have said before in Committee, the simplicity of the new system, which the Home Secretary valiantly paraded as one of its virtues, has not been entirely self-evident during our proceedings. If he found the task of making the requisite divisions and understanding the difference between d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague difficult, we do not think that it will any easier for those charged with the conduct of elections to carry out the necessary calculations and operations. We think that the Minister will welcome the opportunity to say a little more about how the Government plan to equip the people who will run the elections, to ensure that they run smoothly and efficiently.

We note from the explanatory and financial memorandum that the Government estimate the cost of training for those operating the system at £4 million. The Government owe us a little more detailed explanation of that cost. How does it compare with the cost of training staff for previous European elections under the present system? Is it a one-off cost or will it continue to be incurred in future European elections? I hope that the Minister will be eager to give details of the training that the Government plan to give those who will conduct the elections. I think that he agrees that it is important that the Committee should be reassured that they will be properly trained, and that that training will be carried out in good time for the elections. Therefore, can the Minister tell the Committee a little more about the details of the training? Can he tell us, for example, on what basis those who are to be trained will be selected? Who will train them? I should welcome a response from the hon. Gentleman on those two specific points.

I would also appreciate a response from the Minister on whether any qualifications or experience will be required on the part of those responsible for training. What is the Government's time scale for the training? Can we be assured that the training that the Government plan will be in time for the elections? That is an important feature of our new clause. We want the training to be done in good time.

I have to say to the Minister—I do not think that I am being unkind—that I have not been entirely impressed by the progress of the legislation so far, the way in which it has been introduced or the changes that have had to be made. We want to be reassured that the problems that have occurred with the calculations of proportionality will not recur when it comes to training those who will conduct the elections. We want the Government to reassure us that the training will be carried out in good time.

Can the Minister tell us a little more about the arrangements for counting the votes by those who have been trained? For example, will the votes for one of the new large regions be counted at a single regional venue, or will there be multiple counts? If there are to be multiple counts throughout the region, on what basis will the locations be chosen?

Will the Minister tell us a little about the training of those who will do the calculations after the votes have been counted? I have raised a number of issues with him. I emphasise that we want to know how those who will do the calculations will be trained. We know that people in other countries have to do such calculations, but the calculations are new to this country and it is possible that mistakes will be made. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman joins us in not wishing to see the integrity and standing of our electoral system undermined by any mistakes. We want to see that people are well trained in advance, in doing what may sometimes be fairly complex calculations.

In the same vein, we should like to know where the calculations will be done. If there are multiple counts, will the calculations be done at the regional venue? If not, where will they be done?

The new clauses have been tabled in a helpful spirit. We hope that the Government will want to tell us a little more about the operation of the new system. It is fair to say that it is not an entirely simple system. It will be very new. We want to be reassured that its conduct will be up to the standards that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have come to expect of the conduct of elections, which is a tradition of long standing in this country that we want to see maintained.

The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) explained the reasoning behind the new clauses, but I am not entirely convinced that he has introduced them in a deeply serious way, although he asked some questions that I shall try my best to answer. I am not convinced, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really is, that it is really necessary to include in the Bill the sort of detail that he suggests on training, but I shall cover the issues.

The Government's recognition of the need to train officers on the ground to use the new electoral system is clearly stated in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman conceded. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum gives an estimate of £4 million for that purpose, and clause 4 provides for that cost to be met from the Consolidated Fund. That £4 million is a one-off cost; but because a subsequent Parliament may make changes to the legislation, it is not possible to say that there will never be a repetition. One cannot look into the future, but if changes were made in future, additional resources would be necessary to carry out extra training for the new system.

Officials in the Home Office are already holding discussions with the relevant bodies, in particular the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Association of Electoral Administrators. The hon. Gentleman asked whether a certificate or diploma qualification would be available and, although I am not aware of any plans to introduce a specific qualification for these European elections, I spoke at the Association of Electoral Administrators conference in Plymouth last week and awarded the first diplomas in competence in electoral administration, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a proper certificate and that the curriculum includes European elections, in addition to all other forms of election. Therefore, there will be a certificate available and, although it will not be necessary in every case to hold that certificate, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman questions the competence of the electoral administrators we already use.

I take it that the Minister has moved on from the question of cost, but before leaving it entirely, can he make it absolutely clear how the £4 million compares with the cost of training those conducting elections in the past? Is the £4 million a new cost?

I am not in a position to provide that information. If, after discussions with the electoral administrators and others, that sum proves inadequate or compares unfavourably with previous costs, we shall take that into account. If, after checking the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, I find that there is some difference, I shall let him know in writing.

The local authority chief executives and the electoral administrators are confident that they will be able to operate the new system without any undue problems. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the men and women who are involved in the conduct of elections: they perform a valuable service and do so capably and professionally. In changing the voting system for future elections to the European Parliament, the Government appreciate that the job carried out by those officers will change. We shall assist local authorities as much as we can in preparing for that change, but we shall not take the unprecedented step of dictating the sort of training required and burdening them with draconian performance standards; nor do we wish the introduction of the new system to be postponed by an arbitrary period of delay.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the location of counts and of the calculation of the aggregates on a regional basis. My recollection is that counts will be conducted at parliamentary constituency level and that the aggregation of those results into a regional result will be carried out at a regional centre, according to a formula—either the one on the face of the Bill, or some other formula that has been agreed subsequently.

The Opposition are intent on preventing the new system from coming into force by any means they can devise. They have already shown that in their previous amendments, and they are doing so again in these new clauses. Although the new clauses raise subjects that are worthy of debate, they are not worthy of incorporation in the Bill. Unlike the Opposition, we recognise and acknowledge that the traditions of the electoral officers mean that they will be able to cope with the new system with their normal admirable ability. They will be properly trained, and I am confident that they will maintain their current high level of professionalism throughout 1999 and beyond. If the hon. Member for Hertsmere has the same regard for me as I am sure he does for those proficient officials, I am sure that he will feel inclined to withdraw the motion.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) say that his new clauses were helpful, not obstructive. New clause 3, in proposing an arbitrary 12-month delay, seemed to us an ingenious method of trying to derail the 1999 timetable, but we stand corrected on that. I was also pleased that the Conservatives were able to congratulate our election staff on the work that they do, and I was pleased to hear those congratulations echoed by the Minister.

It seems to be a feature of the debate about more proportional systems that opponents of proportionality tend to overstate the complexity of such systems. In fact, similar systems are used throughout the world, in many different arenas. Moreover, anyone who has watched election staff trying to do a multiple local government by-election count, perhaps at the same time as a general election count, knows that we already have a fair degree of complexity in our system, and that our staff are perfectly able to cope with it.

Liberal Democrats do not believe that it is necessary to have a doctorate in electoral systems, or to have completed a—

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) did not say that the systems were complex—he said merely that he did not understand them?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. One of the key features of debate on the Bill is that all of us have increased our understanding of more proportional systems. I hope that, as they come to understand such systems, Conservative Members will recognise their value and change their position, as they are changing their position on many constitutional issues.

In our view, it is unnecessary for the people responsible for the conduct of elections to have written a dissertation on the inherent differences between d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague, or to have passed a training course, and such provisions need not be in the Bill. We see no need to support the new clauses. We hope that Conservative Members, having heard the Minister's reassurances on the training of our staff and having praised their quality, will accept that that quality will be perfectly sufficient to cope with the system that the Bill will introduce.

I shall speak in support of new clause 2. Scrutineers from political parties play an important part in the electoral process, but the role of agents has not yet been mentioned. Under our current system, agents have a legal position vis-à-vis the candidates and, if they get things wrong in terms of expenditure, they can go to prison.

We are to have a new electoral system as a result of the Bill. Some time, registration of parties may well have to be introduced. Inevitably, the time will come when we must decide whether to have an agent system as before, and whether imprisonment is to be a penalty. Given the size of the electoral areas and the fact that a Conservative party agent or a Labour party agent for, let us say, the South East, may face legal penalties if things are not done correctly, publication of any training manuals on the conduct of elections would be useful, not only for the local government officers and others who deal with the election, but for the political party agents, who may have to scrutinise and/or risk objections or legal action. Such eventualities are quite likely, especially under a new system, and especially as candidates might not wholly understand the implications of what is going on at the count.

Therefore, it is sensible, if the system is to work and deliver a result, that we publish manuals to enable the political party agents to understand the ground rules, so that when the count takes place, and when expenses must be accounted for, everyone knows the ground rules.

The Minister may say that this is not the most appropriate moment to discuss that matter, but I believe that the Government must address the issues concerning agents, expenditure and possible imprisonment. Is it practical to expect an agent for the region of the South East, responsible for millions of voters and perhaps thousands of party workers, to be confronted with imprisonment, and is it practical to expect an individual to control an election campaign in the traditional sense? Those issues must be considered, and I should be grateful for the Minister's comments.

I am delighted to be given the chance to say a few words.

The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was somewhat pessimistic—but, I suppose, realistic—in his appraisal of the Tories' misfortune on 1 May. Perhaps the Conservatives are looking for a delaying tactic, to give them more chance of putting together a substantial case when the elections come. His speech was also a pessimistic appraisal of the education system, which the Conservative party lorded over for 18 years, because it implied that, in the 15 months before the elections take place, we cannot educate the electoral officers responsible for running and managing those elections, to equip them to do their job successfully.

4.45 pm

I have fought 25 elections in the past 30 years at three different levels, so I have some experience of elections going wrong. As someone who has been on the wrong end of two very narrow counts to get elected, or re-elected, to the House, I know too well of the arguments that occur because of the inadequacies of the system.

However, my worries relate not so much to the system that the Government will resource, or to training—although it is important—as to local government's failure to honour its commitment to the democratic process. For too long, local government has tried to get away with conducting the democratic process—that is, elections and the preparation of electoral registers—on the cheap.

We are about to embark on a new system, which the public will have to understand. I am sure that they will embrace it with enthusiasm, and will come to regard it as the system on which they would want all elections to be based. At such a time, it is important that local government—which has a responsibility to furnish up-to-date registers of electors, to inform the public and to run elections properly—is given the resources to enable it to fulfil that responsibility, so that it cannot make the excuse that mistakes were the Government's responsibility.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the training for which he would be responsible. Part of that responsibility must be pushed down to local government level, but it must be accompanied by sufficient resources. I should like an assurance—

Does the hon. Gentleman consider that he is being rather broad-brush in his criticism? My local authority, Stroud district council, puts a great deal of resources and time into training and informing representatives and agents on how the election process will work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there is good practice in local government, and that it needs to be promoted.

I entirely agree, and I sympathise with other hon. Members who have had bad experiences in elections. I know from first-hand experience over 30 years of the frustration of the person whose name is not on the electoral register—the person who takes time and trouble to inform the local authority that they live at a specific address, only to find that nothing is done about putting their name on the register. Too many such examples exist, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention in pointing out the good practice.

However, I seek a real assurance from the Minister that the training will not be confined to one level—that it will go right down the system, so that everyone involved in the elections has a fundamental grasp of what is expected of them. If that is done, we shall have, in 15 months' time, a successful new episode in the practice of democracy in our country, of which we can all be proud.

I shall try to cover as many as possible of the issues that have been mentioned.

In answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), we are consulting those responsible, both at chief executive level and electoral administrator level, and I believe that any difficulties that they have will be resolved. I am confident that, given their professionalism and the consultation exercise that is taking place, we can resolve some of the difficulties.

I was just trying to calculate how many elections I have stood in. I must have stood in fewer elections than the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, but I have probably stood in about 12 or 14, at two levels—local authority and parliamentary. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have been fortunate, in that I have never failed to be elected. However, I concede that, in the seats for which I stood, there was little chance of any other result.

I should correct a false impression that I may have given the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). I said, wrongly, that the counts would be carried out at constituency level. In fact, the intention is that they will be carried out at local authority level. I apologise for that and set the record straight.

On the role and responsibilities of agents, which was raised by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), there will be a single agent per list. That is the only way of resolving the problem. Although, as the hon. Gentleman says, it will be a more complicated role than that of an agent on a single constituency level, it will be better to have one agent per region for the list than to fragment the region into a number of constituencies.

I am glad to hear what the Minister says. It would be more sensible to have one agent for the entire region, but there are a number of wrangles and difficulties. What happens when a minor party—an odd and a sod—wants a recount of a whole region? Such questions must be sorted out in more detail. Under current law, there is considerable precedent—thick files of "Parker's Election Laws" and so on—to which one can turn. We are in a new ball game with the proposed system. The Government and others must get together to get the ground rules right.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are established procedures for requesting a recount, for example. It will be the responsibility, technically, of the agent to demonstrate to the returning officer or his or her representative that the required threshold exists to justify such a request. That could be done by the agent for the list in a region or by the agent for an individual named candidate on the ballot paper. Such details will be discussed in the training that we propose. I am confident that the i's can be dotted and the t's crossed in those details.

To answer the hon. Gentleman's further question, it will still be the agent's responsibility to ensure that he controls his party's electoral expenditure within the legal and agreed limits. All of that will be covered in regulations under schedule 2, which amends schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978.

Whether intentionally or not, this has been a useful debate. We have covered various nuts-and-bolts issues, so perhaps the system will be better understood. I hope that as a result of those reassurances, the hon. Member for Hertsmere will consider it prudent to withdraw the motion.

I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which he responded to the debate, which was introduced as a serious matter and which, as he says, has proved useful. I was slightly surprised by the partisan comments from some quarters, in view of the reasonably non-partisan way in which I introduced the new clause.

The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) referred in an intervention to the degree of understanding of the system on the part of various hon. Members. I did not say that I do not understand it—I never professed to do so. I said that the Home Secretary had got it wrong and made a mistake.

If the hon. Gentleman was present earlier in the Committee's proceedings, he will have heard the Home Secretary commendably and frankly acknowledge that he had been mistaken in what he told the House on Second Reading about the basis of the system. I do not think that the Under-Secretary will be particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter because, as I recollect, it was the Under-Secretary who had to put the record straight in a written answer after the Home Secretary got it wrong. I do not think that he will thank the hon. Gentleman for that reminder.

I have one other piece of advice for the Minister. He should not listen too closely to Liberal Democrat Members. They seem to be in an awful rush to enact the Bill. We think that in this case undue haste would be the midwife of chaos, which is the last thing that we want. We want a system that upholds our valued traditions of efficiently conducted elections, which hon. Members in all parts of the House will value. That is the spirit in which we tabled the two new clauses.

I put numerous questions to the Minister. They were serious questions, as he recognises. I should be grateful if he would reply to me in writing on the matters that he did not cover in his response to the debate. In that spirit, and in order not to delay the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 6, line 6, leave out '6' and insert '7'.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in page 6, line 10, column 2, at end insert—

• 'County of North East
• Lincolnshire
• County of North
• Lincolnshire'.