If she will make a statement on the impact of the women's website in increasing access to Government information for women. [42926]

The Ministers for Women's website is another demonstration of our genuine commitment to improving the dialogue between Government and the women of this country. It has attracted responses from women across the UK and beyond on a wide variety of policy, including child care, education, rape, women's and men's health, Northern Ireland and the website itself. It is another way of connecting women to Government, improving the flow of information and complementing the more traditional forms of communication.

I am reassured by your response this afternoon, Minister. Like you, I see the website as a clear complement to a woman's life. Whether she is a traditional woman who has to, or feels she has to, stay at home, or a fast-tracking woman, this is an excellent source of information. In developing the website, will you consider Stockton borough council's website and its availability? It is free at the point of use to most women, to all people who are unemployed, to all who are unwaged and to all children. I see the website as an incredibly good service to offer. When you are considering the development of the website—

HON. MEMBERS: "Order."

Order. Hon. Members are getting somewhat distracted. The hon. Lady should speak through the Chair of the House and not directly to the Minister. Hon. Members are right to be disturbed about the matter.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am sorry.

I hope that, when the Minister is developing the service, she will see the important link between all local women's organisations and the Ministers for Women's website.

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I congratulate her local authority on what it is doing. Since creating the website, we have decided—as my hon. Friend suggested—to explore the feasibility of establishing a women's electronic interactive network. The feasibility study is looking at how women's organizations—local and national—might have greater access to hardware and training. When we get the results of the feasibility study, we will decide whether to commission a pilot project, whereby we could link selected women's organisations to one another locally and to us here in government.

What steps she has taken to improve the framework for occupational pensions. [42929]

We fully recognise the importance of occupational pensions in providing income for retirement. The pensions review is looking at ways to strengthen and support these schemes. We want people to understand their benefits, and we are developing proposals for a quality in pensions award to find ways of acknowledging the best in occupational pension schemes and of encouraging others to meet the standards of the best.

We will also be consulting widely on proposals to make pension schemes easier to operate, without reducing security for their members, by simplifying a number of requirements.

Given that, why was the chairman of the Association of Consulting Actuaries so bitterly critical of the Government recently?

The welfare reform Green Paper has made it clear that occupational pension schemes are one of the welfare success stories of the century. It is widely recognised that the way in which we pay pensions in the future will depend on the economic wealth that our economy generates. The package of measures in the Budget last year and this year are designed to create the economic conditions that will provide us with the wealth to pay all our pensions in the future.

If she will make a statement on the actions the Ministers for Women are taking to ensure that new employment opportunities are designed to fit in with family responsibilities. [42930]

If she will make a statement on the Government's plans for family-friendly working arrangements. [42938]

Family-friendly employment is a Government priority. We are encouraging good practice and underpinning it with a legal framework of rights to enable parents, both mothers and fathers, to balance their home and work responsibilities.

Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that there will not be full-time full employment in the 21st century and that the fact that partners in families choose to work three or four days a week is good for families and for job opportunities? Will she ensure that future legislation—on sickness, holidays and pensions—offers incentives to partners in families who choose to take up part-time employment?

We want to ensure that people have as much choice as possible in how they balance their responsibilities to care for their children at home with their need to provide for their children by going out to paid work. Part-time work is an important option, which is particularly taken up by women when their children are young. It is important not only that part-time work is available but that women are not discriminated against in terms of pay and conditions when they take up the option of part-time work.

Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware that my constituency of Reading is one of the few places in the country where there is nearly full employment? Does she agree that employers should be aware that the long hours worked by both men and women are causing considerable difficulty to family life and that they should take steps to make their employment practices more family friendly?

That is absolutely right; it is one reason why we are implementing the working time directive, which puts a ceiling on the hours that people can work. When parents are at work, they need to be sure that their children are well cared for, which is why we have a national child care strategy: we want to ensure affordable, accessible and quality child care. Parents need not only good child care, but time with their children—around the time of birth, if a child is suddenly taken ill or if there is a family crisis involving an elderly relative. When half the work force are women, and most of those women are somebody's mother or somebody's daughter, the world of work needs to recognise that people have family, as well as work, responsibilities. We must have a competitive economy that recognises the importance of strong families.

The Secretary of State will be aware that, despite all the Government press releases and glossy brochures, the first Government action to help mothers to take up employment opportunities—many of which are part time—by helping families with the provision of child care was the tax break for places in workplace nurseries, which was introduced by the Conservative Government. Is the Secretary of State also aware that the Inland Revenue is now revisiting many of those workplace nursery schemes, removing the tax benefits and causing financial disadvantage to many working women? Does that not give people a mixed message about the Government's real intentions in helping with the provision of child care for women in the workplace? What representations has she made for working women to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that issue?

I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box, and I particularly welcome the point that she has raised. She has highlighted not only child care, which is important, but the tax treatment of workplace nurseries. She is absolutely right: a problem has emerged, which we are discussing with the private sector, particularly with those people who have done most to develop nurseries. We are also, of course, discussing it with the Inland Revenue and the Treasury—I shall keep the hon. Lady informed. She has come to the Dispatch Box and raised an important point.

What steps the Government have taken to ensure that women's interests are taken account of in each Government Department. [42931]

What plans she has to ensure that Government Departments take proper account of women's interests. [42944]

Men and women lead substantially different lives and the Government need to be aware of the different impact that our policies have on women. On 18 May, I launched our mainstreaming initiative to put women's interests at the heart of Government via a simple three-stage process to identify the impact of policy, consult on the impact and act on what we find to ensure that policies are delivered equally for women and for men.

Mainstreaming is the best way forward to ensure complete equality throughout Government policy, but I must raise one issue—monitoring. How will the House know that those issues are properly monitored throughout the lifetime of this Parliament to ensure that, at every turn, that policy is brought to the Government's attention and is part and parcel of everything that they do?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. One way in which we are already ensuring that that happens is by having Ministers for Women such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is demonstrating the way forward in our proposals for pension sharing on divorce—a clear response to the needs of women. All Departments and their policy makers will in future have access to training on those issues. The women's unit will produce quarterly bulletins to share good practice and to publicise successes. We will work with colleagues from all Government Departments to establish a monitoring regime, which will feed into an annual report, so that my hon. Friend's concerns can be properly addressed.

Did my hon. Friend notice the bravehearts in the Scottish National party this weekend scoring an own goal by rejecting any positive measures to ensure equal representation of men and women in the Scottish Parliament, leaving Labour the only party in Scotland holding the trophy for the fight for equal rights for men and women? This morning, I saw many of the tartan army set off for France, and noticed that the Lord Chancellor was not among their number. I suggest that he might like to join in, even at this eleventh hour, because, while he is in France, he could take the opportunity to discuss the equal treatment directive, which has proved no obstacle to French politicians, but seems to be an insuperable obstacle, for some reason, to many of our Law Officers.

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Equal Opportunities Commission recently conducted a consultation exercise in the United Kingdom on our equality laws, which included their relevance to political parties. When the EOC reports to the Government, my hon. Friend can be assured that the Ministers for Women will engage in discussions with all our right hon. and hon. Friends on that matter. I very much note, as she does, that ours remains the only party committed to achieving equal numbers of women and men candidates for the Scottish Parliament, unlike the Scottish National party and other Opposition parties.

What action the Government have taken to help lone parents on income support get into work. [42934]

We have established the new deal for lone parents to help them get off income support and into work so that they and their children can have a better standard of living than they could have on benefits. The early results of the new deal have been encouraging. More parents are going into work and lone parents and their children are better off by, on average, £39 a week and the taxpayer is better off by, on average, £42 a week.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite all the blather, under the new deal lone parents are significantly better off than they ever were under the Tories? At the same time, will she join me to condemn the intolerant and extremist language used at the weekend about lone parents by the shadow Secretary of State for Health?

Our concern is to help lone parents do what they want to do, which is to provide a better standard of living for themselves and their children. Ours is not to judge how it came to be a lone parent family. Such families arise through many different circumstances and many parents never set out to be lone parents. What is encouraging is that, in the past three months, 30,000 fewer lone mothers have been on income support than previously. That shows that they are moving into work, combining their work and family responsibilities. They are then better off; we have discovered that, on average, they are better off by £39 a week, which is more than they could ever have been paid on benefits.

I welcome any efforts that the Government may make to encourage opportunities for lone parents to get back into work where they wish to do so. However, is there not a problem for lone parents who have children under five and who may wish to choose not to go into work? Given the benefit cuts for lone parents—partly offset, admittedly, by child benefit increases—what further effort does the Secretary of State intend to make to allow such lone parents a real choice of whether to go back to work?

The problem in the past was not that lone parents did not have the choice to stay at home—more than 1 million of them stayed at home on income support, bringing up 2 million children—but that too few lone parents were able to go out to work. The Government's policies of giving advice and support to help them into work, ensuring help with the costs of child care and ensuring that quality child care is available, provide the choice that was previously not available. The new deal for lone parents is directed at those with children over five. If the hon. Member examines the figures, he will find that more than half the number of married mothers with children under five go out to work. No one is forcing them to do so. They have the choice, and they are taking the opportunities. We are making sure that lone parents can do the same, be better off and save the taxpayer money.

As the Secretary of State has invited the House to consider the figures, will she, too, consider them carefully? Will she express concern that 75 per cent. of lone mothers who receive a letter calling them for an interview totally disregard the invitation? Does she recognise that, of the 6 per cent. of lone mothers who are getting jobs, 15 per cent. fall back into unemployment and on to state benefits in the first three months? To help to offset those statistics, will she consider bringing in a compulsory element for lone mothers to attend the first interview, although I do not suggest a compulsory element, a la Wisconsin, for the whole scheme? Will she accept that that would help to prevent her baby—her brainchild since 1 May 1997—from becoming an expensive, failed soundbite?

The problem that we have had with the new deal for lone parents—although the early results have been encouraging—is that we have had to phase the roll-out, and do it slowly and at a measured pace to keep up with demand from lone parents for the advice, information and support that we are offering. The hon. Gentleman has it wrong: the problem is not that we have personal advisers aplenty, specially trained but drumming their fingers as they wait for lone parents to come in, but that a great number of lone parents who have never before been offered a service want to take it up.

Seventy-five per cent. are ignoring it.

We are well on target toward meeting our expectations and costings. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that his Government never recognised that lone mothers wanted to work. If lone mothers did struggle into work, it was despite, rather than because of, that Government. The new deal is welcomed by lone parents and employers, and it is making a difference. Our interim findings show that more lone parents than would otherwise have got into work are going into work as a result of the new deal.

Pursuant to the Green Paper on welfare reform, what calculations her Department made to assess adequate levels of income for those in retirement. [42935]

Although the debate about adequacy is important, the Government's priority is getting additional funds to pensioners. The Government have today published proposals on pension sharing on divorce, which will ensure that many more women will have more adequate pensions when they come to retire than they would otherwise have had.

May I turn the Minister's attention to stakeholder pensions? What guarantee can he give to investors in such pensions that they will be able to buy an adequate annuity, given the nature of such instruments, the prices and values of which can fluctuate?

The aim of stakeholder pensions is to improve—substantially, we hope—on what is currently offered in private personal pensions.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the least satisfactory way of getting extra income to pensioners is through more means-tested benefits? Pensioners, more than any other section of the community, have great difficulty with claiming such benefits, as they think that it is demeaning. If we rely on such benefits to get money to the poorest pensioners, many of them will lose out and suffer as a consequence.

I totally agree, and that is why the Government have emphasised the importance of reducing value added tax on fuel and have introduced the winter fuel bonus. If I may, I will pose the question back to my hon. Friend: what should the Government do when a million pensioners—the poorest, oldest and frailest—fail to claim income support? Should we not be concerned to ensure that they claim what they are entitled to? We believe that we should be, and we are.

Given the Minister's comments a few seconds ago, and the report last week that said that the Government would not reach the targets necessary to provide income for the poorest people, will he tell us whether the Government can absolutely rule out doing what his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) suggested might be done, and rolling together and means-testing all income for retired pensioners? Will he rule that out until after the next general election?

The hon. Gentleman misleads the House. The report says—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not misleading the House. Would the Minister choose another form of words, as I am sure that he does not mean that?

He misled me, Madam Speaker, and to ensure that my mind is sorted out, perhaps I could explain the matter to the House.

Last week's report suggested that, if we continued the policies of the previous Administration, we would not reach our targets, and that is why we are undertaking a review and will publish a Green Paper, and why we will make a fundamental change.

I am asking the Minister a simple question, which he has not answered: will he now take the opportunity absolutely to rule out means-testing the basic state pension by rolling it up with all income for pensioners, so that pensioners can rest at ease?

I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman has twisted and turned in recent weeks, to enable him to drop the previous Government's commitment on the basic state pension, but the Government's position is clear: we gave a manifesto commitment that we would not means-test the basic state pension during our stewardship.

What discussions she has had with local authorities about the delivery of benefits in Scotland. [42936]

As part of our active modern service programme, officials have met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss a number of ways in which closer working between the Benefits Agency and Scottish local authorities can improve services to customers and help to tackle fraud.

Local officers of the Department have worked extremely well and satisfactorily in recent years with the local authorities, but, with the unbundling of the United Kingdom and the dewiring of the whole tax system—as the Minister will have found on his recent welcome visit to Edinburgh—are not certain problems posed by devolution that should be discussed early by the directors of social work?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Clearly, the discussions will continue, but, on my recent visit to Edinburgh, where I spoke at a conference with staff from the Benefits Agency and took the opportunity to meet representatives of other agencies, it was clear that the good working relationships would continue. Under active modern service, we will develop new initiatives to ensure a better service for all customers in Scotland.

Bearing in mind the success of some local authorities in boosting the take-up of benefits, does the Minister envisage any role for the Scottish Parliament in drawing together the work of those local authorities and in the discussions with the Department, so that those in Scotland who are entitled to benefits receive sufficient information and advice to ensure that they get them?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that that item is on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament when it is established.

What assessment she has made of the extent of pensioner poverty. [42937]

If she will make a statement on Government action in respect of assistance for the poorest pensioners. [42940]

For today's pensioners, the policies of the previous Administration created growing inequality and widespread insecurity. One in four pensioners are forced to depend on income support, or fail to receive it. We have commissioned research to find out why those people do not make a claim and we are running pilots in nine areas to find the best ways of getting more automatic help to them. The introduction of pension sharing on divorce, on which we have published draft clauses today, will also help to ensure that women are able to enjoy their fair share of pension income in retirement.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that that answer implies that people simply cannot live on the basic state pension alone? Indeed, last week's Ross report told us that 2.5 million pensioner households are on less than a third of average earnings. Is he aware that, in my constituency, 30 per cent. of the population are of pensionable age and that, having seen the new deal for the young, the long-term unemployed, lone parents, disabled people and schools, many of those pensioners are looking to the pensions review to provide a new deal for today's pensioners?

My hon. Friend is right: most people who enjoy security in retirement have two sources of pension income—the basic state pension and a second pension. That is why we want to extend the range of those people who can enjoy access to a good, value-for-money, second pension. The position of pensioners, on which we have already taken action through the cut on value added tax on fuel, the increase in the basic state pension and the introduction of winter fuel payments, is, of course, a key part of the pensions review, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it.

I do not know whether the Minister realises this, but, in the county of North Yorkshire, some 14,000 people over 60 are failing to get the extra support that income support offers them. I find many times at my surgery that people from more rural and sparsely populated parts of my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby are failing to realise that those benefits are available to them.

On the pilot studies that the Minister mentioned earlier, I wonder whether some consideration might be given to those rural constituents, to find out whether they can have extra help in understanding what their entitlement is.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the pilot project areas cover a range of urban, suburban and rural areas and that we are working with local authorities to find the best ways of getting more automatic help to those pensioners. We are particularly keen to use the information that is already available to the Benefits Agency or local authorities, and the information that exists on retirement pensions, to identify those older people who are most likely to be entitled to income support and to find the best ways of approaching them to encourage them to make a claim for that income support.

Does the Minister recall seeing the headline in The Independent on Friday, saying that millions face poverty because of pensions inadequacy? Does he accept that part of that problem was caused by the Chancellor's raid on pension funds? What will the Minister do to alert pensioners to the need to add much more to their pension provision to receive the same return that they would have had before the Chancellor's raid? Will he also bear in mind the predicament of the Secretary of State for Social Security, who is being widely leaked against as likely to be pensioned off by the end of the summer?

I believe that I am right in saying that Friday's newspaper headlines were reporting the conclusions of the pensions review group, which showed clearly what a pensions problem we face because of the policies of the previous Government. That includes the many people who were mis-sold personal pensions because the previous Government got it so badly wrong. The group also confirms that we are right to attach the importance that we do to introducing a new framework for second-tier pensions and stakeholder pensions, and the measures that we have announced today on pension sharing on divorce, as ways of tackling under-provision.

When the statistics for the first year of the new Labour Government become available, does the Minister believe that they will show that pensioner poverty has risen or fallen?

People will look at the record of our first year and will recognise that the basic state pension was put up by more than the previous Government had provided for; that for the first time a Government made winter fuel payments—10 million of them to 7 million households; and that for the first time a Government have set about practical action to tackle the problems of pensioners who do not claim income support, to find the best way of getting more automatic help to them. That is a record of which we can be proud.

Does the Minister agree that some of the poorest pensioners are those who, during their working lives, gave up their careers to care for members of their families—perhaps a spouse with dementia or an elderly relative? As this is the start of Carers Week, can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will have regard to the pension rights of Britain's carers, so that some of our most responsible citizens no longer have to pay a penalty in poverty?

I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend's work in introducing the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 during the previous Parliament; it represented a major step forward in recognising the rights of carers. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this issue. We, in turn, are right to explore ways of establishing a citizenship pension for carers, to enable those of them who are unable to contribute to a second pension to avoid being on means-tested benefits in retirement.

We are also right to introduce pension sharing on divorce. That will ensure that women—it is generally women—who do not build up their own pension rights because of family responsibilities can share fairly in the pension rights that the household builds up while they support a family at home.

I am afraid that the Minister has already given the House a rather disingenuous response. It is not true that the Government have put up the state retirement pension by more than the Conservative Government would have done. The Conservative Government would have put it up according to increases in prices, and the Labour Government have done exactly the same—despite pretending, when in opposition, that they would restore the earnings link.

Is it not correct that the proposed stakeholder pension will do absolutely nothing for the poorer pensioners who, according to the Government's own pension provision group report last Thursday, will continue to depend on state means-tested benefits?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench, although he has already had a few dry runs in previous debates.

The Government have honoured their manifesto commitment to raise the basic state pension at least in line with prices. It is a matter of fact that we had to find substantially more resources to meet that commitment than the previous Administration had budgeted for.

We believe that stakeholder pensions will provide an opportunity for millions of people on modest incomes and for those with intermittent working patterns to obtain value for money via a flexible second pension. They cannot do that at the moment, either because they do not have an occupational pension, or because personal pensions can be inflexible and subject to high charges. Of course we recognise, as the Secretary of State did last Thursday, that there are those who will continue to need the support and help of the state if they are to avoid poverty in retirement—we have always recognised that.

I congratulate my colleague on the work he is doing to bring about pension fairness for people on low incomes. We should take no lessons from the Conservatives; it was the Tories who cut the link between wages and pensions, thereby costing a single person about £22 a week.

Will the Minister seriously consider resuming the link between wages and pensions? The gap between them needs to be examined to put right the damage done to many pensioners by the Tory Government.

Of course, the future uprating of the basic state pension is one of the critical issues for the pensions review. I hope that everybody in the House and outside will carefully read and study the report by the pension provision group chaired by Tom Ross, which was published last Thursday. It is the first time a Government have set out clearly an independent analysis of the pensions challenge that we face.

The decisions that need to be taken in the pensions review, which will be published later this year, on issues such as the uprating of the basic state pension, will have to take into account the conclusions of the Ross report.

When she expects to publish the pensions review. [42939]

As set out in the Green Paper, "New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract for Welfare", we will publish a Green Paper on pensions later this year. There will then be a period of further consultation before final, detailed proposals are developed.

That would be counted by every pensioner as a disappointing response, especially bearing in mind the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), in which he referred to the growing inequality and widespread insecurity among pensioners in this country. Does he agree that today's pensioners are more interested in today's pensions than in yesterday's Government or tomorrow's pensioners? Does he also agree that the manifesto pledge to assist pensioners has been somewhat forgotten?

I do not agree that the Government have forgotten today's pensioners. No previous Government have introduced winter fuel payments—spending £200 million last winter and another £200 million next winter is an act of support for today's pensioners that would not have been made by the Conservative party, had it won the last election. Nor would the Conservatives have cut VAT on fuel to 5 per cent.—indeed, as we know, they wanted, more or less, to double the rate of VAT on fuel. In our first year, we have achieved a great deal for pensioners, we have invested more in the national health service and in public transport and we are tackling the problems of crime and disorder through the Crime and Disorder Bill.

The pensions review is of great importance for today's pensioners and for tomorrow's, but it is essential that we get it right, because we have seen the mistakes made under the previous Administration, who made pensions changes that led to millions of people leaving occupational pension schemes and millions of people suffering from pensions mis-selling. We are determined to make sure that the decisions we take, for today and for the future, are right.

In the review, will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that between 1990 and 1994, the value of annuities fell in real terms by 34 per cent., which means that those with a personal pension lost one third of it? That is in addition to the problems caused by the mis-selling of pensions and by between one quarter and one half of contributions being taken in charges. It has been proved that those who mis-sold pensions provided pensions of poor value that were a gamble, with the lottery of money purchase at the other end. Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that when the new stakeholder pensions, which are very necessary, are introduced, they will not be run by the same people who robbed millions of people in the personal pensions scandal?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the action being taken by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to clear up the problems of pensions mis-selling that we inherited from the previous Administration. He raises the question of annuities and I can confirm that ways of translating pension savings into retirement income are an important issue for the pensions review and one that we are examining. In developing stakeholder pension schemes, we have said that we wish those to be collective schemes which reach high minimum benchmark standards and that, through trusteeship or a similar mechanism, we shall ensure that they are run in the interests of their members.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to rule out, once and for all, compulsory saving as a basis for the new pensions era? Does he accept that, were a pension scheme—perhaps a properly run one—to go bust for one reason or another, the state would be, in honour, obliged to step in if people had been forced to save into the scheme? Because it would be most likely to occur at the worst possible moment in the economic cycle, that would represent a huge increased risk to the public purse, as well as an unfair extra hidden tax on many people on modest incomes.

There are already compulsory contributions to the basic state pension for all those earning above a minimum income and to a second pension for other employees, so employees are in either the state earnings-related pension scheme or a funded, invested second pension. We made it clear in the welfare reform Green Paper that there had been many representations calling for an extension of compulsion, either to raise the level of pension benefits or to extend their coverage. We said in that Green Paper that we shall seriously consider those proposals. In a number of speeches and seminars I have called for a better-focused debate on whether there should be an extension of compulsion and we shall report our conclusions on that in the Green Paper later this year.

If she will make a statement on the guidance issued by her Department to local authorities in respect of violence against women. [42942]

The Ministers for Women are working across all Government Departments to ensure that best practice is followed in tackling all forms of violence against women. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security recently issued guidance to local authorities, reminding them of the help available from the housing benefit scheme to victims of domestic violence. However, we are aware that women are not always offered the full range of support services that they need, so we are developing a national strategy to prevent violence, to protect women and to deliver justice for women.

I am well aware of some of those initiatives. Indeed, £94,000 of lottery funds will be given to Nottinghamshire domestic violence forum and more than £280,000 will be used to set up a network of child contact centres to allow parents access that they would not otherwise have to their children. Will the Minister tell me how those local initiatives will be developed into a national Government strategy to deal with violence against women?

I congratulate the people in my hon. Friend's area who are running such vital services, which we would like other areas to provide. In trying to find out where the best practice exists, the Ministers for Women have recently written to all local authorities and chief constables asking them to tell us precisely what they are doing, and 102 local authorities have already responded, as have 41 of the 43 chief constables. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that in his area the police and the local council have responded. The police there tell me that they have a strong policy of intervention in domestic violence cases with the expectation of arresting perpetrators, which is precisely what should be done. We shall make the survey results available to hon. Members. I hope that in the meantime, all hon. Members will take the trouble to find out what local provision there is to tackle this most pernicious of crimes.

How many claimants in receipt of disability living allowance have been subject to the benefit integrity project, to date. [42943]

As at 31 March 1998, a total of 72,470 cases, including 14,815 renewal cases, had been examined under the benefit integrity project. A more detailed monthly statistical report can be found in the House of Commons Library.

A few months ago, figures supplied to me by a Government official showed that for every claimant who had benefits increased as a result of the benefit integrity project, 10 had their benefits reduced or stopped. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether the situation has improved since then, by which I mean that fewer claimants are having their benefits cut or stopped? If it has not improved, will he tell the House whether the Government share the view of the Social Security Committee, which in its recent report called for the project to be put on six months' probation, with a view to closing it down if it does not stop putting people with disabilities at an even greater disadvantage?

First, no one who is entitled to disability living allowance should have anything to fear from the benefit integrity project. It is important that we make the right decisions about benefit entitlement, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced new procedures into the project in February, and further improvements have subsequently been made. The report of the Social Security Committee is important. We are considering it and we shall respond to the House in the normal way in due course.

As a member of the Social Security Committee, I ask the Minister whether he has managed to improve control mechanisms in his Department. We must never again see the sort of anguish that was caused by the introduction of this project. The Minister responsible heard about it only a month after its introduction, by way of a telephone call on Preston railway station.

The report raises several important issues that we shall address in future. The benefit integrity project was designed under the previous Administration. The Government have taken a series of steps that aim to improve the operation of the benefit integrity project and to ensure that the correct decisions are taken. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it was necessary for us to take that action and will commend us for doing so.

A few months ago, I raised concerns in this place about the way in which seriously mentally ill people were being treated by the benefit integrity project. At that time, the Secretary of State kindly informed me that she was involved in discussions with Mencap. In view of the fact that seriously mentally ill people in my constituency continue to lose disability living allowance, will the Minister say whether those discussions have concluded and, if so, whether any special treatment will be given to the seriously mentally ill who are losing DLA contrary to medical advice?

At this stage I can confirm that we have agreed to exclude some further categories of people—particularly those aged over 65 who will not be contacted—from the benefit integrity project. My right hon. Friend has agreed to consider the possibility of extending the groups exempt from the project, but I cannot give my hon. Friend the direct response that he seeks this afternoon.

What discussions she has had with representatives of disability groups concerning the taxation of disability living allowance. [42945]

Any discussions have been of a general, rather than specific, nature—for example, in the recent meetings arranged by Mencap. We have made it clear in our Green Paper that DLA will remain a national and universal benefit and, as such, will not be subject to a means test. Taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we have no current plans to tax DLA.

I must press the Minister a little further. Will he rule out definitively, once and for all, any prospect of the Government taxing disability living allowance?

I must repeat the reply that I have given. Taxation is always a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I can confirm that we have no current plans to tax DLA—and nor was there any suggestion of taxing it in the welfare reform Green Paper.

Is the Minister aware that all hon. Members will welcome his comment that there is absolutely no justification for taxing disability benefits, which are not taxed at present? One trusts that that will remain the Government's position now and upon their re-election.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.

What representations she has received about child care costs disregard for carers in receipt of family credit; and if she will make a statement. [42946]

The child care disregard is regularly raised in correspondence about family credit and we have acted to improve the help available. From last Monday, we increased the limit on help for families with two or more children from £60 to £100 and extended the age limit for one year. For the future, we have announced our intention to introduce a more generous child care tax credit, which, for a couple earning £23,000 a year with two children, could be worth £45 per week. We have also launched the working benefits campaign, which I know will be successful in improving the take-up of in-work benefits.

I thank the Minister for that reply. What advice would he give to my constituent who is a single parent and works shifts as a nurse at the local hospital? A nanny is the most flexible and appropriate form of child care for her, but the costs of nannies are not disregarded when calculating family credit. Do the Government intend to change that arrangement because a nanny may be the most appropriate form of child care for many people, particularly lone parents? If the reason for not counting the costs is that nannies are not a registered form of child care, will the Government introduce a national registration scheme for nannies?

I am obviously aware of the problems that the hon. Lady raises. We are anxious to ensure that standards of care are maintained, that all child care is quality child care, and that it is accessible and affordable. We shall consider registering nanny agencies, and I shall study the hon. Lady's argument with care.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her new deal for lone parents? The child care package is crucial to its success. Does the Minister agree, however, that as 40 per cent. of lone parents lack any educational qualification, education and training will be crucial to prevent them from being locked in the poverty pay sector?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point because—as I am sure that he is aware—in the pilot areas we have invested £10 million in training to tackle that problem. We are carefully studying the results of that investment, to ascertain the best way to proceed, and to ensure that that difficulty is properly addressed in the national roll-out.

What assessment she has made of inequality of income among pensioners. [42948]

We want today's and tomorrow's pensioners to enjoy security in retirement. Income inequality between the best and worst-off pensioners has grown since 1979, and estimates show that this inequality is set to widen in future, on the basis of current policies.

A key objective of our pensions review is to tackle the growth in pensioner inequality, to ensure that pensioners have an adequate income in retirement and that they share fairly in rising national prosperity.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply because it confirms that it is the Government's policy to reverse the widening trends of pensioner inequality. What progress is being made, in the nine pilot projects, in determining why 1 million pensioners currently fail to claim their income support entitlement? Will he make it his policy to reverse the appalling legacy that we inherited from the previous Government, so that pensioners, especially in my constituency, may look forward to dignity and security in retirement?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the pilot projects. For 18 years, the previous Administration made no attempt to ensure that the poorest pensioners received the support to which they were entitled. It is important that we find the best ways to get more automatic help to those pensioners. I am informed that it is a little early to draw conclusions from the pilot projects, which started in April; we shall get the full report when they have run for six months. However, if we are able to report on early progress and early lessons, I shall certainly wish to keep my hon. Friend and the House informed of that progress.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in seeking—rightly—to tackle inequality among pensioners, it is important to avoid giving assistance to those pensioners who do not need it, are not entitled to it and, in many cases, do not want it. In that context, can he tell the House today how many cheques for winter fuel payments were sent out in error, the cost of that error, and the proportion of that unwarranted cost that has been written off by his incompetent Department?

I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact figures, but my recollection is that about 10,000 payments were made that were not in accordance with the legislation and regulation at that time. That is regrettable, but it was a tiny proportion of the 10 million payments that were made to pensioners in 7 million households. Regarding recovery, each case is being treated on its individual merits, and that is obviously the right way for us to proceed.

What were the Belfast EU presidency conclusions on women and employability relating to family-friendly working arrangements. [42949]

Family-friendly working arrangements are a key issue of our time and are important to women and men across Europe. The conference provided a valuable opportunity to explore the opportunities for achieving a successful balance between paid work and family life, and to share examples of good practice which member states can consider in the context of their own policies.

I thank the Minister for that reply. As I understand it, the Belfast summit issued a communiqué. As a result of the listening to women exercise, the Ministers for Women identified as a priority the fact that some of the good policies that were identified at Belfast and mentioned in the communiqué were not mainstreamed at a United Kingdom level. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that if the communiqué is to achieve something—which is important for women in my constituency and elsewhere—it should be mainstreamed throughout the European Union? What efforts are the Ministers for Women making to ensure that the valuable discussions in Belfast and the communiqué on family-friendly employment have wider effect throughout the European Union?

The full text of the Belfast communique is available in the Library and I hope that hon. Members will go to get a copy. We found at the conference, first, that quality child care, parental and other forms of leave and family-friendly working practices are essential to women and men if we are to combine paid work with family life and, secondly, that equality between women and men must be mainstreamed into all employment policies—as my hon. Friend suggests—both nationally and throughout the European Union.

Those are new and important conclusions for the women of Europe and we are ensuring that they are built into the preparations for the final summit of our presidency, which takes place in Cardiff next week.

I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 8, leave out lines 14 to 18.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 12, 13, 85, 96, 97, 14 to 33 and 99.

I extend a warm welcome to the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May); I hope that they will occupy their shadow positions for many years to come.

The amendments relate to the procedures that are necessary to bar teachers from entering the teaching profession. Tomorrow, we shall have the opportunity—in line with the recommendations of the Business Committee—to discuss in some detail the powers and responsibilities of the General Teaching Council. The amendments before us today enable us to consider what responsibilities the GTC should have, and reflect the Government's disagreement with the recommendations coming from the other place and our view that child protection matters should remain to be considered by the Secretary of State. We feel it appropriate for the GTC to have powers over the conduct of teachers and on the question of teachers' competence or otherwise—

Before my hon. Friend gets into his stride, I wish to intervene on a general issue involving the General Teaching Council. I know that my hon. Friend has been actively considering education jobs moving to York now that the Funding Agency for Schools is moving away. May I say publicly what I have said privately to my hon. Friend, which is that I believe that the GTC would be an appropriate body to be sited in York, partly because of its size and partly because in my view it needs to be away from the mainstream of the Department for Education and Employment to illustrate its independence and—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak at such length, he should wait and make his speech later.

My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for the Funding Agency for Schools and for retaining employment in York. I regret that our decision did not go in favour of basing the new framework department in York. Instead, we decided that it should be placed in Darlington. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the potential for the GTC to be sited in York. No doubt there is a strong case that can be made on behalf of York—and no doubt my hon. Friend will make it. Decisions about the location of the GTC will be made over the next few months. I assure my hon. Friend that we will take into account the strong representations which he has already made and which he will no doubt make over the months ahead.

The amendments deal with the role that the Secretary of State should continue to have in the barring of teachers from the profession. A number of commitments were given in Committee, and the amendments reflect several points that were made from the Government Benches and by the Opposition, who raised a number of concerns about the detail of the implementation of procedures for the barring of teachers. The amendments reflect the positive contributions made by all members of the Committee.

For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall briefly outline the existing provisions for the barring of teachers from the profession. At present, the Secretary of State has the power to bar any individual from employment by a local education authority in a school. It is not restricted to teachers, but applies to classroom assistants, caretakers and youth workers—anyone with involvement in a school and contact with children attending it.

In discharging those responsibilities, the Secretary of State must put the interests of children first, especially in child protection matters. That is why there is provision that anyone convicted of a sexual offence involving a child under 16 will automatically be barred from the teaching profession. All hon. Members would agree that that is wholly appropriate, but in cases that fall short of a criminal conviction, there is discretion about whether an individual should be barred as a teacher or from carrying out any capacity or responsibilities in a school.

That discretion is currently exercised by the Secretary of State. The House of Lords, however, proposed that the power to bar for child protection reasons should be taken from the Secretary of State and handed over to the General Teaching Council. The Government have grave concerns and reservations about handing over such an important responsibility to the untried and untested General Teaching Council, which is why I shall invite hon. Members to reject the proposals from another place and agree to the amendments, under which child protection matters would remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

In dealing with those matters, the Secretary of State considers representations made on behalf of individuals, who can submit written representations, testimonials, character references and, where necessary, medical and other reports. The aim of the Secretary of State, and of Ministers who have responsibility for deciding such cases, is to achieve an overall picture of the conduct of the individual. In arriving at a decision, we do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the normal test in a criminal case. We believe that, even though evidence may fall short of that, there will be situations in which an individual should be barred from a school and from working in it if the interests of children are to be put first. Ministerial decisions are made on that basis, and there is no right to appeal. An individual may apply for judicial review, however, if he believes that the Secretary of State has exercised his responsibility in a way which should be challenged.

In exercising those responsibilities, we have always put the interests of children first. Many hon. Members and parents will be concerned at the scale of the problem and the number of times annually that the Secretary of State has to consider whether an individual should be barred from taking part in classroom activities. In the 12 months to 31 March 1997, the Department dealt with no fewer than 458 misconduct cases: in 125, individuals were barred from a school and from taking part in activities, and 12 individuals had employment restrictions imposed on them. That clearly shows that we are not considering only isolated cases. Unfortunately, hundreds of cases a year—the majority concerning misconduct in relation to child protection matters—have to be dealt with by the Secretary of State.

We believe that it is right and proper that that responsibility should remain with the Secretary of State. The Department maintains a list of people who are barred or restricted from teaching and from being involved in school-based activities, which we refer to as "List 99". Hon. Members will be surprised to learn that more than 2,100 people are on it at present. The majority have been barred from teaching or from classroom activities for child protection reasons, so the scale of the problem is considerable. The Government will not ignore it. Copies of "List 99" are issued to local education authorities, to further education college corporations and to other organisations representing employers in the education service. We are all responsible for ensuring that individuals on "List 99" are not involved in school-based activities.

The Government have a responsibility to ensure that no one slips through the net. There are concerns, which were expressed in Committee, that a number of lists compiled for child protection purposes operate in various Departments. The Department for Education and Employment has "List 99", and separate lists operate in the Department of Health and the Home Office. I am pleased that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), announced last Thursday that we are to establish an interdepartmental group of officials to consider the additional safeguards that are necessary to prevent unsuitable people from working with children.

The aim is to have a co-ordinated approach to ensure that we can establish a central register, which will be backed up by a new criminal offence, to prevent those on any register applying for work with children. I hope that the initiative will be welcomed by hon. Members.

Private schools, institutions and nurseries, where it is far more difficult to get control, were mentioned in Committee, but have not been addressed in the Bill. Can the Minister assure hon. Members that he will consider those organisations carefully, to ensure that we can offer the same protection to children in that sector as we do to children in the state sector?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Individuals on "List 99" are also barred from teaching in independent schools. I am happy to give notice that if we discover an independent school employing an individual on "List 99", we shall take steps, not only in relation to the individual, but in relation to the school.

We have powers to serve a notice of complaint and to strike a school off the register of independent schools, and we have certainly exercised them since I have had responsibility for the matter. We have moved against individual independent schools that have not regarded child protection matters as being as important as they are and struck them off the register, which means that they can no longer act as independent schools. We shall exercise that power in any situation where we think that the interests of children are not being put first. That applies to the independent sector as well as to the maintained sector, for which we have responsibility as well.

5.30 pm

Although it is important that the General Teaching Council should be a single unified voice for the profession, it is the Government's view that it should not have responsibility for child protection matters. The House of Lords took a different view, but we believe that the public have a right to expect a coherent and rigorous system for barring people who are unsuitable to enter schools. It would have been wrong, misguided and dangerous to adopt the proposals from another place, which would have fragmented the child protection system by passing those responsibilities to the General Teaching Council.

The General Teaching Council should have a more clearly defined role as regards regulation of the profession, however. Schedule 2 provides for the council to determine those cases that involve unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence, but reserves child protection matters for determination by the Secretary of State. More than half the cases that come before the Department concern child protection matters; they will remain the Department's responsibility. Many of the other cases have little or no child protection dimension and those will become the responsibility of the General Teaching Council. In a small number of cases where it may be difficult to define the classification, it will be for the Secretary of State to determine whether the issue involves matters of child protection: if it does, it will continue to be reserved to the Secretary of State.

We shall place on employers a requirement to report to the General Teaching Council when they have dismissed someone on the ground of misconduct or incompetence, or when a person has resigned when he or she might have been so dismissed. Amendment No. 13 ensures that a teacher cannot tender his or her resignation in order not to be reported on the ground of incompetence or misconduct. That important safeguard closes a loophole that would otherwise exist.

A teacher must always be entitled to put his or her side of a case at a hearing to determine whether he or she should be barred from the profession. The Bill at present requires that teachers will have legal representation before any hearing of the General Teaching Council. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) raised that issue in Committee. He was concerned that the provision was overly restrictive in terms of a friend's accompanying a teacher. The Government agree with that view. It would be inappropriate to restrict the provision solely to legal representation. Amendment No. 17 makes it clear that a teacher can be accompanied by anybody of his or her choice, rather than someone from a legal background alone. That will be bad news to many Members of this House who are in the legal profession, but it is right and appropriate in these circumstances to widen the classification of those who can accompany an individual teacher.

The General Teaching Council should be able to strike teachers off the register for serious professional incompetence as well as unacceptable professional conduct. That corresponds with the powers of most professional bodies, particularly the General Medical Council. Indeed, we have based many of the proposals before the House this evening on the GMC model.

We intend that the General Teaching Council will be entitled to act only when a teacher has been dismissed on the ground of incompetence or has resigned to avoid such dismissal. The council will then consider the case and decide whether the incompetence demonstrated is so serious that it should be taken forward with a view to striking the teacher concerned off the register or placing conditions on his or her practice as a teacher. However, the new powers that we are giving the General Teaching Council will in no way cut across the new capability procedures now being adopted by local authorities and school governing bodies throughout the country. It will be for individual governing bodies to judge a teacher's competence or otherwise, and it will be the responsibility and right of a governing body to dismiss the teacher.

Nothing in the powers that we intend to give the General Teaching Council will cut across that obligation and responsibility on a school governing body. We intend to ensure that, where that incompetence is so grave, the General Teaching Council should have the power to strike the teacher off the register so that he or she can teach in no other school.

Schedule 2 sets out the range of sanctions that will be open to the General Teaching Council. Again, they reflect the powers made available to other professional bodies. The sanctions will be graded to respond to misconduct or incompetence of differing levels of severity. Schedule 2 would allow the General Teaching Council to issue a reprimand to attach conditions to a teacher's registration, to suspend registration for up to two years, or to strike a teacher off the register—the ultimate sanction. Those powers will provide the General Teaching Council with a full and substantial role in regulating the teaching profession. I believe that that approach will be welcomed by teachers and the wider public.

People who are disciplined by the General Teaching Council should have a right of appeal, and the Government have been considering what arrangements should be put in place. We have now tabled amendment No. 28, which provides that individual teachers will be able to lodge an appeal with the High Court within 28 days of receiving notice of a disciplinary order. That reflects the arrangements that apply north of the border, where teachers may appeal to the Court of Session against a decision made by the General Teaching Council. I am advised that, since the GTC for Scotland was established in 1966, there have been only two appeals, so we envisage that the number of appeals will be small.

We seek to close a further loophole by means of amendments that have been tabled this evening. Teachers may commit offences abroad. Where those would have been considered offences in the UK, we want to ensure that they can also be considered. As the law stands, it does not allow us to do so. Amendments Nos. 15, 23, 30 and 31 will achieve that objective and close what could be a significant loophole. When the General Teaching Council investigates and hears disciplinary cases, it will need to have the power to assess all the necessary and relevant documentation, to require witnesses to attend, to give evidence and to administer oaths. That is in keeping with the powers of other professional bodies, and we intend to give such powers to the General Teaching Council. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 do precisely that.

In addition, the General Teaching Council will have the power to impose conditional registration orders on teachers found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 make it clear that such an order might involve the teacher having to incur expenditure to comply with those requirements. For example, a teacher may need to undergo further training or be required to attend in-service training. In those circumstances, it is wholly appropriate for the individual to bear the costs.

This is an important area. By means of the amendments that we are tabling this evening, and by reversing the defeat that the Government suffered in the House of Lords, this House will put the interests of children first. Where child protection matters are concerned, we must be eternally vigilant. By providing the Secretary of State with a continuing role in child protection matters, we shall be able to guarantee our children the security that they deserve. The amendments will do that, and I commend them to the House. I hope that, although the House may divide on other issues this evening, this raft of the Government's proposals will command support from members of all parties.

I thank the Minister for his kind words of welcome, but must say that, as a result of his well-known facility for figures, he has his numbers wrong again concerning the number of years that we Conservatives will be on the Opposition Benches.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate from the Front Bench. I suppose that many hope that, when making their first such speech, they will be able to set the political world on fire by making a speech to which reference is made in hushed tones for generations to come.

Have a go, then.

Were it my intention to make such a speech, Government amendment No. 84 would not have been my chosen starting point.

As the Minister made clear, the amendments raise several very important issues. I turn to the responsibility for child protection, and ensuring that those who are in charge of our children and young people in schools are entirely suitable. The Minister has set out why he believes it is important that the child protection regime should be maintained and that such powers should not go to the General Teaching Council. I fully appreciate that, given that the GTC is untried and untested, it would be risky to give it such powers and take them away from the Secretary of State.

The Minister spoke about putting the interests of children first, which, of course, is important. Given that responsibility for dismissing teachers on various grounds will be split between the GTC and the Secretary of State, we must ensure that arrangements work properly and fully and that there is no danger of any information or decisions falling between two stools. I note the interdepartmental group, although it is not clear whether it will consider ways of making certain that decisions on teachers will not fall between two stools, thus enabling teachers to continue teaching even though they are not suitable. I hope that the Minister will consider that issue to ensure that procedures are appropriate.

Rather than spending time dealing with that specific point in my winding-up speech, I shall deal with it now. Decisions on the matter will be reserved to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will determine whether the GTC has responsibility for a matter, although if it is one of child protection, the Secretary of State will determine it. With the Secretary of State as the central authority, making the decision on allocation, the difficulties to which the hon. Lady refers should be overcome.

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, which goes part way to resolving my concerns. I still wish to leave the issue on the table because there will always be suspicion when one body deals with instances concerning professional misconduct and health of teachers, and another deals with child protection issues. If the GTC is found to work well and is respected in the teaching profession, I hope that the Minister will not close his mind to the possibility of child protection issues being under its remit. Would it be necessary to introduce further legislation to enable that or, if everybody agreed that it were appropriate, would it be possible simply to pass the responsibility over under existing powers?

In response to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the Minister referred to the Secretary of State's responsibility in child protection matters for determining the suitability of teachers in independent schools. Will such responsibility also apply to people who look after children and young people in the out-of-school homework clubs that the Government are introducing? It is possible that all such people may not be members of the teaching profession. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the same rules, regulations and protection apply in such circumstances.

5.45 pm

Government amendment No. 13 would provide that information could be given to the Secretary of State or the GTC for England or for Wales in respect of dismissals for misconduct or incompetence, or on medical grounds, or where people resign in circumstances where

"their employers would have dismissed them, or considered dismissing them, on any such grounds".

I am concerned about circumstances in which an allegation is made against a teacher, a governing body considers whether it is appropriate to continue to employ that teacher, and the teacher takes early retirement or resigns due to concern about the case, even though the case would have been dismissed as entirely unreasonable and the teacher would have been exonerated. In such circumstances, a person might want to return to work. As I understand the amendment, information about the initial consideration would be on record but, because the case had not been heard properly, its result would not. Will the Minister respond to questions concerning justice and fairness in that regard?

I should like to raise a technical point about amendments Nos. 84 and 99; it concerns who can put their hands into teachers' pockets for GTC registration fees. I am sure that the Minister will say that he made it clear in Committee that the sums of money concerned are very small. I think that the sums quoted were £10 or £20. That may be so today, but a possible increase is not precluded.

I am concerned about the Government's definition of employer, especially in relation to a debate in Committee on the School Standards and Framework Bill, with which the Minister will be familiar, about the relationship between local education authorities and education action zone forums. In an EAZ, teachers may, effectively, be employed by two bodies. Given the definition that the Minister is intending to insert into this Bill, it certainly seems to me that it is intended that the EAZ forum will also have the opportunity to be the body taking money out of teachers' pockets. I look to the Minister for confirmation. How will duplication be prevented when a teacher is employed by both bodies?

As the Minister has said, several of the amendments are technical. The Government are proposing important changes in disciplinary procedures concerning the GTC. We shall tomorrow have a wider debate on what it is appropriate for the GTC to do. I accept that, as the Minister said, the House will be wary of a body, which is not tried and tested, dealing with the very important issue of child protection. If the aim is that the GTC should develop into a body that maintains professional standards in teaching, it may be necessary to consider giving it child protection powers. I hope that the Government will at least keep their minds open on that possibility and not simply dismiss it out of hand.

I shall be brief, because there will be a wider debate on the powers of the General Teaching Council tomorrow. I may be unique in this House, in that I have served on a General Teaching Council. How can that be? I was an elected member of the General Teaching Council for Scotland—a post I had to give up, reluctantly, on my election to this place. In Scotland, the General Teaching Council—founded in 1966—works extremely well, although I must admit that a number of teachers in Scotland were against it at the time.

I welcome the strengthening of powers to enable the General Teaching Council for England and for Wales to be able to strike a teacher off. I served on the investigation committee of the General Teaching Council for Scotland, which looked at any allegations to see if there was a case to answer. The committee had all the information in front of it, but took no evidence from the individual. The committee merely looked at whether there was a case to answer before passing it on to the disciplinary committee, the quasi-legal committee which took the case forward. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, only twice has the appeals mechanism to the Court of Session in Scotland been used in such cases.

It is right that the General Teaching Council should be able to strike teachers off. It sounds draconian, and it is something which one should not do lightly—that is the case in Scotland. Moves have been taken after a great deal of deliberation, but that has meant that there is confidence about the teaching profession in Scotland. The teachers themselves would not want any body other than the GTC to be taking those decisions.

I wish to refer to the issue of an appellant being accompanied by someone other than a lawyer. In Scotland, someone from the teacher's trade union will often accompany the teacher, and there is no reason why a friend cannot come along. That makes things much easier for any teacher who is going through what is, for them, a stressful situation.

I welcome the amendments, and tomorrow we will debate why it is so important to have the General Teaching Council for the good and well-being of the teaching profession in England and Wales.

With the leave of the House, I shall reply to this useful debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) for sharing with hon. Members her personal experience of how a General Teaching Council works in practice. It is interesting to note that Scotland has had its General Teaching Council since 1966. If all goes well, we hope to establish one covering England and, probably, a separate one for Wales, by 2000. That is another example of where Scotland leads, England and Wales eventually follow.

The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised a number of detailed points about the way in which we intend to develop the General Teaching Council, and I shall try to deal with them all. She referred to the important issue of ensuring that there is an individual with clear responsibility 'for dealing with child protection matters, and ensuring that, under shared responsibility, no individual can somehow slip through the net.

The hon. Member for Maidenhead touched on a very important point—one which we have considered in some detail. We must ensure that the practical difficulties to which she referred do not apply to the Bill. That is why we have taken the view that the Secretary of State should determine whether the General Teaching Council or the Secretary of State should deal with the matters. The Secretary of State will not deal with a matter of conduct or competence, which will go to the General Teaching Council. The Secretary of State is likely to deal with purely child protection matters, and will take decisions in such cases.

The interdepartmental group—which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office announced last Thursday—is working across Departments, and not just within the Department for Education and Employment. The group recognises that, at the moment, a number of different Departments have responsibility for child protection matters and operate their own registers to bar people from working with children.

Our concern is that a register in, for example, the Department of Health is not accessible by the Department for Education and Employment. Schools or FE colleges may be unaware of an individual registered for barring purposes by the Department of Health. We want to establish a central register so that no one slips through the net in terms of child protection. The interdepartmental group has been set up specifically to establish such a central register. That will go a long way toward ensuring that we do not have the loopholes which apply at present.

The hon. Member for Maidenhead asked whether the General Teaching Council might, in due course, take responsibility for child protection matters. As the Bill is at present worded, new primary legislation would be needed if the view was that the General Teaching Council should have responsibility for child protection matters. The matter would need to come back to the House. Some would say that that is disappointing, and that we should give more responsibility to the General Teaching Council.

In child protection matters, we should be cautious. I am prepared to see how the General Teaching Council develops over time. If the view is that it would be appropriate to give the responsibilities to the General Teaching Council, the matter should come back to this House for a decision.

To assist in the process, we intend to involve the General Teaching Council in child protection cases from its establishment. We would like the General Teaching Council to make recommendations to the Secretary of State on child protection issues so that it can be involved, consider matters and make recommendations. There is no guarantee that the Secretary of State will agree with the recommendations, but it is a way of involving the GTC.

Over time—when the GTC becomes tried and tested—we may well be able to hand over responsibility for child protection matters to the General Teaching Council. If so, it is only right and proper—in the Government's view—that the matter should come back to this House to be dealt with by fresh primary legislation.

In terms of out-of-school homework clubs and a range of activities out of traditional school hours—such as expanding summer schools or work before the normal school day starts—existing legislation and the Bill will cover those developments. The message is clear. There is no escape from proper scrutiny. The strict regime that we are proposing will apply to any activity that is school-based and involves children of school age—at no matter what time of day or night it takes place. That is right and proper.

The sort of individuals about whom we are concerned will use any opportunity which may be available to them. If they can see a chink in the armour, they will exploit any loophole. Protection will be there for any school-based activity at any time of the day, and at weekends.

The hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to amendment No. 13 and expressed concern at the way in which it is worded, as it simply talks about an individual who resigns being considered for dismissal. There was no alternative to that wording. If someone wanted to escape disciplinary proceedings by resigning, the matter would obviously never be determined. Striking the right balance was difficult, but it will be for the General Teaching Council to consider whether, in the circumstances, a person would have been dismissed. We felt it appropriate that, rather than allow someone to exploit the device of resigning before the matter is determined, the matter should go to the General Teaching Council or to the Secretary of State. We believe that the inclusion in the Bill of the words "considered dismissing" represents the way forward.

The hon. Member for Maidenhead is right that the Bill contains a wide definition of the employer. We want to cover all eventualities, as we are not sure how the school system will develop in the months and years ahead. Some of us have clear views on how it should develop—fingers crossed—but I am delighted that the definition in the Bill covers all eventualities.

The amendments are important. I make no apology for giving them 45 minutes of debate, as they raise important matters that will affect hundreds of children every year—we should put those children's interests first. I hope that the House will agree to the amendments so that we can move on to the next group.