| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Experience has shown that the circumstancesin which these powers would be exercised are, thankfully, very infrequent. However, it is only right that the registration authority should be able to act where offences occur which would put children’s well-being at risk, and that is the reason for these provisions. On that technical note, I believe we are now well and truly on the home stretch.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for a very full explanation in response to my amendments. I am really pleased that, notwithstanding the fact that he is unable to accept my amendment, the objective that I wanted to achieve is there, and we look forward to receiving the Government’s amendment on Report.
With regard to earned autonomy, I am very pleased that the Minister has said that the Government are thinking this through further. Canhe give us an idea of the timescale? Will he let us know more when we first come back in October about the possibility of further freedoms which might forestall us from taking this further on Report?
Lord Adonis: I shall be happy to do so.
Baroness Walmsley: On my amendment, we will just have to accept that there is unlikely to be a meeting of minds between the Minister and us about whether it is appropriate for a Secretary of State to spend his or her time micromanaging individual schools. We believe that it would be much more appropriately done by the local authority, given the experts it has on hand. The Secretary of State should be looking more at the big picture and not micromanaging. We will have to agree to disagreeon that.
Lord Lucas: On Amendment No. 257, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the registration authority ought to have the ability to institute proceedings. My reading of the Education Act 2002 is that that is the case. Why is only the authority in that position? Why is it only the authority that has to give its permission? That excludes anyone else taking action in respect of breaches of provisions of the 2002 Act. Is there a restriction because there has been some mischief with individuals suing or prosecuting schools privately in a way not approved of by the authority?
Lord Adonis: My understanding is that it is because the Secretary of State in respect of England and the National Assembly in respect of Wales are the relevant registration authority. That is why only those bodies have the power, but I am happy to clarify this to the noble Lord in writing.
Lord Lucas: If there is anything more to say,do, but if there is nothing, don’t. I continue to be interested.
25 July 2006 : Column 1734
On Amendment No. 258, I am delighted that the noble Lord is going down that road. I very much hope that the proposed body will have two important functions. The first is to make the results of research intelligible to the ordinary teacher so that he or she can use it. There are good research digests available but they do not begin to reach that audience. You would require an inordinate amount of time to make any use of the sort of thing which is commonly available. Secondly, I hope that it will be able to advise the Secretary of State on the research he should pursue; it will be gathering a lot of information on what is happening and will see gaps and possibilities emerging. If the noble Lord is not thinking of giving it a budget of its own—which I gather he is not—I hope that someone in the DfES will be listening to its thoughts on what could and should be done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 252ZA to 252A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 153 [Power to repeal references to “local education authority” and “children’s services authority” etc]:
[Amendment No. 252AA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 252B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 253 to 255 not moved.]
(1) A member of the staff of an institution which is within the further education sector may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of preventing a student at the institution from doing (or continuing to do) any of the following, namely—
(3) Subsection (1) does not authorise anything to be done in relation to a student which constitutes the giving of corporal punishment within the meaning of section 548 of the Education Act 1996.
(4) The powers conferred by subsection (1) are in addition to any powers exercisable apart from this section and are not to be construed as restricting what may lawfully be done apart from this section.
25 July 2006 : Column 1735
(5) In this section, “member of the staff”, in relation to an institution within the further education sector, means any person who works at that institution whether or not as its employee.””
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 156 [Collaboration arrangements: maintained schools and further education bodies]:
[Amendment No. 256 not moved.]
Clause 158 [Offences relating to independent schools]:
[Amendment No. 257 not moved.]
Clauses 159 and 160 agreed to.
Clauses 161 and 162 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 258 not moved.]
Lord Adonis moved Amendments Nos. 259 to 261:
(a) in subsection (1A) the words “(within the meaning of section 22 of the Children Act 1989)”, and(b) in subsection (2) the word “and” at the end of paragraph (c).”On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 174 [The appropriate authority by whom commencement order is made]:
Lord Adonis moved Amendments Nos. 262 to 263A:
“section (Admission arrangements for schools with religious character: consultation and objections) (admission arrangements for schools with religious character: consultation and objections);”
“section (Schools with pre-1998 arrangements for selection by ability or aptitude) (schools with pre-1998 arrangements for selection by ability or aptitude);”
“section (Power of members of staff of further education institutions to use force) (power of members of staff of further education institutions to use force);”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 174, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 121, line 3, after “Act” insert “, other than any amendment made by paragraph 2 of Schedule 10,”
25 July 2006 : Column 1736
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 175, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
5.28 pm
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be considered forthwith.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 110 as first printed for the Lords.]
1A: Because it is not desirable to preclude eligible Irish citizens and bodies from making political donations to Northern Ireland parties or regulated donees
2A: Because it is not desirable to preclude eligible Irish citizens and bodies from making political donations to Northern Ireland parties or regulated donees
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 1A and 2A.
The Commons have agreed to reinsert the two clauses relating to permissible donors because it is not desirable to preclude eligible Irish citizens and bodies from making political donations to Northern Ireland parties or regulated donees. As was made clear—or, probably, as was not made clear during the debates in this House, although we followed them up with letters with more detail—the Government firmly believe that Northern Ireland parties and regulated donees should continue to be able to accept donations from Irish citizens and other Irish bodies that can currently donate to Irish parties, as well as donations from those who can donate in the UK.
There is nothing stopping anyone in England, Scotland or Wales who is on the electoral register donating to any of the Northern Ireland political parties, if they so desire. This would follow the end of the final disapplication period in October 2007. That is the Government’s stated policy, and we believe it is consistent with the Good Friday agreement. It reflects our belief that Irish citizens should be able to make these donations to take account of the special role Ireland has in relation to Northern Ireland’s political culture.
I watched the debate in the other place, which was quite acrimonious in some places. If your Lordships agree to put these two changes back in the Bill, this change represents a significant step forward from the current position in Northern Ireland, under which donations can come from anywhere and anyone in the
25 July 2006 : Column 1737
Any reasonable person outside these Houses and certainly inside both this House and the other place, has concerns about the detail of how the “permissible donors” clauses would operate in practice, particularly with regard to the conditions that Irish citizens and bodies—companies, for example—would have to meet in order to be able to donate to Northern Ireland political parties, and how these donations would be checked and verified in the future by the Electoral Commission. We recognise that these are genuine concerns, but we believe they can be dealt with. We have sought to address them when they have been raised, both here and in the other place.
As we have explained, the detail of how “permissible donors” clauses would work will beset out in UK secondary legislation following consultation with the Electoral Commission. That would be secondary legislation, as my colleague David Hanson said; not an Order in Council, but an affirmative resolution. By definition, that would be published and consulted on, both with the political parties and the wider public. That is the way legislation is done: we consult, and we have quite a long period for that. That would be after consultation with the Electoral Commission.
The secondary legislation would include the criteria that Irish donors will have to meet in order to be able to donate, and how these donations will be checked. That is, I say with respect, not the issue for today. This House, the other place, political parties and the wider public will have plenty of opportunity, when we publish that secondary legislation and consult on it, to have full, detailed explanations and debates about this issue. I have no doubt it will be of interest to the wider population in Northern Ireland. As I have said, this would be set out in an instrument to be laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament. Your Lordships and my honourable friends will have the opportunity fully and publicly to debate these issues when this legislation is published and then goes through Parliament. It will not be rushed through.
I repeat: this is a major step forward from the status quo. The status quo is quite unacceptable. It allows anyone anywhere in the world to donate in secret to the Northern Ireland political parties. I can honestly say I would get a 100 per cent vote for saying that was unacceptable. This provision closes that
25 July 2006 : Column 1738
We have to put an end to the current arrangements. There have been pressures on what are called the Great Britain political parties concerning problems arising, as we know, with the openness and transparency of donations. Some of the problems have been self-inflicted, others have not. Nevertheless the system is transparent, open and a matter for public debate. That is right and proper and how it should be. We have to reach that state in Northern Ireland. We accept that it will be more than a one-step process between 2007 and 2010. But we have to close down the opportunity for anyone, anywhere in the world, to donate in secret to Northern Ireland political parties. I respectfully submit that the two clauses that the Commons have offered for reinsertion are a way forward, subject of course to detailed debate in both Houses of the legislation to bring it about. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 1A and 2A.—(Lord Rooker.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive explanation of the decision in the other place. We will not challenge the decision to reverse the vote on political contributions from the Republic of Ireland. However, I should like to place on record the wish from this side of the House to see in due course the practice in Northern Ireland brought into line with that applicable to other parts of the United Kingdom—in other words, no foreign donations to political parties, full stop. I think that the Minister has indicated that the Government’s intention is to move towards that in due course.
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, with respect, I did not say that. We are saying that because of the special relationship and political culture on the island of Ireland, we should allow in regulation those who are able legally to donate to political parties in the republic—where they have their own rules; Irish citizens anywhere in the world can donate, which is not the case in Great Britain—to do so, but it should be highly regulated as we will set out in the regulations. The current arrangements do not apply only to Irish citizens; and donations can be from anywhere in the world, and, what is more, made in secret. We have to stop the secrecy. Donations will become upfront and governed by the Electoral Commission rules.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for correcting that misunderstanding. As I say, we shall not challenge this decision.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |