Sitting of 20 July 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second Time on Thursday 27 July

    STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
    Ordered,
    That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business set out in the Schedule be made.

    SCHEDULE
    Table of Fees

    line 2, leave out '£3,500' and insert '£4,000'.

    line 3, leave out '£3,500' and insert '£4,000'.

    line 23, leave out '£3,500' and insert '£4,000'.

    line 29, leave out '£1,750' and insert '£2,000'.

    line 35, leave out '£1' and insert '£1.60'.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. David Watts: How many inquiries have been received by the working families tax credit response line from the north-west region. [130128]
    Mr. Richard Burden: If he will make a statement on progress with the implementation of the working families tax credit. [130130]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Up to 30 November 1999—the end of the first phase of television advertising—the response line handled 89,000 inquiries from the Granada Television region. In total, more than 3 million calls have been received on our response and helplines, and more than 1 million families are now receiving working families tax credit. Already this is almost 230, 000 more than the number who were receiving family credit, even at its peak. Some families are £50 a week better off, and 110, 000 families are receiving help with child care costs. That is twice as many than under the old system, and it is making work pay.
    Mr. Watts: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Does he agree that this initiative has been one
    520
    of the most positive ways of getting people out of poverty and into work? What does he think about the Opposition's proposals to scrap this tax credit? Does he believe, like me, that that would put people—
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is not the Chancellor's business what the Opposition's policies are.
    Mr. Watts: I will try again, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the tax credit were to end, it would put many families into poverty and increase unemployment?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the careful way in which he words his question to me. It is true that 1 million families are better off; it is true that they are £24 a week better off, and it is true that if working families tax credit were taken away, that would effectively be a tax rise of £24 a week for the poorest families in the country. We invite the Opposition to tell us what they would do. I understand that they would abolish the new deal and working families tax credit. They would make people unemployed, and they would make people in work poor.
    Mr. Burden: Although I realise that my right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the Opposition—it would be quite wrong if he had—will he comment on any advice that he has received, for instance from the Dimbleby programme in 1998, when I understand that the Leader of the Opposition said about the working families tax credit, "We wouldn't do it."? Given that more than 2,500 families in my constituency stand to benefit from the working families tax credit, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether he would follow that advice or stick to our current line of tackling poverty, not ignoring it?
    Mr. Brown: I understand my hon. Friend's concern to point out the virtues of the working families tax credit. It is, after all, similar to the earned income tax credit in the United States of America. If Ronald Reagan could support the working families tax credit through the earned income tax credit, it is quite surprising that the Conservative Opposition have moved so far to the right that they cannot support it.
    I understand that the shadow Chancellor has made a decision that he will not make a spending commitment to support the working families tax credit or the new deal. I understand also that he has been prepared to give the figure of £16 billion as the public spending cuts that the Conservatives would impose. I understand also that there is now a regional breakdown of those cuts. The Conservatives have even issued press releases for their candidates on this matter. I understand also that "The Common Sense Revolution" is being pulped today. We knew that it was fiction—now we know that it is pulped fiction.
    Mr. Michael Portillo: But is not the working families tax credit fundamentally misdesigned? Families have to give intimate details about themselves to their employers. The money does not go to the parent who looks after the children, and it may never reach the children. It is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who proposes to abolish the scheme in two years' time. Is that not the substance behind the spin?

    521
    When the Chancellor made his spending review statement the other day, why did he not tell us that the election war chest had been collected from taxing the least well-off families in our society? Is it not deplorable that it is the poorest fifth of our society which has faced the largest increase in tax under this Government? The Government take the money that people have earned for themselves, churn it around the system, and give some of it back to them in the form of benefits so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can get the credit and take the moral high ground.
    I know that the Chancellor is not a fan of the Prime Minister's memos but, to borrow a phrase from one of them, would it not be bizarre to believe that any Government in which he was Chancellor could be thought of as pro-family?
    Mr. Brown: If the shadow Chancellor wants to help the low paid, why would he abolish the working families tax credit? Why would people be £24 a week worse off? Why would he abolish the new deal? Why did the Conservative party not support our 10p basic rate of income tax? I know that the shadow Chancellor does not want to answer any questions about his public spending cuts guarantee, but perhaps when he stands up again he will explain, bearing in mind the document that was produced by the Conservative party only yesterday, where the public spending cuts would be made. He has said that there is a difference of £16 billion between the 2 per cent. that he would finance and 3.3 per cent. He has even had his party break it down in regional terms. Now he must tell us where those cuts will fall.
    The right hon. Gentleman broke his promises on tax after the election in 1992. The Conservatives have now had to break their promises before the election.
    Mr. Portillo: It is perfectly clear to me that even the Chancellor does not believe that all that bluster will be believed by working families. Is he aware that the polling organisation ICM conducted research in his constituency on Tuesday night, after his statement? The responses make interesting reading. Three per cent. of the Chancellor's constituents believe they are being taxed less; 48 per cent. of the Chancellor's constituents believe they are being taxed more; 79 per cent. of the Chancellor's constituents say that public services are not improving—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Wait, it gets better. Seventy-two per cent. of the Chancellor's constituents say they do not believe the spending figures that he promised on Tuesday.
    Even the Chancellor's constituents can see through the spin. Even they know that they have been taxed more and that the Chancellor has delivered less; they do not believe a word that he says.
    Mr. Brown: It is getting more and more expensive for the shadow Chancellor to ask me a question. He now has to hire an opinion polling agency before he comes to the House.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question that I put to him on the Conservatives' £16 billion of public spending cuts? [Interruption.] The Opposition are getting very agitated. Last night during the debates on the Finance Bill, they voted £ 1 billion extra in tax cuts simply for
    522
    double taxation relief and national insurance on share options. The total bill from the Finance Bill alone is extra tax—extra revenues that have to be raised—of £5 billion.
    Will the shadow Chancellor answer the question? The Opposition had—[Interruption.] They do not like it. The Opposition had five guarantees. Where will the cuts fall—on health, education, transport, social services, defence, or law and order? It is about time that the Conservatives gave the country an answer.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I was just listening to those polling figures. There was one figure of 3 per cent.; one of 48 per cent.; another of 79 per cent. and another of 72 per cent. Those figures demonstrate clearly that when we get more than 200 per cent. voting, that is as phoney as the shadow Chancellor and a £9 note.
    Mr. Brown: It certainly does not add up. When the shadow Chancellor still had his tax guarantee and he wanted to prove that the economy was doing well, he went around the television studios saying:
    Well, governments are in a strong position when the economy is doing well, there's absolutely no denying that.
    He also said that
    fortunately, the national finances are good enough.
    He then said that we had an absolutely reliable anti-inflation strategy.
    The shadow Chancellor has been going around saying that the economy is doing well. He now tries to tell us that our spending figures are unsustainable. I put it to him that the last Chancellor who said that our spending figures were unsustainable found that his position was as well.

    National Health Service
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the implementation of the national changeover plan within the national health service. [130129]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The implementation of national changeover planning in the public sector is overseen by a committee of Ministers, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who is attending today's European Union Budget Council. The interests of the NHS are represented on the committee by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my noble Friend Lord Hunt.
    Mrs. Spelman: The Government pledged to make savings of £100 million on NHS bureaucracy. Will the Financial Secretary confirm that nearly all of that will be negated by the national changeover plan?
    Mr. Timms: No. That is certainly not the case. All parts of the public sector need to undertake analysis and planning for the possibility of UK entry to the single currency. If there is a clear and unambiguous economic case for Britain to participate, we want to be able to do so. The work being undertaken by NHS trusts is a small task and can be managed well within existing resources.

    523
    There is a proposal floating around which should worry the hon. Lady very greatly, given her concern—which I know is genuine—for the health service, and that is her party's policy to make £16 billion of spending cuts.

    Savings
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What his policy is on encouraging people to save. [130131]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): We are extending opportunities to save through our policies for a stable, low-inflation and growing economy, with rising real living standards, and through the extension of the lop rate of tax, the success of individual savings accounts and action to tackle financial exclusion.
    Mr. Bruce: I am sure that the House will be surprised that the Minister did not actually say that the Government have no policy to extend saving, as the savings proportion of people's income has gone down from 10.6 per cent. to 3.8 per cent.
    Can the right hon. Gentleman perhaps tell the House something that might be simpler for him to explain? Every year £5 billion pounds is now being taken out of people's pensions and the pensions of future pensioners. How much is that contributing to the enormous slash in the amount that is being saved by the nation?
    Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman should well know, the dividend tax credit was ended precisely because it provided a perverse incentive to the distribution of profits in dividends rather than as re-investment. Not only all shareholders but particularly future pensioners will benefit from the economic growth that will be derived from the levels of investment that will now follow. As for our record on savings, the hon. Gentleman seems to overlook the success of ISAs, which the Conservatives derided when we brought them in. In the first year of their introduction, £28 billion was invested in more than 9 million accounts—one third more than went into PEPs and TESSAs the year before.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: May I pursue the point about ISAs? My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that they are now being opened by people in parts of the country and from parts of society who never had a savings habit before, and that they are encouraging and incentivising that habit. May I urge that the £7,000 limit on ISAs, which was extended from one year to two, be extended for a third year and made a permanent feature of the ISA system, so as to encourage that growth in ordinary people's savings throughout their lives?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is quite right. Many people in our country were excluded from prosperity and from the chance to save under the previous Government but they now have the opportunity to benefit because we have a million more people in jobs, because of the help through the working families tax credit and because of the way in
    524
    which ISAs respond to their needs. We are helping them further by tackling financial exclusion, for example by encouraging credit unions. As to my hon. Friend's proposal for the extension of the £7,000 limit, all advice for the Budget is gratefully received and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will give it due weight.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Why does the right hon. Gentleman have such difficulty in recognising his own figures? Is he aware that the Treasury's own published documents record a collapse in the proportion of savings as a percentage of national income, from 11 per cent. when the general election took place to 7 per cent., then to 5¾ per cent. and now to less than 4 per cent.? In the real economy, rather than the economy inhabited by Treasury Ministers, that is extremely serious and has very damaging implications for the long term. It is attributable to the £5 billion a year raid that the Government are carrying out on pension funds, which they started in 1997 and which is still under way. Will the right hon. Gentleman now admit his own figures, agree that there has been a collapse in private savings and tell us what he is going to do about it?
    Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman would do well to recall that the savings ratio fell to a lower proportion under the previous Conservative Government. He would also do well to understand, as I am sure that he does, that the savings ratio necessarily reflects spending patterns which themselves reflect the low unemployment, strong earnings growth, low interest rates, low inflation and strong growth in wealth that we are seeing in the country right now. Talking of figures and them adding up, the question that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have to answer is from where the £16 billion of spending cuts will come. They will not help savings.
    Mr. Roger Casale: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best encouragements that the Government have given to savers has been to create a strong and stable economy and to put in place measures to safeguard economic growth in the medium to longer term? Of course, extra incentives may be necessary for individuals and families to save even more, and the Government are putting those incentives in place, such as employee share ownership plans, ISAs and stakeholder pension schemes. But a return to boom-and-bust economics, which would certainly accompany the return to office of the Conservative party, would destroy the secure savings environment on which the take-up of such incentives depends.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Nothing would damage the prospects of prosperity and future savings more than a return to the chronic short-termism and boom and bust of the previous Conservative Administration. Conservatives would do well to remember that under our spending plans, as set out this week, for every extra pound spent, only 17p goes on social security and debt interest. Throughout the Conservatives period in office, 43p went on social security and debt interest. There could be no clearer sign of how we are ensuring stability and steady growth. The extra money that we are able to spend goes to front-line services, and the Opposition still cannot say where they would find their £16 billion in cuts.

    Single Currency
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: What his policy is on promoting potential membership of the single currency in advance of an assessment of the five economic tests. [130132]
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about his policy on the single currency. [130136]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I meet Cabinet colleagues to discuss a range of issues. The Government's policy towards the single currency has not changed and will not change. We recommend joining a single currency only if it is in our national economic interest to do so, and if the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous. The Treasury will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.
    Mrs. Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that before promoting potential membership of the single currency, full consideration should be given to the constitutional and political implications of joining? Does he further agree that a Government who give away control of their currency lose control of their economy and cannot therefore govern the country?
    Mr. Brown: I take it that the hon. Lady never wants to join the single currency, and that that is her position. It is unfortunately not the position of the Conservative party, which on principle would rule out the single currency for one Parliament, but would not do so for ever. Our position on the constitutional issue was set out in full in my 1997 statement. We discussed and examined the issue, which is a factor in the decision. We do not believe that the constitutional issue is an insuperable barrier to joining the single currency if the economic conditions are met and if there is a referendum of the British people. If the hon. Lady is saying that she would never join the single currency, she will have to persuade the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: The Chancellor has just told the House that the Government's position on the euro "has not changed and will not change." Why was it that when the Foreign Secretary came to the House a month ago to make a speech on the Government's position on the euro, he was forced to change it only minutes before he delivered it on the personal insistence of the Chancellor? Does not that show that the question of a referendum will not be decided in the national interest by the Government? Instead, it will be put forward on the basis of personal rivalries and petty jealousies which divide the Government from top to bottom.
    Mr. Brown: If we are to talk about consistency, let us consider the hon. Gentleman's general election manifesto. He now poses as someone who is completely against the single currency. He even doubts whether a referendum would be fair. What did he say in his manifesto? This was his proposal:
    Anchor the euro-currency option, with our pledge of a national referendum.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent management of the British economy? On the single currency, does he agree that interest rates and the exchange rate are vital considerations? On interest rates, there has been considerable convergence, but there is some way to go. On the exchange rate, the euro has strengthened 8 per cent. against the pound in recent months, but it remains substantially undervalued. Does he agree that the exchange rate, in particular, is a vital factor that we must take into account when we take our decision on the single currency?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know of his particular interest in industry in Wales and I understand the difficulties that exporters, especially those in the manufacturing sector, face. I also understand the particular difficulties of the steel industry in Wales and elsewhere. He will agree with me that what manufacturers want least of all is a return to the stop-go policies of the past. After all, those policies killed 1 million manufacturing jobs at the beginning of the 1990s and made for record numbers of repossessions. In the years that the shadow Chancellor was at the Treasury, we had 15 per cent. interest rates, a £50 billion borrowing requirement and, in 1992, 22 tax rises. He is now going to have £16 billion of public spending cuts in 2000 if he gets his way.
    Mr. David Taylor: Given that, under the gold standard, Bretton Woods and the exchange rate mechanism, we always had the right to come out if circumstances changed—as they did and as we did—does my right hon. Friend agree with the previous Chancellor who said that any future decision to abolish the national currency would for all practical purposes be irreversible and that, if things went wrong, we would just have to lump it? How strong a risk does my right hon. Friend believe there is of that happening?
    Mr. Brown: It is the importance that we attach to this issue that has led us to say two things. The first is that the decision must be made in the national economic interest, and that is why five economic tests are to be applied. We will consider the matter early in the next Parliament. Secondly, we have decided that there would be a referendum if a recommendation was made and, therefore, any recommendation would come before the Cabinet, the House of Commons and would then go before the country. That is the right way of approaching this issue. It is quite ridiculous to say that one is against the principle of a single currency for one Parliament only and to refuse to be able to put the arguments for ever, but that is what the Conservative party wants to do.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: While the House ponders why the Chancellor feels he should answer questions on the euro this Question Time when he did feel not able to answer them last time, and given that the Prime Minister has reportedly let Ministers off the leash to make the case for the euro, perhaps the Chancellor will tell us why he believes that Britain should join the euro in the right economic circumstances?
    Mr. Brown: The unfortunate thing about the position taken by the hon. Gentleman is that he would rush into

    527
    joining the euro without making a proper assessment of the economic tests. I believe that it is in the national economic interest, when a serious decision such as this is being taken, to do it properly by examining all the economic issues. The economic tests affect employment, investment and every individual sector of the economy. They also affect the flexibility of the economy and the durability of convergence. I would have thought that, if the Liberal Democrats were concerned about the future of the economy, they would want us to take exactly that approach. That is what we shall do.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are three intellectually respectable positions on the euro? The first is to commit to joining immediately as the Liberal Democrats favour; the second is to oppose it on principle, as a section of the Conservative party favours; and the third is to enter it if it is in Britain's best interests and if the currency is a success, as is our policy. Has he given any consideration to including as an option the official Opposition's policy of ruling the euro out for whatever the length of the next Parliament will be—be that one, two or five years—and does he see any intellectual coherence in that?
    Mr. Brown: The right course of action is to consider the matter in terms of the economic interests of the country and to make a proper assessment early in the next Parliament with a view that, if an assessment recommended yes, the Cabinet, the Government and then Parliament and the people would make the final decision. What is not respectable is the position of Conservative Members because the shadow Chancellor is on record as saying that a single currency
    would mean giving up the government of the UK. No British Government can give up the government of the UK. That's impossible.
    However, a few months later, on "Breakfast with Frost", he said:
    No I wouldn't say I'm a never man.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: Does the Chancellor accept that there is not a single Member of this House who believes that the economic tests are anything other than entirely politically self-serving? There is not a single Member of the House who believes that a decision on a referendum will be made on anything other than political judgments. Would it not be far more politically honest and far more in the public interest if the Labour party were to say that if it won the next election, there would be a referendum on the single currency in the lifetime of the next Parliament? The policy that the Government are currently pursuing is bringing not only the single currency but the Labour party into discredit.
    Mr. Brown: It is precisely the ill-thought-out views of hon. Gentleman that led the previous Government to join the exchange rate mechanism in the wrong conditions— [Interruption.] Conservative Members now want to blame us for the ERM. My goodness, we are learning a lot today. All the decisions of the previous Government are now the Labour Government's fault. The shadow Chancellor wants us to forget that he was at the Treasury between 1992 and 1994. The failure to think things through in the necessary detail and to apply the economic tests that we are applying led the Conservatives into the difficulties that
    528
    caused the exit from the ERM when the shadow Chancellor was at the Treasury. We shall not repeat that; only the shadow Chancellor would.
    Mr. Michael Portillo: My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) was absolutely right to ask that question. Regarding the five economic tests, does the Chancellor accept that judging whether the British economy is sufficiently flexible to adapt to change is wholly a matter of opinion? Whether or not joining the euro would help long-term investment is merely a matter of debate. The impact of joining on financial services in this country is a matter on which views are hotly divided. Whether or not joining would be good for jobs is a matter of dispute.
    Does the Chancellor believe that those tests, which are merely matters of opinion, can be taken seriously by anybody? Are they not just a means of allowing him to stall now, so that if the Labour party wins the election, he can take an arbitrary, ideological decision to scrap the pound.
    Mr. Brown: I thought that the shadow Chancellor would answer the point that I put to him. If it is in the economic interest to join, we would consider doing so, would apply the five tests and put the matter to a referendum. The decision will therefore be made in the country's economic interests. The five tests refer to employment—which I would have thought the right hon. Gentleman was concerned about—investment, all the sectors of the economy, the flexibility of our economy and the durability of convergence. That is the right way in which to make the decision, and then put it to the people, if that is our recommendation.
    The position of the shadow Chancellor and his hon. Friends is not respectable. He has said:
    I can't see the circumstances in which I would be in favour
    of a single currency. However, a year or two before that, the shadow Chancellor told the Welsh Conservatives:
    Keep our options open on EMU.
    He said that that was best for Britain. Sooner or later, the shadow Chancellor will have to answer questions, not only about £16 billion of spending cuts, but about the euro. Is he for or against the euro in principle? We have made our decision and are for the euro in principle, where the benefits in trade, investment and jobs are shown, and we will put it to the economic test. The question for the Conservatives, who have not got past first base on this issue, is do they oppose the euro in principle, or do they support it? Yes or no?
    Mr. Portillo: It is really disgraceful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not answer questions on the economic tests. I would have thought that he had more intellectual self-respect and I really do not know why he is so unrelaxed when he talks about the euro.
    I could say:
    All we are trying to do is talk about Europe in an open, democratic and adult way. How can anyone object to that?
    Those are the words of the Northern Ireland Secretary. The Chancellor seems determined today to deny the British people a proper debate on this most important

    529
    issue. I do not often agree with the Northern Ireland Secretary, but was he not absolutely right to describe the Chancellor as neuralgic on this subject?
    Mr. Brown: One normally starts a debate by saying where one stands on principle. Do the Conservatives support the single currency, or oppose it? Do they believe that the constitutional issues are an insuperable objection, or not? Do they believe that the economic tests matter, and that if the economic conditions were met they would join? Would they put the issue to the British people in a referendum? Those are four questions that not one Member of the Conservative Front Bench can now answer, because while they do not rule out the single currency in principle, they rule it out for the next Parliament and want to imply that they have ruled it out in principle.
    We will make the five economic assessments, and we will put the matter to the British people if our decision is that yes, we could join. We have already stated where we stand on the principle, on the constitutional issue and on the question of whether the economic conditions are met. I ask the shadow Chancellor again: does he support the euro single currency or does he oppose it—yes or no?

    Tax System
    Dr. Lynne Jones: What proposals he has for simplifying the tax system. [130133]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): We continue to support the tax law rewrite project, which aims to modernise direct tax law and make it clearer and easier to use. The first rewrite Bill will be ready for enactment by the end of this year.
    Dr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but rewrite is not the same as simplification. The House has just completed consideration of the Finance Bill. I must confess that I have not studied its 742 pages to the extent that I am sure other Members have, but I get the impression that successive Governments have introduced Finance Bills that have made the tax system more complex. Most have paid lip service to the need for a less complex system, but none have set up a mechanism with clout for addressing the issue. I invite the Government to set up such a mechanism, preferably involving Members, who should be given adequate resources for this important job.
    Dawn Primarolo: If my hon. Friend had studied the Finance Bill, she would have seen that at least one measure removed more than 40 pages of highly complex tax law. I am sure that she will also appreciate that when a Government approach tax law, they have to balance fairness with simplicity and understanding for the taxpayer. In today's complex world, another issue that Governments have to address is the activities of the tax planning industry, which spends all its time trying to circumvent tax law and avoid paying the levels of tax that Parliament had intended should be paid, so anti-avoidance legislation becomes increasingly complex.
    The tax law rewrite project considers how to simplify the drafting of legislation, and the Government are reviewing how we can ensure that our legislation is simpler and easier to understand, while addressing the issue of fairness in the tax system.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the hon. Lady aware that only new Labour could describe 15 separate rates of capital gains tax and 21 separate rates of company car tax as simplification? Why does she think that every business organisation now complains about the tax complexity and red tape imposed by the Government?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: We have just got rid of 5 million files.
    Dawn Primarolo: I know that we are nearing the end of the Session.
    The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) is saying that he is opposed to the lop rate of capital gains tax and to the way in which the Government have reformed the tax system to encourage long-term investment. Is he seriously suggesting that the previous system of capital gains tax, with all its indexation, was somehow simpler?

    Gross Domestic Product
    Mr. James Clappison: What proportion of gross domestic product was represented by net taxes and social security contributions at the latest date for which information is available. [130134]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Treasury updates its fiscal and economic forecasts and the ratio of tax receipts to gross domestic product twice a year, in the Budget and the pre-Budget report, and most recently in the Budget Red Book, which showed the share falling from 37 per cent. of GDP last year to 36.9 per cent. this year and to 36.7 per cent. in 2003–04. As the Chancellor said on Tuesday, the combination of a stronger economy leading to higher revenues and £4.5 billion lower spending meant that the net debt repayment last year was not £11.9 billion, as we said at the time of the Budget, but £18.1 billion.
    Mr. Clappison: Can the Chief Secretary tell us whether the tax burden now is greater or less than it was when the Government came to office?
    Mr. Smith: The figures are set out in the Red Book for the hon. Gentleman and the world to see. It is clear that the tax burden is falling. Moreover, the day after the Budget, the shadow Chancellor said on the "Today" programme that
    the Red Book which is the document that accompanies the Budget shows that the Government expects the tax burden to fall during the next parliament, which is exactly what we expect.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend is aware that borrowing is a third form of taxation. When one adds taxation and borrowing as a share of GDP when the Tories left office, it was almost 2 percentage points higher than it is now, which is equivalent to some £19 billion of expenditure or 7p on the basic rate of tax. Is it not the case that the current Government can spend more and tax less because there are an extra 1 million people in jobs, because we have replaced the chaos and calamity of the Tories with the stability and success of the Labour party?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Administration wrecked the public finances, doubling

    531
    borrowing, so that for every extra pound that they spent, 42p went in debt interest and social security, whereas we are now able to get that down to just 17p, so that we can put more than 80 per cent. into the front-line priorities—health, education, fighting crime, and transport. When the Conservatives left office, the debt to GDP ratio was 44 per cent. On the plans that we set out this week, we will get it down to a third of GDP—33 per cent. That shows a Government running the economy properly, with sound and strong public finances.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Minister confirm that in 1979 the share of national income taken by spending and tax in this country was slightly higher than in the rest of the European Union, and that by 1997 it was substantially lower than the rest of the EU, giving the UK an enormous relative advantage? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, on his own projections, that gap between us and our competitors on the continent is set to narrow, eliminating at least part of the great advantage that we built up over 18 years?
    Mr. Smith: That was rather a long way of explaining that the figure rose under the Tories.

    Employment (Scotland)
    Mr. Tom Clarke: If he will make a statement on the impact of his Department's policies on the levels of employment and unemployment in Scotland. [130135]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Since the election, employment has risen by 62,000 in Scotland and unemployment has fallen by 22,000. Unemployment is now the lowest for 20 years. By 2003–04, public spending will be £3.4 billion higher than in 2000–01, showing that the Scottish economy and Scottish public services will do well.
    Mr. Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that under this Government the number of unemployment claimants in Scotland has fallen by a quarter, and in my constituency by almost 30 per cent? Does he agree that, in the interests of even more progress, he is absolutely right to stand unflinchingly in support of the new deal and the Government's other employment initiatives, particularly in the light of some of the Mad Hatter ideas being spread around the House, including the implementation of public services cuts guarantees?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. The new deal is a vital part of employment creation in this country. It is a tragedy that the Opposition will not support it, and that they would abolish it if they were elected. It would be one of their public spending cuts, which would total £16 billion. The Conservative party helpfully provided a regional breakdown for us. As my right hon. Friend knows, the cuts would be £1.4 billion in Scotland. Such cuts under a Conservative Administration would be a disaster. That is why there are no Conservative Members of Parliament from Scotland.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Chancellor agree that the new deal has been an expensive
    532
    failure in Scotland? The Conservative way forward of "Britain works" will be a much more successful system. Will the Chancellor tell us whether he has assessed the impact of the Barnett formula on employment in Scotland? It should be subject to review, and, post-devolution, greatly reduced.
    Mr. Brown: The policy word the hon. Lady was seeking was "abolition" of the new deal. That is Conservative party policy. A former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, for him, unemployment was a price worth paying. I fear that the Conservative party is now following that route. It is a bit much for the shadow Chancellor to say that he supports full employment while proposing to abolish the new deal. However, he has got to do that because he would have to make public spending cuts of £16 billion.
    On Scotland, I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree that it is unfair that all the regions of this country and all the nations of Britain would have to suffer major public spending cuts as a result of a Tory programme. That is why the people will not vote for it.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The past three sets of unemployment figures for Scotland, according to the International Labour Organisation—the Government's preferred measure when they were in opposition—have shown successive increases. The figure is now the same as it was two years ago. How does the Chancellor explain that?
    Mr. Brown: Since the 1997 election, the ILO figures show that unemployment has fallen by 22,000.
    Mr. Morgan: For the past three years?
    Mr. Brown: For the past three years, the figures have been minus 22,000. Youth unemployment has fallen by 71 per cent.—I believed that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that—and long-term unemployment has fallen by 54 per cent. If we had followed the policies of the Scottish National party, we would not be able to afford a new deal. The SNP has no cause for complaint; it should applaud our measures to create new jobs in Scotland.

    VAT (Listed Buildings)
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on the charging of VAT on the renovation of listed buildings. [130138]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The repair and renovation of listed buildings has been charged at the standard rate since the beginning of the tax.
    Mr. Hoyle: I understand what my hon. Friend says. However, she may not be aware of the plight of the Rev. David Morgan and the parish church of Adlington in Chorley. He has genuine problems with church repairs. The church is a grade 2 listed building; what began as a simple exercise has incurred a cost of £145,000, and the VAT is more than £25,000. What help and consideration can be given to reducing VAT on listed buildings in future?
    Dawn Primarolo: I understand that in the grants from English Heritage to grade 1 and grade 2 listed buildings,

    533
    payments are made for urgent repairs, which my hon. Friend described. The conditions of VAT were established when the tax was introduced. We are not permitted to introduce reduced or zero rates. The Government therefore seek, through English Heritage and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to support our heritage through direct help.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: As the campaign has existed for about 15 years—I acknowledge that, some time in the past, I had to give the same answer as the Paymaster General—will the hon. Lady find a way to communicate the EU position to those who write to us? It would then become clear that the campaign has some serious deficiencies.
    Dawn Primarolo: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, having given the same answers and having been a Minister when the legislation was operating, the Government cannot change it except in periods of review of the tax. We are not currently in such a period.
    I have repeatedly made it clear to Members in detail when and why the imposition was made, when the tax began and what happened in 1984. Since that date, we have been unable to introduce zero or reduced rates. Therefore, the Government approach investment in historic and cultural buildings through methods other than VAT. As the Minister responsible for the tax at that time, the right hon. Gentleman will know that that is the only way forward, regardless of how strong feelings and campaigns are.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: But my hon. Friend will realise that although Treasury Ministers' habit of giving the same answers as their predecessors is not unknown, it is not a proper response to a proper worry. As a member of a very imaginative Treasury team, will she look seriously at some other way of tackling the problem? Frankly, English Heritage is not the answer. Such buildings consistently require not only that work be done by expensive craftsmen, but large sums of money. Destroying important buildings in the United Kingdom on the basis of being unable to change our tax system is not a sufficiently good answer.
    Dawn Primarolo: The Government are always looking for innovative ways to use the tax system to encourage the type of behaviour that we would like to see in the UK. My hon. Friend will know that Lord Rogers' s urban taskforce report on regeneration of our communities made a series of important proposals that will be discussed as part of the consultation on the urban White Paper. Tax issues regarding brownfield and greenfield sites and other matters have been raised. We are looking at them seriously and will respond.

    Business Taxation
    Mr. John Butterfill: What recent representations he has received on his policy on business taxation. [130139]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): We have received numerous representations from business, including the statement from the Institute of Directors that the Budget shows that the Government believe in the enterprise culture.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does the Chancellor recollect his statement of 19 December 1998 that he intended to reduce business taxation? How does the Minister reconcile that with the CBI estimate that business taxation has increased by £5 billion a year for each of the past three years?
    Mr. Timms: No, that is not right. We have set out our ambition to increase productivity faster than our main competitor states in order to close the productivity gap that opened up over a long period. We have set out a clear strategy for doing that, and the tax system has an important role to play in boosting productivity and improving competitiveness. Corporation tax rates are at their lowest ever and are the lowest in the industrialised world. On average, small companies have enjoyed a corporation tax cut of about 25 per cent.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who spend time with businesses in this country, including those in my constituency in west Yorkshire, find that business people say that this is the best time to be in business in terms of business taxation and the general business environment? They have one caveat: they are still worried about the value of the pound against the euro.
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right. There are 1 million extra jobs in the economy since the election and 100,000 more small firms. We are creating a new culture of enterprise for all and our tax policies are a key element in that success.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: The president of the CBI has clearly stated that the Government have imposed £5 billion of taxes on business. Will the Minister please name three businesses that have been made more competitive by that policy?
    Mr. Timms: Small businesses have enjoyed an average corporation tax cut of 25 per cent. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about another tax change that we have made: the new 10p starting rate for corporation tax has helped 270,000 small businesses—not three, but 270,000.

    Children's Tax Credit
    Ms Sally Keeble: What progress is being made with the introduction of the children's tax credit. [130140]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Inland Revenue has issued claim forms to PAYE taxpayers in families that, according to its records, may be eligible for the credit. We estimate that almost 2 million forms have already been sent back to the Inland Revenue. There has been a radio and press advertising campaign to encourage people to claim and return their forms in good time.
    Ms Keeble: I am grateful for that reply. May I congratulate the Department on its effective advertising and take-up work, which has been well received in my constituency? Will my hon. Friend confirm that this tax credit will be available to people with small businesses who are not on PAYE? Does she agree that many families want to know whether this and the other child support measures that the Government have introduced will be supported by the Conservative party, or whether they will all disappear into its £16 billion black hole?
    Dawn Primarolo: The self-employed will claim the credit on their tax returns in the normal way. As for support for the children's tax credit, we must add it to the list of items that the Opposition oppose, because they have rejected and voted against it at every opportunity. That means that nearly £8.50 a week would be denied to families who need it most.
    Mr. John Bercow: Is the Paymaster General proud that hundreds of thousands of married couples have been deprived and short-changed of support for a full 12 months before the belated introduction of the children's tax credit?
    Dawn Primarolo: What I am proud of is that this Government recognise that pressure on families is greatest when they have children. What I am proud of is that we are addressing the fact that 3 million children are living in poverty, which was inherited from the previous Government's policies. What I am proud of is that at the end of this Parliament, 1.2 million children will have been lifted out of poverty, and the children's tax credit, which the Opposition oppose, will have played its part in that.
    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Is it not the case that no additional costs are associated with marriage, but that many are associated with having children? Is it not therefore correct to target help on children via the children's tax credit, the working families tax credit, the record rise in child benefit and the other many initiatives that will reduce, and finally eliminate, child poverty?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Indeed, when the shadow Chancellor was at the Treasury, he said that the married couples allowance had the least on-going justification because it was given to couples when they married—and only when they married—in recognition of the fact that the man was acquiring a wife and therefore had less taxable capacity. We recognise that pressure is placed on families when they have children—when one parent may give up work or when the family faces child care costs. That is the point at which to help families and to ensure that children are lifted out of poverty.

    Objective 1 Regions
    Mr. Andrew George: What progress he has made in completing financial arrangements for the United Kingdom's European objective 1 regions. [130141]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The spending review announcements ensure that all the UK's objective 1 programmes can now draw down
    536
    their full structural funds allocations for the next three years. This is very good news for the regeneration of objective 1 areas.
    Mr. George: I am sure that the Minister is aware how warmly the Chancellor's announcement on Tuesday was greeted in the UK's four objective 1 regions. However, is he aware how anxious those regions are to secure some further detail, such as the mechanisms that will now be put in place to ensure the efficient delivery of those match funds? What Treasury spending guidelines will be available to the spending Departments in objective 1 regions?
    Mr. Smith: I can give the hon. Gentleman some more detail now. The Government will provide full funding for expenditure under objectives 1, 2 and 3 programmes within departmental allocations. That is estimated to total £4.2 billion for EU structural funds in the UK over three years, including an estimated £600 million for new objective 1 programmes in English regions, and of course the extra allocation of £80 million, £90 million and £100 million to Wales to ensure funding of European expenditure under objective 1 there.
    We have delivered on our support for the objective 1 programme, regenerating areas of the country that were neglected by the Conservative party. The Liberal Democrats, like everybody else, should welcome it.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend look at areas that fall just outside objective 1 funding provisions and whose objective 2 funding has been seriously cut? I appreciate that borders must be drawn somewhere, but it is difficult for impoverished neighbours such as north-east Derbyshire, which cannot cash in on some of the provisions that have been added.
    Mr. Smith: I understand the concerns to which my hon. Friend draws the House's attention. I recently met representatives of the Alliance for Regional Aid, and we discussed precisely these issues. I have asked for a further report from my officials. I should be only too happy to meet my hon. Friend and his local representatives to see how we can ensure that if people are eligible for this support, they actually get it.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Chief Secretary recognise that there is only one objective for the Government on European funding or on anything else, which is to try to con the electorate in 2001 as they conned them in 1997? Is not the reason why they are so desperate to spend their time attacking Opposition policies instead of answering questions about Government policy the fact that they know there are no answers to those questions and that they are preparing to swap Front Benches with the Opposition at the next general election?
    Mr. Smith: The one crucial reality that is most relevant to all these issues is that a growing, extreme section of the Conservative party would end this help from the European Union and the support of these programmes because it wants to pull us out of Europe.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): MONDAY 24 JULY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill.
TUESDAY 25 JULY—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No.2) Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Learning and Skills Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 26 JULY—Remaining stages of the Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.
THURSDAY 27 JULY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Utilities Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Postal Services Bill.
FRIDAY 28 JULY—Motion on the Summer Recess Adjournment.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that on Monday 24 July there will be a debate on a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in European Standing Committee C. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Monday 24 July 2000:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union Document: 13540/99; A general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 23-vii; HC23-xix and HC 23-xxiv (1999–2000)
Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the Leader of the House for the business for next week. Can she confirm that on Monday, the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on his return from the G8 summit? What other statements will be made by Ministers next week? On that subject, is it not slightly absurd that the House was formally told only at 11 o'clock today that there would be a statement on transport by the Deputy Prime Minister, whereas the media have known for days that that would happen? Is not there a better way of letting the House know about planned statements? I think that the right hon. Lady will find that the Chancellor mentioned the publication.
The Deputy Prime Minister's statement is, of course, not yet available to the House, but is it not clear that the details have already been released to the press? The Evening Standard must have had all the details before 9 o'clock, because they are set out in that newspaper. Will the right hon. Lady conduct a leak inquiry into how that discourtesy to the House could have occurred?
538
I understand that a decision is imminent on the future ownership of the dome. There is much public interest in how much it is being sold for and in the new owner's future plans for the site. Could the House have a statement on that?
Finally, can the right hon. Lady confirm that on Wednesday, there will be valedictory tributes to Madam Speaker and that on Thursday. there will be a business statement giving the business for the first two weeks back after the recess?
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I anticipate that the Prime Minister will make a statement on the G8 summit.
I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about formal notification of statements, but he will know that those are the procedures of the House. Whether a statement is to be made is always in the balance until the morning in question because, apart from anything else, Madam Speaker and others may have decisions to make about the progress of business, so the final decision is not made until that morning. However, I take his point that there may be merit in giving advance notification if it is fairly certain that a statement is to be made. I endeavour to do that in the business statement, but I shall consider his point.
I fear that I have not seen the Evening Standard, so in consequence I do not know whether what is in it is accurate or a leak. Whatever the case may be, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making a statement in the not too distant future, the opportunity to raise that issue will arise. Nor is it clear how imminent is the decision about the dome, but I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct to say that on Wednesday, we expect the formal valedictory from and for Madam Speaker. The whole House is looking forward to that. I have forgotten what the right hon. Gentleman asked me about Thursday.
Sir George Young: Will there be a business statement?
Mrs. Beckett: Yes. I anticipate making a business statement on Thursday.
Mr. David Taylor: Seven days ago I raised with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the subject of the cluster of new variant CJD victims in the north Leicestershire village of Queniborough, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). Will my right hon. Friend urge the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement before the recess on the background to that incident; to reassure the House and the people of Leicestershire that enough is being done to investigate this worrying occurrence; and to reassure them that sufficient resources are being devoted to it so that we can learn from what has happened?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised this matter last week. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. My hon. Friend will know that some quite detailed investigations and research are

539
under way. While I understand his anxiety to have a statement before the recess, if possible, I am sure that neither he nor anyone else would wish my right hon. Friend to make a statement before there is a clear understanding of the situation.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the contrast between the way in which the House conducts its business in relation to the comprehensive spending review and its treatment of the Budget? The Budget covers one year and is followed by a three or four-day debate concentrating on various elements within it. The comprehensive spending review, which covers three years, is followed by a half-day Adjournment debate and some statements and questions. Bearing in mind the greatly increased significance of the CSR in the Government's planning and organisation, will the right hon. Lady consider whether in future its exposure to debate in the House might be more equivalent to that of the Budget? That might also give the House an opportunity to consider one or two elements that were not in the CSR, such as the omission of any improvement to pensions, which is certainly deeply felt by people in the country and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Will the Leader of the House look carefully at the business for tomorrow as there is a list of 58 private Members' Bills for consideration? Will she bear in mind the request that has been made through the Modernisation Committee and elsewhere for the House's procedures on private Members' business to be given careful scrutiny? Perhaps she will undertake that the Modernisation Committee and others will give that serious consideration in the coming weeks.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the way in which the Budget is followed by several days' debate whereas the CSR does not follow the same pattern. However, the big difference between the two is that the Budget deals with the revenue-raising side of policy and looks in depth at what that means over a number of days. The comprehensive spending review, particularly one that looks three years ahead, is only a broad outline. Whereas the Budget is followed by the Finance Bill, which looks in detail at tax measures, the CSR is followed not only by a number of departmental statements, but by the unfolding of what those general totals mean over time.
I recognise that some silly statements have been made, particularly in the news media, about the CSR being a reannouncement and not involving new money. That is why it must be made clear to people what it means in terms of the impact on their local community—something that some people have an interest in obscuring.
With regard to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about pensions, of course I understand the great interest on both sides of the House in what is happening in terms of pension policy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that there would be further announcements in due course, but I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government are doing at least as much as the Liberal Democrats promised in their last manifesto when they said that they would increase pensions only in line with inflation. As far as I am aware, no one in the House—certainly not in the three main parties—proposes to increase pensions by more than inflation, or at least
540
to link them with earnings. Every party would have given the same increase because of this year's low inflation—something that, again, people are perhaps more anxious than they should be to obscure.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about private Members' Bills. No doubt it will be raised again. I simply say that, under successive Governments, over many a decade, people have examined our procedures for such Bills, but have not thought fit to make major changes.
Ms Julie Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on women's representation in Parliament? She will know that all political parties have difficulties in finding candidates who represent the whole of their communities—women and men. She will also know that Labour has been the most successful party in promoting women candidates. However, I am sure that she knows, too, that in Wales, the six seats held by Labour where the sitting Members are retiring have all chosen Labour candidates who are men. Can she find time for a debate in which we could discuss and find a solution to this very important issue?
Mr. Desmond Swayne: What about some more hermaphrodites?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend may have heard, as I did, some of the heckling from Conservative Members, who are of course embarrassed by the lack of representation of women in their ranks. Somebody—fortunately anonymous, as far as I am concerned—said that we needed more hermaphrodites. I remind the whole House, and Conservative Members in particular, that women are more than 50 per cent. of the population. They might bear that in mind when they make some of their less polite remarks.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate on the Floor of the House, but my hon. Friend might look to the opportunities in Westminster Hall, which offers double the time for Adjournment debates.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement next week on the implications for policing of the investigation that led to the discovery of the body of Sarah Payne? Her family are constituents of mine, and I think that their resilience under what was ultimately a tragic event was remarkable.
Will the Leader of the House also ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the Dispatch Box and perhaps lead a debate on the future of cottage hospitals? Three cottage hospitals in my constituency—Emberbrook, Cobham and Walton—are suffering from cuts that could lead to the ending of the use of intermediate beds, much to the disturbance of local people.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that the whole House will want me to express our sympathy for the family of Sarah Payne and our horror at her tragic death. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is conscious of the implications for policing, although we all know that there will always be tragic cases that, no matter how efficient our policing, will fall through the net. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that we have questions to the Home Secretary on Monday, and he might find an opportunity to raise the matter then.

541
The issue of cottage hospitals is, as the hon. Gentleman appreciates, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I am well aware of his, and everyone's, wish to see the best and most efficient provision in health care, and I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.
Caroline Flint: What plans does my right hon. Friend have for a hectic week ahead in terms of the timetabling of business and the programming of motions to ensure that we have a speedy and effective week of legislating?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that it is important that the House should deal with its business expeditiously and well. She is also right to identify the fact that proper programming of discussion is the most effective way of achieving that. The Government hope that it will be possible to achieve business and get a proper pattern of debating by agreement, but we of course reserve the right to table any motions that might be required to ensure that business is indeed secured.
Mr. Michael Jack: It is evident from her statement that the Leader of the House has not been able to find time next week for the promised debate on defence procurement. Hundreds of aerospace workers lobbied Parliament this week, anxious about their future. What reassurance can she give me that, when the House returns, we will have an early opportunity to hold that debate?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman may or may not have heard me say last week that the Government have every intention of scheduling a debate on defence procurement. He will know that, in recent days, the Secretary of State for Defence has made a number of procurement announcements, all of which were welcomed. He will know also that the review announcement on Tuesday conveyed that more resources would be available for defence. In other ways, the Government have made resources available to the aerospace industry. All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents is that the Government are endeavouring to make the right decisions for our defence needs—decisions that have a proper regard for the national interest and a continued rise in employment.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When will we have a chance to debate early-day motion 985, on a matter that my right hon. Friend possibly has not had a chance to study?
[That this House welcomes the statement of the Government Actuary that the link between the basic pensions and the earnings level could be restored for the next five years without any increase in National Insurance contributions; notes the answers to parliamentary questions that confirm that keeping contributions at their present level, as a proportion of earnings, would allow the link to be paid until 2011 while producing a surplus of £4 billion; and believes that this evidence fully justifies an immediate restoration of the link and a declaration of the Government's intent to increase pension levels at the true rate of earnings inflation.]
542
There seems to have been a significant change in Government policy late last night in another place, where the Government accepted, for the first time, a welcome amendment by Baroness Castle of Blackburn which instructed the Government Actuary to investigate the results of restoring the link between earnings and the pension level. The Government Actuary has indicated to the Select Committee on Social Security that the link could be restored without any additional spending and without any increase to the national insurance scheme for the next five years. Other parliamentary answers have indicated that the link can be restored up to the year 2011. This long-awaited act of justice for pensioners should be carried out within the foreseeable future. It is now, as we know, affordable and can be done without any additional public cost.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend and I are probably among the few in this House who have ever read the reports of the Government Actuary with interest. I recognise the basic point that he is making and the Actuary will no doubt flesh out the information that is needed. My hon. Friend will know that any such decision would have a major impact on other potential changes in social security. He will know also that, during the course of the Parliament, the Government will have spent £2 billion more on support for pensioners than would have been required by restoring the link with earnings. We have done so by concentrating the greatest amount of help on those who were already in the greatest need. The Government recognise other areas of need and are moving to deal with them appropriately.
Mr. David Curry: Will the Leader of the House bear it in mind that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food intends next week to announce a major reorganisation of its regional service centres, which will include the closure of some centres? Will she bear it in mind also that the Select Committee on Agriculture intends to vote on a report on this very matter next Wednesday? In light of the debate on the relative powers of the Executive and the legislature, will she ask MAFF to bear in mind the appropriateness of the two announcements?
Mrs. Beckett: I will do so, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is Agriculture questions next Thursday when he may have an opportunity to make those points himself.
Shona McIsaac: Following the advice of Advocate-General Siegbert Alber that European member states should impose VAT on tolls, I have established that the final decision is expected on 12 September. As this is during the recess, I urge my right hon. Friend that nothing should be done on this serious issue until we have come back from the recess and had a chance to debate it, so that those of us with interests—including bridges, such as the Humber bridge—can press our case that we should exempt this country from that levying of VAT.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend on the matter and she will know that the measure would have a more major impact on many other member states than it would on the UK. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the

543
near future, but she may find later today, and on other occasions, the opportunity to raise the issue. In case she does not, I promise to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Yesterday, while responding to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in columns 365–69 of the Official Report, the Prime Minister made six references to Opposition spending cuts of £16 billion. Thereafter, in columns 371–74—while responding to lesser mortals—the Prime Minister changed gear upwards to Opposition spending cuts of £24 billion at the next election. Can we have a definitive statement next week on the second figure, so that some of us who are interested parties can from it work out the date of the next election?
Mrs. Beckett: I have not seen the text of Hansard to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but it is occasionally true, as I know to my cost, that Hansard very, very rarely does make errors. [Interruption.] I have vivid memories of having referred to someone as a "mugger" and seeing it represented in Hansard as "mother". It did rather spoil the sense. However, I heard clearly what the Prime Minister said. What he said was, £24 million per constituency. In other words, it was a breakdown of the £16 billion to show the impact in the constituencies of individual Opposition Members. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety on that point and feel confident that it is something that the Conservative party will hear much of between now and the election.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an urgent debate on leaks—not the Welsh kind, but the Gould kind—because the nation is now surely entitled to know just where all these leaks are coming from? Is it from Downing street, from Millbank, or, as I have seen in one newspaper, from the Daily Express? The reason why it is important to know is that, in this age of alleged freedom of information and alleged open government, it would appear that the Government are nevertheless concerned to cover up ever more of what goes on at the highest level, rather than be open, transparent and honest with the people. Can we please have an urgent debate on that matter, so that we can eliminate all the suggestion of leaks and enter a period of genuine open government?
Mrs. Beckett: It is entirely clear in whose interest these leaks are being printed at the time that they are being printed. It is to try to ensure that the British people do not hear the news about the substance of the Government's policies. What is becoming increasingly clear is which party is really interested in substance and which in spin.
Ann Clwyd: May we have an early debate on the Ilisu dam in Turkey, from which the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) and I have just returned, on a visit funded by Kurdish human rights groups? The project involves shoving 45,000 people out of their homes without proper consultation. It infringes most of the World Bank guidelines. It is bad for the environment; it is bad for human rights. It would be very bad if the British taxpayer, through export credit
544
guarantees, were to get involved in that project, particularly as the Turkish Government are not likely to adhere to the conditions set down by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mrs. Beckett: I of course understand the concern that my hon. Friend and others, including the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, have expressed. She will know that the Government have indicated that we would take the most careful note of the concerns expressed, but she will also know that, as yet, no decision has been made or announced.
Mr. Stephen Day: The right hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have a problem with losing important pieces of paper, but it has become more serious lately, according to reports in The Guardian: the Government have lost 5 million pieces of confidential information—the tax records of 5 million people. That was brought to light by The Guardian from, apparently, a copy of an internal departmental memo.
As Ministers have known about that grave error and concern for so long, why have they not come to the House to explain the matter to Members—who will have to deal with the problems of our constituents, many of whom will be affected—and, indeed, to the 5 million people who will be seriously affected? When the right hon. Lady has explained why Ministers have not come to the House already, can she explain when they will come to the House to explain?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not entirely sure, but it strikes me as possible that, if some records are not at present identifiable, no one can let the people who are involved know because no one knows who they are. That seems to follow rather logically from the loss of those records. However, what is truly remarkable is that, given how many tax records it is said the Inland Revenue has at least temporarily mislaid, it was able to find Lord Levy's records when it needed them.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the right hon. Lady agree that there are many unsung heroes in the United Kingdom? Can she find time for a debate on the honours system, so that the brave soul who is exposed to fear, loathing, ego, cant and sheer hypocrisy at the heart of 10 Downing street can be justly rewarded?
Mrs. Beckett: I should certainly like to see that person justly rewarded.
Mr. Tony McWalter: In the context of next week's debate on resource accounting, can my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that there are some new towns, which include Hemel Hempstead, whose resource base is almost entirely derived from land devoted to housing stock in the past? As a result, they have a very low resource base which is not funded initially from housing. In the context of changes about ring-fencing housing resources, those new towns are now faced with potentially catastrophic cuts. There is an impending 41 per cent. cut in the resource base in Dacorum in my

545
area. Will my right hon. Friend draw that to the attention of the Treasury so that, with a bit of luck, true resource accounting will not be invidious for the new towns?
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly undertake to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends in the Treasury team. He may find some opportunity to flag up the issue during debates on the matter next week.
Mr. John Bercow: Can we please have an early debate in Government time on the important doctrine of collective responsibility, the Government's current interpretation of which seems to be neither collective nor responsible? Given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants the Prime Minister's job, the Foreign Secretary wants the Chancellor's job and the Northern Ireland Secretary wants all their jobs, would it not be helpful to have an early debate in which all those Ministers were present so that we could see them on the Treasury Bench united in fraternal detestation of each other's guts?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that the House will wish to spend time on such a debate. If the hon. Gentleman's definition of fraternal support is the way in which the shadow Chancellor's policy has totally scuppered the career of the Leader of the Opposition, all I can say is that they are welcome to it.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Leader of the House persuade the Prime Minister to make a statement next week on his ministerial code? In particular, could he explain to the House and the country why it has disappeared off the web? It used to be found on the Cabinet Office website, but it has now been reorganised out. One can hunt around the web for as long as one likes. One can turn to something which is misleadingly called the opengov.com site, but the statement is not there—nor is there very much else there. Could the Leader of the House arrange for the code to be put back on the web, perhaps on the Deputy Prime Minister's own website, at least for paragraph 113?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of the ministerial code's destination at this time, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the relevant authorities. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not worry too much about its applying to him for a while yet.
Mr. Tim Loughton: Given the comment by Lord Rogers in The Independent today that the Chancellor has singularly failed to stop the haemorrhaging of people from our rundown inner cities and his continued frustration that not a single recommendation of his urban taskforce report has yet been put into effect, will the Leader of the House promise the House an urgent debate after the recess so that the Government can account for what they are actually doing to tackle deprivation in our inner cities, rather than just appointing talking shops to talk about what should be done?
Mrs. Beckett: As I recall there will be Question Time to the relevant Department in the near future. The hon.
546
Gentleman should know that it is not the case that nothing has been done to carry out the recommendations in Lord Rogers's report. A great deal of work has been done in that direction. The hon. Gentleman should also know that our inner cities got into their present state under the Government whom he supported.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: Will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss the future of the steel industry? As she is no doubt aware, 1,200 redundancies have just been announced in Teesside and South Yorkshire, and 1,400 were announced only a few weeks ago. Will she ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the House for a debate on the future of the steel industry?
Mrs. Beckett: I know of my hon. Friend's great concern for the steel industry and for employment in that industry. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken a great interest in these matters and does what can be done to assist and support that industry. We remain in discussions with the steel industry. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a further debate on the matter on the Floor of the House in the near future, but my hon. Friend might seek a debate in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I declare an interest in the question that I am about to ask, as I am an owner of a convenience store in Swansea. Will the Leader of the House arrange for somebody from the Department of Trade and Industry to come to the House within the next few days to make a statement on the sale of loose goods in shops and supermarkets? She may be aware that Tesco announced on Monday that it was going to reverse its decision, and would sell loose goods using imperial weights and promoting pounds and ounces.
Some 38,000 small stores in this country are still using imperial weights. Officials in local authorities up and down the country will be confused about what they should be telling those stores. A number of the stores will be operating on the margins of profitability, and they simply cannot afford to buy new scales to replace existing usable scales. Will the right hon. Lady clear up the confusion and arrange for a statement to be made in the House in the next few days?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand and sympathise with the concerns of small traders, who may be confused. However, it is a little surprising that neither the hon. Gentleman nor his right hon. and hon. Friends have been able to clear up this confusion, as it is as long ago as 1989 that the then Government agreed that these measures should be phased out by 1995, and they then imposed a delay until 2000. So people should have been aware of this matter for at least 10 years.
I understand—and I know that the House will wish to have this information—that it was as long ago as 1862 that a Select Committee of the House recommended that Britain should go metric, so we have had some time to adjust. Although, as I say, I fully understand and sympathise with the difficulties of small traders, I do not think that "confusion" is the right way to describe what they are experiencing. We should be trying to get people to accept the variation of usage, with one set of measures

547
alongside the other, but we must recognise that among young people in particular, the use of imperial measures is disappearing.
Mr. David Tredinnick: When the House returns in October, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on one aspect of parliamentary reform that has not had enough attention? I refer not to the hours in the day that we sit, but the days of the year on which we sit. Is it not a fact that the parliamentary calendar is completely out of balance, with far too much business being taken between January and July? Would it not be much better if the recess was from June to September? What advice does the Leader of the House have for Members who are parents, whose children will be on half-term the week that we return?
Mrs. Beckett: I am very conscious of the difficulties faced by parents. There is, and long has been, a discussion about whether we can establish a firmer parliamentary calender and whether there should be a slightly different balance to the parliamentary calendar. There is only one set of circumstances under which a firmer parliamentary calendar would be possible—that is, if we were able to make firmer arrangements for the programming of our debates. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman being in the same Lobby as me when we debate the Modernisation Committee report.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Lady seek to persuade the Minister for the Cabinet Office to make a statement about the extent to which publicly funded special advisers at No. 10 Downing street are being used to wage faction fights among the leading personalities of the Labour Government? I have in mind not only the infamous "TB" memorandum, of which so much has been heard, but the remarks reported last weekend, when No. 10 had a senior special adviser quoted as saying of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
He is poisoning relations with half the Cabinet and the sooner he goes the better.
548
Although I have every sympathy with people holding that opinion, that is a matter for their internal faction fighting. It should not be something that I and other taxpayers are funding.
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the House that it has long been the case that those who are political rather than civil service appointees have worked with Governments of every political shade—very useful it is too. Indeed, a large number of them now occupy the Opposition Benches. Furthermore, we trebled the resources available to the parliamentary Opposition to enable them to be better staffed—something that the Conservative Government denied us when we were in opposition.
It has been truly remarkable that, during business questions today, Opposition Members, with a couple of honourable exceptions, have not wanted to talk about the extra money going to hospitals, schools or the police—any of the matters in which the British public are really interested. That is what people will notice.
Mr. Swayne: It might have escaped the right hon. Lady's notice that we shall have opportunities to question Ministers on those matters—not least after business questions today.
Is there any substance to the press reports that Labour Back Benchers who are not expected to hold their seats are receiving counselling to help them to adjust psychologically? Will the right hon. Lady make a statement to the House setting out the counselling services that she will make available to Back Benchers who, notwithstanding the fact that they will continue to hold their seats, will have no further role in holding the Government to account as a consequence of the plans to programme all legislation?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender in this place. I am sorry that, despite the fact that we have offered to conduct seminars on how to be a good Opposition, so many Opposition Members seem not to have been able to take them on board.
Dr. Julian Lewis: You had enough practice.
Mrs. Beckett: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, given the way the Opposition are going, they will have plenty of practice too.

Transport (Ten-Year Plan)
1.6 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Transport is a subject that has been close to my heart for all my working life in and out of Parliament. However, for decades it has been in decline—dogged by stop-go funding and a short-term approach.
On Tuesday, the Chancellor set out how we can now begin to invest properly in our public services. He was able to do that because we have dealt with debt and sorted out the public finances. That meant that we had to stick to the depressed Tory spending figures that we inherited. We continued the previous Government's fuel duty escalator, both to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to restore public finances. That was not easy. It was not popular, believe me; but it was the right thing to do. Now, we can build and invest for the future.
Decades of under-investment and the lack of strategic planning left us with a transport system in crisis. That is already changing. In three years, we have made real improvements—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will listen, they will be able to make a judgment. These are the facts: we have begun to tackle the road maintenance backlog; the overall decline in bus passengers has been halted, and in many areas passenger numbers are rising for the first time; the number of rail passengers has increased by 17 per cent. and rail freight by 22 per cent. since the general election. That is what has happened during the past three years.
Transport is now a growth industry, and many of the problems that it faces are of expansion—not of decline. We have laid the foundations for the long term. We needed to integrate the Departments of Environment and Transport—we have done that. We needed to set out a new strategy—we have done that. We needed to bring in radical new legislation—we have done that. We needed to introduce new forms of finance; we have done that. Today, I am announcing new resources to bring about a step change in transport.
These are new ideas, new powers and new resources—a new approach for a new century. It is on these foundations that we are building today's 10-year programme. It is based on long-term investment by Government and industry to modernise the country's transport system. That is vital for our economic success, and for the quality of our lives. It is excellent news for manufacturers and for the construction sector, which will be able to plan for the long term. Much of that sector had closed down because of the short-term approach to investment in industry.
On Tuesday, the Chancellor announced that, over the next three years, public spending on transport will rise from £5 billion to more than £9 billion. Real-terms capital investment will double. That has been widely welcomed. The Automobile Association said that it was
a welcome change from decades of penny-pinching and under-investment … There's no doubt that this represents the most serious attempt to tackle our transport crisis in years.
The Rail Users Committee said that the announcement was
good news for rail passengers and for the country.
550
The Confederation of British Industry also welcomed it. And the CBI director-general, Digby Jones, said on the "Today" programme this morning that what is needed is a 10-year programme providing substantial public and private investment—he stated, up to £180 billion. My Department's modelling, analysis and consultation came to a similar conclusion. Our analysis is published in a document available in the Library.
There is now a broad consensus about what is needed to reduce congestion and to provide a bigger, better and safer railway and a real choice in public transport. With public investment keeping pace with economic growth after the year 2004, total spending over the 10 years—public and private—will now be £180 billion. One hundred and thirty-two billion pounds of that—almost three quarters—will come from the public purse. This is not all new money, but even if we maintained this year's spending as the norm, that means over £50 billion of extra public expenditure. Capital investment by Government and industry together will be 75 per cent. more in real terms than over the last decade.
The plan addresses the issue in a realistic and businesslike way. There are no frills, no promises of a rosy, traffic-free future: just our best judgments—based on a detailed analysis—of what the new resources will deliver.
We are securing long-term investment through long-term partnership contracts: new rail franchises lasting up to 20 years, 30-year contracts for roads and 30-year contracts for the London underground. But let me make it absolutely clear. If we put in public money, we expect rail and bus companies—and local authorities—to deliver the goods: more investment and better services for the travelling public, on budget and on time.
The policy that we inherited on the railways planned for decline and reduced public support. Our programme includes £60 billion for a bigger, better and safer railway—the biggest investment in railways for generations.
We shall deliver better quality for the travelling public, lower regulated fares, 50 per cent. more passengers and 80 per cent. more rail freight, and a new Strategic Rail Authority with a new rail modernisation fund of £7 billion to help deliver these goals. So we shall deliver a railway system that is better for the passengers, better for freight, better for the economy and better for the environment—win, win, win and win again.
Our programme includes £59 billion for modernising local transport in every region throughout the country. It will increase bus use by 10 per cent., with guided buses, priority routes, park and ride and a modern fleet, building on the £400 million of private investment that has already taken place.
Light rail can transform our cities. Manchester and other cities have shown what a difference it can make. So we are going to provide resources for up to 25 new light rail projects in our major cities. We shall create greater social justice with more accessible buses, trains and taxis for disabled people, and cut-price fares for pensioners and disabled people, and for the first time we are recognising the problems of people who live in poorly served, deprived urban areas, cut off from jobs and services. They can look to help from a new urban bus challenge fund to provide new links to their communities.

551
Our successful rural transport fund, which has already secured over 2,000 extra services in rural areas, will now rise from £60 million to £95 million a year, with rural transport partnerships established in every county.
Both urban and rural communities will benefit from an extension to the fuel duty rebate for community transport.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: That is our policy.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is in opposition—has he not heard?
Small-scale local improvements can make a big difference to people's lives, such as schemes to make walking and cycling safer and easier, and 20 mph zones, especially where children are most at risk. We shall increase funding for those schemes.
In London, our great capital city, we inherited a creaking transport system, congested roads and overcrowded trains—I do not think that anyone disputes that. We have already made major investments in the capital, with the Jubilee line, docklands light railway extension and other projects. Over the next 10 years, our programme provides £25 billion to support the London transport strategy, with better buses, less crowded trains and less congestion on the roads. This will be enough to produce a real step change in bus services, town-centre improvements and safer walking and cycling. The public-private partnership will secure investment in the existing underground. We have made provision for new links; an orbital London railway and longer-term projects such as the new east-west rail link and east Thames crossings. We are determined to use refranchising to get better and more reliable rail services for commuters.
Those major improvements in public transport throughout the country will help to reduce congestion and pollution. Sensible land-use planning and new technology can make a difference. However, we need also to make better use of our existing road network. We have already set up studies into our busiest transport corridors to find solutions that will involve all types of transport in the multi-modal studies. The first conclusions will emerge over the next few months, and we are providing the resources to implement the results.
The programme includes £21 billion for the strategic road network. This is enough to widen 360 miles of the most congested roads, such as the Al and the M6, and to invest in "electronic motorways" to manage traffic better and to keep drivers better informed. There will be 100 new bypasses to take traffic out of hard-pressed villages and towns, schemes to tackle congestion and safety hotspots and low-noise surfaces on 60 per cent. of the trunk road network, including all concrete roads.
We have already dealt with the backlog of trunk road repairs. We will enable local authorities to get rid of the backlog on local roads with a £30 billion maintenance programme, which is covered under the heading "Local Transport".
Without the measures set out in the plan, congestion is forecast to grow by 28 per cent. on inter-urban trunk roads and by 15 per cent. in larger urban areas. With the plan, we shall not only eliminate this forecast growth but reduce congestion below current levels by 2010. Our proposals will produce savings in greenhouse gas emissions, helping us to achieve our Kyoto targets and more. We will improve air quality, with new resources to encourage cleaner fuels and vehicles.
552
Safety is fundamental to the plan and important to the House. The terrible accidents at Ladbroke Grove and Southall, and more than 3,000 deaths on our roads every year, are a vivid reminder that we can never afford to be complacent. We will ensure the installation of train protection systems, as recommended by Sir David Davies. I have stressed repeatedly that we will not pre-empt Lord Cullen's inquiry. I give a categoric assurance that the plan will deliver any further measures arising from Lord Cullen's inquiry. Safety will always be first in my priorities.
Under various Governments, our roads are already among the safest in Europe. Over the next decade, we are determined to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents by 40 per cent., and by 50 per cent. for children. We are providing the resources to enable government, the Highways Agency and local authorities to play their part in achieving these targets.
It has often been the role of Labour Governments to modernise this country's infrastructure, and that is what we are doing again with our 10-year plan. There will be long-term investment and public-private partnership to increase choice and cut congestion. The Opposition have plans only to cut public spending. They have no plans to cut congestion. The public will ask them to declare where they would make cuts in our programme.
A Labour Government are working with business to deliver the long-term investment that is needed to rebuild our infrastructure, cut congestion, improve public transport and give people greater choice. I hope that people will understand that modernising the transport system will take time and create inconvenience and problems. Making the necessary changes, will at least mean that people will be aware that we are making long-term decisions and dealing with the cause and not the symptoms of a congested system.
New roads and railways are not built overnight. However, with sustained government investment and the backing of industry, we shall make year-on-year improvements to get the job done. The plan will get Britain moving and give the people of this country a transport system on which they can rely. The British people have waited decades for a long-term approach such as this. It is what they deserve, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), may I point out that I noticed some Members leaving the Chamber during the statement, no doubt to go to the Vote Office to obtain the document? I regard it as a discourtesy to any Secretary of State for Members to walk out to obtain a document while a statement is being made. If Members want to be called, they should remain in the Chamber throughout and listen to the statement. The statement, not the document, is being questioned at this stage.
Mr. Jenkin: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving me an advance copy of the statement. I give a broad endorsement to the comments that he made about safety and, in particular, about the Cullen inquiry.
As for the rest of the statement, the Deputy Prime Minister must think that the British people were all born yesterday. The travelling public will not be fooled. Labour has made promises before and people are still waiting.

553
They are waiting in traffic jams, and they have done that; they are waiting for buses stuck in traffic, and they have done that; and they are waiting for overcrowded trains, and they have done that. They are fed up with the right hon. Gentleman's promises and they are fed up with being ripped off by the Government; they have done that.
After three wasted years, the Deputy Prime has the nerve to come to the House and say, "I've got a 10-year transport plan." How much tax will road users have to pay over that period? It is at least £423 billion. That is more than £18,000 per household. That will be his legacy. His only real policy is to try to tax hard-working people and hard-pressed pensioners off the road.
Petrol tax is a regressive tax. Under Labour, the poor pay the biggest increases. Where is the social justice in that? On top of the £423 billion in taxes, the congestion and parking taxes will hurt the poor most. Why are the Government simply reserving the roads for the rich and for Ministers in their Jaguars? Should cars be just for the privileged few?
What does the Deputy Prime Minister's big spending number really mean? How much is double counted or reannounced? How much relies on investment by the transport industries that we privatised? How much is just pious hope, empty promises and post-dated cheques?
As in every Government announcement, these figures are designed to mislead. How can we believe the Deputy Prime Minister's promise of 25 light rail schemes when he told the House of Commons that
light rail systems are an extremely expensive way of dealing with congestion … ?—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317. c. 1072.]
His former deputy, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), said in a press release that
we will not be in a position to support similar light rail schemes for the foreseeable future.
However desirable light rail systems may be, are these not just fantasyland promises from a Government desperate for votes? How many systems will actually be built within 10 years?
What about all the promises that the Deputy Prime Minister has made before? Does he remember the 1998 White Paper? In it, he said:
We want to cut congestion … and avoid the urban sprawl that has lengthened journeys and consumed precious countryside.
However, the Deputy Prime Minister is building more houses over the green fields of England. Britain now has the worst congestion in western Europe.
Labour Members all cheered two years ago when the M6 widening was cancelled, apparently to save the planet. Now they all cheer when it is going ahead. That is an admission that the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong. Will they all cheer again when it fails to materialise?
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall saying that he would have failed if there were not far fewer journeys by car? This new 2010 target is an admission that he has already failed. Has he not read the dire warnings of his own congestion report, which showed that congestion will increase by 90 per cent? Why is his target on congestion any more relevant than all his other targets?
The Deputy Prime Minister has abandoned his other targets, such as that to treble rail freight or that to double cycling. What is the point of all the new rail investment
554
if people keep missing their train because they are stuck in traffic jams created by the right hon. Gentleman? How dare he claim credit for announcing 100 new bypasses today, when he scrapped so many bypasses just two years ago? Can he explain why he has announced 100 bypasses, although his own publication says that there will be 50 new bypasses? Is that just another bit of spin? Is not the Secretary of State who murdered the roads programme now trying to change his plea to manslaughter? How is he going to stop the Mayor of London cancelling schemes such as the A23 Coulsdon bypass?
Is it not perfectly clear that, after three wasted years, nobody believes a word that the Secretary of State says? After all the White Papers and consultations, glossy brochures and photo opportunities, today is about nothing more than the sliding credibility of the Government and the looming date of the next election. Does the Secretary of State think that the endless spinning of larger and larger telephone-number figures for his plan conveys anything other than the whiff of panic about the Government's lamentable transport policy?
The Deputy Prime Minister has often attacked the spinning and lying of spin doctors and has said:
We cannot win simply on image and presentation.
However, is he not resorting to that and that alone? In March, he told the House:
I regret and denounce the leaks … and I am doing all I can to prevent them.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 863.]
Who, therefore, has been briefing the press on the 10-year plan, week after week, for the past six months? The so-called enemy of spin is the king of spin.
This is not real money, but a 10-year plan from a one-term Government who cannot see further than the headlines in tomorrow's newspapers. The plan is a broken policy on the back of broken promises from a broken-backed Secretary of State.
Mr. Prescott: I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) thanked me for giving him the report, but it is a pity that he did not read it. If he had, he would not have asked half the stupid questions that he did.
There has been some speculation on the number of leaks to which he referred. I treat leaks seriously. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The House can make a judgment on those matters. There has been a great deal of speculation, and different figures are given all the time. I have a document—which I shall not call a leaked memo, as it is a paper from the research department of the Conservative daily bulletin—which predicts that I would produce a £130 billion programme. I announced a £180 billion programme, but the research department had a chance to speculate, although it underestimated what I would do. Many other people made judgments about what the total amount would be, and I observed with interest all those different figures. I have brought my figures for the 10-year plan to the House at the proper time.
Mr. Jenkin: Fantasy.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman thinks that that is fantasy. However, I did not notice him address himself to rejecting the idea that investment was needed. There was not one word from him to suggest that he rejected the fact that all that money was needed to modernise the transport system. If that sum is needed, on that considerable scale,

555
representing the greatest investment in rail seen in generations, it is because investment had presumably declined in the past 20 years. I am prepared to concede that no Government have ever found sufficient resources to put into our transport system and I feel that that is because Treasury rules rather limited that investment.
Our plan talks about public-private partnership, which is something that the previous Administration started to do, but we have taken it much further, by getting private contracts guaranteeing investments for a longer period than the one year or three years that one is likely to get from the Treasury. As a public-private partnership will provide that money, I would have thought that the Opposition could at least agree with that.
Mr. Jenkin: Fantasy.
Mr. Prescott: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is fantasy, I suggest that he talk to the director-general of the CBI, who is not necessarily known as one of our spokesmen and who announced today that the minimum amount needed for investment in our transport system was £180 billion. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the CBI is fantasising, I must tell him that it arrived at that view after proper consultation and having listened to its members, who explained what the country needs to improve the economy and the environment to and reduce congestion, which all involve considerable cost. That is the CBI's judgment. Talk of fantasy is just Opposition rhetoric.
On delivery, in three years we have seen, for the first time, a reverse in the decline of our industries. We have reduced the backlog and seen growth in freight and passenger traffic, both on buses and on rail. That was not evident during the 18 years of Tory Administration. As for all the talk about glossy documents, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I think that long-term solutions are necessary. I have been in the transport industry, and I am fed up with seeing Governments cut back on capital programmes, because those cuts eventually catch up with them. I have tried to introduce long-term planning.
If we want such planning. first we have to get the thinking right, so we issue a White Paper and then we debate it. Then we have to make sure that we have the powers to introduce the measures, and I have done that. This is the third step in three years to get substantial resources, which the Chancellor has been able to give us simply because we made difficult decisions in the first two years, so I am proud to bring this investment to the public—let them judge what is fantasy and what is reality. The election will surely give the hon. Gentleman his answer.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this first attempt to have a structured transport plan will be warmly welcomed throughout the country not only by all passengers, but by people who use all forms of transport, whether by road, rail, sea or air?
Will my right hon. Friend clarify one or two points? Does his undertaking on the train protection system mean that, if Lord Cullen makes a different recommendation, my right hon. Friend expects to update the equipment in all existing trains? Is he telling us that there will be new lines as well as enhancement on the London underground system? Can he assure us that, in the new round of
556
franchising, the private companies involved in the transport system will not only give undertakings to enhance the bricks and mortar that they own, but make it clear that the passenger is their first commitment, and that, in future, we will have new trains and better services? We shall certainly examine carefully how much transport is financed by the fare box, to ensure that we achieve the right balance.
Above all, does my right hon. Friend accept that, because transport takes so long to bring into operation, it is essential that passengers immediately begin to see much better conditions? They want new systems; they have waited over 20 years and they want those systems to begin operating as soon as possible. This is the first serious attempt to provide that level of care.
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that welcome. She is right to point out the concern about safety systems on our railways. I have already promised, and announced to the House, that we will implement the recommendations of Sir David Davies that the warning systems should be applied on all lines and that automatic train protection should be introduced for high-speed lines. If Lord Cullen makes further recommendations about the timetable, I will want to consider those seriously and I would be inclined to say that we should adopt them, but the House will understand that I must wait and see what those recommendations are.
I want us to have the safest railway system, and automatic train protection will give us that. Early warning systems will achieve that level of safety more quickly than I could implement automatic train protection, but I await the report of Lord Cullen, who is taking into account the Uff inquiry and Sir David Davies's report on these matters.
On new lines, the London transport plan to which I referred, and on which the Mayor will report in the autumn, considers the new cross-London line, as my hon. Friend knows, and the east London link, which will connect the underground and the surface railway system. I am glad that, through our negotiations, we were able to establish the new channel tunnel rail link, which is in its first phase and is now on budget and on time. We rescued that from collapse when we came into office. The second stage will provide us with a new line, and we are all looking forward to that. So there are new lines, as well as enhancements to the system.
With regard to public-private partnerships, we will lay down targets and keep the passenger in mind as we modernise the system. The passenger has priority in our considerations. We will set tough targets, and tough penalties if they are not achieved by the companies. I am sure that my hon. Friend's Committee will examine the contracts when they are issued.
On new investment, the decision to bring forward the date for removing slam-door stock was a good decision in the interests of safety, and means that the industry can concentrate on the long-term target of securing investment to provide the new kind of trains that we want on our railway system.
Mr. Don Foster: Unlike the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), may I on behalf of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches categorically welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement? After 18 years of a Conservative Government, public transport was left in crisis and there was massive congestion on our roads.

557
However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand the anger and frustration of many at the fact that, in the first three years of a Labour Government, there have been real-terms cuts in investment in public transport. The situation was not quite as the Deputy Prime Minister said—win, win, win, and win again. It was lose, lose, lose, and only now are we beginning to win, and we welcome that.
Can the right hon. Gentleman, first, assure the House that, after 10 years of the plan, he expects that there will be less traffic on our roads than at present? Secondly, given that he rightly said that we need early measures to prove his commitment and to improve people's environment, lives and road safety, such as safe routes to school and 20 mph limits, will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear assurance that the necessary money will urgently reach local government?
Thirdly, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he said in his statement that there would be additional money for the maintenance of local roads at local authority level, yet in the comprehensive spending review document issued two days ago, the amount of money for local authority road maintenance remained constant at the current level?
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what assurances he has been given about the security of the important and welcome private finance that he is bringing in, and why, given the Select Committee reports on the PPP for the National Air Traffic Services and for the tube, both of which were rejected, he sees that as the only appropriate way of bringing in private finance?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm support of our document, but I cannot accept his criticism that we made no improvement in the past three years. I tried to highlight some of them. I do not want to repeat them, but they include more services available on the railways—4,500 of them—and 2,000 new bus services in the rural areas. Those are definite improvements, although I acknowledge that we undertook not to spend more than the programme that we inherited.
To be fair, the Tories' programme of expenditure in the first two years after we were elected anticipated a cut of £1.8 billion. We kept those resources instead of cutting them, but that was not sufficient to meet all the demands. We made a choice, which affected the road programme in particular, largely because we took the view that, if we could get the public finances into proper order, we could begin to enjoy the level of public investment that was needed. That decision was right, although it led to some criticism about whether we were doing enough.
The local government transport plans will be presented to me in the next month or so, and I will make a decision in December. The plans will include recommendations for by-passes, of which there are 100. The Opposition spokesman was confused about that. There are to be 50 rural and 50 urban by-passes, making a total of 100. The hon. Gentleman would have benefited from reading the report.
Local transport plans have been allocated £59 billion in the programme, and £30 billion of that is directed towards improving road maintenance. We have caught up with the backlog. After all, when we came to power, we were told
558
clearly, and the view persists, that the condition of our roads was the worst since records were kept. We have cut the backlog on inter-urban roads, and £30 billion out of the £59 billion is for the towns, where great problems exist.
On the point about more cars and more roads, I have made it clear in several exchanges here that the growth in the number of cars and other vehicles on our roads has decreased from 8 to 2 per cent. There is therefore some decline. My job is to find a better public transport system so that people can begin to choose to use their cars less and public transport more. That is behind much of the programme; two thirds of the money that I have announced will go towards improving public transport.
I still maintain that public-private partnerships for the underground and NATS are the best way in which to proceed. I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate that.
Mr. Clive Efford: If anybody needed reminding of the reason for the parlous state of transport when we came to power in 1997, the statement of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) did that. He had nothing to say about public transport; he did not mention buses once. That demonstrates the Conservative party's attitude to transport and the reasons that we were in such a mess.
I worked in London's public transport service for 12 years. The £3.2 billion that my right hon. Friend has announced today will be most welcome. However, I draw his attention to plans for the East London line, which I also welcome, and the orbital route that is planned around London. That route does not turn eastward towards south-east London. As I never tire of reminding the House, south-east London does not benefit from the London underground. People who travel to central London rely on the rail network, which is overcrowded at peak times. We need alternatives to Network South-East for people who travel to central London. With the east London river crossing for the rail link of the East London line, can we also have a scheme for a link to the south-east?
Mr. Prescott: I have some sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend has made to me on several occasions, both publicly and privately. The Mayor now knows the resources that are likely to be available to him, and he can begin to take them into account in his transport plan. There is considerable investment in new lines and in modernising the existing system. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from that. I tell my hon. Friend to keep pressing me, but also to get on to the Mayor.
Miss Anne McIntosh: May I return the Deputy Prime Minister's focus to rural transport? He set up the Commission for Integrated Transport in July last year; why did not he insist that it held at least one meeting to discuss rural transport? That would have led to positive input in the 10-year transport plan.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, figures for road safety in North Yorkshire are the worst in the country, not because of the drivers who live there but because of the high proportion of transit traffic on those roads. I make a plea to the Deputy Prime Minister to recognise the rurality and sparsity factors and the additional miles of road that are covered by transit traffic in North Yorkshire.

559
I appreciate that the details may be in the document, but the Deputy Prime Minister said nothing about detrunking roads. If he is to proceed with his strategy of detrunking rural roads in North Yorkshire in particular, will he give the House a commitment today to give local authorities, in this case North Yorkshire county council, additional funds to maintain roads at a higher standard than currently applies?
Let me consider—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady has had her share of questions.
Mr. Prescott: The House is aware that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) has many interests in rural areas. I well understand that, knowing the beautiful part of the country that she represents. She will know that our increase in bus services in rural areas has benefited many parts of North Yorkshire. There was an initial difficulty when the North Yorkshire local authority refused the £1 million that was available to it. The local authority claimed that it did not know how to use it. It has subsequently found ways of doing that. It was a Tory local authority, and I do not understand why it found it difficult to provide good transport services for the people of North Yorkshire. However, I shall continue to make the case.
The roads and the priorities for the areas that we are discussing are under consideration in multi-modal studies and the regional reports. I expect to receive the reports in the autumn and the spring, and I hope to make statements about them later.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that we had serious discussions about improving the infrastructure in the old coalfield areas, where as many as 2,000 people would have been working down a hole in the ground? To provide a lot of work on the pit top, we needed to ensure that the infrastructure was correct. He might also recall the discussions and decisions regarding proposed junction 29A of the M1, which could provide about 9,000 jobs for three adjoining constituencies in north Derbyshire, where there is not a single pit left after the Tories got rid of them all. Can he give me an assurance that the Government still have that idea on board and that it will be pursued in the 10-year plan?
Mr. Prescott: Yes, I well remember junction 29A, which was greatly discussed in the coalfield communities. We have changed the regional planning guidance for those matters to take fully into account the difficulties that our coal communities experienced after the massive pit closures and the matter is still very much on board. We are reviewing the programmes and I hope to give an answer by the end of this year or the beginning of next.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Amid all the hype, why is the local authority road maintenance budget not increasing?
Mr. Prescott: The sum is £30 billion, which is the highest ever given to road maintenance—considerably higher than when the hon. Gentleman was a Transport Minister. He presided over a transport policy that led to the mess that we are trying correct.
Dr. Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend will be aware that lack of adequate transport infrastructure
560
is a major challenge that threatens the expansion of the economic regeneration of north-west Kent. How will his plans achieve adequate transport infrastructure for north-west Kent while safeguarding the environment and the quality of life of people in my constituency?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend will know from his constituency that there is considerable call for investment, whether in road or in rail, to meet economic demand. His constituency is in an area of important economic development and we are looking closely at the infrastructure. Roads certainly have a part to play in assisting with the process, as does the new channel tunnel rail link. Our road review document, which we announced to the House about a year ago, made the criteria clear—not only economic factors, but environmental, safety and congestion issues have to be addressed. Those are being considered and we hope to make a statement on the regional reports at the beginning of next year.
Sir David Madel: The chief executives of the Highways Agency and of the Government office of the east of England have both visited Dunstable to see the huge congestion there. Does the Dun stable bypass feature in the 100 bypasses that the right hon. Gentleman has announced? There is £60 billion for the railways. Will part of it be used to reopen the disused railway line between Dunstable and Luton? If so, that will also be welcomed in the town.
Mr. Prescott: I can well recall individual Members spending a lot of time asking about particular roads during my 30 years as a Member of the House. [Interruption.] I am saying that I am trying to take regional and local factors into account. Local transport plans are given to us each year and a five-year plan will be announced after full representations have been taken by December. Those plans will make recommendations for bypasses and roads and I shall consider them. Of course bypasses can play a part on some strategic routes in both rural and urban areas and I shall take representations from the strategic regional review bodies and the development agencies. All that will enable us to identify those roads over the next six months. The 40-odd roads in the preferred programme that I announced to the House are under way.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and the work that he does to try to improve this country's transport system. He referred to pedestrians and walkers. Sadly, the Opposition spokesman did not. May I impress on my right hon. Friend the importance of catering for pedestrians in town and city centres? Will he give an assurance that pedestrianisation schemes will be retained, maintained and extended wherever possible? Will he give a further assurance that he will listen carefully to meaningful consultation on his waterways document and develop still further the canal and waterways system throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Prescott: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that in the transport plans we are encouraging local authorities to undertake more and more pedestrianisation. There is no doubt about pedestrianisation any more although a few years ago a lot of hon. Members protested that it would be bad for business. Most now feel that pedestrianisation

561
is good for cities, good for business and good for pedestrians. We shall have more to say about that in October in the urban White Paper which will deal with improving the quality of life in our cities, and in a separate White Paper on rural areas.
Having watched the development of waterways—I come from a part of the country where there are many—I am pleased that a week or so ago we announced a change in policy, which allows waterways to become part of the urban environment rather than leaving them to waste away. They should not be a liability on the taxpayer, requiring more and more taxpayers' money. In regenerating our urban areas, public and private partnerships have used waterways to open up many of our cities.
The waterways in Birmingham, Leeds and other cities used to be shunned. They were in parts of the city where nobody wanted to go, but they are now at the heart of urban redevelopment and contribute considerably to the quality of life there. It is noticeable that more people are returning to live in cities where that kind of facility has been turned from a liability to an asset. That is another major change that we have made in transport policy.
Mr. Stephen Day: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the previous Government gave a starting date for the completion of the Manchester airport eastern link road, which would have helpfully linked the airport after which it is named. It also gave a starting date for the Poynton bypass to the east. The Deputy Prime Minister came along and cancelled both schemes, which are now subject to a multi-modal study in which we must rehearse the arguments of 20 years of public inquiries on those schemes. Will road schemes subject to such multi-modal studies remain in that position or will they now have some chance of being given the importance that the previous Government gave them?
Mr. Prescott: We decided to finish with the wish list that seemed to dominate an awful lot of discussions in this House, and we chose our priorities and the criteria according to which they would be judged. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are completing the Manchester motorway box—it will be finished by the autumn, I think—and the inner link road, bearing in mind the Commonwealth games that will take place in Manchester. We are also investing £500 million in the light rail system.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the multi-modal studies. Some of those are already beginning to report. The fact that schemes are in multi-modal studies gives them greater priority.
Ms Joan Walley: May I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's long-standing commitment to improved transport for the long term? In light of today's announcement, does he plan to review his guidance to local authorities, which may be in the course of submitting their local transport plans based on the sums previously available, rather than the increased public spending that we now have? In terms of minor
562
improvements to highways, can he shed any light on whether more money will be made available for street lighting?
Mr. Prescott: On the last point, I can assure my hon. Friend that extra money is being made available for street lighting. It is an important investment for safety and for crime reduction, both of which cause considerable concern.
My hon. Friend asked whether local authorities will be advised of the extra resources available. The point of today's statement is to give local authorities an idea of the moneys that will be available not only in the first three years, but in the longer term. That will help them with their local transport plans, which will be given to me in line with the White Paper. The plans are to be for five years, so local authorities have a longer-term perspective to meet their transport requirements. That will be good for areas that want to take long-term decisions and have a proper guarantee of investment.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome the Secretary of State's reference to the Al and the study that he announced today. Can he assure me that safety factors, which present an overwhelming case for the dualling of that major road, neglected for so many years, will be fully taken into account? Will he bear in mind that his safety targets could be assisted by ending the head-on collisions that lead to deaths and serious injuries on that road?
Mr. Prescott: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I was discussing that matter earlier in his region, and I have brought forward the multi-modal study that we set up and we hope that it will report by next year. His arguments about safety considerations on the southern part of the A1, north of Newcastle, are important, and we are dealing with those. Indeed, I believe that there is an argument for a strategic road for Scotland, although that matter would have to be discussed with the Scottish Executive. It would complete what I would consider to be a natural strategic road running from north to south.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend is a frequent visitor to my part of North Yorkshire, and he knows that the legacy of the Conservative party has left transport policy in a total mess. Will he explain to the House how the multi-modal studies on the A64 corridor relate to the regional dimension, and how we can ensure that the regions deliver this policy?
Mr. Prescott: Multi-modal studies take into account the criteria set out in the road programme, such as the economic requirement, environmental considerations, safety and relieving congestion. Safety is a major consideration, especially with regard to the A64. Provided that multi-modal projects meet those criteria and fit into the regional assessment, they will be built and will be given priority. Although road building may be the solution to some congestion problems using a multi-modal approach, some problems may be solved by public transport, and we want to provide both.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Given the read across into other integrated transport considerations, what are the Government's plans for new runway capacities in the south-east?
Mr. Prescott: That industry has been growing for a considerable time. The issue is very controversial to say the least. There is considerable capacity in the south-east. We are approaching airport authorities about this matter, which is complicated, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. In my role as a planning Minister, I will consider the terminal 5 proposal. That has a major effect on the assessments of airports in the south-east. I cannot say more than that, except that the study has started.
Mr. Syd Rapson: May I raise three issues of importance? If the answers cannot be given now, I would welcome an answer later. First, has the Portsmouth light rapid transport scheme been successful? Secondly, will the Department endorse the innovative private finance initiative scheme for roads maintenance, which is a real leader in its field? Finally, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and I would be interested to know whether there is any news on the possibility of a bypass in Hindhead.
Mr. Prescott: I have made it clear to those authorities considering their transport plans that we are including 100 bypasses in the programme—50 in urban areas and 50 in rural areas. Some of them are to deal with congestion in the town and some are strategic. My hon. Friend should press his local authority to ensure that a bypass is included in its transport plan. Local authorities have responsibility for improvements in towns and roads through their local transport plans, which include bypasses. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) knew that, but he does now.
We are well aware of Portsmouth's application for a light rail system. We are building 25 LRT schemes. The hon. Member for North Essex made a fair point when he said that I had been critical of light railways compared with buses. That is true, but I have since been converted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am sorry, but I considered the facts and although they are more expensive—which was my criticism—more people would prefer to use a light railway rather than a bus. Light railways are more expensive, and make sense only in certain cities, but we have included 25 such schemes in our programme. I confess to a change of view. What is wrong with that? Is not that what analysis and the use of intelligence is about—qualities not too often shown by the hon. Member for North Essex.
Mr. Michael Howard: In view of the additional resources that the Deputy Prime Minister now claims to have available, will he reconsider the need to resurface the M20 between junctions 10 and 12 to alleviate the noise nuisance from which many of my constituents suffer? Will he also undertake to provide a permanent alternative to Operation Stack, which denies the use of the motorway to my constituents whenever there is a delay to cross-channel traffic?
Mr. Prescott: I shall write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about his last point. There are problems with
564
managing traffic when it is backing up for one reason or another. I understand his point, and I shall look into the matter. Management schemes can make traffic flows much better, and they are almost inevitable in difficult circumstances. I do not have a firm answer at the moment, so I shall write to him.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned noisy roads, which clearly create a lot of problems. Even a new road that I opened quite recently turned out to be much noisier than expected. Therefore, we have made a commitment to resurfacing 60 per cent. of trunk roads where noise levels are far too high.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I warmly welcome the general thrust of my right hon. Friend's statement and the huge investment in railways and light rail structures throughout the country. As the money that is being invested in railway developments will end up in the ownership of Railtrack, which is not a publicly owned company, what will happen to the capital return that will benefit Railtrack shareholders? What control do the public have over the ultimate destiny of any land currently owned by Railtrack that may be disposed of in future for capital gain? Surely there is a democratic argument that if the public are putting a vast amount of money into the railways, we should have ultimate control over what happens to it.
Mr. Prescott: We have decided to keep the railways in their present privatised form. As I have said in the House, and even at party conferences, to take the alternative of nationalising the railway and finding some £12 billion is not our highest priority in present circumstances. In addition, I am bound to say that the current procedure allows public-private partnerships to discuss a 10-year plan, which could not be guaranteed by the Treasury. At least it is written into contracts—[Interruption.] If obligations are not met and the contract is broken, we can take back the resources. That seems quite a clever idea. We are not against good ideas and getting the best value for public money. It is a pity that the Conservatives did not take the same approach in a number of respects.
My hon. Friend referred to the money being put into Railtrack. It is going towards enhancement and new track. The Government sometimes have to provide money in order to encourage people to do certain things. As my hon. Friend well knows, we provide a subsidy—I used to refer to it as the PSO or public service obligation—to the operators, which also goes to Railtrack. We are bound to give Railtrack some public money and we have to make a judgment about whether it is accountable. Accountability is very important. We lay down the conditions and we have a pretty tough regulator now—much tougher than before—to make sure that the public interest is maintained. In addition to a certain amount of public money for borrowing and for public-private partnerships, the modernisation fund of £7 billion will allow us to expand the railway system with greater accountability than at present.
Mr. Michael Jack: Many motorists who have contributed to the extra £135 billion of tax in the Government's coffers by sitting in traffic jams on the M6 will welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to widening parts of the motorway. However, can he clear up a confusion? I received a letter from his Department

565
indicating that it will be some two years before the multi-modal study is completed and decisions are made, yet the Deputy Prime Minister seems to be committing to immediate action on the widening of the M6. Can he give us a timetable in respect of the M6? It needs action now.
Mr. Prescott: It is a pity that action was not taken 10 years ago. I do not recall the right hon. Gentleman asking for it then. Some multi-modal studies will be reporting in the next couple of months, but others—of which the M6 is a classic example—are more difficult to conclude. The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the previous Administration. They came up with the idea that the only way to reduce congestion on the M6 was to build the Birmingham northern relief road. They took that decision in 1988 and announced that it would be on the fast track. Twelve years later, the sod still has not been cut. That road would have helped to reduce congestion, but because there is such a lousy contract I am finding it difficult to force the private sector to face up to its obligations and invest in the Birmingham northern relief road. Hopefully, it will happen. I am doing my best to implement something that the previous Administration tried to do nearly 20 years ago. Hopefully, I shall conclude that shortly. The multi-modal studies will start reporting in the next few months and we will be able to get on with the job.
Mr. Mark Todd: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the proposal in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies for reopening the Leicester to Burton line to passenger traffic? Currently, a bid for the project is being deterred by the framework for public finance that is available to support it. Will he meet local representatives to explore a potentially successful bid in the light of his new statement, which promises extra resources?
Mr. Prescott: I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the Ivanhoe line. An agreement was arrived at between the local authorities, the Government and the people involved in the project. I am well aware that they are asking for more money to be provided. My noble Friend the Minister for Transport will be delighted to meet my
566
hon. Friend to discuss the matter, although I am more interested at this stage in the expansion of the railway system than in arguing about the contract.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As we have appalling congestion problems in Southend, and as the newly elected council is wholly in support of a ring road, can the Secretary of State say whether there are any new procedures for the consideration of cases under the new programme? What is the best way for an authority to urge its special problems for consideration for the additional funding?
Mr. Prescott: I do not think that there are new procedures in that sense, except that local authorities and regional bodies are considering local and regional roads and will make recommendations in the next six to eight months. We will then make a judgment on the priorities for roads and what resources we will provide. My announcement today is that more resources are available to meet some of the requirements, but the criteria laid out in our roads programme will have to be met.
Ms Rosie Winterton: As a member of the RAC's public policy committee, may I assure my right hon. Friend that the RAC, as well as the AA, has warmly welcomed today's announcement, and especially the extra resources for road maintenance, bypasses and motorway widening? Will he assure me that he will continue to consult those organisations, so that motorists' views and priorities can be taken into account in the implementation of the plans?
Mr. Prescott: I welcome what the RAC and the AA said. In my three years in office, I have not always had such favourable responses, so I welcome a genuine response from the motorist organisations to what I think is a very good plan.
On consultation, we set out in the White Paper the motorists charter and what we thought could be done to improve things for the motorist, which involved roads as well as vehicles and safety matters, because motorists are pedestrians as much as they are motorists and an overall approach is needed. We certainly intend to consult those organisations. As my hon. Friend will know, a body has been set up in the Department to discuss matters with them, so their views are fed into our transport priorities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that we will return to these matters in the future, but we must now move on.

Points of Order
2.8 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At business questions, I unintentionally misled the House, and I would like to take the earliest possible opportunity to correct that. I ascribed wrongly to the Prime Minister references to £24 billion yesterday. I know why I made the mistake, but I should not have passed it on to the House. I apologise unreservedly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): There is no need for me to respond to that point of order. The whole House will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance in the matter of the forthcoming election of a new Speaker, because of the rather unusual circumstances, in that the House will be in recess for a long time and then come back directly to face that election, and because my impression is that there may be a number of candidates. Can you help the House, not necessarily today, but certainly before we rise, by letting us know exactly what procedure will be followed when we come to elect a new Speaker on 23 October?
It is essential for Members, and indeed the candidates, to know the basis on which the resolutions will be put to the House and the sequence in which amendments may be introduced, so that we can make an assessment in the intervening period of candidates and of proposers and seconders, and then of the procedure to be followed. Otherwise, there is a danger that the House will be faced on 23 October with what might amount to a lottery, which would not be in the interests of the House, its Members or our future Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his helpful suggestion. The Speaker is giving the matter careful consideration. I have been asked to assure the House that Members will be given clear advice in good time about the procedures to be used on 23 October.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You mentioned that the Speaker would give us clear advice in good time. Could I ask you to address the Speaker on the subject to ensure that we have clear advice given to us before the House rises for the summer recess? Could consideration be given to a more democratic and open procedure than the current one, under which a person is nominated and faces a series of Divisions with any other candidate? Is there anything wrong with having an election? The rest of the country does—why not have one here?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: At this point I cannot add to my earlier statement. The House will note the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, seek your guidance. As the forthcoming election is a matter for the legislature
568
and not the Executive, and in view of growing concern that the Government Whips will seek to browbeat people into voting for their preferred candidate, can we have guidance on the possibility of ensuring that the election will be conducted by secret ballot?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I understand it, these matters are all laid down in the Standing Orders. As I have said, Members will be given clear advice before the date concerned.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spoke to the Speaker in the Chair earlier, and I am aware that she does not take points of order during proceedings. However, I would be grateful if you could refer this matter to her. Today, as is normal practice, the Chancellor decided to answer two questions at the same time. He gave notice of that to my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). The two questions were dissimilar, except that they did deal with the issue of the single currency. The House will see from Hansard that the Chancellor did not attempt to answer the second question at the same time as the first and appeared, by a device, to avoid taking that individual question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman to understand his point of order. He well knows that the Chair does not have responsibility for ministerial answers.
Mr. Bruce: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with that point of order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Reverting to the points of order on the subject of the election on 23 October, one of the problems is that the Procedure Committee met after the last election in 1992, when there was a proposer and an amendment and the amendment in the name of the current Speaker was successful. Arising out of that, on Wednesday last, I sought the advice of the Clerk with a view to seeing whether the Procedure Committee had made any recommendations for change, because of concern at the time that at least one candidate—a previous occupant of the chair as Deputy Speaker—was not allowed to stand. It seems that the Procedure Committee has discussed the matter, but has come to no conclusion, other than that we will carry on with the current procedure. The Speaker should look into the question of how to overcome the Procedure Committee's recommendation because there is no doubt that there is a groundswell of opinion in the House that there should be a multi-choice election in which people can vote openly for their candidate.
Reference was made earlier by the Opposition to a secret ballot. We do not want secret ballots in the House of Commons. Every single vote that is cast in the House of Commons is cast in the Lobby so people know exactly how we have voted. I find it fanciful that a Tory Member is now recommending secret ballots in the House of Commons.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I do not think that I can

569
add to the response I gave initially to the point of order. I am sure that everybody will have heard the points that have been made.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Bruce: Well, it is the point—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I have dealt with that point.
Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Bruce: It is a different point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Entirely different?
Mr. Bruce: It is entirely different because it is the original point that I wished to make.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is the original point, it can hardly be a separate—[Interruption.] Order. If it is the original point, it can hardly be a separate point of order. I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's initial point of order and I am not prepared to listen to him any further on that point.
Mr. Bruce: On a completely different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the main business.

Public Expenditure
[Relevant document: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on 10th May (Spending Review 2000), HC 485-i.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): May I advise the House that Madam Speaker has placed a time limit of 15 minutes on all Back-Bench speeches?
2.16 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): I commend the spending review and the White Paper to the House. but let me start on a note that I hope the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and his right hon. Friends will endorse. I doubt whether they will find much else in my speech to endorse, but anyone who has seen from the inside the phenomenal amount of work that goes into a public expenditure review will know just what a vote of thanks we all owe to the officials, who often work long hours under pressure to meet the demanding deadlines of such an extensive exercise. We see here the civil service and the Treasury at their best.
As well as policy advice, we have all the energy and dedication that goes into administration, co-ordination and information. Without it, we could not complete a spending review and Parliament and the public would be denied the quality and objectivity of information necessary for informed debate. I place on record our thanks for the high standard of that enormous effort.
The political choice, though, is ours. The Government have made our choice, built on a solid foundation of stability. We have chosen to make a prudent investment to improve key front-line services and to upgrade our infrastructure.
With Labour, people know that those who need care will get better care and that children and adults will be helped to achieve higher standards in education. We are strengthening the hand of the police in fighting crime and making our communities more secure, improving our transport system and tackling the drugs menace. So when we now commit to real average increases of 5.7 per cent. in health, 5.4 per cent. in education, 3.8 per cent. in policing and 20 per cent. in transport over the next three years, we are addressing the public's priorities for better health care, properly equipped schools, less crime in the estates and elsewhere, and better journeys to work and to shops.
We have no doubt that, building on the progress that we have already made, people want to see investment in these and other front-line services. The challenge for the Conservative party is to say where it stands. What is it that it is guaranteeing?
Not so long ago, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer was keen on guarantees. On GMTV three months ago, he said of the tax guarantee:
It is a guarantee of honesty.

571
Just three months later, refusing to answer five times the question of where he would cut spending, what did the man who had made the guarantee his hallmark of honesty say?
I'm not getting into the business of guarantees.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that the right hon. Gentleman has already admitted that he is this year spending £20 million on the national handover plan, and the further evidence from national health service trusts that an extra £95 million is being spent on proposed conversion to the euro, is he proud of the fact that he is plotting the abolition of our national currency with resources that would otherwise pay the annual salaries of 7,500 nurses?
Mr. Smith: With the huge investment going into information technology and computers it would be foolish not to make the alterations which have to be made. It is no change on the plans and policies that we have announced on this for the future. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends must tell us where they will find the £16 billion of cuts. Not from that, evidently. He, the shadow Chancellor and the rest of them claim that our spending settlement is unaffordable, but they refuse to say where their cuts would fall.
The other night I had some sympathy for the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who was left forlornly to wander the television and radio studios with no intellectually coherent argument whatever to make against the shadow Chancellor's statement. After all, it follows arithmetically that if the Tories are saying that public spending should grow at 2 per cent. instead of 3.3 per cent., they must be committed to cutting our programme by at least that £16 billion. The Tory research department has accepted that figure in this helpful document. Hon. Gentlemen must now tell us where that axe will fall.
The document takes us some way further forward. It helpfully includes at the end a table, by region, of where £16 billion of cuts, allocated in proportion to taxpayers, would come. It would be £1.8 billion in London, £3.84 billion in the south-east, £606 million in the north-east, £1.4 billion in Scotland and £714 million in Wales. Let Tory Members put on record today for all their constituents to see where they would cut health, which schools would go without and which bits of police spending they would hack back.
The Tories are frightened to do that because they know that it would be unpopular. They try to have it both ways and to con the electorate. That comes out most clearly from the model news releases and briefs, again helpfully prepared by the Conservative party research department, which suggests that hon. Gentlemen use them. I cannot see many hon. Members clutching them this afternoon, however. They are obviously embarrassed by the product of their research department.
Let me show hon. Gentlemen which one I am looking at. It is this one. It provides some further information, but it is hardly profound stuff from the party of "lower but better" spending. It says of transport:
We believe transport is important … We want to get more money into transport.
572
It says of agriculture:
We believe agriculture is important … We also want to get more money into rural Britain.
It says of education:
We believe education is important … We want to get more money into education.
So the document goes on. Even on social security it has the nerve to say:
We believe social security is important.
Mind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it also says:
We believe all the areas covered by DCMS are important.
It is clear from the documents that on education, transport, law and order and the public services, the Tories do not commit to the investment that we are making. They cannot do so because, they argue, our spending plans are somehow imprudent or unsustainable. They are wrong on both counts.
Mr. Richard Livsey: The Chief Secretary rightly castigates the Conservative Opposition for their wish list and the £16 billion hole in their budget. Will he tell me whether there were discussions prior to the settlement on public expenditure about public expenditure match funding to go with European objective 1 funding for Wales? We are grateful for the European public expenditure survey cover, but we do not appear to have public expenditure for match funding.
Mr. Smith: I find those remarks surprising, given the warmth of the welcome for our spending review announcement and the benefit that it brings to the objective 1 areas in Wales and the regions. The 5.4 per cent. real increase for Wales, as well as the objective 1 public expenditure cover which we have provided, will more than facilitate match funding and enable west Wales and the valleys to benefit from objective 1 funding to the full.
I was dealing with the Opposition's argument that our plans are imprudent or unsustainable. We have put these plans forward on very cautious assumptions. The assumption of 2¼ per cent. growth is based on the figures published in the Red Book. These assumptions are tested against trend output, which is 1 per cent. lower than that. It is there for all to see, on page 8 of the spending White Paper, that even if growth were lower, we would meet the golden rule.
These cautious assumptions on growth, unemployment and market expectations of interest rates have all been audited and confirmed as reasonable and prudent by the National Audit Office. They are affordable within the Budget arithmetic in the Red Book, which shows the tax share of GDP falling and which the shadow Chancellor endorsed the day after the Budget when he said:
The Red Book, which is the document that accompanies the Budget … shows that the Government expects the tax burden to fall during the next Parliament, which is exactly what we expect.
These plans are sustainable because of our cautious assumptions and because we have sorted out the public finances, so that not only is debt interest £5 billion a year lower than it was, and not only are we meeting the golden rule, but the projected current surplus goes from

573
£14 billion this year to £16 billion. £13 billion, £8 billion and £8 billion, with net borrowing lower in every year than in any year of the last Parliament.
Mr. Michael Fallon: The Chief Secretary described all these assumptions as cautious. What does he say to Goldman Sachs's assessment today that as a result of the public spending plans interest rates will be higher and the pound stronger?
Mr. Smith: The spending plans entirely meet the conditions that we set out in the Budget settlement. They therefore reflect that locking in of extra fiscal tightening. They are entirely within the envelope on expenditure—the 2.5 per cent. increase in current spending, and the doubling of investment as a proportion of GDP from 0.9 per cent. to 1.8 per cent—which we set out at the time of the Budget. There is thus no reason to expect the judgment on the macro-economic fiscal fundamentals to have changed since the Budget. These are prudent, sustainable plans both because we comply with our golden rule and, as I have explained, because we have straightened out public finances. This is prudent spending; it is spending for a purpose.
When the Tories were in Government, from 1979 to 1997, 42p of every extra pound they spent went on debt interest and social security. We will spend only about 17p in every extra pound we spend on debt interest and social security. More than 80 per cent. of our extra spending, then, goes to front-line services and investment.
The Tories do not have a leg to stand on with their claims of unaffordability or unsustainability. No matter how hard the shadow Chancellor wriggles around on spending, he cannot escape the logic that he would cut our plans, thereby putting a £16 billion axe to our crucial public services.
Caroline Flint: My understanding is that during the course of the Finance Bill, the Conservatives asked for concessions to the tune of £4 billion. Rather than £16 billion-worth of cuts, therefore, would the figure not be nearer £20 billion?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is entirely right: the Conservatives crank this up by the day. They made spending commitments for an extra £4 billion during proceedings on the Finance Bill, and their document outlines all the extra spending that they say they want to put into services. That all adds to the figure of £16 billion, which is the logical consequence of moving from 3.3 per cent. expenditure growth to 2 per cent.
The Conservatives' position is unsustainable, and it will not be believed by the British public. With their record of broken tax promises, mounting debt, mass unemployment, inflation, and boom and bust, they cannot be trusted by the British people again. Their position is in clear contrast to ours—we want stability, investment, quality public services and a rebuilding of our country. With this review, the Government have made clear the next stage in the renewal of Britain.
Mr. Geraint Davies: I note from studying the statistics that the cost of unemployment
574
benefits will have fallen by 40 per cent. by 2001–02 from the time when the Government took hold of the economy. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Opposition will target expenditure cuts on social security? Where do they intend to make these cuts? Will they come from families, children, pensioners and people with disabilities? Even if the Conservatives squeezed the poorest as much as possible, they would have to go even further in cutting expenditure on health, education and front-line services. There is no place to make the sort of cuts they want, and the British public need to know that.
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservatives could not find that scale of spending cuts in social security which, along with debt interest, consumed 42p in every extra pound that they spent throughout their period in Government. It was actually 55p in every pound when the shadow Chancellor was Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
My hon. Friend is also right about the benefit to the fiscal position, as well as the incalculable benefit to individuals and their families, of the 1 million extra people we have got into jobs. That contributes £3.5 billion to our fiscal position, just as the savings on debt interest contribute some £5 billion. We are able prudently to undertake this investment because we have saved on the costs of unemployment and on that millstone of debt that the Conservatives strung around our neck.
The review represents movement through to the next stage in the renewal of Britain. Our first priority was to build a platform of economic stability, which is a crucial precondition to achieving stable and steady growth in a modern economy. We made tough choices to sort out the public finances. Our next goal was to provide employment opportunity for all—to get more people into work than ever before. With the help of the new deal, by making work pay, there are now 1 million more people in work than in 1997. Indeed, there are more people in work than ever before.
Now, as we maintain a platform of stability and continue to create new employment opportunities, we are investing in the future of our country—its public services, its infrastructure, its skills and its people. We are tackling that legacy of neglect, the years of underinvestment and the damaging short-termism. Tackling that was never going to be easy—we never said that it would be—but we are doing it and we are determined to build a Britain where there is opportunity and security for all.
What does the Conservative party want to do, apart from wielding its £16 billion axe? It wants to return us to the short-termism that saw our public services, infrastructure and skills base fall into decline and led our economy into boom and bust and stop-go. The shadow Chancellor has confirmed that approach. He told Sir David Frost that he would plan "year after year". The right hon. Gentleman plainly opposes setting out three-year plans; he claims that they are unsustainable. He is not getting into the business of guarantees; he would plan year by year. That would move Britain back to chronic short-termism—the boom and bust, the excesses, the unemployment, the high inflation and high interest rates, and everything else that did so much damage to our country before.
By contrast, we are moving Britain closer to our goal of opportunity and security for all. We are laying the foundations for the future—foundations for increased

575
productivity, a faster, integrated transport network, a renewal of Britain's neglected science and research base, and the investment that will modernise our schools and hospitals and give the police the increased resources that they need to crack down on crime.
What is more, our new spending plans are about delivering employment and education opportunity for all, building on the success of the new deal and our other policies that have helped more than 200,000 young people into work and cut youth unemployment by more than 70 per cent., just as we have cut long-term unemployment by more than 60 per cent.
As we take the next steps towards our goal of full employment, we recognise the importance of education and lifelong learning as the surest route to employment and employability. That is why education spending across the United Kingdom will grow by 5.4 per cent. over the next three years. Indeed, with the additional resources provided for education at the time of the Budget, over the four years to 2003–4 education will benefit from an annual growth rate of 6.6 per cent. in real terms—the largest sustained investment in our country's education for more than 50 years. In fact, over the five years covered by the Government's two spending reviews, education spending will have risen by 33 per cent. in real terms—more than it rose in the entire period of the Tory government, from 1979 to 1997. That is money for schools, teachers, books, new equipment—investment to give our children the best start in life.
Education cannot be limited to the few. In the 21st century, the need to learn new skills will be very important to adults who want to get on and make the most of their talents. We must tackle the scandal of the 2 million adults in Britain who have literacy and numeracy skills equivalent to those of a seven-year-old. That is why the settlement makes a commitment to investment in adult basic skills and education.
With extra resources comes the responsibility to deliver results. This spending review is not only about the amount of money that each Department will get, because with each allocation will come public service agreements to achieve real improvements in all our services. In education, we have set the target of increasing the percentage of 16-year-old pupils obtaining five or more GCSEs at grades A to G, including English and maths, to 92 per cent. by 2004, from the 86 per cent. that it was in 1997. These are resources for results.
Mr. Phil Willis: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for arriving late for the debate. Does the Minister agree that the real challenge in our education system is not to raise the number of five A to C grades achieved but to deal with the 9 per cent. of young people who, under this Government, as under the previous Government, leave school with no qualifications and have no jobs or training? What target is the Minister setting for those young people? That is how people will judge the success of the Government's education policy, not by an arbitrary target of obtaining five or more grades at A star to C.
Mr. Smith: We are doing those things. There are targets for the numbers who will gain qualifications. We want to lever up the performance of those who leave
576
school with no qualifications. We are introducing education and maintenance allowances and giving extra help to those who have been denied it in the past. In our overall settlement, moreover, there is a particular concentration on the most deprived areas, which is where the problems of underachievement to which the hon. Gentleman refers are most acute.
Our next objective is to build responsible and secure communities across our country, where everyone has the opportunity to participate. In his statement to the House yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that he will tackle crime, with increases in spending over the next three years of some 3.8 per cent above inflation—money to recruit more than 4,000 police officers and to ensure that they are fully equipped with the latest DNA technology and modern communications, so that they can provide the service that every member of the community wants.
In return, the Home Office will meet its public service agreements; car crime will be cut by 30 per cent., burglaries by 25 per cent. and robberies in our major cities by 14 per cent.
Mr. Tim Loughton: In the event that the Home Office fails to meet those public service agreements, will its funding be cut? Will the Home Secretary have to come to the House to announce that the 4,000 promised policemen will not be funded?
Mr. Smith: The appropriate response in any instance of Government or agency policy underperformance is, first, to analyse properly the variations in performance and to adopt good and accurate measures of efficiency. Recently, the public services productivity panel published proposed measures of efficiency on that very issue.
Secondly, those measures should be applied, with a proper strategy to lever up standards of performance; resources should be available in return for performance and there should be graduated intervention—from improving strategy to changing personnel. That will be a crucial test of the efficacy of our investment. That is why we have set out performance targets in the spending review White Paper.
Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I have given way several times; I am anxious to make progress.
We have announced plans for a neighbourhood renewal fund; £100 million, and thereafter £300 million and £400 million will be allocated to raising the quality of life in our most deprived areas. That crucial dimension of our settlement again sets us so much apart from the Opposition. When they were in government, they showed every sign of not caring for the poorest and most disadvantaged communities. The previous Government were content to tolerate conditions that they would not have wanted for themselves or any member of their family. That is why the Labour Government are investing in public services for all. We want to narrow the gap between the most disadvantaged in our community and the rest. The neighbourhood renewal fund will make an important contribution to that.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: No. I want to make some progress.

577
Strong communities must mean healthy communities. On Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed the allocation for our health service announced in the Budget: an average 6.1 per cent. real-terms increase—more than double the rate of growth achieved by the previous Government. Next week, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health will give more details of our vision for Britain's health. The resources are in place. The investment is committed. Our communities—individuals and their families—are benefiting from a commitment by the party that created the NHS, believes in the NHS and invests in it.
Our next objective is to raise Britain's productivity and to provide enterprise opportunity for all. For too long, the under-investment that has plagued our science and research base has hindered the development of our economy. The failure to match enterprising and innovative talent with resources has set Britain back. We have announced a major package of resources, covering every part of the country, to improve our productivity and to extend new enterprise opportunities so as to rebuild Britain's reputation as a global leader in scientific research. The spending review provides a real-terms increase in funding of about 5 per cent. a year until 2003–04, to improve our science and engineering base. That includes the £1 billion science research investment fund set up in partnership with the Wellcome Trust.
The plans announced this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister are crucial to our economic performance. We are doubling public sector investment in our transport system. In a modern economy, work force mobility is a key driver for economic success and increased productivity. By sharp contrast with the short-termism of the Conservatives, the initiatives set out today will make Britain a better place in which to do business, with a modernised infrastructure and better-quality public service provision.
I realise that there will be a time limit for Back-Bench speeches, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. In summary, the investment announced in the spending review is not only for individual initiatives or Departments; it will prepare our economy and our country for a new role in a modern world. Our approach is forward looking—based on stability and built on our fiscal rules. We are investing in our public services and in our science and skills base. We are strengthening our communities and our infrastructure and building a Britain where there is opportunity and security for all.
The policies of the Opposition are in complete and evident disarray. The Opposition have failed the most elementary economic tests. They failed to recognise the need to invest; they failed to see the damage that their policies did in the past and would do again, if they were given the chance. They divided Britain with cuts to services, underinvestment, short-termism and boom-bust—the same old mistakes from the same old Tories.
Our priorities are clear: investment in our infrastructure, in our skills and research base, in education, in our communities and public services. Those are investments not only in individual services, but in the well-being of our whole economy and society and in our country's ability to succeed in today's global economy.
578
While recognising that to flourish we must invest in our infrastructure, we realise the importance of investment for the long term, within prudent limits and supported by the fiscal rules that guide our planning at present as they will continue to do in the future. Those are the guiding lights of our economic approach and of the spending review.
The Government have made their choices: between stability and the stop-go of the Conservatives; between employment opportunity and unemployment; and between investment and public service cuts. Our choices and priorities reflect the priorities of the British people. I commend the spending review to the House.
2.48 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On Tuesday, the Chancellor drew a large cheque on the future. The figures are already disintegrating. Yesterday, the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out that the Chancellor's calculations were based on a hypothetical figure and that the figure of £43 billion was not meaningful. That was the amount that the Chancellor boasted would be allocated to front-line services.
If we compare last year with 2003–04, the real figure for the total increase in public expenditure is no less than £99 billion. That is almost 12 digits—a telephone number amount. It is a colossal amount and wholly unsafe.
That figure is not merely an aspiration. The Government are making an irreversible commitment to spend those sums over the next four years. Whatever happens to the economy, whatever happens to the global economy and whatever happens to the business cycle, the Government are locked into an expenditure commitment of that scale, way above their own projected growth rate for the economy.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Bank of England has taken fright. It was told of these figures in advance, and the minutes of the last meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee record the fact that many of its members believed that if this was attempted, interest rates would have to rise in future. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have these interventions from a sedentary position. The House listened very carefully to the Minister and it should do the same now.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Labour Members may not like these facts, but they are going to listen to them because they are all based on the truth—either the figures in the Government's own document or comments by respected independent outsiders.
Mr. Andrew Smith: A few minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman plucked out of the air the figure of £99 billion. Does that mean that he will cut £99 billion, or will he keep the cuts to the £16 billion that we have identified so far?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall discuss the question of the year 2004, but before I discuss the expenditure that we shall be undertaking in that year, I shall discuss what the Government have been spending and taxing in the last three years. Let us look at the record; let us read the book before we attempt the crystal ball.

579
What we do know, beyond dispute, is that it is the taxpayer, particularly the poor taxpayer, who will have to end up paying for all this. How do we know that? Because it has all happened already, despite all the pre-election promises. We remember the Prime Minister saying that he had no plans to increase taxes at all. That is what he said before the election. It was never disputed, it was never contradicted and it was never corrected at the time. Despite all that, we have since had four Budgets, all of which have put taxes up. Road transport, savings, marriage and housing—they have all gone up, and in the Finance Bill, which the House debated last night, there is a new tax, the energy tax, which will be paid by all businesses from April next year.
What is really scandalous about this series of tax increases is that they are very often targeted on the poorest people in the country. In 1997, the Government abolished dividend tax credits. It is bad enough that that means taking £5 billion out of pension funds every year, which has led to a collapse in the savings ratio—which the Government do not dispute.
However, the terrible effect has been on some individuals—but not higher rate taxpayers, who were all protected against that particular tax increase. It is the non-taxpayers—the non-taxpayers relying on small savings—who now get no repayment. The Chief Secretary obviously finds that amusing. I invite him to do what I have done, which is to talk to one of my constituents, a Mrs. Pratt, who has written to me from Glastonbury. She has described how, last year, she received a tax repayment of £583; this year, she is not eligible for that. She actually has to make a tax payment.
Mrs. Pratt is 87 years old; she is blind and she is disabled. She has asked me to ask the Government why they are doing this to her. If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to debate mythical expenditure cuts in four years' time, I will go down to Glastonbury with him to tell Mrs. Pratt about our expenditure plans—if he guarantees to explain to her why he has taken £600 out of her income. That is the deal that I offer.
I also have a letter—I cannot be alone in having been written to by many constituents suffering in this way—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are not."] We have the example of Mr. Brian Speakman, who says that he wrote to the Chancellor—he has not had a reply, of course—asking how he had
the audacity to claim that this
child
tax credit replaces the married couple's allowance.
He explained how he would lose approximately £20 a month from his small pension. He finished:
I find that as a lifelong socialist, an ex Labour party member, with a son who is a Labour councillor … my vote will go elsewhere
in future. Those are real examples from real people.
Mr. Bercow: Do not both the record of the Government to date and their plans for the future underline the wisdom of what Lord Hattersley wrote in The Guardian on 13 March 1995? He observed:
Labour now has a clear choice. It can either be the party of higher taxes and proud of it or it can be the party of higher taxes which it is ashamed to describe, afraid to admit and incapable of calculating with any accuracy. It cannot be the low taxation party.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the Labour party, when it does not find taxing
580
poor people in this way funny, is in denial about it. The fact is—I am grateful to the Library for this figure—that the typical working family in this country is now paying an extra £670 a year. That is the record; so before we speculate about the future, let the Government admit that that is what they have done to working people in this country. After four Budgets in which the Government have done that, we may now be in an election year, so the Chancellor has gone on a spending spree.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the regular Institute for Fiscal Studies reports after each Budget which show the distributional impact of each Budget? Is he aware that they show consistently for every Budget, and on aggregate for all the Budgets, that the bottom deciles of the population are consistently better off? Does he agree that when one looks at the distribution, it becomes clear that the bottom fifth in particular are much better off, and in fact no one is worse off? That has consistently been the shape of the distribution. That is in sharp contrast to the sort of things that have been thrown around in this Chamber in the last few days.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is flatly untrue. The bottom decile has actually had the biggest tax increases. On the question of figures, why have the Government dropped the previous Government's practice of publishing on Budget day the impact of all the taxes, direct and indirect, on typical households? We did that, and they dropped it. The Select Committee on the Treasury drew that to the Government's attention, without result.
Mr. David Ruffley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has completely misrepresented and distorted the IFS figures? The IFS makes it perfectly clear that the bottom decile figures to which he referred exclude housing benefit. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. We are just hearing more of the fiddled figures, and I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has fallen for his own propaganda on these matters.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: We heard earlier about the lady from Glastonbury, and of course we all know that in our constituencies there are individual examples of gainers and losers. However, will the right hon. Gentleman say generally for elderly people how many losers there are, and will he compare that figure with the number of elderly people who now qualify for the minimum income guarantee and the number of working families who now qualify for the working families tax credit? I believe that something in the order of more than 1 million now qualify for the working families tax credit.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The elderly lady who is my constituent is not at all unusual. What is more, the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to help her, because we specifically raised that issue during consideration of the relevant Finance Bill when the dividend tax credit measure was taken through, and we gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to vote against it, which he failed to do. That is one of the points that I shall be making to Mrs. Pratt. The governing party just does not

581
care. It has taken £600 a year away from her, and all that the hon. Gentleman says is that other people are better off. That is not the way that she sees it, down in Glastonbury.
In assessing the comprehensive spending review that the Chancellor announced on Tuesday, we are entitled to look back at the other spending review—the one that the Government announced in July 1998, two years ago. We recall that the Chancellor promised an extra £19 billion for education and an extra £21 billion for health—an extra £40 billion in all. We know now that that has not worked. We have longer waiting lists, larger classes in secondary schools and fewer policemen. I think that the Government are learning that it is easy to tax. Indeed, that is the easy part of politics, and that is what the Government are good at. It is difficult, however, to turn people's money into the services that they want. That is a skill that the Government have yet to master.
It is hardly surprising that that observation is shared on the Opposition Benches and by the Chancellor's constituents. ICM conducted a poll of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents on Tuesday night. It revealed that 72 per cent. of his constituents said that they did not believe the spending figure that he promised for the future, the reason being that 79 per cent. of them said that public services were not improving. They have seen tax increases, but not an improvement in public services.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: When will the right hon. Gentleman tell us about his guarantees?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In answer to the Chief Secretary, I said that I would describe what we might be doing in office in four years' time. I shall start by sharing with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) the Government's record over the past three years. I can tell that he does not like it, but he voted for it and he must live with it.
We all agree that some things have increased since 1998 in the most recent expenditure review. For example, crime has increased. The number of political advisers employed by the Government has increased; in fact, it has doubled. It is probably double the number of leaks coming out of Downing street. The cost of central government is eloquent on Labour's priorities in office.
I refer the House to another Government publication in April entitled "Public Expenditure", which shows that the cost of running central government Departments, which was static or slightly falling in the years of the previous Conservative Government, has increased since then by more than £2 billion. There is the example of the Inland Revenue, which is in a bit of trouble for having wiped off its computer 5 million tax records. We do not know what has happened to them. Rather lamely, the Inland Revenue says
We haven't lost the records, we know they are in the system somewhere.
However, it cannot retrieve them.
That is the same Department that has employed an extra 12,500 civil servants. That is not explained by the new responsibilities that it has taken over from the Department of Social Security. The net increase in employees in all Revenue departments is thousands. From the point of
582
view of the taxpayer, that is entirely unproductive. The size and wealth of the state is increasing, but the wealth of businesses and taxpayers is not.
In addition, there is all the wastage, all the quangocracy, all the regional assemblies, the cultural consortiums, the taskforces and the bogus consultation exercises that the Government set up and then ignore. However, there are some things that are not in the comprehensive spending review documents. Where is the cost of converting to the euro? We know that the Government are committed to it, but where is it in their estimates?
Mr. Roger Casale: We have heard arguments before from the right hon. Gentleman about the cost of the changeover plan and the cost of central Government, for example. But does he agree with the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the shadow Chancellor, who has said that all the extra money spent on public services is money unwisely spent? If he does, will he come with me to Wimbledon to identify where he thinks that the extra money is being wasted or spent unwisely? For example, is it being wasted on the new accident and emergency unit at St. Helier hospital or on the refurbished Hillcross middle school? Is it not more sensible to spend public money—taxpayers' money—on investing in public services such as health and education, rather than on the cost of social failure and rising Government debt, as was done under the Tories?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is where we want to spend the money. I was saying that that will not happen if £3 billion is diverted into a national handover plan for the euro. We do not know the figures because the Government will not disclose them. In written questions, I have asked for the estimated costs of changing over to the euro. The Government say that they have no idea, even in the public sector. So outside estimates have been made by Chantrey Vellacott, an accountancy firm. It has come up with a figure of £36 billion for the economy as a whole. That includes more than £3 billion just for central Government Departments. It said that it was difficult to make an estimate
because of the lack of information we were given from government departments.
That being so, it took a cautious approach.
The Government are committed to something but they do not know what it will cost. Apparently it is not in their estimates—but perhaps it is. We should be told. Either the Chancellor does not believe that it will ever happen so it is not in his estimates or he believes that it will happen and has budgeted a sum for it. If so, where is it?
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is my right hon. Friend aware, on the important point about the changeover plan, that in France and Germany, where large sums of public money have been spent on the changeover, the Commissioner with responsibility for the euro said the other day that despite these large sums, the effect appeared to be negligible? If a large sum is being spent to no great effect, does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be accountable through the Public Accounts

583
Committee or the Select Committee on the Treasury so that the House may examine with great care how the money is being spent?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend. If the Government are launched on a project that will cost more than £3 billion just for the public service, according to an estimate, and if they have agreed in principle to undertake that expenditure because they want to join the euro, I think that the House is entitled to scrutinise that estimate and have it explained. All my inquiries have met with responses from the Minister that the Government have no idea and that they have made no calculations. That is the height of irresponsibility, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames).
The Chief Secretary claimed that he had a strategy for productivity in the economy. He wants to make the United Kingdom a global leader. How does he reconcile those words with the news this morning that Veritas, one of the world's largest software companies, has put on hold its investment plans because of doubts about the Government's intentions in the high-tech sector, and particularly about their taxation plans?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to Veritas, which is the fourth largest software company in the world. Will he confirm that, contrary to what he has just said, Veritas is announcing today the creation of more than 2,000 new jobs in the UK, and that it has chosen to locate its European headquarters in the UK? I have the press release in front of me.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is a predictably misleading version of events. Rather than listen to the Chief Secretary, we can hear from the man who is running the company, Mr. Philip Bousfield, who is a senior vice-president of the worldwide operation. He has said that the company has halved its original investment plans because of uncertainty about the climate for high-tech investment created by inappropriate taxation. That is what the company is saying, which is rather different from the version given to us by the Chief Secretary.
Mr. Timms rose—
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Financial Secretary has had his chance and he has given his version of events. I have given the company's version, and it is rather different.
To return to the comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor said that this review—the second one—would be different. He said that the new resources that he was funding would be tied to results; they would be tied to output and performance. However, we have heard all that before. That is exactly what we were told in July 1998 when he announced a similar degree of extra spending on public services. At that time, he said that the spending would be tied to public service agreements set out in departmental objectives that had to be met. He portentously said:
The Prime Minister has decided that that continuous scrutiny and audit will be overseen by a Cabinet Committee … Money will be released only if Departments keep to their plans.—[Official Report, 14 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 188]
584
We are entitled to compare that statement with what has happened.
Let us consider one or two examples. In the foreword to the document on public service agreements entitled "Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability", the Prime Minister gave one of the objectives as
a reduction in the long-run rate of the growth of crime.
We were told that that would be done
by launching the new evidence based crime reduction programme
with an additional £250 million. It is not a demanding target to cut the rate of growth in crime when the Government inherited a crime rate that was falling, but that is what they have done. They have turned a decrease in the level of crime into the increase that was announced this week.
There is an even bigger mystery about the targets for immigration controls and asylum seekers. That document, which was released in 1998, could not have been clearer. To be fair, it was absolutely specific. The aim was:
To put in place firmer, faster, fairer immigration controls.
More than that, the Government were definite that the time taken to reach decisions about asylum applications would be two months by the Home Office and a further four months maximum by the adjudicator—six months in total.
Two years later, we ask ourselves what has happened to that specific target. Therefore, we turn to the Home Office annual report for 1999–2000 and we find that the objective has completely disappeared. There is no reference to it whatever. On page 46 of the departmental report, all the those targets about
firmer, faster, fairer immigration controls
have become "Target to be developed". On page 47, we are told that
Further work will take place … to develop the integrated planning mechanisms that will ensure that all those with an interest in immigration matters work in a joined up way.
It is a little bit late for that. However, the real point is that a specific target announced by the Government, which would be overseen by a big, new Cabinet Committee and the fact that money would be taken from Departments that failed to meet their targets have been forgotten.
Mr. Loughton: My right hon. Friend is right. Is he aware of ever having seen the minutes of this great new Cabinet Committee that would oversee all the targets and audit all the functions? Is he aware of any Department that has not had its money released because it failed to meet any of the targets that were promised two years ago by the Chancellor? Has any of that happened, or was it all just a load of flannel?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Cabinet Committee and the new penalties have vanished and all been forgotten. It was all talk. If that happened in 1998, we are entitled to ask whether the same will not happen in 2000 and beyond.
Many other targets were set. For example. Customs and Excise was going to
collect each year the amount of forecast UK revenue yield from indirect taxes.
Has it succeeded in that? Tobacco duty is a good item to consider. It was forecast to raise £8.9 billion in 1999, but the actual amount that Customs raised was £5.7 billion.

585
That is a gap of more than £3 billion between what the Government said that Customs would collect and what it actually collected a year later. That is another target that has vanished. Will the Minister tell us whether any money has been taken away from Customs and Excise and the Treasury as a result?
Mr. Ian Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman referred to vanishing acts, and he will know that the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the conference of the Confederation of British Industry in 1999 and gave a tax guarantee of sorts, which he said was based on a moral argument. We hear that that tax guarantee has all of a sudden vanished, so does that mean that it was based on an immoral argument? What will happen because of the Conservatives' spending cuts, which will mean a loss of £25 million to my constituency? What does the right hon. Gentleman say to my constituents about the removal of that money?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, there is a moral case for low taxation. If one wants to encourage family life and marriage, one should not tax them. If one wants to encourage savings, one should not tax them. That explains the immorality of the Government's actions, so I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in setting out the clear moral case for bringing down the burden of taxation over the lifetime of the next Parliament.
Mr. Stewart rose—
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that we can continue this discussion at greater length later in the debate.
Ms Karen Buck: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the moral basis of taxation, will he comment on the 22 tax increases that were introduced by the 1992–97 Government? They included slashing the value of the married couples allowance.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Lady should understand that removing completely the married couples allowance when the Government are running a surplus is wrong and completely contradicts the Prime Minister's oft-repeated claim that he wants the Labour party to be the party of the family and the party that supports marriage. That is the moral argument and the Labour Government cannot duck it.
We are not just interested in the output targets that have all been breached by the Government. We are also interested in the fact that even their spending commitments have been breached. On Tuesday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made much of the degree to which he wanted to encourage and promote public sector investment. He said that net capital investment would double by 2004—from £7 billion to £18 billion a year. He made exactly the same promise in 1998. Page 17 of the document on the comprehensive spending review forecast that net investment for the following year would be £8.6 billion.
586
Again, we are entitled to ask whether that target was met. Did the Government spend £8.6 billion in 1999–2000? According to the document that they published on Tuesday, the actual investment figure was £2.6 billion. What happened to the other £6 billion? They cannot even predict net investment by the public sector itself one year later. How can they expect us to believe what they say will happen to the economy in four years' time? That is the point. It is a giant exercise in underspin.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am going to draw my remarks to a close so that the hon. Gentleman and others can contribute to the debate.
The answer to the questions of Labour Members, who have raised the mythical figure of the supposed cut of £16 billion in public expenditure in four years' time, is that Conservative Members will not base our plans for total expenditure on a Labour figure for total expenditure in four years' time because the Chancellor cannot even make accurate predictions for a year ahead for investment by his own Departments. In any case, the entire exercise is vulnerable to what may happen in the economy.
Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer to a straight question? By how much would the Conservative party cut our spending plans?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have already made the answer to that perfectly clear. We are not going to underestimate expenditure plans drawn four years into the future, when the Government's own expenditure plans, which were drawn up two years ago, have already been found to be false in their output and investment targets. The right hon. Gentleman can build castles in the air and project imaginary cuts years into the future. However, the Opposition are entitled to examine the record and what the Government have so far delivered in office.
It is beyond dispute that the Government have spent their first three years taxing, and they now want to spend in the year before the election. However, the record is against the right hon. Gentleman, and the current spending review will be no more successful than the last one in meeting the public's demands, needs, requirements and aspirations. I agree with the 72 per cent. of the Chancellor's constituents who do not believe the figures either.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a limit of 15 minutes on Back-Bench Members' speeches from now on.
3.21 pm
Mr. Tom Levitt: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) may try to catch your eye a little later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make his maiden speech. We are looking forward to that occasion very much, so I hope that my hon. Friend is successful.
That reminds me of my own maiden speech, which came under the heading of public expenditure. I talked about education to some extent, and perhaps was a little

587
foolish, as I tied myself down very specifically by saying that our party ought to be judged not on big figures and headlines, but on what happens in our localities. I named Chapel-en-le-Frith infants school as a school that, to my mind, would be the touchstone of whether our policies had been successful. That school was overcrowded, had a main road going down the middle of it and 50-year-old temporary classrooms, and was letting in water.
Six weeks after my maiden speech came the announcement that Chapel-en-le-Frith was having its infants school replaced, lock, stock and barrel. Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment came to my constituency and opened the new Chapel-en-le-Frith infants school, which means that that touchstone of success has been achieved. However, that was only the beginning as, since then, Tintwistle primary school in my constituency has been completely replaced; Taxal and Fernilee primary school has had a new classroom and an extension; Peak school, Chinley has been remodelled; Whaley Bridge primary school has had one extra classroom and Burbage primary school, two; Newtown primary school in New Mills has had one extra classroom. Throughout my constituency, outdoor toilets, which were to be found in all too many of those schools, have been eradicated.
There have been energy improvements throughout the schools of High Peak. No fewer than 30 schools in my constituency have had new classrooms, extensions to classrooms or other major capital expenditure on classrooms in only three years. Half the schools in my constituency have therefore received genuine benefit from the Government's spending programmes after a 10-year drought in which only a single school building was built in my constituency between 1987 and 1997.
Schools are not alone, as there have been other improvements on the ground that people notice. For example, their libraries are open for longer hours and Derbyshire was successful in getting £2 million of additional funding for rural buses. Our primary care groups are now changing into primary trusts and are much more proactive in their delivery of health care throughout the area. People who, only two years ago, complained to me that their four-year-olds were getting a raw deal now find that nursery or pre-school education is provided for four-year-olds. From September, that will extend to three-year-olds in Derbyshire, and is another major achievement that people can see on their doorsteps, in their streets and in their schools.
In High Peak, youth unemployment has been reduced by 78 per cent., and there are now few people who qualify for the new deal. That means not that the new deal is not affecting enough people, but that it has been so effective, as have general plans for generating jobs, that it is hardly being used. In the past three years, unemployment as a whole in my constituency has halved as a result of economic conditions created by the Government. In the next two years, there will be 101 more police officers in Derbyshire. I am sorry, that figure was correct until yesterday but, with further funding not just for 5,000 police officers, but an additional 4,000 throughout the country, we will get a share of that. Those are the real issues on which real people are demanding to see action, and our public spending policies are delivering them.
Those issues are genuine, in contrast to some of the absurd fantasies that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who
588
does not seem to live in the real world or relate to the typical experiences of his constituents. The right hon. Gentleman made no mention of the four-year-olds whose education is now being paid for, or of the class size problem. We had a class size problem in Derbyshire, as 13,000 children in key stage 1 in our infant schools were in classes of more than 30 in 1997. We are on target to eradicate that class size problem in just a few weeks, which is long overdue and will be another achievement.
If I may, I should like to put down some markers for the future. If I were to make my maiden speech today, I might like to use as a touchstone the Buxton to Matlock railway line and the need to restore it. The Tintwistle-Mottram bypass is a good contender for funding. Elderly people in my constituency are looking forward very much to next week's announcement on funding for long-term care. Again, we have looked at that matter long and hard and I believe that, at last, next week, there will be an announcement of which I can be proud.
I should like my right hon. and hon. Friends to look at Derbyshire's position in the local authorities' league of spending. We have been down at the bottom for quite a long time, and we are still there, although the difference between top and bottom is not what it was. Derbyshire has had generous settlements for local funding in recent years which, while not quite generous enough to get us up the league table, mean that we are not as far from the top in cash terms as we used to be.
I am proud of the Government's record of public expenditure and know that, in years to come, I shall be proud of the delivery of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced earlier this week. In complete contrast to our position is the play on words or joke that the shadow Chancellor was trying to make in his pathetic response to Tuesday's announcement. He was trying to make a joke of the idea that in our manifesto we said that we should not be judged on public expenditure alone. That is quite right, because if were to say merely that we believe in more public expenditure on the principle that more must be better, our hero would be the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who saw social security expenditure go through the roof when he was in charge of the Department of Social Security.
The right hon. Gentleman spent more than any other Secretary of State for Social Security before him not because he was enjoying the fruits of success, but because he was paying the price of failure. He was paying the price of bailing people out of poverty and of giving benefit to the many people who were unemployed. We believe in public expenditure because it has a positive purpose; it is not just for providing safety nets and bailing people out of problems, which often are not of their making, but for building a coherent society. We have done that and will continue to do it because we have got the economy right, and we have the wherewithal and the determination to do it.
Because we have more people in work, we have more people paying tax. Because more people are earning more, they are paying more tax. There are now more people paying the higher rates of taxation, which could explain some of the barmy figures that we were hearing earlier. They are paying those rates because they are earning more, and they are higher up the income scale. I have no regrets at all about such an increase in the tax take.

589
We have done more: we have reduced the cost of debt to the Government and to householders throughout the country. One has only to consider mortgage rates to see what we have done to stabilise and rationalise our economy. We have a stable, low rate of inflation, and everybody, including companies coming into this country to invest and people planning their family's future, knows that it will continue to be stable for a long time. During the period of these long-term spending plans, there is no reason to believe that we shall have significant problems with the economy getting out of control.
Six basic principles should guide public expenditure. There may be more; I may have missed some out. First, we should get best value for the money that we put in. We should not only measure that in cash terms, but look at the qualitative responses that we get from investing money in services. The second principle is the measurement of outputs. It is essential that we are able to measure what public funding does so that we can assess whether we are getting best value.
Thirdly, we must not be afraid to make difficult decisions about priorities. We had a difficult period in our first two years when we were tied to the spending plans that we had inherited, and with those difficult decisions we got a taste of how bad it would be if we had to return to that situation. Fourthly, our spending decisions must be sustainable; they must not be a flash in the pan. We must not throw money at a problem, thinking that this will solve it. We must build on what has happened before and make sure that we can deliver in future.
Fifthly, our spending plans must be without dogma. By that I mean that the era of Labour Members saying that all public spending is good and all private spending is bad has passed. We must consider using partnerships and seedcorn investment. We must consider using any available money. There is enough capital flying about in this country which has no home to go to. We should find a good home for private capital and use it to underpin public services. I have no conscience about using private money or any money from a legal source to give a good foundation to our public services.
The last principle, which the right hon. Member for Wells completely missed the point of, is that we must plan for the long term. He said that the Government claim to have put money into the national health service, but asked where were the results. If he can find a way of training nurses in 12 months, of training doctors in 18 months and of building hospitals in six months, let him tell us, because our investment in nurse training, doctor training and the capital programme in the health service cannot deliver overnight. We do not claim that it will do so, but we say that essential, long-term, planned investment meets the principles that I have outlined.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the length of time that it takes to train a nurse or doctor, but is that not more reason why the Government should have put more money into the health service at the beginning, and not stuck to Conservative spending plans?
Mr. Levitt: I find it odd that someone who is committed to a 1p rise in income tax to invest in
590
education, health, transport and everything else says that we should have found more money. That money has been provided, and it has been invested in a sustainable way.
Those of my hon. Friends who know me best know that sycophancy is not something that I adhere to. I am a scientist by training and I like to look at issues objectively. I have looked very hard at the Government's spending commitments in the two days since they were published and I can sum them up in one word—brilliant.
3.35 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am impressed that 30 schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) have new buildings. I shall reflect on the benefits of his seat being a marginal Labour gain at the last election. The picture has not been the same in my patch. I have been in touch with head teachers in Cornwall, and the great majority have had to cut staff since the election.
I want to examine how, on the one hand, the Government talk about huge increases in public expenditure and, on the other, the experience over the past three years is of teacher losses, growing class sizes, longer waiting lists and cancelled appointments—problems that led some Labour Members to resign ministerial posts and complain that the Government were out of touch. Even the Prime Minister has complained that he is losing popularity. That is because in the early years of the Parliament, the Government did not follow a progressive agenda of sustainable investment in public service; they followed a Conservative Budget plan that even the last Conservative Chancellor described as eye-wateringly tight. We know that even he would not have followed that plan in practice because the annual expenditure reviews at the time would have released more funds.
Expenditure on public services as a proportion of national wealth started high and followed a smooth curve over the past few years, ending up where it started. It is like the grin of a Cheshire cat; there is nothing to support it. That is why the Government are in great difficulty, and there is a difference between what they have said they will do about expenditure and people's experience on the ground.
That is an election headache for Labour Members, because even the funds that have been announced will take expenditure, as a proportion of national wealth, only back to the level that they inherited from the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). For the most part, that expenditure will not take effect in time for an election. It is noticeable that the Government's announcements seem to wipe the slate clean of the £19 billion for education and £22 billion for the health service that we heard about two years ago, at the time of the last comprehensive spending review. That is hardly surprising because that money was never there, and it certainly has not been delivered.
Dr. Ladyman: Before the hon. Gentleman hits the moral high ground, I point out that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) misled the House: the Liberal Democrat manifesto did not promise 1p on income tax for health spending; it promised £350 million for health spending from a change in national insurance

591
contributions. How many hospitals in Cornwall would that money have built if it had had to be spread over the whole country?
Mr. Taylor: We also promised a steady 2 per cent. real increase in health spending thereafter, which the Government have not delivered. The key difference between what Labour has delivered and the Liberal Democrat manifesto is that we would have guaranteed upfront investment at the beginning of the Parliament, and not waited for later economic growth. We did not calculate in economic growth. We guaranteed immediate extra expenditure on health and education and for pensioners and others. That upfront expenditure is the gap between Labour's credibility and what it is saying about public expenditure.
Just look at the figures. In the first period of this Parliament, from 1996–97 to 1999–2000, there was a fall of almost 3 per cent.—2.9 per cent.—in the proportion of GDP being invested in public services, and the increase that has just been announced for the next year will be only 1.3 per cent. of GDP. In other words, at the time of the next general election, it will be lower than when the Government came to office.
Those figures hold even when social security is excluded. The Government make great play of the fall in unemployment allowing them to release extra expenditure, but if social security spending is excluded, the fall in proportion of GDP was 29.1 per cent. to 27.1 per cent., now rising in 2001–02, the probable general election year, to just 28.2 per cent.
The net result is that over this Parliament, public sector spending will grow over the first four years to the general election by 1.1 per cent. in real terms per year. That is worse than under John Major or even Baroness Thatcher. The growth announced in the Chancellor's new comprehensive spending review is real growth, but it comes on the back of an unprecedented squeeze in public service. That is at the root of the problem that the Labour party faces. Even on the new plans, current spending growing at only 2.5 per cent. a year is less than for most of the period under the Conservatives.
The Government like to say that the rate will be 3.5 per cent., but a large chunk of that is the increase in capital investment. That is a problem for the Government, but it is an even bigger problem for those on the Conservative Front Bench. At least the Government are now speaking of a real, sustained increase in public expenditure. Those on the Conservative Front Bench must explain how they will come up with £16 billion of cuts in public services, when we are currently spending less than the previous Prime Minister spent as a proportion of national wealth, and less than Baroness Thatcher spent as a proportion of national wealth when she was Prime Minister. If Baroness Thatcher could not do it, is the present leader of the Conservative party capable of delivering it?
On public sector net investment, the Government are trumpeting large increases in capital investment, but the problem for them is that in 1999–2000, public sector net investment is the lowest proportion of GDP since figures started. I have been looking through the figures, which go back on a roughly comparable basis as far as 1963–64, and none have been lower than the Government are currently delivering. On average, under the Government,
592
it will be 0.6 per cent. of GDP, compared to 1.5 per cent. under John Major, a drop of 60 per cent. in capital investment, and in no year—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. As the hon. Gentleman has made the slip twice, may I remind him how he must refer to another hon. Member?
Mr. Taylor: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should do better.
The drop of 60 per cent. in capital investment will be reversed. The Chancellor has trumpeted that, but even in 2003–04, we will not reach the level of public sector net investment achieved in 1992–93, and by the end of this Parliament it will only just exceed the level when the Conservatives left office, with a huge fall in between.
It is true that debt has been substantially reduced. Pensioners were given a miserly 75p increase in March, yet a £2.5 billion surplus in social security funds was used not to increase that miserly pension rise, but to pay off national debt. They must wonder why a pension, which is among the lowest in the developed world, is not to go up, whereas we are to continue paying off debt that is the lowest of any G7 country. It seems an odd priority for a progressive Government, and I suspect that hon. Members will find over the next few months that pensioners are extremely angry about the fact that they got nothing from the distribution of the benefits of growth, which the Labour manifesto promised they would share.
In 1997 Labour decided for electoral reasons to adopt a Conservative Budget plan for two years or more—an electoral decision which proved unnecessary. I do not believe that the Labour party was right to think that it could not win seats without doing that. Indeed, Liberal Democrat gains show that they were wrong to take that view. Nevertheless, Labour decided to deliver a Conservative Budget. The Conservatives were out of office, but the Conservative Budget plans were still in government. The results have been appalling for pupils, patients, parents, and public services as a whole.
On crime, the Conservatives promised 1,000 extra officers in their 1992 manifesto, and 5,000 in 1995. In reality they delivered a reduction, and the Labour Government have continued to oversee reductions. A pledge of 5,000 extra officers has translated into almost 2,500 fewer since the general election. No wonder crime is rising.
Mr. Casale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he share my amazement, and that of my hon. Friends, at the speech of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) who, speaking for the Opposition two days after the announcement of £43 billion extra for the public services, hardly mentioned health and did not mention education at all? Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of going on the record and welcoming those public service increases?
Mr. Taylor: I am already on record as welcoming an increase that is overdue and insufficient, but at least it is happening. I agree entirely about the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who read out a letter from a constituent in Wells who said that she did not plan to vote Labour at the next general election, but did not mention how she would vote. Given that it is a marginal

593
seat between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives which I believe we will gain at the next general election, perhaps there are good tactical reasons for moving from the Labour party to the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is muddling up two letters. One that I read was from the ex-Labour supporter in Merseyside who did not intend to vote Labour. The one that I read from my constituent in Glastonbury did not say which way she would vote or has voted in the past. It is an impertinence on the part of the hon. Gentleman to probe her political allegiances, rather than address the substance of the issue and the complaint that she was making against the Government.
Mr. Taylor: Given that the right hon. Gentleman has been reading out letters from correspondents about their political allegiances, I am not entirely sure that the impertinence is mine. I am not sure that his correspondents expected their voting preferences to be read out in the Chamber, but that is a matter for him to consider.
On education, the Conservatives say that they would spend less, so presumably the situation will be worse still. Even between 1991 and 1996 when they spent more than the present Government, the number of pupils in primary schools in England in classes of more than 30 children rose by 38 per cent.—a third of all primary pupils in England were taught in classes of more than 30.
Under Labour, although class sizes have been reduced for five to seven-year-olds, they are up for eight to 11-year-olds and at record levels for secondary school classes. Teacher shortages are worsening. There are 47 per cent. more vacancies than in 1997. In the last comprehensive spending review, the claimed £19 billion or 5.1 per cent. increase for education every year was in fact only 2.5 per cent. last year. The Government cannot even deliver the spending increases that they like to announce, so we must have some doubts about the new comprehensive spending review.
The issue for both parties is to explain away the fact that things were bad under the Conservatives and got worse under Labour, and now the Conservatives want to cut another £16 billion. At least Labour acknowledges its mistakes.
With regard to health, the picture is the same. Under the Conservatives, spending was greater than they now say they would spend, but there was a 41 per cent. reduction in beds, a 53 per cent. rise in waiting lists, and 20 per cent. of intensive care beds were lost between 1989 and 1996. Bureaucracy increased: 20,000 more managers 50,000 fewer nurses, and more than 50,000 people a year had their operation cancelled, but the Conservatives want to spend even less.
The Labour Government tried to spend less, with the result that the number of out-patients rose from 248,000 to 496,000. Their manifesto stated that they would save £100 million in red tape; they failed to do that, and the number of managers has increased while the number of beds has fallen by more than 5,000.
This is deceit, and it is hard for the electorate to discern what is really happening in public expenditure. The first deceit is the Government's refusal to acknowledge that
594
they have cut the proportion of national wealth that is spent on public services. That is the reason for the problems of health, education and crime. The Government have stored up money and they are now able to announce big increases for the general election. However, those increases will not take us beyond the level that they inherited. That is also a problem for the Conservatives, and the reason for their bad performance in every interview on Tuesday.
If there are no big increases in public expenditure, which does not exceed the proportion of national income that was spent under the previous Prime Minister or even Baroness Thatcher, how can the Conservative party provide cuts of £16 billion in schools, hospitals, police forces and on pensioners, who are still struggling to survive?
Labour's policy is an election year bribe. It was always intended that expenditure would fall in the early years to allow an increase later. The cost has been borne by the people. The Government claim that they have turned round the management of the economy, that the economy is now about sustainable and that we should consider the increases. In eight Departments, the biggest increase in spending happened this year, in the run-up to an election. Ten more Departments will receive their biggest increase in 2001–02, election year. Only one Department will receive an increase of equivalent size after the general election. Five Departments get an increase only in general election year. That is not a policy of sustainable increases but a strategy that was designed to win the last election by adopting the Conservative budget to head off criticism, and to win the next election by pretending to spend substantially more when spending remains at the same level as when the Government were elected.
Spending on education and health is welcome, but the Government should not be allowed to get away with the fact that it is at the expense of longer waiting lists, larger class sizes, cuts in the number of policemen and the measly 75p increase in pensions over the past three years.
3.52 pm
Mr. David Lammy: It is with great pleasure that I rise to make my maiden speech. It would be remiss of me not to note, in passing, that I am almost certainly the last Member of Parliament to be elected to the House while Madam Speaker graces the Chair. As someone from a generation that grew up with Parliament being televised, I can safely say that Madam Speaker is truly a celebrity and that she will be missed.
I stand here with great humility as the newly elected representative of the people of Tottenham. Hon. Members know that I stand here only because of the sad and sudden death of Bernie Grant. I would dearly have loved to spend my first years in this place working alongside Bernie. Fate determined that that was not to be. I thank the people of Tottenham for their confidence in me, and I hope that I shall repay it in the years ahead.
Bernie made his maiden speech in July 1987 and demonstrated at once both his local knowledge and his confidence as a politician. He was a natural. He was authentic and brutally honest and, as has been said,
He walked a tightrope between street heroism and government office.
For us in Tottenham, he was exceptional and a first-class constituency Member of Parliament. You will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I say that you could not really

595
describe yourself as a friend of Bernie's until he had had occasion to bark at you. I am delighted that, on the last occasion I saw Bernie, he did just that while lamenting my stance on the vexed issue of Mr. Mike Tyson's entry to this country. Bernie argued passionately against his entry and considered Mr. Tyson an unworthy role model for his young constituents. His concern for young people is well documented and remained a passion throughout his life.
In his maiden speech in 1987, Bernie said:
unless the political system can offer some prospects, particularly to our young people and our young black people, they will find other means of expressing their frustration.—[Official Report, 6 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 97.]
He was referring to the Broadwater Farm estate and the disturbances that had happened there. He went on to talk about the way in which the local community and the local council had worked together after that to harness energies and regenerate the estate.
Bernie worked closely with his wife, Sharon, who was very much his partner in work as well as in life. I would like to thank Sharon for all her work on behalf of the people of Tottenham. For her and all of us, Bernie's legacy will live on. He is with us today in the memory of all who knew him. I know that he would forgive me for not wearing a dashiki today in his honour. In a very real sense, he is part of the reason I am here. I thank him for that, and I shall never forget him.
Tottenham is a constituency that has been well served by its Members of Parliament. Before Bernie, Norman Atkinson was our Member of Parliament for 20 years and he, too, concerned himself with the needs of the community and local government. He was also treasurer of Labour's national executive committee for five years. Before Norman Atkinson, Mr. Brown was elected as Tottenham's Labour Member of Parliament in 1959, but in 1962 he crossed the Floor and fought the 1964 election as the incumbent Tory Member of Parliament for Tottenham. It was said at the time that, by crossing the Floor, he raised the average IQ of both the party he left and the party he joined. You will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I follow in varied and interesting footsteps. However, I can assure you that I will not follow Mr. Brown's example.
I am glad to represent Tottenham, and not only because it is my home and the birthplace of the best football club in London. I am proud because in Tottenham, we have a grassroots intellectual tradition which has been nurtured on the margins of society. Although the margins of society have provided some of the worst statistics on social exclusion, they can also shed the most radical and exciting perspective on social thought. Although Tottenham is a constituency of much poverty, it has never been impoverished in its people. Through the centuries, many cultures of the world have traversed Tottenham High road—white English people, Russians, Huguenots, Spaniards, Greek and Turkish Cypriots, Africans, Irish, Hasidic Jews, Asians, Caribbean islanders and, more recently, Kosovans and other people from eastern Europe.
There is no need to go to New York or California to experience dynamic diversity and vibrancy. One need not look only to the Commonwealth for a model of communities coming together. Under our own eyes, people from the far reaches of the world are living happily together, from different backgrounds, races and religions.
596
All contribute to the richness of Tottenham. All understand the importance of unity and working and living together. All celebrate and glory in the multi-faith, multicultural family that constitutes Tottenham. These people are a valuable resource. If that resource were an untapped oilfield or a new diamond mine, business would be queueing round the block to buy the rights. People are the best and most precious resource that we have. I am acutely aware that I am here today because, at every stage of my development, people have invested in me.
I have had the support of a dedicated mother and family, Haringey council, Haringey teachers, my church, my secondary school, the Labour party, mentors in the legal profession and lecturers at the university of London and Harvard law school. I have even had the support of my bank. No one said, "This isn't for you. Who do you think you are? Black men from Tottenham don't go to Harvard law school." People believed in me. They invested in me. Constituents such as mine want and deserve that same investment—investment in people and the funds and resources not just to take up employment, but to become self-employed by opening small businesses, dot.com enterprises, cafés and newsagents. They want to play football at White Hart Lane, play music in a band or create art. We must invest in people's souls as well as their skills.
It is an honour to make my maiden speech on the most crucial subject of public expenditure, because Government expenditure over the years has neglected to take into account some of the grave problems of the inner city, perhaps in the hope that poverty might disappear by itself. For too long, the state has said to too many people in Tottenham, "You've got nothing to offer. You must be stupid because of your background, because you don't speak English. What are you doing living here?"
The task ahead of us is to continue to search, in partnership with the community and the Government, for new forms of response to an ever-complex and changing world. For the general welfare, sound investment for business and for people is not best served by placing even the least political restraints on economic activity. Responsible government must work to secure social and economic justice. Perhaps that is a tightrope that we knew we would find ourselves walking, but it is one that the Government have trod remarkably well. We have a Government who recognise that public expenditure can liberate and nurture as well as simply provide public services.
Just over a month ago, the Government announced a £50 million package of investment through the new deal for communities programme for the Seven Sisters area of my constituency. That is more than just a band-aid; it is real money—£50 million of investment in the 10,000 people in the Seven Sisters area of Tottenham, which is plagued by poor housing, high crime and weak schools. On Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's massive nationwide investment in public services. His announcement means at least £50,000 for every secondary school in Tottenham every year for the next three years—all paid to the head teacher and all money to be invested in books, new information technology equipment and helping children to grow and develop.
There are 29 centres of early years excellence across Britain. Three are in Tottenham, which is the highest concentration in the country. We can provide an early

597
years programme for almost all three and four-year-olds whose parents request a place. No four-year-olds in Tottenham will be of the opinion that they are stupid because of their race or because they do not speak English. They will look forward to studying in higher education establishments such as the university of Middlesex, which this week announced that it is to open a new site for 10,000 students in the heart of the regeneration zone in the centre of Tottenham.
The college of North East London has just undergone more than £19 million of development. That money will refurbish the buildings and install cutting-edge technology so that people in my community can learn directly. Tottenham is also the home of the Digital Arts centre, which offers state-of-the-art technology and facilities to a community that wants to engage in music and film. We have many artists in Tottenham, although not ones whose exhibits can be found in Tate Modern or the national gallery—at least not yet. There are plans afoot to bring more art and technology to Tottenham, because our young people and entrepreneurs are crying out for them.
The new deal has created opportunities for 139,000 young people across Britain to gain employment. The scheme has been effective in helping young people and the long-term unemployed to get real jobs, but Tottenham needs more. Our unemployment rate of 11.6 per cent. is the third highest in England and the new deal has not met the needs of all black youth in Haringey. It is vital that that flaw be swiftly addressed. I welcome the Government's assurances that that aspect of the new deal will be quickly improved.
I have the great privilege to represent the most multicultural constituency represented in the House. I am not just a black politician for black people; I am a politician for all people. Multi-ethnic means just that—all ethnic groups, black and white. When I see any section of my community disadvantaged or missing out on life's chances and opportunities, I will strive to support and speak out for it. That is what my constituents would expect me to do.
As a young representative, I am very aware of the lack of interest in the workings of Parliament among my friends and contemporaries. Recent elections have shown a certain lack of engagement between voters and politicians. Most worrying is the fact that younger people—those under 30—are particularly uninterested. They still engage in single-issue politics, but less so in national party politics. This year, I have fought the Greater London Assembly election and the Tottenham by-election. In both, the candidates promised to find solutions to real problems. That is what the voters demand and politicians strive to deliver. Why, then, does a persistent apathy creep in?
That apathy dictates that the politician's role is to fail and the elector's role is to be disillusioned. At the end of the cycle, the politicians are frustrated, the media cynical and the electorate turned off. For me, the real work begins now. Along with all Members of the House, I shall try to find ways to make new connections and to join an on-going dialogue with the electorate. Many people have invested in me. I look forward—with the Government and my right hon. and hon. Friends—to investing in the people of Tottenham. I thank the House for welcoming its youngest Member.
4.7 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: It is a pleasure to be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) on one of the finest maiden speeches that I have ever heard. He paid the most moving tribute to his late predecessor and followed that with the most eloquent advocacy of the need to invest in his constituents. He made a beautifully judged speech and described Bernie Grant as positioned between street heroism and Government office. I see that the hon. Gentleman has selected a place halfway between the very Back Bench and the Front Bench, so he is well poised between Back-Bench heroism and Front-Bench office. I am sure that it will not be long before he moves further forward and I hope that it will not be long before the House hears from him again.
The comprehensive spending review needs to be set in its context. The first CSR was only two years ago, but already we hear that the third is pencilled in for 2002. Instead of being a three-yearly review as originally promised, the CSR has already become two-yearly as the third year of each seems to be subsumed by the first year of the next. It is perhaps important for the House to recall that the first spending review did not even last two years. It was announced in 1998 and began in April 1999, but it collapsed that first Christmas as the flu crisis hit the national health service and the Prime Minister panicked on the David Frost show.
Within a year of the first CSR, the Government were rushing emergency funds to the health service and emergency cheques to our schools. When we assess the first CSR review, we look in our constituencies for signs of delivery. Three years into this Government, Kent has no additional police officers, longer health service waiting lists now and no new hospitals in west Kent. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) and I have campaigned for the dualling of the A21, but that has still not been done. My constituents have paid all the extra taxes and heard all the promises but, three years on, the Government have still not delivered.
Perhaps one merit of the second CSR is that it has acknowledged the extent to which the first CSR was ill judged. We have now had sudden large increases in health, schools and transport spending. That in itself does not help planning by Departments. The evidence of the first spending review shows how much underspending there has been as a result of departmental expenditure limits. That kind of lurching—stop and go—has not allowed the long-term investment that everyone wants in the public services. That is especially true of schools and hospitals.
Conservative Members want better public spending. That means more public spending front line and public spending that gets through faster. Let me deal first with the public service agreements that were supposed to underpin the first CSR. Originally, there were 600 targets. Within a year, 400 of those had been scrapped and we were down to 200. I now see from the document presented on Tuesday that we are down to what are called "key" targets. Perhaps when he winds up the debate, the Minister can tell us just how many targets are still in operation—or have we gone from 600 to 200, to just one, in order to regain some popularity in time for the next general election?

599
If those public service targets are to be taken seriously, we need serious measures of outcome that are openly understood by our constituents and can be properly audited. It is one of the greatest weaknesses of the present targets that they are self-audited—that the Treasury alone says whether they have been met. The Government have got into trouble, through over-counting and over-promising with vague targets, because the electorate cannot understand what is being delivered, when and where. That disillusion is setting in.
Secondly, we must ensure that the money gets through faster. When the Chancellor announced in March the emergency package of sending some school money direct to schools, I cheered. That is what we were trying to do with grant-maintained schools. The CSR announced on Tuesday refers to direct grants. We applaud those. The amount of money is minuscule.
Mr. Andrew Smith indicated dissent.
Mr. Fallon: I do not know what happened in the Chief Secretary's constituency, but in mine it took seven weeks to get those small cheques through to primary schools. Interestingly, those cheques were still routed through the LEA. We are still waiting for that money.
As a further example, let me quote a letter that my local education authority has written to its schools about the devolved formula capital budget for 2000–01. It said:
We have now had confirmation that the DfEE will be paying the money to the LEA on the following basis: 22 per cent. of the annual entitlement in June
—that has not yet been received, by the way—
22 per cent. in September; 22 per cent. in December; and the balance at the end of the financial year.
That is, 12 months on. The letter goes on:
Clearly this phase method will be unhelpful to many schools who wish to carry out work over the summer and who do not have sufficient reserves to cover the possible cash flow implication.
If it is now common ground that we should go round the LEAs and get the money straight into the hands of head teachers, let us try to work out a faster way of doing it. I asked the Chancellor on Tuesday whether, if it was right to send every secondary school £70,000 direct, the whole lot should be sent direct. His answer was interesting. He said that the LEA would have to deal with special educational needs and school transport. I certainly agree on the first—special educational needs money could not be allocated by school; some kind of social services or education authority function must be at the centre to do that—but I do not particularly agree on school transport. What was interesting about the Chancellor's reply, however, was that he did not resile from sending the rest of the money direct to schools. That is good news, because it is our policy. It is called free schools: take the school budget and give it to the schools. We did that with grant-maintained schools and the Chancellor is just cottoning on. I hope that he will get on and do it with the rest.
Otherwise, we are waiting. Our schools are waiting for the money that has been promised, but is still to get through to governors and head teachers. West Kent is still waiting for the transport expenditure. We have been paying extra motoring taxes and more for petrol, but our new trains have not arrived and our buses are no better.
600
For three years we have been paying more and getting less. Worst of all, we have been waiting for a better health service.
NHS waiting times have gone up. For three years, we have been campaigning for a replacement for our two hospitals: the Kent and Sussex hospital in Tunbridge Wells and the Pembury hospital on the edge of Tunbridge Wells, both of which serve the Sevenoaks constituency. The case went not to the previous Government, but to this Government in the summer of 1997. It was turned down. It went to this Government again in 1999, but it was turned down. We are still waiting for the Government to get the extra health spending through to our constituents. Until they start to do that and to deliver on the ground, they will have no credibility.
Mrs. McDowall from the village of Otford has given me permission to quote a letter sent to her from the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust. It is dated 10 July, so it is fairly topical. It says:
We have received an x-ray request
from your doctor
for you to attend for a routine MRI scan.
At the date of this letter there is a waiting time of approximately 26 weeks for this examination.
That is a routine, but necessary scan. Why is Mrs. McDowall waiting for 26 weeks to have a routine scan? She will have heard about all the extra billions; she heard about them when the first CSR was announced two years ago in 1998 and I am sure that she heard about them again on Tuesday. The money is not getting through. People in west Kent are waiting for money to get through faster to our schools, our public transport and our national health service. We are waiting for the Government to deliver.
There will be a limit to people's patience, as the Chief Secretary can see from Labour's falling position in the opinion polls. In the end, the people of west Kent and Sevenoaks will be waiting not just for more money for schools and the NHS; they will be waiting for the return of a common-sense Conservative Government.
4.20 pm
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I should like to touch on two specific areas of public expenditure that are of great importance to my constituents. First, I want to raise the issue of health spending, because recent figures show alarming discrepancies between my constituency and those in other parts of the country. Secondly, I shall talk about defence spending and its role in the key industries in my constituency, and its effect on the major issue of job creation, which leads on from that.
The Chancellor's statement was first class. There is no doubt that it was good news for the area that I represent, and for the north as a whole. The increase in Government spending will be welcomed by my constituents, but I should like to draw the House's attention to some other figures that were not given such a high profile as the Chancellor's statement—the annual performance figures for the NHS that were announced last week.
It is five decades since the Labour Government established the NHS, yet there has never been sufficient accountability for the quality of treatment that the health service provides to the public. The statistics were an illuminating source of information. We must be careful when using statistics, as it has been said that they are often

601
used as a drunk uses a street lamp—more for support than illumination. However, the new NHS indicators cast a clearer light on the variations in performance across the NHS.
The shocking fact about the performance indicators for my constituency is that on most indices we are near the bottom, or bottom, of the league table. We are the third worst for the number of doctors per head of population. Obviously, if we do not have enough doctors, people's health will be worse. We are the third worst for the number of people dying from cancer, and we have one of the highest death rates in the country. Those figures are not a reflection on the staff of my local health authority, because the same performance indices show that they are among the best performers in the country. They have been swimming against a historic tide of staff shortages, lack of resources and a local population whose health has traditionally been among the worst in the country because of the concentration of heavy industry and the prevalence of deprivation.
I am sure that we all agree that health inequalities are immoral and unacceptable. I am pleased that the Government have announced that the abolition of those anomalies for ever is a priority. They cannot be abolished quickly enough, because my constituents are twice as likely to die as a person in a constituency in the south of England.
The Government have adopted a two-tier approach to abolishing inequalities—first, by giving greater resources to health authorities in more deprived areas to allow them to narrow the inequalities between them and other authorities. The investment announced this week will pay for the extra doctors and nurses that are needed, and to improve the equipment that, sadly, has been neglected for 20 years.
The second tier is tackling deprivation, which is one of the major of causes ill health, and that means tackling unemployment head on. The new deal has certainly had an impact in Jarrow. Already, youth unemployment is down by 78 per cent., and long-term unemployment is down by 62 per cent. On top of that, raising incomes in the constituency through the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and child benefit brings people out of the terrible spiral of deprivation that they have faced for so long.
I shall now refer to defence expenditure. The mainstay of the local economy in Jarrow is shipbuilding—it has been in the past, is now and I hope will be in the future. The shocking fact is that the average age of the skilled worker on the Tyne is now 50. Urgent investment in skills is required if we are to retain a shipbuilding presence on the Tyne.
We are currently awaiting an announcement from the Ministry of Defence about where the roll on/roll off ferries will be built. I appeal to Ministers to make an early announcement, and end the misery of the workers who want to know whether they will have a job or not. I also appeal to Ministers to give preference to the first-class Maersk bid, which unselfishly—I stress the word "unselfishly"—splits the work between the work force of Cammell Laird in Liverpool and the rest of Merseyside, and the work force in Tyneside. They have come up with a solution involving workers from across the country with similar problems who are not currently using their skills.
602
I do not underestimate the importance of that order for my constituency. It involves significant defence expenditure. A positive announcement would provide employment for about 1,500 new workers in my constituency and up and down the Tyne. It would provide new apprenticeships to replenish depleted skills. The wages alone would inject about £650,000 into the local economy, not to mention the knock-on effect of a further 1,500 jobs or more in the local economy through support for local businesses.
I shall end on that note. I hope that Ministers take on board the issues that I have raised about health inequalities and the lack of shipbuilding orders on the Tyne. The Chancellor is taking positive action by providing increased expenditure, and the Secretary of State for Health is taking positive action on health. In my area and in Tyneside as a whole, we also need positive action to ensure that our industrial base—and shipbuilding in particular—has a future.
4.26 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: We have heard two speeches of outstanding quality. I was much moved by the contribution of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). He said of Bernie Grant that he was natural, authentic and brutally honest. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares those qualities with his predecessor. He spoke about there being no need to go to New York or California to discover a myriad of diverse vibrancies, and I am sure that many a Select Committee could bear that advice in mind before deciding on its travel programme.
Some people say that there is no gratitude in politics, but the hon. Gentleman showed the opposite. I was especially touched by the warm tribute that he paid to his mother, his family, his teachers, his friends, those in his political party and those who had brought him to where he is now. I am sure that he will fulfil a distinguished role as the hon. Member for Tottenham.
The other remarkable speech, which followed a series of remarkable speeches, was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). It was full of rigour and intellectual honesty, and to the point. It was the culmination of a series of distinguished speeches that he has made on the Finance Bill, the last of which I heard on Third Reading last night. Each one has been of the highest quality. I wish that more right hon. and hon. Members had been present to hear him.
As my right hon. Friend warned us, the public expenditure statement has all the ingredients of an inflationary package. It is almost certain to increase interest rates, as the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England has warned us. The likelihood is that in the medium to longer term, it will cause taxation to rise as well. The interesting thing is that the projected figures for the last part of the triennial period show that there will no longer be a budgetary surplus, and by then the deficit will have to be made up with taxation.
I am sure that the Government do not want to talk about that additional burden of taxation now. When the Lex column in yesterday's Financial Times spoke of "Pumping for a purpose" in connection with the public expenditure statement, it defined it in entirely correct terms. The Government are pumping the economy for the purpose of winning the next general election. It is an

603
irresponsible additional injection of public money into the economy at a time in the cycle when there are inflationary pressures and pressures on capacity. I am sure that the Monetary Policy Committee is wise to warn of the dangers.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: This is the second or third time this afternoon that we have heard that the Government are pumping the economy for the general election. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the programme starts on 1 April 2001 and continues for the three subsequent years, and all the guessing suggests that the election could be on 1 May next year? So it is a post-election package rather than a pre-election package.
Mr. Wilkinson: I do not think that it will help the Government, whenever the election comes. The electorate will not be taken in by what constitutes an extra £100 billion of public spending being put into the economy over the period from last year until the financial year 2003–04. The electorate will judge the Government on their performance.
I can only quote the experiences in Ruislip-Northwood, and they are dire. Only last Thursday, consultation started on the closure of Harefield hospital, the country's premier heart hospital, which has carried out more heart transplants than any other in the world. It is threatened with closure at a time when the Government are supposed to be having a drive against heart disease and placing particular emphasis on cardiothoracic treatments, which are the speciality of the hospital.
Education is a continuing problem. The schools in Ruislip-Northwood are exceptionally good, particularly in the secondary sector. Pupils come flooding across the borough boundaries, and as a consequence, my constituents cannot get their children into the local schools. Quite rightly, they are extremely upset about it. None of the proposed measures will change that, because the Government are not prepared to alter the Greenwich judgment.
Police numbers are continually falling. A policeman on the beat is almost as rare as a swallow in winter, and people are desperately worried because crime rates are rising in parts of outer London that never knew a crime wave before. They now have one with a vengeance; they suffer all the time and there are endless complaints to me and other local representatives. We have done everything possible. We have seen the Home Office Minister, Lord Bassam, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the district commander for north-west London and our own chief superintendent. We have done everything, but police numbers continue to fall, crime statistics continue to rise and public disillusion grows. Although more money is being provided, experienced officers and personnel are leaving the Metropolitan police in droves because they can get a better quality of life outside the force. Even this injection of extra money will not change that.
Last but not least, I turn to transport. We were told at the last general election that the public-private partnership would revolutionise the tube, that the service would be modernised and that the lives of my constituents who depend on commuting into central London would be much improved. The facts are different. We heard a statement from the Deputy Prime Minister only this
604
afternoon. The initial headlines were very favourable and the first edition of the Evening Standard paid glowing tribute to the effects of the extra moneys which were to be provided. The headlines were:
Ken gets £3.2bn for Transport … CrossRail to go ahead … New east London Tube … Huge boost for buses
However, the second edition carried the headlines:
Ken rages at tube "Stitch-up" … Prescott's extra £3.2bn for London ignores huge Jubilee bill, says Mayor.
This is typical of all Labour's pronouncements. They appear very attractive, but when one reads the small print one sees how unattractive they are. Because the current administration at county hall—or wherever the Greater London Authority headquarters are—will have to pick up the tab for the overrun in the Jubilee line extension, there will be virtually nothing left to pay for improvements in services. The office of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) put it rather well. A representative told the Evening Standard that by the time the extra money has been found for the Jubilee line extension, the GLA will be left with "peanuts". That was not how the Deputy Prime Minister put it in his statement on public expenditure.
Finally, I turn to the area of departmental spending that I know best, because it demonstrates the sleight of hand of the current Administration. It was the first departmental sector referred to by the Chancellor in his statement on Tuesday, when he said:
I turn now to the departmental allocations. In recent years, in addition to their conventional responsibilities, Britain's defence forces have taken on a new and valued role in international peacekeeping and in conflict prevention, promoting human rights and peace throughout the world, including in Sierra Leone and Kosovo. To complete the restructuring agreed in the strategic defence review. and to fund new equipment and increase the mobility of our front-line forces, defence spending, which has fallen in real terms every year since the end of the cold war, will now increase in real terms.—[Official Report, 18 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 221.]
The press release on that subject was challenged by The Daily Telegraph yesterday because the facts are otherwise. In 1996, the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) announced a budgetary increase in defence expenditure of 0.4 per cent. in real terms. So the civil servants had to correct that in a hurry.
It is clear that the commitments in Tuesday's statement are shallow, insubstantial and inadequate. Let us look at the roles. The British armed forces have always been involved in international peacekeeping, conflict prevention and promoting human rights throughout the world. That is why they fought in Korea, and that is why they have been engaged in countering terrorism in Northern Ireland and supporting United Nations operations from East Timor to Kosovo. There is nothing new about that; they have always done it. The amount of extra money is actually very small. In real terms, it is 0.1 per cent. in the financial year 2001–02, 0.2 per cent. in 2002–03 and 0.7 per cent in 2003–04.
The major projects report for 1999 from the National Audit Office shows that cost overruns continue to escalate. Between 1993 and 1999 they increased in absolute and in percentage terms—so much for smart procurement. In fact, they are getting worse. In 1999 they amounted to £1.36 billion, increasing by 6.3 per cent. in one financial year. Against that background, how will the

605
armed forces be able to redress the shortfall in the infantry of some 5,000, the deficiency in fast jet pilots of some 120, and the constant outflow of experienced personnel who vote with their feet, or on the dictate of their wives, who can no longer stand the long separations?
In short, the increases are basically a fraud. That is not limited to the defence sector, but applies to many other Government Departments.
4.38 pm
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I thank the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) for their warm tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) on his maiden speech. I join them in congratulating him on a superb speech, which included a moving tribute to the great Bernie Grant and highlighted the importance of public expenditure in Tottenham.
This week, we can all celebrate a massive expansion of public expenditure that is based neither on rising taxation nor on high levels of borrowing, but on the successful running of the economy during the past three years. One of the most interesting aspects of the public expenditure statement was the revelation that, under the previous Government, 42 per cent. of additional expenditure went on debt repayment and social security, whereas, in the coming period, by contrast, the figure will be 17 per cent.
We must emphasise the importance of increasing employment in enabling the public expenditure increase to take place. I will probably be the only Scottish speaker today, so I shall speak about Scotland as much as I can. We have in Scotland the highest number of people in work since England won the world cup—that also happened under a Labour Government. Contrary to what the Conservative party said would happen, that large expansion in employment took place after the introduction of a minimum wage and improved conditions in the work place.
If a choice has to be made about raising taxation, I would personally argue that that may be justifiable, because I agree with Larry Elliott's assertion in The Guardian this week that tax is the price that we pay for a civilised society; but it is most important to emphasise that, over the period in question, tax as a percentage of GDP will fall. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said, net borrowing over the period will be lower than at any point in the previous Parliament.
Conservative Members have emphasised what they call the macro-economic dangers of the Government' s public expenditure stance, but it should be noted that the Bank of England's most recent quarterly inflation report, written at a time when it knew exactly what growth in public expenditure was planned, because of the Budget statement, said clearly that the Budget's macro-economic effects were unlikely to be large.
The minutes that have been quoted liberally and one-sidedly by Opposition Members today reflect some division between various members of the Monetary Policy Committee. For example, David Walton of Goldman Sachs, as quoted in this morning's Financial Times, pointed out that several members of the committee think
606
that interest rates will be able to fall, even with this public expenditure projection, partly because average earnings growth has been slowing.
Mr. Ruffley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not just the aggregate increase in expenditure but its composition that the Monetary Policy Committee will have to consider when it meets next month to decide on interest rates?
Mr. Chisholm: I am just coming to the composition of public expenditure. Obviously, one of the virtues of increased public expenditure is that it can help the economy, and sustainable growth in particular. I am thinking particularly of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's statement today, in which he said that capital investment in transport was to be doubled. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reminded us about education expenditure, which again is crucial for economic as well as other reasons. He informed us that the increase in education spending over the five-year period will be greater than in the whole 18 years of Conservative government. He also spoke about the important investment in science and research.
This is a significant moment, when public expenditure is once again set to climb above 40 per cent. of gross domestic product. I certainly hope that, when we have variations in public expenditure during the next decade or so, they will be within a spectrum above 40 per cent. of GDP, which is still significantly lower than in other European countries.
Public expenditure is important not only for economic efficiency but for social justice. One of the main points that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham emphasised was the importance of public expenditure for an anti-poverty strategy. Part of that strategy comes through the main spending programmes. Clearly, the attack on health inequalities is a priority both here and in the Scottish Parliament. I believe that it will be one of the targets in next week's health statement. There are many admirable new initiatives, which we have so far heard about only in relation to England, such as the children's fund and the neighbourhood regeneration fund. No doubt, we will hear about similar measures for Scotland in the autumn.
Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that one of the consequences of a stop-go funding policy for health is the creation of a serious crisis in recruitment? The problem with getting a radiology appointment is the shortage of radiologists. Spending extra money will not train them overnight.
Mr. Chisholm: The simple fact is that health funding has never stopped—even in the difficult first two years of this Government, extra money was found for health—but the hon. Gentleman makes the sensible point that it takes longer for health initiatives than, for example, for certain education initiatives, to come on stream.
Apart from the mainstream programmes, there are many specific initiatives in the anti-poverty strategy. The research last week by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has been misrepresented. It confirmed the importance and success of the new deal,

607
and of the working families tax credit and the minimum wage in terms of making work pay. All those initiatives would be threatened, if not abolished, by the Conservative party.
The figure of 17 per cent. as against 42 per cent. of additional spending on social security and debt repayment is important. I would prefer it if we could split up the social security budget so that the money going into unemployment benefit is separated from what Labour Members see as the desirable features of the social security budget. Many aspects of the social security budget are important in the formulation of an anti-poverty strategy.
We will obviously hear more about pensions in the near future, and I will not complain about not hearing more about them this week, as long as I hear more about them in the autumn. The Scottish Affairs Committee recommended the restoration of the link with earnings, which I applaud, and came up with the interesting suggestion that perhaps the working families tax credit could be improved if we dealt with the issue of the withdrawal of housing benefit. I hope that the recommendation for a pilot study will be considered favourably.
There are important parts of the social security budget that must be improved as part of an anti-poverty strategy, but that is not to take anything away from the great improvements in the spending Departments, many of which will impact directly on those living in poverty.
One of the reasons why we have no more Scottish speakers today is that the money for Scotland will not be distributed until the Scottish Parliament reconvenes in September, so all that we know is that we will get a global increase of 4.4 per cent. a year in real terms, which is a significant and welcome increase. The only decision that has been made relates to health, as the health announcement was made in the Budget.
I hear a lot of talk in public and in private about the Barnett formula, so I should share with English Members the fact that, in Scotland, as the Scottish National party keeps saying, the percentage increase that we are getting—health is the only one that we know about so far—is less than in England. That mathematical fact is not especially surprising, but a lot of English Members do not appreciate it. In other words, the Barnett formula is a convergence formula. As Scotland starts with a higher base and gets the same increase per head, that translates in each of the spending programmes into a lower percentage increase. People who criticise the Barnett formula should understand that. Even those who want to get rid of the formula surely would not want to pull the plug on Scotland—not unless they wanted to create an independent Scotland, which would be the general effect in political terms of slashing public expenditure in Scotland.
Some Liberal Democrat Members support the Barnett formula. However, another third of the party wishes to proceed to a new needs assessment for Scotland, while the final third supports fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament. In the short term, it is better to stick with the Barnett formula, although I am not lacking in confidence about the ability of Scotland to argue its corner in terms of need.
In Scotland, the health budget is bigger per head than the English budget but is growing significantly more slowly. If we look at health from the point of view of
608
need, the health needs in Scotland are significantly greater than in England according to all statistics, for the simple reason that people die significantly younger. All the health indicators are worse in Scotland than in England. Given that health accounts for one third of the Scottish Parliament's budget, it would be easy to put up a strong case for the levels of health expenditure that we receive.
What would be indefensible in a Scottish and UK context is to argue for the massive public expenditure cuts that are the implication of the Conservative party's arguments this week. I thank my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for pointing out, courtesy of a Conservative briefing, that £1.4 billion would be cut from the Scottish budget if the Tories were to have their way. I have yet to hear any explanation from the Conservatives of where they are to make cuts.
I almost felt sorry for the shadow Chief Secretary, who was sent round the television studios the other night by the shadow Chancellor. When asked how he would find £16 billion of cuts, all that he could come up with were a few political advisers. I do not know how much he thinks Labour political advisers are paid, but he will have to come up with something better than that.
Sir Robert Smith: If those political advisers were paid £50,000 a year, it would mean that there were 320,000 spin doctors.
Mr. Chisholm: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful point.
I conclude by welcoming this significant boost to public expenditure. This is a significant political moment, when the balance of argument has shifted decisively in favour of public expenditure after two decades in which the assumption has been, in England at least, that high levels of public expenditure were not politically popular. Now the climate seems to have changed in England—although I must say that it has always been the case in Scotland that we support high levels of public expenditure.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Appropriation Act 2000

Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000

Terrorism Act 2000

Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000

Royal Parks (Trading) Act 2000

Care Standards Act 2000

Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Act 2000

Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000

London Local Authorities Act 2000

4.54 pm
Mr. David Ruffley: Before I begin my remarks on public expenditure, I would very much like to endorse the comments from Members on both sides

609
of the House celebrating—that is the right word—the magnificent speech from the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). It was eloquent; it had charm, style and grace; it was intensely moving. Given the hon. Gentleman's great skill and charm, I trust that he will pursue his remarks on the disconnection from the political process of younger people in this country. I am sure that he will have a valuable contribution to make in that and many other areas.
This week's spending review document should have had a subtitle—"Return to Labour tax and spend". We have seen a set of propositions from the Labour Chancellor which invited us to believe several things. These were very much the kind of propositions that old Labour invited the British public to believe. "We can have high levels of spending and the tax burden does not have to go up to finance that". "We can have high levels of public spending but ordinary hard-working families will not have to pay more tax to finance that". "We can have high levels of public spending and big Labour spending figures that are credible, believable and deliverable and will automatically result in better frontline services".
Those are ridiculous propositions now and they were ridiculous 20 years ago. All Conservative Members know that there is no such thing as a free Labour spending splurge. Someone has to pay for it. Who pays for it? Let us refer to those who must pay rates of interest. In the coming financial year, we will see real terms growth in spending of about 6.7 per cent. That means that about 40 per cent. of the British economy will be growing at nearly 7 per cent.
As Goldman Sachs observed today, it is clear that that will crowd out private sector economic activity. Those who are assiduous enough will have read the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee at its last meeting, at which it was observed that this spending splurge could lead to inflationary pressures unless the private sector slows down. If it does not slow down, the MPC has made it perfectly clear that there will be upward pressure on interest rates. If there is upward pressure on interest rates, mortgage payers and manufacturing exporters will suffer. These things are not spoken about by Labour Members because they are a cost—there is a cost attached to this spending.
In response to a question on whether there is any room for reducing tax under these fiscal projections, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have observed today that there is not. There is no prospect of money being returned to the British people who have had their pockets picked for three years by the Chancellor and the Labour Government. There is no prospect in the three years of CSR2 of any return of their money through even modest tax reductions.
We do not have to talk about future tax increases from today. We only have to look at the way in which the typical hard-working family has paid more tax over the past three years. As the House of Commons Library has shown, the average family will be paying about £670 a year extra tax. That is made up of council tax, which is rising at nearly four times the rate of inflation; personal pension contributions, which will have to rise by more than £200 a year on average to pay for the £5 billion a year raid by the Chancellor in his first Budget in 1997;
610
over £200 following the loss of married couples allowance; and £200 a year following the loss of mortgage interest relief. The list goes on, making a grand total of nearly £700. Therefore, the people have been paying already for spending, but they also know that that spending has not resulted in better public services. They have been taxed more, but less has been delivered.
I should like to say something about that canard—the £16 billion, a figure that the Labour party will try, I believe unsuccessfully, to lodge in the public mind as being a Tory "cut". Let me explain why that is a fantasy fiscal figure. It is bogus because the £43 billion extra that the Labour party suggests it will spend at the end of four years from now is obviously not going to be delivered. That is the view of many outside commentators, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). They agree, as we all do on the Conservative Benches, that those are figures four years out. Plenty of things can happen before then.
I am always reminded on these occasions, when I look at Labour fiscal numbers and the preposterous distortions of the truth that they try to foist on the British public in relation to our policy, that a lie is halfway around the world before the truth has got its shoes on. That will not be the case with the bogus £16 billion figure. One cannot have cuts of £16 billion if one does not know what the actual spend will be. I do not believe that £43 billion is what, in practice, will be delivered.
Dr. Ladyman: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that a Conservative party briefing paper identified the £16 billion?
Mr. Ruffley: It is not a document that I have seen. I understand from hon. Friends that it has been, as usual—no surprises there—completely distorted by the Labour party, but the £16 billion is a canard that is being thrown around and debated, not with much success, by the Labour party. I have explained why it is a bogus figure. Those cuts do not materialise because the money that the Government say that they will spend has not materialised. I do not know how much will be delivered, but we know one thing: it will not be spent wisely or well.
We know that because the Labour party and those on the Treasury Bench have been in a bit of a mess about the whole idea of comprehensive spending reviews. First, it said that they would have a three-year planning horizon. I am afraid that we had only two years of CSR1, announced in July 1998, because its third year has now become the first year of CSR2—that is to say, 2001–02.
It gets even worse. Last year, emergency cheques were doled out busting the limits that the Government had said that they were setting. The idea that we have a prudent Chancellor who has a three-year time horizon has been exploded. It is a myth. It is simply not true.
Then we have that work of fiction: the publication of the public service agreements. That was a bit of a laugh. The Government started out with several hundred targets and said that they would measure them over the lifetime of the Parliament, so that the public and the public services could see how that extra money was being spent. They have had to slash the number of targets, many of which were inappropriate. We do not have a basis on which to measure what was happening at the start of the

611
Parliament with what is happening at the end of it because they have changed the basis of the PSAs. Muddle and confusion abound.
We were told that the allocations set out in the document for CSR2 were going to be informed by the results of the PSAs in CSR1. In other words, they would see how that money was spent and whether Departments hit targets—if they did not, sanctions would have to be taken and the allocations would be tied to performance. We all know that the numbers announced in the document bear no relation whatever to the PSA targets and whether they have been met in the past two years. Everyone in Whitehall knows it.
Mr. Timms: It was always the intention that the first year of the new spending review and the last year of the previous spending review would overlap. That was the intention set out at the beginning of the spending review process. The CSR targets relate to the full three years, which finish at the end of the 2002 year.
Mr. Ruffley: I am afraid that the Minister has not explained why there were so many PSA targets, which were inappropriate, ludicrous and had to be scrapped. We now have no basis on which to measure performance over the Parliament. That is something that no Minister has sought to deny. I notice that he did not seek to deny it in his intervention.
Mr. Timms: I am happy to deny it. As I have said, the targets apply to the full three-year period of the CSR. At the end of that time, the hon. Gentleman will be able to see what has been achieved.
Mr. Ruffley: What the Minister omits to mention is the targets at the beginning of the PSA process and the targets now are different because the targets are being slimmed down and changed. He cannot seriously be seeking to deny that. If he does, I suggest that he speaks to the Chief Secretary, who will put him right on that basic fact.
We were told by the Chancellor this week in his statement on that new money, which may or may not materialise:
At every stage, money will be tied to output and to performance.—[Official Report, 18 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 220.]
Perhaps the Government can make it clear whether a poorly performing public service will receive a cut by way of a sanction if it does not meet targets, or whether its failure will be rewarded by more money. There is confusion at the heart of the public spending philosophy of the Treasury. That is yet another question that has not been answered in the Chamber, much less in the Select Committee on the Treasury, on which I sit. We had an inquiry into PSAs. Answer came there none.
I draw the House's attention to the way in which the non-delivery of the Government, their hike in taxes and failure to deliver front-line services adequately have affected my rural constituents in the towns of Stowmarket and Bury St. Edmunds. We have seen a decline in police numbers. In 1996–97, the last year of the previous Government, there were 1,185 policemen in the Suffolk constabulary. This year, there are 1,165. Suffolk health authority has received the joint worst health spending
612
increase. I have gone to the Secretary of State for Health to raise that matter. There was no real adequate explanation.
We have seen across first, middle and upper schools an increase in class sizes. Only the other day a written answer provided me with the information that for middle schools in Suffolk, the average class size is 23.8 compared with 23.7 two years ago and that for upper and secondary schools the average class size is 21.2 compared with 20.8 in 1998. These are facts which are not lost upon my rural constituents.
We also realise that we are getting a raw deal on the A14. According to a written answer this week the number of fatalities on that treacherous stretch at Haughley bends has doubled within 2 years. We urgently need expensive, safety work. We need the Highways Agency to commit resources so that there are not more deaths, but all we get are warm words.
We must look carefully at this spending round to ensure that rural areas are not overlooked as they have been so tragically and, in my view, grotesquely in the first three years of this Parliament. That offence is worsened by the way in which the Government invite us to believe things that simply are not true. They say that taxes have not increased; they have. They say that services are getting better; they are not.
For those reasons I must profess my profound scepticism about this document. We in the Opposition make it clear that whatever additional resources may or may not be available in the next two years—a three year horizon in the comprehensive spending review—when we are in government we will spend them more wisely and better, and we shall get more money to the frontline of our vital public services.
5.10 pm
Mr. David Crausby: First, I echo the congratulations that have been heaped on my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) for his maiden speech. He will no doubt be here for many years and I trust that he will maintain his humility and hang on to his sense of gratitude to the people who sent him here.
I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to contribute to this debate on public expenditure. It allows me the opportunity to comment on the widespread welcome that my constituents will afford to the radical increase in public investment which the Chancellor announced in his statement on Tuesday. I warmly welcome his conclusions because his comprehensive spending review sets out a wise and responsible direction for the Government to go in—a direction that will deliver the Government's long-term aspirations of a strong, healthy economy, efficient, comprehensive public services and, most important of all, social justice for all our citizens.
The ability to deliver all that while providing stable economic growth coupled with low inflation and the promotion of a dynamic, growing economy which employs our people in ever increasing numbers and prosperity is a remarkable tribute to the Chancellor's handling of the economy. The public investment proposed will be a real boost for Bolton and, indeed, for the rest of the country. It sets us on the road to delivering the social justice that we have always stood for. Wise and prudent public spending is what responsible, democratic government should be all about.

613
The Chancellor's proposals are essential for Britain. Our country has so much to offer and so much wealth, yet we still have far too many pockets of poverty and deprivation. So much still needs to be done in health, education, transport and, above all, in the reduction of crime, along with the apprehension and prosecution of criminals.
The proposals are especially important to my constituency, where there is a particular demand for all these areas of public service. However, there is an exceptional obligation on us when it comes to the provision of health care. The recent performance indicators, for example, released by the Department of Health last week, demonstrated a massive north-south divide in health care and confirmed that Bolton was one of the worst places for heart attacks. The Bolton hospital trust comes bottom in a table of 56 similar hospitals, with 20 per cent. of those who are admitted with a heart attack between the ages of 35 and 74 dying within 30 days. That is unacceptable for a modern health service. When we enact the Chancellor's promise of 6.1 per cent. growth above inflation in health funding over the next five years, I expect that we will also take the opportunity to equalise the provision of health care across the nation.
One of the consequences of Bolton's getting such a poor financial deal is that many of my constituents who suffer from kidney disease are forced to travel to Hope hospital in Salford for dialysis treatment. Only today, I heard from a constituent who has to wait 60 days for cataract treatment. That will all be helped by the decision to build a new surgical theatre for eye operations in Bolton. However, it is simply wrong that such an essential and basic provision should not already exist in Bolton.
The additional resources made available this week will, I hope, rectify the inequalities in health care between the regions. We will, at long last, have a health service that will be the envy of the world again.
The acid test of any Government's commitment to the NHS is their willingness to deliver the necessary resources. Almost everyone accepts that increased spending on the nation's health service is essential. So how can the shadow Chancellor argue that the rate of spending in Britain should increase by 2 per cent. and not 3.3 per cent. without accepting that the consequences will mean a £16 billion reduction in his spending plans? That view is not simply taken from a Conservative document—we heard it said on television. Where will the right hon. Gentleman find his £16 billion without devastating health and education?
New developments and increased public aspirations will, in any event, continuously increase the demand for health care. Perhaps we will never be able to meet those demands entirely, but to argue for cuts in public expenditure when it impacts on life and death is callous and irresponsible.
I enthusiastically support the review. It has been long awaited, and it is not before time. Such a truly comprehensive review is welcome, and clearly demonstrates the difference between a Labour Government and a possible Conservative Government. That is how it should be. The voters are entitled to be offered distinct political choices at elections.
614
This week's events have provided such a choice. They demonstrate clearly that if constituents believe in public services efficiently delivered within a strong economy, they should choose Labour whenever they have the opportunity. If, alternatively, they believe in increasing privatisation of the national health service, encouraging non-public sector education for their children and leaving public transport to the rigours of the free market so as to cut taxes for the wealthy, they should, of course, support the Conservatives. If they do not know what they believe but desperately want the best of both worlds, they are perfectly entitled to vote Liberal Democrat. However people choose to vote in the end, they were given a choice on Tuesday, and I welcome that.
I am convinced that the tough decisions that the Government have taken during their first three years in office have equipped us with a stable platform on which we can build. This week's comprehensive spending review will enable us to create a Britain that will not only be fit for the future but fit for its people. It has my committed support, and I commend it to the House.
5.18 pm
Mr. Tim Collins: Let me begin by adding to what has quite rightly been a chorus of approval for the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). I apologise to him and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the fact that an urgent constituency matter meant that I had to watch the hon. Gentleman's speech on a monitor rather than seeing it from within the Chamber. However, I heard enough of his speech to realise that all the subsequent comments made by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about its excellence and quality and the very high calibre of contributions that we must now regularly expect from the hon. Gentleman were perfectly right and well judged.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will be an ornament to the House and that he will do himself, his party and Parliament a great deal of credit in the years to come.
On Tuesday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an extra £43 billion of public expenditure, and said that it would transform the nature of public services. I suspect that I was not alone in having an overwhelming sense of déjà. It is only two years since the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an extra £40 billion of public expenditure and told us that that would transform public services and dramatically change the nature of health and education provision. The Government would like the public to believe that, this time, the £43 billion is real and that, of course, the £40 billion from the previous review was the product of some double and triple counting of which they are a little ashamed. The problem for the Government—on this as on so many other fronts—is that their credibility has been comprehensively demolished by their successive experiments in the world of spin and by the way in which all their actions have been exaggerated; figures have been counted twice or three times, or openly fiddled.
It normally takes us a few weeks to get a grip on the sheer scale of the tortuous process through which this Chancellor arrives at the figures, but it is already clear, 48 hours after his statement, that several of the figures that he announced were—to put it at the mildest—a little controversial. For example, the Chancellor announced

615
with great glee that there would be a substantial percentage increase in the expenditure of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, it turns out that that is possible only because, in the first year, the Chancellor had recalculated the baseline by taking out about 20 per cent. that had previously been included.
The Chancellor undertook a similar exercise in respect of Scottish spending. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made a similar point on defence expenditure. Indeed, he could have gone further; assumptions on defence spending are based on the expectation of asset sales, including the dubious process whereby the Government propose to privatise the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. Those assumptions are rather difficult to believe.
The problems with the Government's spending plans do not simply reside in the fact that the public have grown used to disbelieving any figure produced by the Chancellor or the Prime Minister. If the Government seriously intend to initiate such a substantial increase in public expenditure, there could be grave macro-economic consequences. Two days ago, the City editor of the Evening Standard noted that the Chancellor had set in train a process that was likely to lead to a recession. He pointed out that, based on the Chancellor's public spending plans, we should be lucky to avoid a recession.
I do not know whether that prediction is correct, but I do know that the 12 unbroken years of economic growth that the Chancellor assumes will continue until the end of the CSR2 period hardly ever occurred in the UK throughout the whole of the previous century. His assumptions are extremely optimistic. It will be interesting to see whether the Treasury Minister who winds up the debate can guarantee that the Government's spending plans will be met in all economic circumstances.
I suspect that Treasury Ministers will not be prepared to give that guarantee. It is thus clear that the total figure of £43 billion will be, at best, hypothetical by the end of the planning period. That figure is conditional and no one should base any real expectations or hopes on it. I fear that many vulnerable people and deserving causes throughout the land have been cruelly deceived into believing that their fortunes will dramatically improve, whereas in fact, much of that public expenditure is not guaranteed.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) made an interesting point. He said that the review was a politically significant moment; he believed that we had come to the end of two decades during which high public expenditure was regarded as politically unpopular. He hoped that we were entering a period when, for as far ahead as we could foresee, the state would consume more than 40 per cent. of the nation's wealth every year.
That is indeed a politically significant moment—in part, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, the Secretary of State for International Development was widely reported in today's newspapers as saying that the new bit of new Labour had fallen off. She said:
The bit that's going wrong is the "new" bit.
The essence of the new bit was that we were led to believe that the governing party did not believe in high levels of public expenditure for their own sake any more—that they were converted to the view that outputs matter more than inputs, that they did not believe in tax
616
and spend for the sake of it, and that they had moved away from the old-style socialist singalong beliefs in the bigger state, bigger government, bigger spend and bigger tax.
It turns out that that is simply not true. It turns out that old attitudes are reasserting themselves, and after two or three years of the present Government, when they have come under sustained criticism because they have failed on so many fronts, they are going back to their old instincts—their old belief, "If in trouble, spend and tax your way out of it". But in fact, the history of every Labour Government has been that when they did let rip in spending and taxing, it has not been the solution to their problems but has resulted in the termination of their public support and their ejection from office.
This is therefore a truly significant political moment. It is the moment when the old division lines between the parties—between a Conservative party that believes that one can grow public services within a growing economy but that one can do so best, indeed only, by reducing taxes and allowing people to keep more of what they own, and a Labour Government who believe in spending more and taxing more for the sake of it—are becoming very much clearer.
I was intrigued by several of the announcements that we have had since the Chancellor's statement, and by their implications for the quality of the public services on which my constituents can expect to rely in future. My constituents have become very sceptical about what this Government's announcements mean in practice. Two years ago, they heard the announcements of the extra expenditure for health and education. Since then, they have found that their waiting times have actually lengthened.
There are now 11 people in the Morecambe Bay health authority area who have been waiting for more than a year for a heart bypass operation. That is a vital, lifesaving operation, and people in my constituency and the surrounding area are waiting more than a year for it.
My constituents were told that the Government believed in high quality transport, yet one of their very first acts was to cancel the desperately needed A590 bypass project at High and Low Newton. Even though the project had funding and planning permission and was ready to roll at the time of the last general election, it was axed in its entirety. This afternoon, the Deputy Prime Minister made a speech in which he said that there would be 100 bypasses, but he then made it clear that he would not tell anyone what they were, where they were or when they would happen; so that seems to be another example of spin for the sake of spin.
We have heard repeated reannouncements of the same thing. Very often, the Government have claimed credit for things so old that they had nothing whatever to do with this Government. They have repeatedly reannounced the upgrading of the west coast main line—which is to happen thanks to Railtrack and Virgin Trains—started under the previous Government. They claim credit for the Jubilee line extension in London, a project that was wholly pushed through under the previous Government.
The Prime Minister regularly claims credit—indeed, he did so in his famous leaked memo—for the introduction of a policy of "three strikes and you're out" for burglars. Not only was that policy brought in under the previous Government, but the legislation was passed in 1996 and

617
not implemented by the present Government in their first two years in office; and yet the Prime Minister expects the nation to be grateful to them for implementing it.
The problem that the country faces with any of the Government's public expenditure plans is that time and again we read wonderful headlines and there is a great attempt at spin, but very little actually happens on the ground that people have the chance to see in their local area.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith said something else that was very interesting. He claimed that these public spending plans were unique in British history because they were delivered without higher taxes. We have seen very dramatically higher taxes underlying the present Government's spending plans. There has been a 44 per cent. increase in the petrol price paid by many of my constituents, who have absolutely no choice but to use their car, for whom it is not a luxury item but a necessity.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: What are you doing about it?
Mr. Collins: I voted against the tax increase on petrol. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman voted for the tax increase on petrol, and therefore that he will be paying the political price for that, come the next general election.
My constituents and those of many other hon. Members on both sides of the House are paying higher taxes because of the abolition of the married couples allowance, because of the abolition of mortgage interest tax relief, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) pointed out in his superb speech, because of the extra taxes on pensions. We have seen taxes going through the roof, but consistently, whether in south lakeland or throughout the country, we have seen no improvement in services. If the Government expect that this time people will believe that there is £43 billion of spending, let me tell them that people might have believed them the first time when they announced spending of £40 billion, but they will not be fooled by the same bit of spin spun twice by the same unreliable spin merchants.
5.30 pm
Mrs. Janet Dean: First, I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) on his maiden speech, which we all recognised was extremely moving. I am sure that he will have a long and distinguished career in the House.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. This week's announcement of the increase in funding for our basic services is widely welcomed. We have already seen increased Government spending beginning to turn round the decline in services that we saw under the Conservative Government.
We have been accused of spin, as if the extra funding is not real. I can say that it is real. When I talk to head teachers in my constituency, I hear of the improvements that are taking place in our schools. When I talk to constituents, I know that they welcome improved public transport in rural areas and the extra money for our health service.
I served as a county councillor for 16 years, and I witnessed the rise in class sizes year on year. In the early 1980s, children were being taught in classes of fewer than
618
30 pupils. However, by the time that the Conservatives left office, many class sizes were approaching 40. We have kept our election pledge and we are well on the way to seeing all class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds below 30. The extra funding announced this week will help to tackle the problem of larger class sizes for older children.
I welcome the extra direct funding to our schools announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is not because I want to see the work of local education authorities undermined, as the Opposition would advocate. Direct funding will help to reduce the gap between authorities like Staffordshire and those which have traditionally been funded at a higher level. It is a great pity that in areas like Staffordshire, the value of the extra Government expenditure on education has not always been appreciated.
The emphasis in the media has been on the disparity between Staffordshire's standard spending assessment and that of other counties. It is important that we address the problem by making changes to the funding formula as soon as possible. I make that plea again.
Perhaps we should spin a little more and get the message over that our schools funding is improving, and that our schools are feeling the benefit of the increased spending, both revenue and capital. On a recent visit to Ryecroft middle school in Rocester in my constituency, I heard from the head teacher of the improvements that have taken place. These included complete roof replacement with new deal funding, a new double mobile classroom from basic needs capital funding, electrical work as a result of the new deal and the refurbishment soon of all cloakrooms, again from new deal money. In addition, the school recently received an extra £30,000 from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. That will boost the resources that are available to provide a good education for the children in the school.
When I spoke to the head teacher of a junior school in Burton, I heard that the £9,000 direct cash payment this year had enabled the school to retain a teacher who would otherwise have been displaced because of falling rolls.
For years, when I was a member of the county council, we were not able to maintain the fabric of school buildings. We knew that we should be doing more, but we did not have the money. Many capital projects seemed dreams for the future. We knew that we were not spending enough to maintain our building stock. There are now building projects and improvements at many schools in my constituency.
I was talking to one of my former county colleagues recently. I heard how it has taken quite a change of culture to realise that money can be spent and jobs can be done which previously we could only dream of doing.
I look forward to seeing the effect on our schools of the further extra funding that was announced this week. However, it is not only in education that we are beginning to see the benefits of the increased public spending under Labour. Last week, I had a phone call in my Burton office from a lady who had just returned from taking a relative to the accident and emergency unit at Queen's hospital in Burton, and who had been very impressed by the way that it looked and the work that had been done on the reception. Her relative had commented on the kindness of the treatment, and they were both surprised that she had

619
been treated quite quickly. That lady praised the Labour Government and recognised that we are having to clear up the mess left by the Tories.
It was good to hear that the money provided by the Government to refurbish the accident and emergency unit at Queen's hospital is appreciated. It is also good to know that people recognise that, even with unprecedented increased spending on health, we cannot put right the problems of the health service overnight. It takes time to train doctors and nurses, but we are getting waiting lists down. At Queen's hospital, a special team has been set up to ensure that targets are met and I was delighted to visit the hospital, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), to thank staff for their hard work.
We have much to do to bring the national health service up to the standard that Labour Members want. We need to reduce waiting lists further and we need to reduce waiting times. I welcome the commitment shown by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, which has meant that my health authority, South Staffordshire, has received a total increase in its allocation for the current year of 8.7 per cent., giving it a real-terms increase of 6 per cent.
I hope that, as with education standard spending assessments, the Government will continue to review the formula for health spending, which puts South Staffordshire health authority low down in the funding league. It is also important that the anomaly within the health authority, which means that my constituency is poorly funded compared with the rest of the authority, is also addressed.
I want to express my appreciation at the announcement of increased funding for law and order. Staffordshire police had to make cuts in the number of officers last year, because of continued restraints on the budget while the Government were maintaining Conservative spending plans and reducing the burden of national debt. However, I am pleased that Staffordshire will be able to recruit 83 more officers over the next two years from the 5,000 extra that were announced some time ago. Like my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), I am even more pleased that a further 4,000 extra—in addition to the original 5,000—have been announced and that there will be even more recruits in Staffordshire. I certainly hope that Staffordshire receives a fair share of that funding.
Today's announcement on transport spending was equally welcome. It will bring improved finance to all forms of transport. The extra money that has been provided for road maintenance will continue to help to address the deterioration of our highway infrastructure. I have no doubt that, when repairs hold up traffic, it will cause frustration to motorists; I am sure that we shall receive complaints about that. However, it is vital that we start to catch up on the road maintenance backlog caused by years of underspend by the previous Government.
I remember well the frustration that we felt when I was a member of Staffordshire county council and the vice-chair of highways because we were not able to maintain our road network, just as we were not able to maintain our building stock. We could see the deterioration in the roads year on year, and it was a particular problem in Staffordshire because the county is at the hub of the country's traffic movements.
The Government's increased spending on rural public transport has enabled new services to be provided. The 1986 deregulation of public transport brought with it a
620
loss of services to rural areas, and I welcome the increase in evening services and the greater access to villages that the new money has already brought. Of course, in rural areas, it is not possible to make provision for all transport needs by public transport, but it is right that those without transport should be given greater freedom and that those who seek alternatives to the car should be able to access such services wherever possible.
The extra £800,000 a year which has already been made available to Staffordshire for rural transport has brought new services. One can now even travel from the town of Uttoxeter to other parts of the county on Sunday morning, which has not been possible for more than 25 years. I know that the increase in the annual allocation from £60 million to £95 million will bring even greater improvements.
My constituency includes the town of Burton-upon-Trent whose problems, in some ways, are similar to those of many inner cities. The inner wards are deprived, but are benefiting from the new deal and we are getting young people back into work. I am very pleased that Burton has been accepted as an area that can bid for a sure start scheme which, again, is good news for the Government. As my constituency is semi-rural, I know well the problems faced by the agricultural community, including the legacy of BSE and, in the northern area of my constituency, cattle testing positive for TB, which is a great concern to many other constituencies.
Great changes are needed in the industry, and I welcome the increase in the agricultural budget announced by the Chancellor. I know that my constituents will welcome warmly the public spending announcements this week, and I believe that we can now see that the Chancellor's prudence has enabled money to be made available to improve our public services and address the underspending that we inherited. The difference between Labour plans and Conservative policies is now plain for all to see. The Conservatives would cut public expenditure by £16 billion and would have a two-tier health service, but then they voted against the NHS when it was formed.
I welcome the additional investment in our services, which is vital to ensure that those services are there when people need them and is fundamental in ensuring a civilised and fair society.
5.42 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) on his maiden speech. I am sorry that he is not here at the moment, although I quite understand, as he is probably having a well earned cup of tea. He delivered an outstanding maiden speech, one of the best that I have heard since I came to the House, although that was not very long ago. Nevertheless, I have heard quite a few maiden speeches.
I was very interested in and sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for representation of his highly multicultural constituency. He also spoke about the declining interest in politics in his area. I hope that he is wrong, but it is a matter to which we should all pay careful attention. I trust that, as a House, we can all do something about the decline in interest in political activity—if, indeed, that is what is going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) also gave an outstanding speech, and made many crucial political points. I shall not go over

621
that ground again, but his two key points were that, year after year, we have been spun a yarn about the level of public spending. Huge announcements are made, but we do not know exactly how much is really being spent. At the same time, taxation has been steadily increasing, despite the fact that we were told that it was not. The plain fact is that taxes are going up.
Part of that spinning is reflected in poor Government documentation. We may still have a strong economy, but we already have banana republic-style Government documents to back it up. Last week, the Government's annual report announced the completion of a sports academy that has never even been started. Now we have the spending review document. If, for example, one looks up the Ministry of Defence in the index, one is told to turn to page 59. However, when one does so, one finds the Home Office section instead. One might then have a go at finding the Home Office from the index. One is told to look at page 51, but one will find something completely different there—the Department of Health.
Lest we be in any doubt about what the document is about, we might look at the spine. The cover says that the document is about spending, but the spine says that it is another Budget. I really think that something should be done to sharpen up the Government's publications, which are a symptom of a wider phenomenon. I had a small hand in trying to write to Red Books some years ago, but this Red Book, like its predecessor, is completely incomprehensible to me. Even to cognoscenti of Red Books—perhaps I could classify myself as one such—much of it is gibberish. Nobody could possibly work out from this document what is going on in the economy; it is a scandal and a disgrace.
All the beacons and milestones that have been used in the past to try to assess what is happening in the economy have been removed, and a load of new definitions have been brought in which are extremely difficult to disentangle and understand, even for experts in the City. That was a plea for better documentation. This document cost a lot of money; I wonder how many will be pulped.
Caroline Flint: How many copies of "The Common Sense Revolution" have been pulped this week?
Mr. Tyrie: I do not have that number at my fingertips.
Mr. Loughton: The spending review document costs £32.
Mr. Tyrie: My hon. Friend says that this excellent publication costs £32, and I should not think that W. H. Smith sells many documents that badly edited.
I want to address three relatively serious questions, and although I do not want to upset my hon. Friends, I think that my questions will not be too party political and controversial.
Mr. Andrew Love: In that case, the hon. Gentleman has not made a very good start.
Mr. Tyrie: That is a good point. Most sedentary comments are made by people who are too afraid to stand up and make them, but that one sounds reasonable.
622
I want to ask three questions, and then have a go at answering them. First, is this increase in public expenditure sustainable? Secondly, will the money be well spent? Thirdly, will the spending increase have other consequences for the economy?
Outwardly, the position on sustainability looks good. Debt repayment is taking place, which must be good news. Debt repayment was 1.6 per cent. of GDP over the past two years. We cannot know about the delivery of projections, but let us consider what is happening now. The debt repayment makes fiscal policy look tight, but I remind the House that in the 1980s debt repayment was a little higher, at 1.7 per cent. of GDP. I seem to remember that there was a bit of asset price inflation then, and we have that again in the economy at the moment. There is rather less of it, but the same storm signals can be seen. I was in the Treasury in the late 1980s, and in retrospect it is clear that fiscal policy was too loose and we should have been repaying more debt. I ask the House whether we should be repaying more debt now.
Hon. Members may ask how a country repaying debt could suddenly have its fiscal so policy shaken out of kilter. The answer, which the Government do not like to talk about, is economic cycles, and in particular, the change in their nature in recent decades. The length of cycles is growing, and the gap between troughs is widening. We used to have three or five-year cycles; now it seems that we have cycles that last a decade or more. It appears that we are now eight years into the upswing of this cycle, which has lasted almost as long as the previous cycle, which had a nine-year upswing.
We are likely to see greater levels of volatility in the future. There are many reasons for that. I shall not go into those now, but one reason why that volatility has been concealed recently is the introduction of new technology, which has created uniquely benign, non-inflationary economic circumstances. I do not know whether that will last. Frankly, I think that it must be a one-off shift, and that when it unwinds we will find ourselves with an economy that is precariously close to a resumption of inflationary pressure.
The Government's rhetoric is that they have abolished the business cycle and brought an end to boom and bust. I do not usually make predictions, because that is a dangerous game, but I will make one: I can guarantee that after this boom there will be a bust; after this recovery, there will be a boom phase and a recession. I guarantee that. I hope that that is firmly recorded in Hansard. It has always happened in history, and it will happen again.
Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make progress. If I succeed, I shall let him in later.
How deep will the downturn be? I do not know, but the arithmetic could turn nasty very quickly, much faster than in previous downturns, except perhaps the last one. There are good reasons for that. The main one is that in a deregulated economy, and in an economy with a much higher private sector share of GDP than in earlier periods of the post-war era, tax revenues collapse much more severely, and public expenditure commitments increase much more sharply, the latter because such a high proportion of public spending is non-discretionary—much higher than it was in the 1950s and 1960s. My guess is that the arithmetic is quite vulnerable to a downturn.

623
The second question that I posed was whether the money was being well spent. It was a big mistake to announce huge increases in spending in so many areas, without having drawn up clear plans for using the money more effectively. Let us examine what is going on in health. Huge increases in health spending have been announced, without plans to introduce better management in the health service.
The last time there were such huge increases, they were Conservative increases of almost identical size, although only for two years rather than the five years to which the Government are committed, on a scale of 5 or 6 per cent. in real terms per annum. However, that was accompanied by the introduction of the internal market. Many hon. Members may not like the internal market, but the evidence published every year by the Department of Health is overwhelming that the introduction of the internal market increased efficiency in the health service overall, even though many health service workers did not like it.
I fear that the Government have little idea how to go about restructuring the health service to get a bigger bang for their bucks. There are only two routes to greater efficiency in public sector spending. One is managerialism—that is, creating a shadow private management structure, which is what we did, to some degree—and indeed, the Government have attempted to do that in one or two areas. The other route is privatisation or contracting out.
There is no third way to improve the quality of management output in the public sector. There is a way that can be described as different, which is the statist route, which I fear may result from the introduction of tsars, diktats and attempts to manage from the top down. That method of management in major public sector institutions was tried in a host of economies in the post-war era, and was still being tried until recently in eastern Europe. It has been a disaster wherever it has been tried. It requires planning on a grand scale, and planning has always failed, wherever it has been tried.
I worry about whether the money will be well spent. [Interruption.] I am tempted to welcome the Treasury Whip, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), to the Chamber.
The third question that I posed was what the long-term consequences of an increase in spending might be for the economy. The balance between the public and the private sector cannot simply be arbitrarily altered. When it is altered, there is a one-off frictional cost and, in the longer term, a larger public sector always risks crowding out private sector activity. In other words, there may be a price to be paid in economic growth forgone for increasing the size of the public sector.
The Government's response to that point is to claim that they are engaged in investment, not public spending. If they believe that we will get investment from the increase in public spending, they should back their rhetoric in the outer years by writing into the Red Book a higher figure for long-term growth. However, they do no such thing. In the Red Book, growth remains the same for the whole run of years. They do not believe their rhetoric; they do not believe that higher public sector investment will lead to better economic performance.
The only increase that the Government made—from 2.25 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. in the long-run growth rate—was written in last year. Clearly it can only be
624
attributed to the changes that we made to the economy. The Government do not believe that their increase in spending will genuinely increase growth. They believe in their spending for other, perfectly laudable reasons. However, the rhetoric of investment is just rhetoric. It will provide no overall increase in economic return. Some aspects will show a net increase, but others will not. There will be a crowding-out effect, which will more than compensate for any such increases.
I have little time left, but I emphasise that there is a risk of the announcements being unsustainable. They are vulnerable to an economic downturn, and the increases may trigger lower growth; they certainly will not increase it. The growth assumption is a key point, and is precarious and vulnerable to fluctuations in the economic cycle.
I shall end with two brief points. First, in western economies everywhere, the scope for higher sustained public spending is less than it has ever been. The penalty for excessive borrowing is now more heavily policed by the markets, and taxes will become increasingly difficult to collect as tax bases become more footloose.
My second point is about the relationship between fiscal and monetary policy. [Interruption.] I have got the message about the time. If the Chancellor genuinely believed that we should become part of economic and monetary union, he could do that by repaying more debt, creating room for lower interest rates and therefore allowing the exchange rate to fall. He has not done that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Now the hon. Gentleman has my message. Time is up.
5.57 pm
Caroline Flint: I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Denaby sure start board in my constituency. I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate today. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who spoke most eloquently about his constituency's needs. He represents a metropolitan and diverse seat, but when he spoke about his constituents' life chances and their right to aspire to fulfil their potential, his words reflected the message that I give my constituents. I represent a former mining constituency in South Yorkshire. Over years of Tory rule, the people there saw their life chances cruelly savaged and their means of working and surviving taken away.
Only under this Government are the people of South Yorkshire beginning to experience real evidence of hope for change. Communities were left with little employment; the opportunities for investment and excitement through creating jobs, training and opportunities are finally available on their doorstep. That is vital for my constituents.
Much has been made of the word spin recently. I have never heard so many Conservative Members in a spin and out of touch with the real world. I do not recognise some of the communities that they describe when I consider the amount of money that has been invested in schools in my area, in refurbishing housing through repairs and central heating and through providing inside toilets. Hundreds of homes in the Doncaster area had no inside toilets. The release of capital receipts has enabled us to make changes. Conservative Members may never have experienced or represented such a world. However, many of my hon. Friends and I represent such constituencies, and we want to change them for the better.

625
Conservative Members do not know whether they are guaranteeing more or pledging less; whether to call us reckless spenders or the bearers of empty promises; whether they would cut taxes or petrol duties. In The Sun yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition devoted many words to the way in which petrol prices affect those who own cars. However, despite all the points that he made in that column, he did not even imply that he was prepared to cut petrol duties. Anyone who drives a car, including me, should listen carefully to Conservative Members' weasel words: what they say is not necessarily what they will do. Indeed, they will not even say what they will do. They are caught between their leader in name and their leader in waiting, who are on opposite sides of a roundabout. They are not sure which way to face.
Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Caroline Flint: I want to make progress, but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
Mr. Loughton: She will not.
Caroline Flint: Yes, I will.
The spending round is not about spin; it is about £43 billion. It is about the child in Denaby Main whose young mother has never had the opportunities enjoyed by Conservative Members. Some people have never had au pairs, private schooling or regular holidays. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) sighs, but such people cannot buy their way out of the system into which they have been born and they depend on the public services that we provide for them. The spending round is about that child getting the opportunities that she deserves, a chance to fulfil her potential and a second or third chance to prosper at school rather than being written off in the Tories' opted-out, excluded, exam-failed world, which consigned many kids to woodwork, detention and an early exit from the school system.
Children may get a fair go at getting a decent life, thanks to the Government. That is nothing to do with spin or photo calls. Their health, education and very life chances will be transformed by the Government's investment in public services. That investment will provide a sure start in life—we will work on that with parents and agencies—as well as child care, early access to books, early education, regular health checks and the means to tackle the drugs and violence that exist in many communities. Investment will go to estates that can be modernised, to achieve policing that is close to the community and to raising a school's standards.
Our investment means that a child will be able to enter a school that spends £430 more per pupil than in 1997. That school may have a thriving after-school scheme thanks to the Government's investment in an early years partnership as well as the latest information technology equipment, literacy and numeracy hours and teachers who are motivated by the resources that we are putting into schools and into their pay packets. The spending round is about people creating services that provide the opportunity for security and a decent life; it is about changing people's lives for the better. Like many of my
626
hon. Friends, I feel privileged that the policies that we make here change the lives of the people in the communities that we represent.
My constituents, including the pensioners, depend heavily on public services. Above all other groups, pensioners depend on our health service and our transport system. They also depend on us to fight crime. Their housing needs to be modernised. They, too, will benefit from this round of investment, which is also about the buses that link a necklace of villages to the heart of Doncaster. Those buses provide the link with Doncaster royal infirmary, which has a modernised accident and emergency unit and a ground-breaking breast cancer centre. The health service waiting list has been cut by a third since the general election.
Many of my constituents depend on their local authority to modernise the ageing homes that were left unattended due to stupid Treasury rules imposed under the Conservatives. The homes of hundreds of my constituents are getting new double glazing and new central heating and are being rewired thanks to Labour. [Interruption.] I am sorry if Conservative Members find that tedious, but they have never had to live in a cold, damp or badly heated house, running up unnecessarily costly bills. Thanks to the Government's investment in regeneration, fighting crime, youth offending schemes and bail projects, we are beginning to win the battle against those who make people's lives a misery.
Mr. Tyrie: I find all this stuff about us never having experienced cold homes a bit odious. I remember going to my grandmother's house during the miner's strike with a calor gas stove to heat up a brick to prevent her from getting hypothermia. That home did not have central heating, as I recall.
Caroline Flint: At that time, mining was in decline throughout Europe and it was unfortunate that then Prime Minister did not address the decline in coal and reinvest in South Yorkshire and other coal mining areas, as France did in the Ruhr valley. Instead, she engaged in a head to head with the industry and many innocent people and families were left desperate for many years.
Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Caroline Flint: No, I will not.
Mr. Tyrie: rose—
Caroline Flint: No, I will not give way.
I am pleased that the Government are addressing the energy issues that face us in the 21st century. We finally have a Government who have put together a package to deal with the illnesses and diseases from which many of my constituents suffer and which nearly 20 years of Tory Government did nothing to address. I am glad that a Labour Government are dealing with that.
I represent a part of the country with the lowest disposable income in the UK. The area's gross domestic product is only three quarters of that of the average region in Europe. The previous Government refused to deal with that and did not support South Yorkshire's application for objective 1 status. This Government have done so, and we aim to ensure that those figures do not continue into the

627
future. I hope that, with the additional funding that has been announced this week for the regional development agencies, Yorkshire Forward will make a real difference to the people of South Yorkshire. I know that the role of regional leadership places huge demands on Yorkshire Forward, but I want the agency to come out of its shell and ensure that it is worthy of the investment being made in it.
We should be reminded of the Tory Government's legacy. They thought that mass unemployment was inevitable. They destroyed long-standing jobs without creating new ones; they refused to back South Yorkshire for objective 1 funding; and they sought to drive women back into the home. The only growth under the Tory Government was that in violent crime. Their only gift was that of a holiday to those who burgled our homes and mugged people on the street, who never saw the inside of a court room, let alone a prison cell. The Conservative Government were out of touch. Their great offering to Don Valley was to close our major industries and offer us no hope.
Doncaster and Don Valley have hope for the future. Under the announcements made this week, we shall gain more than £80 million, which can be invested in local services, and £24 million in my constituency. All that would be under threat, should the Tories ever return to power.
I agree with the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) in one respect: the Government must ensure that the money that they provide is spent wisely and that adequate checks are made to see that funding is used in the best way possible. We must ensure that the partnerships that we establish do not waste time in delivering the services that people want. Just as the Government provide three years' notice of funding, that should be copied at local level. In order to be sustainable, child care projects need the comfort of three years' funding if child care is to improve.
The Government are clearly providing a huge amount of resources in all sorts of areas that benefit the people whom I represent. However, we must tackle the issue of how that money is spent so that it benefits local people. In some areas, we must streamline the bureaucracy or look at how the Government offices work to see whether they are monitoring the situation. If necessary, we must remind local agencies of their duty to ensure that they spend their time not holding meetings and committees and carrying out administration, but ensuring that people see what the Government are providing and that the resources meet local people's needs.
Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Caroline Flint: No, I shall not give way because I am conscious of the lack of time.
The course that we have charted is about a vision of sustainability for the future. It is about looking not just to the next general election, but to five or 10 years' time. In many areas, it will take time to build services that we can all be proud of. I can vouch for the fact that we have seen the benefits of the first three years of this Government. Until we have a general election, the money that has been announced will ensure that we can invest even further in the resources and services that my constituents so badly need.
6.9 pm
Sir Robert Smith: I want to contribute briefly to the debate, further to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm).
First, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) on his excellent maiden speech. He seemed to be able to bring his speech to a natural conclusion just when he was about to be called to order. He will look at Hansard tomorrow and see all the congratulations, but I assure him that this place is extremely tolerant and he does not always have to live up to the standard that he has set in his maiden speech.
I shall come back to the provocation of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, which made me take part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) gave an important warning that we should consider the wider economic situation, because we live in a far more inter-dependent economic world, where grand gestures from Governments are far less likely to go unpunished than they used to be. There is an interesting contradiction in some of the arguments put by Conservative Members. They first referred to previous announcements from the Chancellor when they had looked at the funny money figures and found that there was actually no new money, and then they referred to warnings from the Bank of England that Government spending will cause inflation. Either it is real money, which will cause inflation, or it is funny money, which will not.
It is important to recognise that we need a far more open way of examining the figures. The spending review document, with all its mistakes, does not inform the public about what is happening to their money and how it is being spent. We need a far better debate that informs the public. If we are to have investment in public services—which is what I believe people voted for at the last election when they saw what was happening to their schools and hospitals—we need an honest and open debate on how the public finances will achieve that.
In my constituency, we still need additional investment to pay for the teachers to do the teaching. Teachers have disappeared from schools, and specialist teachers need to come back and provide the previous level of service.
There is a problem with stop-go investment. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) talked about the problem faced by one of his constituents who was trying to get an MRI scan. We need professionals to run the scanners, but if we are not training enough professionals we will not have the people to employ even with the extra money. The lack of planning and foresight in the recruitment and training of new graduates is a serious strain on many of the professions in the health service. There will not be a miracle cure, and the public need to know that there is a long way to go to get the health service into a stable and effective format.
Sadly, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith is no longer present. He referred to the three strands of Liberal Democrat thinking on the Barnett formula. For the record, I shall bring them together into one. At the passing of the Scotland Act 1998, the Liberal Democrats made it clear that we wanted a period of stability, and that we should build on the recommendation of the constitutional convention, which was that the Barnett formula should be

629
the basis of funding in the new Scottish Parliament. We said that we would stand by that for 10 years. However, in the long run, we need fiscal responsibility to go with political devolution. Financial devolution requires us to review the way in which we fund the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and to recognise the need to devolve financial responsibility. That does not remove the requirement for a needs assessment to ensure that the parts of the United Kingdom that are seriously challenged and face serious extra costs are not also affected by an equalisation formula.
The second point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith concerned the report on poverty produced by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. As a member of that Committee, I am glad that some hon. Members have already read it since it was published yesterday. I look forward to the Government's response to its recommendations.
While recognising the importance of the working families tax credit in tackling poverty, I am concerned that in the long run employers may see it as an employment subsidy. If people get the working families tax credit, why should employers increase their wages when they know that the state will make up their take-home pay? What is the Treasury doing to monitor the impact of the working families tax credit on wage levels? Does it have any contingency plans if an effect is spotted?
6.14 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: I am sorry to have missed the maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), but I was taking part in a debate in Westminster Hall. I shall read his contribution in Hansard with interest. It was clearly not to be missed.
I welcome the benefits of public spending in my constituency in the past three years. The most noticeable impact has been on the quality of the built environment of schools that serve South Derbyshire. I recently attended with pride the laying of the foundation stone for a new, replacement infant school at Newhall funded by the new deal for schools. That programme is opposed by both Opposition parties, as it was funded by the windfall levy.
I first visited that school just before the 1992 general election. Then it was a collection of 20-year-old temporary units with ceilings held up by pit props. The outside toilets were temporary structures which smelt of urine. Sadly, the 1992 general election gave the people of South Derbyshire no hope for change and we had another five years of Tory Government in which little changed for that school. The temporary buildings were occasionally patched and repaired and the worst were replaced by slightly more modern temporary structures.
With the election of the new Labour Government hopes rose. After an initial disappointment in the first new deal round, a visit to the then Schools Minister, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, by the head teacher, the chair of governors and myself prompted a successful bid which will provide a new school and an arts centre for the neighbouring William Allitt secondary school. It is but one of the projects awarded in my area. Altogether well over £6 million has been committed to
630
school improvements in South Derbyshire since Labour was elected in 1997. That contrasts with the last year of the Tory Government, when slightly less than £100,000 was spent on schools in my area and we thought ourselves extremely lucky to achieve that. Therefore, it is clear why I hold great store by what the Government seek to do in public spending and have little regard for the criticisms and comments that we have heard thus far in this debate and debates earlier this week.
With that amount of money committed to new school buildings in South Derbyshire we can start to provide an environment to match the quality of teaching that is already offered to our children, and indeed to my own son.
I wish to make some broader comments on public spending, how we prioritise it and how we manage it. While we would mostly subscribe to the necessity of focusing resources on need, we must recognise three disciplines that should be followed. First, it is easy to confuse need with failure and to siphon scarce resources into areas where need indicators show deprivation, but where analysis shows poor strategy and badly managed delivery. I thus welcome the increased emphasis on performance targets and the greater concern shown for the better co-ordination, management and use of resources.
Secondly, our tools to identify need must be subtle. I represent a constituency with relatively low needs indicators overall, but with pockets of deprivation. Thus it seldom attracts special programme support. We have no action zones, no sure start and no early excellence centres. Although my constituents understand the need to help areas of deprivation, they are frustrated by their inability to attract resources to provide additional services in the less prosperous areas of South Derbyshire such as parts of the Hartshorne ward.
Thirdly, we must always recognise that the raising of public money for public spending and its use involve an unspoken pact with citizens. While prioritising and targeting are a duty of Government, we must recognise that all citizens expect a basic level of support and service. We must be careful to strike a balance lest we damage that compact. There are many examples. Although one recognises the need to target resources to schools with exceptional costs and needs, wide variances in funding per pupil of well over 10 per cent. in the primary sector are hard to justify to local taxpayers. Likewise, it is hard to explain why Derbyshire should continue to have far fewer police officers per head of population than the average county. One might also draw out examples in our social security system where targeting negates the concept of mutual insurance—that we all pay collectively to cover risk and expect reasonable payment.
I am also concerned about how we manage public spending. We have learned that commitments to spend, particularly when private finance initiatives are involved, do not mean actual delivery of projects. We must clearly devote more attention to developing skills in managing public spending and in particular in managing complex projects. Civil service reform and development of political skills, where they relate to project management, are critical.
I applaud the spending review and welcome the disciplines within it. It offers the prospect of further qualitative and quantitative improvements in service for my constituents. I have spoken of my pride in one key development in my area—certainly the greatest pride that

631
I have experienced as a Member of Parliament—and I am confident that, with this spending review, there will be many more occasions on which I can feel that same pride in the achievements of this Government.
6.20 pm
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: This debate has included some remarkable contributions. The first on which I want to comment is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), which was an inspiring maiden speech.
Some other remarkable speeches have come from the Opposition Benches. We have heard Conservative Member after Conservative Member blaming the Government for decisions that were taken when their party was in office and are now feeding through into the system, or even decisions that were taken by Conservative county councils when they were asked to prioritise their spending.
One Conservative Member talked about waiting lists for heart surgery. It takes 12 to 15 years to train a heart surgeon. If there are no heart surgeons now, it is not this Government's fault. The new deal is good, but it is not good enough to get people from the dole to heart surgery in two years. Conservative Members should be more honest than to blame the Government for seeds that they sowed while they were in power.
Mr. Collins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Ladyman: I am sorry, but I really do not have time.
We also heard a remarkable contribution from the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). When I pointed it out to him that the Liberal Democrat manifesto did not promise huge amounts of extra money for health—it promised £350 million, funded through a change in national insurance contributions—he said that that was on top of growth. He seems to have forgotten that he and I shared a radio studio shortly after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's first Budget, when he accused my right hon. Friend of allowing the country to plummet into recession and doing nothing about it. He intended there to be no growth. If the Liberal Democrats had been running the country, we would have had £350 million from national insurance contributions and nothing else.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Ladyman: No, I really cannot, because of the shortage of time. It had been my intention, if I had had 15 minutes, to go through all the Opposition arguments and destroy every single one, but unfortunately I have time for only a quick canter through the comprehensive spending review from the point of view of South Thanet.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the £16 billion cuts that the Conservatives are proposing in a document that they have produced, but it has not been mentioned that the document not only talks about the need for that saving but details how much that would mean per constituency, and even helpfully provides the figures per region. It identifies that £2.3 billion of savings have to be made in the south-east.
632
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) talked about road improvements in Kent. What chance does he have of getting improved roads in Kent if a further £2.3 billion of cuts has to be made?
The Thanet district of my constituency has one of the highest levels of unemployment in England. Somebody told me that the latest figures show that it is back to having the second highest unemployment rate in England, despite a huge cut in unemployment in the past three years and the fact that things are moving in the right direction.
We have assisted area status, so we can give grants to new investors, but one of the arguments that I have urged on Ministers is that, before we give grants for businesses to move into areas of high unemployment, we should ask what stops them moving in of their own volition, without grants. In the case of the Thanet district, the missing ingredients are improvements on two small pieces of road, and a new railway line.
If we had those improvements to road and rail services, we would be able to build a sustainable economy within a short space of time. The CSR and the announcement on transport spending today give us, for the first time, real hope that we might be able to get the roads and the improved railway line. I will be banging on the Minister's door to make sure he realises how important it is that some of that money comes our way when the announcements are made in December. It is already the number one priority in Kent and I hope very much that we will have good news in December.
The Chancellor promised that he would make sure that objective 2 funding was matched. We have objective 2 funding in Thanet, and that promise of match funding will release a huge amount of extra money to spend on utilities and infrastructure which will help bring down unemployment.
We have a lot of science-based industries in my constituency. The £1 billion pound investment programme in science is to be welcomed. I would like to appeal to all secondary schools in my constituency and others that when they get their £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000 they spend a large part of it on new science facilities and improving laboratories genuinely to inspire our young people to get into science.
One of the things that I have noticed since coming to the House is how many lawyers there are. I have nothing against lawyers, but with great respect to them the law does not put bread and butter on the nation's table. That is done by science and technology and increasingly it will be done by the knowledge-based industries and new technology.
Mr. Tyrie: Does the hon. Gentleman think that there are too many lawyers at No. 10?
Dr. Ladyman: No. I think we have exactly the right number of lawyers in No. 10 and exactly the right lawyers as well.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the announcement of the £80 million that is being put towards the cost of cleaning up Chernobyl. That is welcome and essential money. It means that in terms of cleaning up nuclear waste and contamination in the former Soviet Union, we are among the leaders in the world. I remind the House and the Government that the estimate for cleaning up the former Soviet Union and bringing nuclear

633
facilities there up to western standards is £1 trillion. By my calculations, the £80 million we have contributed still leaves us £999,920 million short of the target.
I am not suggesting that the United Kingdom should be providing all that money, although UK companies would win a lot of the business. However, we should go to the United Nations and work hard to have that money matched by other nations so that we start to get the sort of contribution to make a real impact on the clean-up programme. If we do not do that, Chernobyl might not be the last such accident.
I can say with my hand on my heart that the CSR gives my constituency real hope for the future. We hope that within a reasonable space of time we can start to aspire to bring down unemployment to the UK average, and perhaps one day we might even be on our way to the level of Kent generally.
6.29 pm
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: By leave of the House, I should like to wind up the debate.
It has been a good debate on all sides. I think that it has made genuine progress in scrutinising the Chancellor's announcement on Tuesday and in getting behind some of the figures and the assumptions on which they are based.
The debate was notable, too, for the outstanding maiden speech by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who spoke movingly of his predecessor, Bernie Grant, and described the varied nature of his new constituency and its people. He made it clear that he did not regard himself as a member of any black caucus or sectoral group, but wished to represent all the people of Tottenham. His only controversial note perhaps was when he claimed to represent the best football team in London. I cannot arbitrate on that, but I look forward to debating other matters with him in due course. This afternoon, he earned the good wishes of the House.
Other Labour Members spoke about the spending totals and their hope that they would translate into better services for their constituents. They were ignoring the risks inherent in the process. They certainly ignored the taxes that are paying for it. They entirely underestimate the resentment caused among many people, including many low-income groups, by the relentless increase in the burden of taxation.
We believe that Labour Members are ignoring the importance of effectiveness in public spending, which is odd because the Labour manifesto emphasised the point that it is not how much we spend but how we spend; that is just as important.
Mr. Casale: In his earlier speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would be judged on their promises. Of course we have a proud record and will be pleased to stand on that, by contrast with the myriad broken promises under the previous Government, which led to their being voted out of office; but does his party intend to keep the promise of £16 billion of spending cuts?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Of course there is no £16 billion-worth of expenditure cuts. The point has been well made by my hon. Friends, as well as by me in my earlier speech, which I think the hon. Gentleman heard.
634
What we were probing—my hon. Friends did so most effectively—was the question of delivery. We are entitled to do that because it is the Government themselves who emphasise the importance of measuring outputs, rather than cash spent. It is they who set up two years ago the system of public service agreements, so we are entitled to ask whether those agreements have worked. We gave many examples of where the targets have been not only missed, but in some cases quietly expunged or forgotten.
I gave the specific example of the Home Office objective. I hope that the Minister refers to it in his winding-up speech. A specific quantifiable objective in the Home Office about the time taken to assess and to complete asylum seeker applications does not appear in the departmental report, which vacuously referred instead to the need for everyone concerned with the subject to work more closely together.
After the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury and the report was published, he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) how many targets had been met. He said that he did not know; he asked one of his officials to give the answer. The official agreed that they had not all been met, but thought that the targets that had not been met were not very important—so now we know that the target to get crime down is no longer very important. Asylum seekers are not very important either. When he was further pressed on the penalties attaching to this failure he said that in extreme cases civil servants could be sacked. We suggest that in extreme cases it is Ministers who should be sacked. They publish these targets and they should stand by them.
In the few minutes left to me I want to refer to some of the outstanding speeches from this side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks described graphically the problems of the lack of delivery in Kent and made the good point that we have a new form of economic distortion—the Government tax, and overtax, for a number of years and then open the purse strings and go on a spending spree. We have discovered a new form of stop-go which is highly damaging to public finances and the whole process of planning and delivery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) described problems with education and crime in London. He rightly criticised the Chancellor's curious remark about defence in his statement on Tuesday, when he asserted that in recent years
Britain's defence forces have taken on a new and valued role in international peacekeeping and in conflict prevention.—[Official Report, 18 July 2000: Vol. 354, c. 221.]
It is not new at all. Has the Chancellor forgotten the war we fought to regain the Falklands, the Gulf war, and the many peacekeeping ventures overseas? This is another example of the Government trying entirely to disown the past, as though with new Labour have come new defence forces, new tasks, new peacekeeping. What rubbish. All that has been going on for many years with a great degree of professionalism, backed up by Conservative Governments.
In London we have had the not-so-surprising news that the mayor is not happy with the settlement. As the Evening Standard puts it,
Ken Rages Against Tube "Stitch Up".

635
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has discovered that he will suddenly be stung with the £104 million bill for cost overruns on the Jubilee line and that he has not got the money that he was promised.
Dr. Ladyman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry but I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman spoke in his time and I am sorry that I cannot reply in detail to his remarks. This is almost as interesting.
The Deputy Prime Minister hit back:
Doesn't this just show that you can't trust Ken?
Has he only just discovered that? We knew it years ago.
Mr. Coaker: So did we.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: When the brothers fall out, they do not do it by half measures. They were going to get together earlier this year. A photocall was planned between the hon. Member for Brent, East and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who describes himself as the Minister for London. They were to get together in a new show of togetherness over what was called the "generous" settlement, but that was cancelled when the mayor of London said that he was "too busy" after all. So I am afraid that that has not taken place. Instead, we get allegation and counter-allegation as the so-called generous sums disintegrate when anyone tries to pick them up.
My hon. Friends also talked about the macro-economic risks being run by the settlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) in particular emphasised the huge risks being run by the Government, who are relying on continued growth in the economy and think that they have abolished the business and trade cycles. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is simply no room in the economy for both the private and public sectors to grow in the way indicated. Public expenditure in total is set to grow over the next four years by £99 billion. That must be at the expense of private consumption, investment and growth.
That very point has been picked up by the Bank of England—members of the Monetary Policy Committee have spotted it. They say that unless we shrink the private sector and cut consumption, we will have an inflationary problem on our hands. Interest rates will go up, the exchange rate will strengthen further and we will again have a very real macro-economic problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) pointed out that triple accounting and the spin put on all the past figures have completely blown any credibility or reputation for straightforwardness and truth that the Government hope to enjoy. He, too, believed it highly questionable that we will ever see the much trumpeted £43 billion of extra expenditure going to front-line services.
That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), with his usual technical mastery. He also made the point that the Government are frittering away the efficiency gains that they inherited from the previous Government in areas
636
such as health. They are going backwards when it comes to delivery and efficiency, and no amount of gross expenditure in the world will compensate for that inability to turn taxpayers' money into the services that people want.
It has been amply demonstrated in this short debate that the second comprehensive spending review will be no more successful than the first. The same sort of money has been promised—it was £40 billion two years ago and it is £43 billion now. The same outputs and results have been promised.
I do not know what has happened to the Cabinet Committee—we did not hear anything about that today. Presumably the Government will resurrect an important spending tsar, who will clamp down and remove money from Departments that fail. In a year or two, when they do fail, the Government will say, "We never really meant that—it was all much too difficult and embarrassing."
We have seen the same old reliance on the economy continuing to deliver the growth so that the Labour party can tax it for their expenditure ambitions. All we can say is that the result will be just the same—disillusionment, and another spectacular failure to deliver.
6.42 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): We have had a very interesting debate—I can agree with the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about that. We have been offered a clear choice this afternoon—investment with Labour, or cuts with the Tories. That is the choice before Britain. We have heard not a word from Conservative Members about where the £16 billion-worth of cuts would fall.
Our first task after the election—the foundation for everything else that we wanted to do—was to secure a new stability in the economy. That stability was not only to give individuals, families and businesses the chance to plan their long-term future, but to spur on the creation of new investment and jobs and prosperity. That is what we are delivering—a platform of stability and steady growth, with inflation low and the public finances firmly and sustainably under control.
As a consequence, more people are in work than ever before in the history of the United Kingdom. In Scotland, more people are in work than since England won the world cup, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said. Across the United Kingdom, there are 1 million vacancies on offer.
Inflation in Britain has been lower for longer than at any time in the past 30 years. In contrast with the deficit of £28 billion in the public finances in 1997, in the last financial year we made debt repayments of £18 billion.
We have built a strong, credible platform of economic stability, and we are determined to keep it that way. Now, building on that greater stability and a stronger work ethic based on opportunity and responsibility, we need to take the next leap and ensure that the benefits of this new prosperity are enjoyed by not just a few, but by all. We want a Britain where everybody is able not just to work, but to work their way up, to gain promotion, to start a business if they want to, to become self-employed, to upgrade their skills throughout their working life and to do as well as their talents and potential allow.
We are putting to rest for good the legacy of decades of under-investment across our public services and setting our sights on the long-term national ambitions that we have set ourselves for the first decade of the new century.

637
I shall refer to several of the contributions to the debate. First, like almost every other speaker, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) on a moving and effective maiden speech. He paid an effective tribute to his predecessor, Bernie Grant, whom I first knew when he was an employee of Newham council. My hon. Friend's election slogan was
From Tottenham and for Tottenham.
He spoke with great feeling of the community in which he grew up and that he now represents. We all very much look forward to hearing more from him in the years ahead.
My hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), for Burton (Mrs. Dean) and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) all referred to improvements to schools in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak mentioned 30 major improvements in his area. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire told us about the rebuilding of William Allitt school and about an arts centre for the adjoining secondary school. Throughout the country, 17,000 schools—a huge number—have benefited from the new deal for schools, with funding of £1.375 billion.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak made the point that, whereas there had been 30 major improvements in his constituency, none at all had been made in the previous Tory decade. That contrast demonstrates the change that has taken place during the past three years.
The right hon. Member for Wells made the criticism that staff numbers in the Inland Revenue had been rising. The right hon. Gentleman has us bang to rights. I confess that staff numbers in the Inland Revenue did grow—from 55,400 in 1996–97 to 63,800 last year. That is a rise of 8,400. However, that was because the Inland Revenue took over functions from the Department of Social Security. The national insurance contributions office is now part of the Inland Revenue so, during the same period, staff numbers in the DSS fell by 11,000. The overall staffing of central Government Departments is lower than it was in 1997—by 30,000.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As I pointed out, those figures do not stack up as an explanation. Since 1997, the number of staff in the Inland Revenue has risen by 12,500; the number of staff in the DSS dropped by only 9,000. There is a net increase in the two Departments of 3,500.
Mr. Timms: The figures are as I set them out. Overall, the staffing of central Government Departments is lower, by 30,000, than it was in 1996–97—contrary to the impression given by the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the overall amount of Government spending. It is true that total managed expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product is lower than it was under the previous Administration. However, the key point is the change in the nature of that spending—significantly more is being spent on those services that we have identified as priorities and less on the costs of worklessness and debt. Our commitment was to make that important transformation and we are achieving it.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I, too, gave figures that excluded debt repayment and social security, although my point was valid even for departmental expenditure.
Mr. Timms: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are achieving substantial increases in public spending on key public services to deliver—as he pointed out—important real-terms rises. I shall say more about the effect of that in a moment.
The hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and the right hon. Member for Wells seemed to misunderstand the targets set in the comprehensive spending review. Those targets will stand for the whole period of the review—1999 to 2002. We are monitoring them throughout that period. We are reporting regularly on them and we will continue to do so until the end of the CSR period. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary told the Select Committee on the Treasury that we are either delivering or on track to deliver 90 per cent. of the targets that were set, and we shall continue to keep that process closely under review until the end of the CSR period.
Of course, for the new spending review there are new targets. Things have changed and new targets have been set. That is a reflection of the improvements that have been made since the beginning of the CSR period. But the point that Opposition Members made—that targets set in the CSR are no longer being monitored—is quite wrong. They are being monitored, and they will continue to be monitored until right at the end of the CSR period.
Mr. Tyrie: The Minister said that there will be a new set of targets with the new spending review. Does that mean that next year, when we have a new review of spending as I am sure that we shall, all the existing targets will be torn up?
Mr. Timms: No. The hon. Gentleman, with many of his hon. Friends, seems fundamentally to misunderstand the process. The comprehensive spending review was for three years—1999 to 2002—and the last year of the comprehensive spending review becomes the first year of the new spending review process. That is the basic fact that quite a number of Opposition Members appear not to have grasped.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) made an eloquent plea for shipbuilding. Last year, the Government established the shipbuilding forum to work with the industry on boosting the competitiveness of United Kingdom shipyards. The recommendations of that forum are being considered, and the conclusions will be reported in due course.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and several Opposition Members have made it very clear that they support the spending cuts proposed by the shadow Front-Bench team, but the hon. Gentleman did not tell the House where he believes that those cuts should fall. There was not a word about that. Many Opposition Members said that there should be less spending than is proposed. None of them, however, proposed any categories where those savings could be achieved.
The hon. Gentleman was also mistaken about the reaction of the Monetary Policy Committee and the City to the announcements. Let me refer him to some of the remarks that have been made since the spending review announcement.

639
Mark Millar of Morgan Stanley said that there are
no obvious interest rate implications for the market at present.
The fiscal position this current year seems
to be tighter than originally thought. But no surprises … there is no big news for rates.
Robert Barrie of Credit Suisse First Boston said:
All of us who watch these things, the MPC included, will have been prepared for the sorts of numbers he has spoken about today … Remember we are in budget surplus at the moment and if you measure fiscal policy that way he's still running a fairly tight policy and will do so throughout this period.
Many statements have been made along those lines.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith drew attention to the need for us to look at the way that housing benefit works, and I agree with him about that. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was one of those who agreed that there was a need for cuts, but again he did not tell us where any of the cuts should come from. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) welcomed the additional resources for the health service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) welcomed the housing improvements that have been achieved in her constituency. Through the spending review, 500,000 houses will be brought up to a decent standard by 2004. I am glad that she latched on to that very important element of the spending review.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) asked about the effect of the working families tax credit on wages. The key thing is that the taper with working families tax credit is less, at 55 per cent., than it was with family credit, and I believe that the position is the reverse of what he was fearing.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) quite rightly said that road schemes in Kent certainly would not survive a programme of £16 billion of cuts.
However, let us just have a look at education. Average increases in education spending will be 5.4 per cent. a year for the next three years. That means that, at long last, the rate of increase in investment in state schools will start to keep pace with the rate of increase that we have seen for years in the private school sector. We want to more than double capital spending in cash terms on education to £1.5 billion by 2003–04. We shall have decently funded schools at last, after two decades of underinvestment. That is a huge breakthrough, and is a consequence of the way in which the economy has been managed over the past three years. It means that instead of spending more and more on debt charges and unemployment benefits, we can now spend on our schools. We shall be able to devote to them the sort of resources that should have been available to them for the past 20 years. That is the historic breakthrough that this week's announcement achieves.
What is the Tory party's response? It is exactly what it has always been—cuts. I think that we have been given a sort of assurance about health service spending. Let us take that at face value and accept for the purposes of the debate that at least the Tory party will change its spots and match our spending commitments on health. However, where would the Tory party find its £16 billion-worth of spending cuts that central office announced yesterday? We know the answer. There would be cuts in education, law and order and transport, the
640
services in which the Tories have always under-invested. We have had decades of underinvestment in our schools. Now, for the first time in a generation, we have a chance to put that right. What is the response of the Tory party? It is one of cuts. It would take us back to the bad old days that Britain rejoiced to be liberated from in 1997.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said at the start of the debate that in the five years of our two spending reviews, education spending would rise in real terms by more than it increased during the 18 years of Tory government. That is the scale of what we have achieved.
On unemployment, the Tories would scrap the new deal, which has helped to deliver the highest number of people in work in our history, the lowest rate of unemployment for 20 years and the lowest rate of long-term youth unemployment in a generation. They say that the new deal is a waste. No, it is not.
For example, building on its long-term partnership with the city council, the diocese of Birmingham helped to deliver the new deal voluntary sector option. The diocese was asked to find a new deal placement for a youngster who was shortly due in court on 117 counts of burglary. He was placed on a project to improve a church hall, and he struck up a friendship with a part-time church administrator. When the time came for him to appear in court on the charges of burglary, the administrator spoke up for him and asked that he should be given another chance. He was given that chance and the project was completed to a high standard. The young man has gone straight, and he is now setting up a business of his own. At the ceremony to mark the conclusion of the work, one of those who turned up was the young man's mother. She met the church administrator and said:
When you went to court to plead for my son to keep his job, you saved his life.
The Tories say that it is a waste—that is, giving people who have never had a chance the prospect of a decent future. It means work instead of welfare. It enables people to set up a business instead of ending up in prison. The new deal has made all that possible yet the Tories say that it is a waste. No, the truth is that it is bringing about the changes that Britain needs. The number of young people out of work for six months or more is down now to 50,000, and that total is falling. It reached 500,000 under the previous Government. We now have the lowest number of people in that position for a generation, and it is less than at any time under the Tory Government.
Surely all of us can see the huge benefits for everybody now that so many of our young people are familiar with the habits and disciplines of work. So many of them were robbed of that experience for so long. We are all better off for the change.
The personal adviser service is working with my constituents on the new deal for disabled people. The week before last, a disabled man found a job after five years of unemployment. We need more of that, not abolition. An independent assessment shows that the new deal is largely paying for itself through reduced benefits and additional tax revenue.
In the past, every time the economy started to deliver, the Tories blew it. They blew the proceeds of North sea oil and privatisation on current spending instead of investment. That is why the costs of failure spiralled under the previous Government—the bills for unemployment

641
and for debt interest. We are locking in the new stability for good. We are using the proceeds of the spectrum auction to pay off debt. That is why the unemployment and debt bills have been turned into extra resources in the long term for our priority services—health, education, transport and policing. That is what people want.
There have been 1 million extra jobs since the election, 100,000 more small firms and a new culture of enterprise. For the first time in a generation, we have the resources that will deliver for public services. I refer to health, education, law and order, transport and housing. We have made our choice, and that is for investment. The Tories have made their choice—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Church of England (General Synod) (Measure)
7 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This Measure of the General Synod deals with uncontroversial items and relatively minor matters, which would not necessarily ordinarily merit free-standing legislation. In parenthesis, may I add how much I welcomed the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy)? He is a member of the General Synod and the Archbishops Council. He will find the House hospitable, rather than hostile. That is certainly so when we deal with Church legislation.
The Measure contains a number of important clauses dealing with the devolution to dioceses of functions of the Church Commissioners following the passage of the National Institutions Measure 1998 through Parliament. In that sense, the Measures are like stepping stones across a stream, one following another on to the statute book. I should say at the outset, however, that the provisions have been discussed and agreed with the dioceses.
The provisions are dealt with in clauses 1 to 11 and schedules 1 to 6. Clause 4 and schedule 2 provide in financial matters for the transfer of the diocesan stipend funds' accounts and the associated income accounts to diocesan boards of finance. Clause 10 and schedule 6 provide for the transfer of diocesan pastoral accounts to dioceses to formalise the devolved administrative arrangements already in place in respect of these accounts.
The draft Measure provides a vehicle for streamlining and lightening the commissioners' regulatory role in areas such as parsonages, glebe and those associated with the Pastoral Measure 1983. It is estimated that cost savings for the commissioners could amount to about £50,000 per annum if the House and the other place approve these proposals and they are implemented. None of these costs would fall on the dioceses instead, and it is expected that there would be savings in dioceses as well, especially in terms of time spent on seeking the commissioners' approval for various transactions.
Similar proposals are suggested for glebe matters, in which the commissioners' main role would be reduced to considering transactions that do not meet agreed criteria and to carrying out the appellate function set out in paragraph 9 of schedule 5. Again, cost savings for the commissioners are expected to be about £50,000 per annum, and none of those would fall on the dioceses instead.
As to other miscellaneous matters, perhaps I should draw the attention of the House to clause 12. This makes a useful provision for use where the office of rural dean is vacant, or where the rural dean is unable to carry out his or her functions.
Clause 15 brings the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 into line with other categories of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by providing that an appeal may be made only with leave to appeal. The Privy Council has signified its agreement to this amendment.

643
Clause 17 amends the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986, which was introduced not that long ago. I always like to throw a little poetry into a debate, so let me quote:
And see how dark the backward stream
A little moment passed so smiling.
Enough of the "backward stream" has passed since 1986 to make it necessary to amend the 1986 Measure and render it possible for the transfer of right of patronage to be registered even when presentation to the benefice has been suspended under the Pastoral Measure 1983.
To conclude, the measure is useful, if uncontroversial, and will streamline some of the procedures of the Church. I therefore trust that the House will agree to the motion in my name on the Order Paper, and I commend the Measure to the House.
7.5 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to respond to the wise words of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I am somewhat surprised that the House is not packed, and that you have not already had to call us to order several times, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. David Drew: It is packed on this side.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course it is. On this side, as on that side, there are lots of people waiting to speak on the wonderful Measure. To be serious, as a Front-Bench spokesman I can, for once, agree with everything that has been said from the Government Front Bench. This is a tidying-up measure or series or measures.
I join the hon. Member for Middlesbrough in welcoming, in absentia, the new hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who has an important role to play in the Church of England. I hope that, having made his maiden speech this afternoon, he will now contribute to our debates on Church affairs. It will be most useful to have his contributions, and I am sure that we all look forward to them.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough went over some of the more important provisions in the Measure, and discussed rural deans. The one thing that he did not mention, which is expressly provided for in the Measure, is the fact that at the discretion of the bishop, rural deans can now be called area deans, which in built-up urban areas, obviously makes a degree of sense.
This is a series of small but important tidying-up measures. It is right that the House should have the opportunity to discuss the Measure, but it would be wrong to contemplate sending it back to Synod, or anything similar. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's words, warmly endorse them, and hope that the Measure will pass swiftly on to the statute book.
7.7 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: One of the paradoxes of this place is the fact that a Scottish Deputy Speaker is presiding over Church of England business, which requires the usual assent of hon. Members, regardless of their origin, the country that they represent, or their theology. As someone who normally looks after home affairs, I reflect that it is just my luck that on the only day in something like six months on which there has been no home
644
affairs business, the only other thing for which I have technical responsibility—Church of England business—pops up on the agenda, making sure that I cannot go far away.
As the Second Church Estates Commissioner and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) both made clear, the Measure is unusual in being almost entirely uncontroversial. The Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses has recently considered many Measures that have been unusually difficult, to say the least. Indeed, the Ecclesiastical Committee recently stood its ground for the first time against the combined weight of the General Synod, saying that it had a function to perform. We sent back a Measure concerning the power of church wardens and the powers of bishops in relation to them, because we were not happy with it. I believe that we were right to do that, and there was wide consensus.
Mr. John Austin: In case my presence is misunderstood, I shall explain my position. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Measure as uncontroversial. I regard it as very controversial. The hon. Gentleman will know that I am a member of the all-party humanist group and a sponsor of the early-day motion calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England, for which I shall continue to press. It is inappropriate for these matters to be debated in this House at all, as they should be dealt with in Synod. However, I am here because I am waiting for the petition.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We will come on to the petition quite soon, so long as we keep to the Measure before us. These other matters are nothing to do with the Measure.
Mr. Hughes: There is no risk at all of my straying from the Measure. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) may have registered this point, but it would be discourteous of me not to point out that although I speak on these matters for my party, my view, and that of my party, is that the Church of England should be disestablished, and that this matter should not come before the House. The hon. Gentleman and I therefore share that view, irrespective of our difference of belief.
I want to talk about only two matters in relation to a Measure that has the unanimous support of the bishops and the clergy, and the support of all but two members of the laity. As someone who was a member of the General Synod for a short time, I know that that is pretty unusual. The first matter is the provision mentioned by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), which is the power for a bishop to redesignate rural deans as area deans. That is extremely welcome, and not before time.
Representing an urban seat in the diocese of Southwark, I know that it does not help the Church's credibility to have senior people in its hierarchy designating as rural deans people who work in places that could be regarded even as partly rural only on a very good day, with a great stretch of the imagination. Southwark used to be in the county of Surrey, and extremely rural, but we are down to two urban farms and a few parks; that is the extent of our rurality.
The second matter worth comment is that the Measure—which is like a Law Commission consolidation provision, in that it tries to bring a lot of legislation up to date—allows a new procedure for changing the name of

645
a diocese. It is important to bring that up to date. The debate was triggered by controversy about the diocese of Ripon. It was so named for important historical reasons, but the name could be regarded as deceptive and unhelpful, given that the largest population centre in the diocese, Leeds, does not feature in it. It is proper to provide a way of dealing with a desire, not to get rid of the Church's important historical centres, but to rename dioceses to reflect changing populations.
Having spent a short time as a member of the General Synod, I too welcome the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) to the House as a fellow London Member and a fellow member of the Church of England.
The principal job of the Church of England is to reach the parts that other theologies and faiths do not reach, and to recruit people to be followers of Jesus Christ. The trouble with an established Church—perhaps with any Church—is that there is a huge amount of bureaucracy and paperwork, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) will know better than me. The Measure reflects acres of paperwork that has gone into the process of revising legislation.
This is not a matter to be dealt with today, but I wonder whether it would not be helpful if the Church, to make its life easier, set up a one-off Church law commission to consider all existing Church legislation; to consolidate it where appropriate, and to get rid of the remainder that is out of date. That need not be a threatening or undermining process, and it would deal with the fact that, as in this place, there is a huge amount of legislation that is out of use and inappropriate. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may reflect on whether that is possible.
I pay tribute to those who do the work, because a huge amount of work has gone into the Measure, but I suggest that we might be able to reduce their work, and that of others, if we swept up Church legislation once and for all, and brought more consolidating and tidying-up Measures to the House. The Measure is welcome, and like colleagues from other parties, the Liberal Democrats support it.
7.14 pm
Mr. Bell: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the debate. I will not add to the acres of paperwork by making a long speech that will deluge the pages of Hansard, so I will not elaborate too much on the comments made by the hon. Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I welcome their support; it is important that we reach consensus on these matters in the House and in the other place, and the wider the consensus, the better.
The Ecclesiastical Committee reviewed the Measure and supported it fully. I take on board the suggestion about how we might handle Church matters as they relate to the Synod and to the House in future. I am always happy to take the suggestions of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey back to the Commission so that they can be examined for the long term within the wider Church.
646
I am grateful for the support of the House and I commend the motion to it. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, regardless of your nationality, for being in the Chair for this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

PETITIONS

  Park Homes
  7.15 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to follow the Church Commissioner and to present a petition on behalf of two groups of residents who live in park homes in Berkeley Vale park in Berkeley and in Riverside park in Eastington, both in my Gloucestershire constituency.
  The petition states:
  The present council tax banding system for park or mobile homes is unfair, as it caters inadvertently for such park homes (sometimes called static vans), placing them side by side with other properties of conventional construction of much more rapidly appreciating value. Moreover, many park home residents, especially retired, make comparatively little use of council services, thus increasing the sense of inequity.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to consider a new lower band for park homes which better reflects the means and needs of these residents.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Health Centre, Erith
  7.16 pm
  Mr. John Austin: I have a petition from residents of Erith, Slade Green, Belvedere and Northumberland Heath in the London borough of Bexley, and a petition in like form signed by more than 1,000 residents is being delivered to the regional health authority.
  The petition declares that
  there is a great need for a new health centre in Erith, which has been in the planning process for many years; that the Government decided initially that this should be provided under the private finance initiative, but has now concluded that this would not represent best value for money; and that it should be financed by traditional public finance, although capital funding has not been identified for this purpose.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health, in conjunction with the Bexley and Greenwich health authority, London borough of Bexley council and the Oxleas Trust to ensure that this much needed health centre project goes ahead.
  To lie upon the Table.

School Transport
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
7.18 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I thought for a moment earlier that we were to have a vigorous debate on antidisestablishmentarianism, but the moment seems to have passed, and I have the pleasure of raising the matter of home-to-school transport provision. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) in his place, and I know that he is familiar with the subject. It affects all our shire counties and many of our metropolitan areas.
This coming Monday will almost be a day of jubilation for the motorist. It is the first effective day of the school holidays. It will be possible to travel freely about the roads of our countryside. We will not have to deal with the fact that at 8.50 in the morning, 20 per cent. or more of all car movements involve taking children to school. I assume that the same situation appertains later in the day when children are collected from school, but that may be spread over a slightly longer period.
I remember growing up in the 1950s, and I see that I am in good company with others who may remember those times. At the age of six, I would walk from where I lived on the edge of an urban area to school across fields, down lanes and along roads. I was unaccompanied by my mother or father. It may be thought that I was especially precocious, but walking to school was relatively commonplace in those days; children would walk together in groups. Car ownership was rare; if there was a car in the family, one's father would have taken it to work long before the school hour approached.
Nowadays, car ownership is almost universal. Roads are dangerous and exceptionally busy; parents rightly fear the dangers of those roads for their children, and other, darker dangers that may lurk if children are allowed to travel unescorted to school.
The subject of the debate derives from the Education Act 1944, and the Education Act 1996, which deals with school transport. The formula is that, if the local authority is to provide free transport, the child must live 3 miles away from the school if older than eight and 2 miles away if younger than eight. That formula varied from county to county. In Essex, the local authority has modified those standards to be 1.5 miles for children in infant classes, 2 miles for junior school children and 3 miles for secondary school children.
Legislation also contains a fall-back clause, which allows local authorities, in exceptional circumstances, to provide free school transport for those who do not fit the mileage criteria. It is difficult to be precise about what constitutes those exceptional circumstances. One could hazard that it might be a child's health, a child's domestic circumstances, but there is an element of discretion. However, I have not commonly come upon its exercise.
Free school transport is also provided for children with special needs, who are normally taken to infant school by taxi. The nature of the travel and the distance often makes up a substantial part of a local authority's budget for home-to-school transport. It is not easy to find the exact figures for the number of children who use free school transport throughout England and Wales. I believe that there is an estimate—I am sure that my hon. Friend the
648
Minister can assist me further—of approximately 20 per cent. The amount of money spent on home-to-school transport nationally has increased in the past few years. I believe that, depending on the formula, it now exceeds £400 million per annum.
In Essex, 25,000 children out of a total school population of 200,000 receive free school transport; 10 per cent. of those have special needs. Excluding the special needs children, the percentage is little more than 11 or 12 per cent. The county is large and widespread since the exclusion from it of some urban areas to form the unitary authorities of Thurrock and Southend.
Like others who have served on county councils, I have become familiar with the tussles that occur when parents are denied free school transport for their child. There are stringent limits on local authority finances; consequently they sometimes seek to withdraw routes that hitherto existed on the basis that an alternative route can be found.
In my constituency, the distance by road between the famous socialist village of Silver End to Witham is a little more than 3 miles. Across fields and ditches, it is slightly less than 3 miles. A keen cartographer at county hall studied a large-scale version of the Ordnance Survey map and plotted a route, which took the distance slightly below 3 miles. I had the adventurous privilege of accompanying the county council inspection party that came to assess the route. It began along an especially dark and overhung footpath, and proceeded through ploughed fields, which were dusty in summer and caked in winter. A group of senior councillors proceeded along that route until we came to large ditch.
I knew that the county official had misdirected himself on the route, but I exercised my right to remain silent. A senior elderly lady councillor said, "I've seen enough. School transport shall remain." I hope that that extreme example illustrates the point: should the county or any of us consider sending children across fields, lanes and ditches—accompanied or otherwise—to avoid providing free school transport? The Government have made great strides in considering the way forward for home to school transport and the school travel advisory group has come up with a range of ideas in addition to school transport whereby walking and cycling to school might be increased.
I refer to a place that is indelibly carved in the mind of my hon. Friend the Minister—the village of Hatfield Peverel in my constituency, which he kindly visited recently in one of his other roles. Although the school is all but surrounded by that self-contained village, there are dangerous and busy roads so the parents and the school got together to form what is called a walking bus. I spoke to the headmaster, Mr. Jeremy Crook, this week and he told me that 80 children were involved at the scheme's outset. I do not know whether you are aware of the concept of the walking bus, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not a bus at all, but a party of children gathered together in the presence of a number of adults who proceed along a defined route and stop at specified places to collect or deposit children. That enables children to walk to school in safety.
Although the walking bus and dedicated footpaths and cycle paths are great aids that facilitate travelling to school without using a car, I would not want it to be thought that we can avoid the home to school transport question by using such innovations. Car usage could be

649
reduced dramatically if we reduce the number of children who go to school by car. We could do that quickly and effectively by making much more liberal regulations and criteria for allowing home to school transport.
I hope that this is an opportune time to raise these matters—the transport plan has been announced this very day, to a fanfare—and that I have shown that the sum expended on home-to-school transport is modest in terms of total transport expenditure. If distance requirements were lowered and councils given much greater discretion to book buses, sell off concessionary tickets and take a much broader view of who can travel on free school transport, we could achieve that which seems to have eluded people in the 20th and 21st centuries: planning and delivery following each other very rapidly indeed.
If that route is followed, we may achieve remarkable reductions in car movements at two particular times of day and I should be most interested to hear the public's observations on how they feel about driving during the school holidays as against term time. The benefits would go not only to the children, who would travel to school safely and accompanied, but to road users and to us all. We would all benefit from the lessening of pollution in the atmosphere as vehicles would not be used. Also, the strain on parents would be lessened as they would not have to accompany and drive their children to school twice a day, sometimes to more than one school.
I have seen figures for the number of children who travel by car, but I would estimate that the figure for junior and infant school children may be more than 50 per cent. Certainly, that is the estimate given by head teachers in the villages in my constituency of the number of children who travel by car to junior schools.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has a great heart for these matters, will discuss with his colleagues how he can increase the use of free school transport and make it universal beyond the age of 16 to 18, when children go on to further education. The benefits of that would be remarkable and the comparative cost, I suspect, relatively small.
7.30 pm
Mrs. Christine Butler: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for allowing me to make a short speech in his debate. May I also take this opportunity formally to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his visit to my constituency some months ago? His attentiveness, his appreciation of the difficulties and his consideration of the possible solutions were much appreciated. I was delighted to see, probably for the first time, the words "Canvey island" shine out of a Government report. The local transport section of the east of England transport plan for 2010 features improved access to Canvey island as an area in need of regeneration. That buoyed me up for some hours—I did not need sugar in my tea all afternoon.
May I prevail on my hon. Friend's good humour a little further? First, I support the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree for a degree of free transportation within the overall transport budget, especially for home-to-school transport. Secondly, local authorities can apply their policies only under current legislation, which dates back some 50 years to 1944.
650
When I was a member of Essex county council, I first had it explained to me that that was a prohibiting factor in getting more children on to school buses.
The 1944 legislation, and even the amended version in 1996, still prevents increased capacity for children who do not meet the eligibility criteria for free school transport—those with special educational needs, or those over and above a certain travel requirement, to which my hon. Friend referred. It prevents others from having access to contract buses unless there is spare capacity—there is then a cut-off point. Many parents regret that and are even willing to pay for such places.
I regret that this all falls within the education budget. Overall, local authorities transport more pupils and students than meet those statutory requirements. That significant figure shows the support on the supply side for increased capacity for bus travel. Local authorities can charge for travel where spare seats are available, and the vast majority do. However, parents want more.
I shall not just bleat on about buses, because I welcome the many initiatives that the Government have taken over the past two years, including walking, cycling, safe routes to schools, road safety strategies, school travel plans and car sharing. Those are all important. Furthermore, I appreciate the cost-cutting approach to this problem. I understand that funding is coming from the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
We should revisit the legislation, because it seems to hamper increased bus use by students and pupils going and coming from schools. We should relieve ourselves of that problem and start on a fresh page. The statutory requirements could be lowered to less than 3 miles and 2 miles, so that children could be picked up from where parents want and be delivered safely home. At the moment, local authorities cannot contract to provide such a service, which is a great shame. In 1944, the requirements were different from what they are now. We have a pressing environmental need, which should count for more in our legislation. I am afraid that the problem will require primary legislation, but we should deal with this matter soon.
7.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for raising the important issue of home-to-school transport. I know that it is of particular concern in his constituency, and he is a most assiduous Member. I have had the privilege of visiting him in Braintree to assist him in one of his many campaigns on behalf of his constituents.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) for her contribution to the debate. It was a pleasure to visit her constituency and join her in her indefatigable campaign on behalf her students. I am delighted that improved access to Canvey island is finally on the agenda. She has played a large part in raising the profile of Canvey island's transport needs. I hope that the press release was winging its way in no time at all after the statement of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister earlier today.
The issue of home-to-school transport impinges on a range of other important and emotive issues. We want to be sure that children are safe from road traffic, and from

651
strangers. Children need to take more physical exercise for their health and long-term development. We know that children sitting in cars in congested, slow-moving traffic can be exposed to pollution levels three times higher than outside the car. If we reduce our reliance on the car for the journey to school as for other journeys, we will, as they say, be doing our bit for the planet.
We all notice how much clearer the roads are at half term and during school holidays. It is fair to say that that is to some extent attributable to a reduction in commuting associated with working parents taking time off during school holidays, rather than simply the absence of parents taking children to school. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree was absolutely right to identify the statistics on school travel, which show that 18 per cent. of cars on the road in urban areas at the peak of the morning rush—which is at 10 minutes to 9—are taking children to school. The proportion of journeys to school by car has nearly doubled over the past 10 years to almost a third of all journeys, and 36 per cent. of primary pupils and over 20 per cent. of secondary pupils now travel to school by car. Bus use has remained relatively stable at around 20 per cent., walking and cycling have declined, although 55 per cent. of primary age pupils and 43 per cent. of secondary pupils still walk to school.
I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised. I know that there is much still to do, but there is already a good deal going on, both nationally and locally. He wants an increase in home-to-school transport. The amount budgeted for and spent on statutory school transport by local education authorities has been increasing above the level of inflation in recent years. It is now a very substantial sum—around £450 million in 1998–99. It is true that some two thirds of that figure goes on pupils with statements of special educational needs. That leaves about £150 million for the 7.5 million pupils of compulsory school age without statements, giving LEAs little scope for additional, discretionary provision.
Let me remind the House of the real purpose and function of statutory school transport. It is not—and never was—designed as an all-inclusive school transport service. It is a safety net, to ensure that no child is denied the right to attend a suitable school because they live too far away, or have special needs, or face a dangerous journey.
Statutory school transport is not the only source of assistance. Local authorities have powers—but no duty—to establish concessionary fare schemes in their areas under the Transport Act 1985. About 40 per cent. of shire counties have a scheme for young people, though few are county-wide and some do not provide fare reductions in the morning peak. In the metropolitan areas, by contrast, all six passenger transport authorities provide either flat fares or half fares on local buses that are valid in the morning peak. Those schemes are supported by Government subsidy.
In the shire areas it is common for discounted fares to be offered commercially by private sector bus operators. There is no local authority involvement in such arrangements. The discount is usually half fare.
Here in London, Transport for London rather than local authorities operates a discount scheme for young people at roughly half fare. It is regarded as a commercial scheme, without Government subsidy. It covers the five-to-18 age group and is available in the morning peak.
652
Last summer, my Department commissioned consultants to review best practice in increasing bus use on the journey to school. They consulted widely with local authorities, schools and bus operators, and identified many examples of local action to promote bus travel for the home-to-school journey. The consultants have now reported, and are finalising a guide which draws together the main lessons from the study, illustrated with examples of successful initiatives, and we intend to publish it later in the year. We hope that it will stimulate other authorities in particular to consider what further measures they can take.
We are also planning a seminar with major bus operators later this year to discuss the scope for greater standardisation in the arrangements for child discounts on buses. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and for Castle Point will welcome that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree also said that he would like to see more walking buses and more safe routes to school for those buses to use. I can only say that I agree with him. We have been actively promoting such measures through guidance that we have produced for local authorities, parents, teachers and governors including a comprehensive school travel resource pack researched by Sustrans—the pioneer of safe routes to school. The resource pack was published by my Department in May to coincide with the launch of this year's walk-to-school campaign.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree will also know, local authorities have been asked to prepare local transport plans setting out their strategies for tackling local transport issues, including school travel issues. We are providing more funds for the implementation of local transport plans.
As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced today details of our 10-year plan for transport which sets out a £180 billion spending programme—£132 billion from the public purse—to deliver the modern, integrated transport network that we all want to see. The funding for the implementation of local transport plans will almost double from £755 million provided for 1999–2000 to £1.3 billion for 2001–02.
In providing funds for local transport plans, we have given local authorities the discretion to utilise such funds from within a single block allocation—except for major transport schemes over £5 million—in accordance with their priorities and objectives set out in their local transport plans.
It is ultimately for local authorities to decide whether and how to take forward proposals for safe routes to school in their areas and to make the necessary running cost provision to support the development of walking buses, in the light of those local priorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree also said that he would like more work to be done to reduce car use for journeys to school. Again, I agree wholeheartedly, but we should not forget that much is already being done, not least under the auspices of the school travel advisory group—STAG—which was set up by my Department with colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health in December 1998. The group brings together experts in education, road safety, child health and accident prevention, as well as transport co-ordination.

653
STAG oversaw production of guides for local authorities and schools, and a resource pack. Following advice from STAG, my Department commissioned six research projects in spring 1999. Two have already reported, providing a comprehensive database of current levels of activity—which, I am pleased to say, is increasing—and an informative report on the wide range of factors affecting distance to school.
The other four projects are due for completion and will result in the production of a best practice guide on the provision of special educational needs transport; a guide on increasing bus use for the journey to and from school; a database of classroom materials relating to school travel issues; and the possible implementation of a national programme of site-specific advice for schools following the evaluation of a pilot in 37 schools.
The first STAG report, published in January, proposed an aim to return by 2010 to the level of walking, cycling and bus use in the mid-1980s. That would mean 80 per cent. for primary school children and 90 per cent. for secondary school children. The report also contained 11 individual recommendations for raising the profile of school travel and increasing travel choices for the journey to and from school. The Government welcomed the report. We are already taking action on some of the recommendations and are considering how to implement the others.
654
In the road safety strategy, published in March, we set out our detailed programme for taking action to improve child road safety, including better child road safety education, better enforcement and raising driver awareness of school travel issues such as road safety for child pedestrians and cyclists, the dangers of parking near schools and excessive or inappropriate speed.
We continue to work to raise awareness of school travel issues, through a series of regional seminars for local authorities, teachers, parents and governors; a communication strategy aimed at both the specialist press and the wider public; and national television and radio advertisements, promotions and publicity as part of the "Are you doing your bit?" campaign.
All health authorities are developing health improvement plans for the three-year period 2000–02, based on local consultation. There should be particularly strong links between health improvement programmes and local transport plans on school travel, and guidance on joint working was published in October 1999.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing this debate. I and my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health regard the issues relating to school travel as very important. As I hope I have demonstrated, this is an area in which we have been active—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twelve minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[Mr. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Environmental Regulation and Farming
[Relevant documents: Fourth report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 212.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
2.30 pm
Mr. David Curry: The debate that we have requested today is important both in its own right and because of its wider implications. It relates to a regulation that could result in significant costs for the intensive livestock sector of the agriculture industry. The wider implications relate to the Government's response to, and the costs that flow from, regulation. I shall speak briefly about the specifics of the regulation before dealing with its broader implications.
The proposal is a European Union regulation that is, quite properly, designed to control the pollution that flows from intensive livestock—pig and poultry—production over a certain size. For the purposes of this debate, it is not necessary to detail the particularities of the units that will be affected.
Each member state will apply the regulation in its own way. The regulation is facultative, in the sense that it does not prescribe rates of levy for the agriculture community but clearly prescribes the objects intended. That is another important factor.
The proposal envisages a system of regulation and control to be introduced over the next six or seven years. Our anxiety is that the matter involves a series of unknowns. I recognise from the Government's reply that some aspects are genuinely difficult to nail down—such as how many units are involved in poultry production, for example—simply because records are not available.
We were equally worried that the proposed costs seemed disproportionate and unevenly spread. We spoke to the Environment Agency about the proposed costs, which ranged from about £12,000 to £18,000. Subsequently, we spoke to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency about the costs to be levied in Scotland, and found that it proposed about half as much. That led to the suggestion that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency might, in the spirit of tendering, win the contract for England and Wales, too.
The regulations allow each member state to decide the level of cost recovery to apply. Therefore, if on the continent it is decided that no costs should be recovered, no one will be breaking the law. That would be perfectly within the spirit of the regulations. However, it would have an impact on the sector's competitiveness.
114WH
At no stage did the Committee argue that it was wrong to apply pollution controls. We never started from the thesis that we want nothing to do with the proposal. We recognise that at Kyoto the Government made commitments, to which we all subscribe, for environmental and pollution control, and that it is sensible for those mechanisms to be common throughout the European Union in order to maintain that most beloved phenomenon of farmers, the level playing field.
We were anxious for the playing field to be level and reasonable and for the administrative burden to be as minimal as possible, consistent with delivering the objectives. We believed that the Government supported us in that view, because the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food set up the red tape review group, a rather picturesque expression, which sounds as though it had a veterinary origin—the chief veterinary officer applying himself to an especially difficult form of tapeworm.
That review has now reported, and has argued about the need to tackle the regulatory burden, especially in the context of the crisis in agriculture. However, one must be careful not to plead simply because of the particular circumstances in agriculture. The question of the regulatory burden is important, whether agriculture is flourishing or in recession. I do not want anyone to conclude that a little bit of deferment here and now until things look better is acceptable.
We examined the two measures: the integrated pollution prevention and control directive and the climate change levy addressed by Kyoto. That has been the subject of recent debates in our discussion of the final stages of the Budget and I do not intend to go over those arguments. In our recommendations, we were critical of the Government's lack of knowledge of how our competitors were implementing the measures. We were anxious that the importance of assessing the impact of new and pending legislation on industry should be recognised and that the measures should be applied as effectively as possible.
We suggested, therefore, that the Government should delay implementation until it was clear that others were implementing. We intended to implement rather earlier than other member states—we have a history of complaints about gold-plating of legislation and quite a substantial history of gold-plating, too. We felt that on this occasion being laggardly would be rather virtuous. I take the rather idiosyncratic view that, in a sense, disqualification of expenditure by the European Union is normally a symbol that the Government are trying to help their industry. I do not subscribe to the view that we must reduce it to an absolute zero. That usually suggests serious oppression of the industry that is suffering from the phenomenon. I am glad to say that the Government accepted that suggestion. They accepted that implementation should be at the back end of the bracket during which it can take place.
The remaining serious question is about the competitiveness of industry and full economic cost recovery. Let me admit immediately that the provisions for full economic cost recovery were enacted by the previous Government in 1995. It seems reasonable that if a service is applied to a business, the business should support the funding of that service, but how are those costs calculated? I recall the milk inspection charges

115WH
in England, which, interestingly, were never applied in Scotland. I was always querulous about the way in which they were levied. Every journey to each farm seemed to be calculated from the bases of the headquarters.
Our first series of questions related to the calculations, and the second series was more fundamental. There may be a conflict between full economic cost recovery, which is a perfectly proper economic objective in the absence of an external factor, and full economic cost recovery seen in the context of competition with other member states, whose farmers are in competition with our producers. This is not specific to agriculture. If burdens are applied to UK producers, of whatever commodity, and quite correctly or legally are not applied elsewhere, there is a genuine dilemma for the Government. The Government say that a concept of financial or fiscal rectitude determines that we should seek to recover the costs, yet no Minister would say that it is not our job to sustain the competitiveness of our industry. They cannot have it both ways. A choice must be made between the two.
We saw the Government seeking to find a way through that choice in the action plan for farming that was announced at the end of March or the beginning of April. According to the smoke and mirrors that accompanied it, the Prime Minister wrestled with the Chancellor of the Exchequer across the roofs of Downing street to get a better deal for farmers. Certain costs such as those applied to the abattoir industry were mitigated. The milk inspection charges in England would disappear so that English farmers were on the same footing as Scottish farmers. Some other charges were deferred and the cattle passport charges were cancelled. A real gesture was made to deal with the situation. Were they what the French would call "les mesures ponctuelles"? Were those measures taken solely to deal with those circumstances, or has there been a change of heart? I have not yet received a satisfactory response about the Government's view on the conflict between improving the competitiveness of the industry while recognising that other people do not follow the same procedures as us and may be misguided, and pursuing the full recovery of costs, which is a proper principle.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is an important question to resolve? We are discussing pretty big sums that will impact on farmers' long-term economic plans. At the moment, they must make guesses, and that could lead to economic hardship if the Government change direction or make the wrong call.
Mr. Curry: I agree. I acknowledge that the Government have tried to help farmers. They say that they envisage that charges will be much lower than originally contemplated. They are considering establishing a general rule of inspection, so businesses affected might expect charges to be significantly lower than those under a regime of individual inspections. That makes a great deal of sense.
The Committee has not discussed its reaction to the Government's response, so I shall try to extrapolate what I think are the Committee's views. The response is
116WH
two months late and is not specific on some issues. It does not say whether marginal costing will be used when recovering such costs and expenses as are incurred by the Environment Agency, for example. The Government's response contains the phrase
to ensure that unnecessary negative effects of policies…are avoided.
Communiqués from the Chinese Communist party contained similar phrases during some of the more bitter debates with Chairman Mao. They were circumlocutory and said that people were pursuing the not altogether correct line. I do not know whether the Minister is a right deviationist or a capitalist roader. New Labour politicians and capitalist roaders are fairly similar, but perhaps I should not make that remark. However, some of the Government's words have a curious lack of resonance, despite being in the language of Shakespeare.
How is MAFF actively seeking
to ensure that unnecessary negative effects of policies on agriculture and food are avoided?
During the inquiry into the current crisis in the livestock sector, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told the Committee:
I believe that I am the sponsoring Minister for the industry, for the whole of the food industry, and that includes producers.
The Minister for the Environment appeared before the Committee and said unequivocally that one of his tasks was delivering competitiveness for the industry. We hope to find out where the balance is drawn. The Government have tried to help by applying the regulations later than anticipated, as we wanted them to be, and by making efforts to reduce the estimated costs to a more tolerable level. That is welcome. However, there remains a question mark over the philosophy that underpins—I choose my words carefully and I get them right first time, but I fear that some hon. Members are in a post-prandial mood of lack of perception of that joke.
Mr. Mark Todd: I did not think that it was obligatory to laugh.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) is new. If he had been here longer, he would know that when a Committee Chairman signals that he has made a mildly humorous remark, it is indeed obligatory to laugh. I will endeavour to flag up my jokes later, but not by holding up a notice.
Will the Minister tell us the Government's plans? I acknowledge that they have deferred or cancelled charges in a significant number of policies, the majority of which are not the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment. I shall therefore not press him on the action plan for farming; the Government have tried to alleviate the difficulties involved.
We are anxious to know whether agriculture will recover. There are flickering lights at the end of a tunnel; will the policy be reinstated when the Treasury feels that agriculture is better able to bear it, or will competitiveness be re-established as a dominant policy if it becomes apparent that continental Governments will not impose the charge? That would be most significant to our industry.
Those are the essential matters that we want to debate. Other members of the Agriculture Committee are present and I look forward to their contributions.

117WH
I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the debate, although he probably did not have much choice in the matter. However, it is nice to see him—we have seen each other a lot this week—and I look forward to his response.
2.46 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: We commend the Government's response to the Agriculture Committee's report. It was a much more concrete response than we expected, especially on the deferral of the impact of the integrated pollution, prevention and control regime on agriculture and the introduction of a 50 per cent. rebate on the climate change levy. Several other welcome steps were trailed in the action plan for farming.
My concern, which is reflected in the report by the Agriculture Committee, of which I have been a member for the past three years, is that the methodology for tackling regulations is consistently inadequate. I should be surprised if every Select Committee with responsibility for examining the regulatory burden did not make similar remarks.
We need constantly to remind ourselves that the methodology used is driven by the convenience of the regulator of a particular sector, not by what that sector will bear, or by a comparative analysis of what was done elsewhere when the same regulatory regime was imposed.
Anyone examining the evidence given to the Agriculture Committee in this case would either laugh or cry. Representatives of the Environment Agency were asked why its suggested charges differed so dramatically from those of its Scottish counterpart. It had not occurred to them to compare notes with those north of the border. They were also completely ignorant about the approach adopted by our European partners and competitors—we recognise that they are both. We garnered some information from within the farming community but that was news to Ministers and to the Environment Agency. That was alarming because it was not the only such instance; the same occurred on virtually every occasion when we raised an issue relating to the regulatory burden facing the industry.
I take as an example the charges relating to the livestock sector in abattoirs. We asked repeatedly for an analysis of the burden on that sector compared with the charges in Europe. The initial answer—I tabled the first parliamentary questions on the subject—was that it was none of our business: it was entirely a matter for individual member states to implement as they saw fit. Gradually, the Government were persuaded to adopt the approach of gathering information first. Unsurprisingly, some alarming information was discovered—for example, that many member states had far more generous charging regimes and far looser regulatory frameworks than this country. By appointing working parties to examine the regulatory burden on the farming sector, the Government steadily showed a willingness at least to listen to others on the subject and to look elsewhere for comparisons.
Once again, however, we find the same old approach in this report, which is worrying. There is no comparative analysis, not even within our own country, and I still regard Scotland as part of our country.
118WH
There is no comparative analysis within a European context; no analysis of the sector's ability to pay the charges; no attempt to work with the grain of the sector to establish a proper basis for the charging structure; no analysis of how competition might affect the sector or of how the charging regime might affect the framework of competition within it; and no concept of proportionality in relation to appropriate charges for the expected social gain.
Coming into Parliament three years ago from the private sector, it was not too much of a surprise for me, but there seems to be a disease running through the public sector in this country and an unwillingness to look outside to view matters comparatively or to understand the framework within which business works. Instead, it seems to be driven entirely by a civil service mentality based on the narrow experience of people who are imposing a regulatory burden. The Committee Chairman did not refer to some of our future reports, but we are going to examine comparative regulatory burdens across Europe in the integrated control and admission system, for example. I would be surprised if we did not find examples of cuter regimes in other member states. It alarms me that that message comes through constantly, yet we never seem to absorb it or try to remedy the problem.
The thrust of my remarks is that we should examine the issue once more across government and understand that the imposition of regulatory burdens—we all accept that they are driven by laudable objectives; as the Committee Chairman said in his opening remarks, no one questions the introduction of stronger controls on potentially polluting agriculture sectors—can be harmful. There is a large-scale poultry operator and pig producer in my constituency. They must accept a proper regulatory framework and I would be happy to explain it to them. However, they want an appropriate framework in which they, as business people, can operate—not something drafted in from the planet Mars.
It saddens me to have to quote some remarks. It seems from responses to questions that the proper instinct has not yet moved our Ministers, still less the civil service that serves them. Questioned by me on whether the Environment Agency could be expected to recover its regulatory costs and on what happened in other member states, the Minister said that it may not apply in other states—in other words, he did not know. He was asked whether costs were borne by individual producers in other member states, but we have already said that we did not ask the Environment Agency to take account of charging systems in other member states when they pick up these costs. To be fair, that was a blunt admission by my right hon. Friend, who has given evidence to us many times and has always been honest and forthright. His straightforward answer was that the Environment Agency was not asked to give any thought to the competitive framework within which the charges might be imposed. That is the blunt message from the report. We might now amend our ways; one hopes so.
The introduction of an automatic rebate of 50 per cent. for horticulture was a positive move, but the evidence is that it was very much an afterthought. It revealed a surprising degree of ignorance among the relevant Ministers about the possible impact of the climate change levy. The thrust of the evidence, and the

119WH
firm view of the Committee, was that the horticulture sector in other member states, where burdens to deal with the impact of energy consumption on our climate were being imposed, was either being exempted entirely or treated completely differently, partly in recognition, of course, of the industry that it is. When plants grow they consume CO2, so we make a positive gain to our environment by growing them. Therefore, penalising horticulture in the same way as a sector that simply consumes energy is scientifically crude. I appreciate that the 50 per cent. rebate goes some way towards recognising the special status of the horticulture sector, but I admit to being disappointed. I feel that more should have been done. I would have welcomed either a better rebate or—my constituency contains horticulture producers as well as those who grow agricultural produce—longer-term special recognition of our sector. I should like to hear the Minister's thoughts on the longer-term future of some of these approaches, such as whether the climate change levy would be set at the same level for the horticulture sector in the longer term, and whether the IPPC—we have not, of course, been told yet of the rates to be placed on these sectors—will address the longer-term concerns expressed in evidence to the Committee, and by it, in its report.
2.58 pm
Mr. Lembit Öpik: I will address one issue—strategic clarity. My right hon. and hon. Friends from the Select Committee have highlighted many of the more detailed points. I want to underline the importance that farmers attach to ensuring a level playing field. Many of the responses in the document are worthy, and clearly go in the direction that many members of that Committee would like.
Our concern is that some of the responses are tactical rather than strategic. The worry for farmers is that they are not entirely clear about the support that they can expect. The common agricultural policy is an example of what happens when a policy evolves from a clear strategy into something that, over time, takes on board issues that develop subsequently. That is why the CAP has had unintended consequences in terms of its influence on the dynamic of the market and the industry.
There is a danger that the support mechanisms now being introduced for animal welfare could lead in the same direction. Reference has already been made to the variety of solutions that have been implemented across Europe. In my judgment, the UK is not unique in failing to address these issues in an overtly strategic fashion, but British farmers probably have more reason to say that the direction in which we are going is somewhat less predictable. In terms of cost, many European countries regard the matter as the responsibility of Government rather than producers. Pig farmers have made that point many times, and it has also been highlighted by the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales.
I hope that the Minister can assure us—I realise that he may be unable to do so today—that the Government will look at the individual measures that have been implemented and perhaps provide a strategic direction, through which Britain's producers can plan investment and economic targets. I have no doubt that the
120WH
professionals and organisations with which farmers are associated would be eager to participate in that dialogue. Even if they did not get exactly what they wanted, such clarity would prove a tremendous asset as we move towards a new regulatory framework.
3.1 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I think that there will be broad agreement on the consequences of the integrated pollution prevention and control regulation. I disagree slightly with the distinguished Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), when he said that it does not matter whether agriculture is doing well or badly, because the principle remains the same. That may be so in philosophical terms, but in practical terms it is not. Industries such as agriculture—particularly unsupported sectors such as poultry and pigs—have entered a down-cycle that is connected not with regulation, but with worldwide events over which many of us have no control. An extra regulatory burden may well prove the final blow, like the punch that finishes off the boxer who has taken too many blows.
At one stage, that might have seemed the case in respect of this regulation. The point has been well made that we seem to be racing ahead of other European countries in our keenness to apply the regulation two, three or four years ahead of our competitors. In addition, we appear to be bent on imposing heavy charges on the industry. In other countries, charging levels vary from half ours to nothing at all. Given that the market for poultry and pigmeat products in particular allows the importing of foreign products, such factors can prove very important. Indeed, the situation appeared very bleak when our inquiry began.
I shall not veer into sycophancy and suggest that this was the most wonderful ministerial response that I have ever heard. However, when a response is positive, we should sometimes say so without adding the word "but". The word "almost" is probably the most damning qualification of all, but "but" is almost the most damning.
Now that the praise is out of the way, I turn to the real meat of the argument. The matter should be expressed the other way round, in that the Minister responded positively to the question of when the regulation will be put into practice. In fact, he gave rather more than we expected: we asked for 2006 and he said 2007. We asked whether the general binding rule is the way forward, and we were told that, where appropriate, it is. I accept that the phrase "where appropriate" provides a get-out, but the principle has been accepted that the rule should apply, and it is anticipated that the costs in this country would be at least one half of the rather horrific figures that were originally bandied around. Great progress has been made in those areas.
On the question whether the Environment Agency or another body should carry out the inspections and administer the scheme, I accept the Minister's statement that the preference would be for the Environment Agency to do so. However, my reading of the response does not lead me to believe that the alternatives have been ruled out.

121WH
Just for once, I think that the Committee can be self-congratulatory about the points that it has raised. We also welcome the response that we have received. One point is often overlooked. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), I had to earn a living before I came here. That was in a world in which one could not simply ask for something and it would automatically be there. I was amazed recently when, on one of those rare hot days, I thought that it might be a good idea to have a fan. My assistant made a telephone call, and a fan was on my sideboard within moments. I thought, "By golly." In the world of private enterprise, things do not happen quite like that. One might be told that there were not enough hot days in the year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. The hon. Gentleman need not worry. I am sure that the fan will soon be removed.
Mr. Hurst: My soul feels better for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Another burden that will fall on agriculture, with regard to this regulation and others, is the cost of implementing the alterations to the business in order to qualify for the permit that allows it to trade. We have no evidence relating to those costs, because no one yet knows exactly what will be required. However, the cost charged by the Environment Agency, or another body, will almost certainly be only the tip of the iceberg compared with the changes that will have to take place in those businesses in order for them to comply. I hope that the Minister will monitor that matter carefully and—if I may use a word from the report—prudently as time goes by.
The other matter, which again relates to whether the Environment Agency or another body carries out the administration, is the number of inspections that a business can be expected to suffer. Those of us familiar with the teaching profession know of the spectre of the Ofsted report. It is about the most horrific event in a schoolteacher's career, and their lives become overwhelmed by that spectre as it approaches. I am not saying that the kindly Environment Agency going round to a pig farm or a poultry farm will be quite in that category, but there is no doubt that carrying out inspection after inspection will have certain results.
Every time an inspector comes, it will cost a business money. Those who have been in business—or mixed with those who have—will be familiar with fire inspections. One year, one might be told by the fire inspector to blank out a certain internal window, only to be told by another, three years later, that one must open it up again. I always took the view that if I came out of such an inspection having to spend less than £200, I was doing jolly well.
Anyone in business knows that inspections, by their nature, will not only find things that need to be remedied, but do so inconsistently. Agriculture bears a greater brunt than many other industries because of the nature of its work, and we should be sympathetic and mindful of that while seeking to achieve our objective with regard to the regulation.
Having said all that, I congratulate the Minister on the response to the IPPC, and I trust that he will heed the words spoken by right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon as the matter progresses further.
3.9 pm
Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I share that pleasure with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who was looking forward to the opportunity of setting out the case on behalf of his Committee, which he did with great aplomb. The Committee did an extremely good job responding to the errors that are associated with environmental regulation and farming. The Minister has also done a good job responding to the relevant concerns and the issues raised. I share the view of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and other hon. Members that this touches on a wider, almost philosophical, issue, which involves the process of regulation rather than specific details.
Three themes are raised time and again by this regulation and previous ones. The first involves the notion of gold-plating—the fact that this country appears to over-emphasise the regulatory functions that are associated with agreements that we enter into freely in the European Union and elsewhere. I dispute whether that is true in every case, but the evidence suggests that we often apply a high level of regulation. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) was absolutely right in his analysis of the way in which that comes about. It involves the virtues but also the vice of our civil service. A virtue is involved in that there appears to be a view that if there is a task to be done, one should start with a blank piece of paper, approach the task with commendable diligence and thoroughness, and produce a model of regulation to realise one's objectives. The contrary view is that that is done in a state of ignorance of, complacency about or with disdain for the effects on those who are regulated—the approach is adopted to achieve the objectives of the regulation and the regulators, and does not involve an holistic look at the health of the relevant industry or activity or at the wider societal objectives.
The second issue involves joined-up government and establishing whether there is a genuine relationship between Departments that involves them interrelating, communicating and appreciating the cumulative effects of what each organisation or Government agency is doing. In that regard, we also need to establish whether there is sufficient co-ordination of effort.
The third issue involves the charging regime. Although the notion of the full recovery of costs is relevant, it is important to identify what are and what are not genuine marginal costs of inspection—the Agriculture Committee rightly drew attention to that. The evidence that the Committee heard contains the industry's response. A wide range of respondees were involved, including a near-constituent of mine, Mr. Finn Christensen of Steanbow farms. His farms are a couple of hundred yards away from my constituency boundary—he is, as near as dammit, a constituent of mine. The evidence points to a unanimity of response—to a certain extent, one expects that from any industry that is facing new regulations and a new impost because the industry responds to protect itself. The respondees reiterate the same points with a degree of consistency that obliges us to examine the matter more deeply.
The integrated pollution prevention and control regulations were not designed ab initio for agriculture. They were designed to have an industrial application,

123WH
although they will apply to agriculture, and rightly so. There is no reason why pollution control should not apply to agriculture, although the regulations were not originally designed to do so.
What is the proper response to such a requirement? My answer picks up on points that have already been made in this debate. What are the regulations intended to achieve? Is the effect intended to be benign or otherwise? If it is meant to be benign, are regulations needed to achieve that objective, or will they duplicate existing inspection regimes and mechanisms? Even if a new regulatory instrument is necessary, is a new process of inspection and regulation required? Is it proportionate to the needs of the industry? Is it timeous in terms of the state of the industry? That is a crucial point, given the crisis in agriculture and the difficult position in which many people in the pig and poultry sectors find themselves.
What will be the effect on the industry's competitive position with regard to interests elsewhere in continental Europe—which are, theoretically, working broadly within the same regulatory regime—and beyond? We have heard the argument about the importation of poultrymeat from Thailand, which is completely outside our regulatory regime. Is that fair competition? Should there be better monitoring of the conditions under which those poultry are reared and better regulation on their importation?
The inevitable conclusion is that the original IPPC proposals were neither timeous nor proportionate. Furthermore, they are over-prescriptive and over-expensive, and it is debatable whether they achieve an objective that could not be achieved by other means. To give the Government credit, that is the view that they have reached. I doubt whether such a measure will promote lower impact farming: other means, such as reform of the common agricultural policy, could be far more effective. Fiscal means of control—this is, in a way, a fiscal method—are unlikely to be effective. I also strongly believe—irrespective of whether it is the right or the wrong thing to do—that transitional periods are essential in any industry. One should not simply move from day one—on—to day two—off, but follow a transition that allows producers to effect the necessary changes.
Two aspects of the IPPC regulations remain to be addressed. First, the Government have said that before 2007 they will apply only to enterprises that are new or substantially changed. That may affect poultry farmers in terms of the laying hens directive, which comes into effect in 2003. Will the necessary changes introduced by the directive represent a substantial change to the nature of the business in question, so that such farmers are unwittingly brought into the regime? Will the Minister clear up that ambiguity? Secondly, on full cost recovery, is work being done to identify those costs that are overheads of the agency—irrespective of the inspection regime—and do the costs that have been quoted genuinely reflect the marginal costs of applying the provision?
As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said, we recently debated the climate change levy in the Chamber, so it is pointless to rehearse those arguments—other than to say that it was clear from the
124WH
start that in no sector of agriculture or horticulture will the measure be revenue neutral. Obviously, horticulture, in particular, is a special case. In the light of the points that have been raised on CO2 emission and reduction, it is clear that the Government should proactively have sought the advice of the industry from the first day on which the measure was promulgated as part of our answer to the Kyoto protocols. We have not yet got the answer right.
Horticulture will not, in the long run, be competitively placed. We have not dealt properly with the issues relating to combined heat and power in horticulture. I do not accept the Government's view that a larger rebate would comprise European Union state aid. In civil service speak, a handy defence against doing anything that the Government do not want to do is that it might constitute an illegal state aid. That is not true in the present case. After all, the impost is a British one. It is not being applied throughout the EU so it is hard to see how that argument can apply.
The action plan for farming, which was announced on 30 March, was a beneficial process, but it was effectively a list of industry complaints, to which the Government are responding. To pick up on a point made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, it is not necessarily a change of Government process that will ensure that the complaints will not need to be made again in future. It is not a means of preventing over-regulation and duplication and the prospect of agriculture drowning in a sea of red tape, which would be catastrophic for agriculture in the long term. It would perpetuate a lack of the competitiveness that will be vital if British agriculture is to prosper.
3.21 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to take part in the debate, but apologise for missing the remarks of the Select Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). When I left him in deepest Gloucestershire in the middle of yesterday afternoon I was not sure who was more likely to be here, given the lack of a guaranteed way of getting back to London. As it was, he made it and I did not. I shall ask him later how he managed to do it.
The issue that we are debating is important. I am grateful that yet again the Agriculture Select Committee has the opportunity to be involved in a Thursday afternoon Westminster Hall debate. The debate on bovine tuberculosis about six months ago was useful. I do not want to repeat points that other hon. Members have already covered, but want to adopt some different perspectives on the important changes that we are considering.
First, I want to take the perspective of the rightness of, or rationale for, the introduction of IPPC and the climate change levy. Secondly, I want to examine the way in which the Government have responded; like other hon. Members I think that it was a good response, even if some of us think that it would be possible to take matters further. Thirdly, I want to consider the impact on competitiveness, which was an underlying theme of all our debates and discussions and our report. Finally, I should like to deal with some odds and ends.
The important changes that we are considering are both right and necessary. I was on the Standing Committee that considered the introduction of IPPC

125WH
and learned much during that time. The solidarity across the political divide—in contrast, perhaps, to what happened over the climate change levy—was good to see. The benefits of introducing the measure, as well as the reasons for moving towards best available technology from best available technology not incurring excessive cost, were understood. When I was a councillor dealing with environmental health I learned what that terminology meant, and I made repeated use of it.
We need to understand not just the philosophical advantages of what is being done, but the implications at the coal face. I do not agree that the pollution and climate change that give rise to the need for action are primarily the result of urban problems and that the countryside is relatively unproblematic. All hon. Members know that there is much pollution in the countryside, whether caused by agriculture or the impact of other changes such as the level of ozone, which seems to come about as a result of pollution from motor vehicles plonking itself down in country areas. We have a problem and it is important that we understand why the polluter pays principle is necessary and must be followed through. We did not just talk about it during the general election—we must see it coming into practical detail.
We have an environmental obligation, which it is right to pursue, but not at any cost or in any manner, as members of the Committee learned. That is why it is so important that we consider the implications of the way in which the Government have responded and the way in which—I hope—they have learnt from both what has happened and, more particularly, what we see occurring now. We must be aware of the term gold-plating and be aware of what we are doing in this country and what is happening across the rest of Europe and in the rest of the world.
As has already been alluded to, we tend to do the thing properly. We adhere to rules when we pass them, whereas other countries are slower to introduce them or do not adhere to their full letter when they do. I find that response disappointing because we all share environmental degradation, which is on a genuinely international perspective and not local.
With regard to the impact of the IPPC and the climate change levy, we learned early on that there was confusion concerning the charging regime. That has already been mentioned. The situation was certainly not helped by our session with the Environment Agency, about which I will say more later. We all felt that the agency was operating by the seat of its pants to some extent and had not thought through in detail the way in which it would operate the charging regime. We might need to consider the matter in the future but I hope that the agency can learn from the experience of appearing before the Committee.
The Government have come out strongest with regard to the timetable. They have listened to views on the IPPC and have delayed the introduction. I hope that they have also considered the difficulties of introducing the climate change levy. The horticulture experience might have been one key factor in persuading them to tread carefully.
The overall issue is the need for clarification of the way in which the different changes will be introduced. Again, I will say more about the subject when I
126WH
conclude, but the way in which Departments approached the subject from different perspectives was instrumental. We dealt with three Departments. This is not a criticism of a specific Department, but we felt that we were perhaps more used to dealing with MAFF Ministers than with Ministers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, let alone from the Treasury. That is, in a sense, the value of a Select Committee inquiry—it forces Departments to work together because they must perform in front of us. We learned from the experience.
We were faced with an underlying criticism regarding competitiveness from those who would have to deal with the impact of the changes. Their strongest argument was that there would be a disproportionate effect on them if they introduced the measures because competitors in other countries were either well behind us or would not introduce them. We clearly cannot repatriate in this area. Some of us argue in strong terms that a case could be made for ensuring that some, if not a great deal, of agriculture support is run nationally. We can take the common agricultural policy as an example and consider the problems there. However, a national consideration is difficult in terms of the environment. There is no point any one country that has a regime, structure or system to support or penalise pretending that that can be done in isolation. Although we cannot be indifferent to what is happening in other countries, we must face up to our environmental obligations.
I was particularly affected by the NFU's response. It is openly happy about several aspects of the Government's policy, but it is worried about the problem of competitiveness. We need to monitor that. The dearth of data means that it is unclear what other countries are doing. We must trawl around to discover what is happening in a general and industry-specific way when the changes are implemented. We already monitor and check what is going on and those of us with positions of responsibility criticise when necessary—for example, when the system is being over-laboured. Agriculture is a special case, partly because of the nature of the crisis in the industry, but its peculiarities need to be recognised and to be made clear to Ministers in other Departments and colleagues who know a little less about agriculture.
There is an inquiry into organic farming. We should also consider what impact the changes will have on other types of farming. It could be argued that organic farming will not be affected, but other types of agriculture might have environmentally sound principles and philosophies. We must be careful that we do not make it more difficult for them. The changes might carry through to other sectors, such as the poultry and pig sectors, from which we took evidence. The poultry sector could say that it has made great strides to use its energy more efficiently but that it will not get much back if the changes are implemented. We should bear that in mind.
People who are tasked with implementing the changes need to get their act together so that they are better than the Environment Agency appeared to be. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon might have underlined that point in his speech. The Environment Agency misunderstood the special features of agriculture. In particular, the charging regime was unclear. The agency's response to my questions revealed that it was

127WH
unsure about how it would implement the changes on individual farms, who would go on the farm, what their powers would be and so on. Farmers need to know that. It is not enough to rely on being in the right place at the right time. Thankfully, there is a great deal more time to ensure that the system is right. Our proceedings were not very good because we tried to ascertain information that the agency did not have. There were also problems with its vocabulary. I still do not understand the difference between a holding and an installation. Perhaps those definitional differences will become clear in years to come. However, we must bear in mind the fact that the agency will have to interface with farmers.
I touched on how we tend to consider the way in which one Ministry and one sector of the economy relate to general changes. I want to make a plea on behalf of all of us who are interested in agriculture, strange as that may seem. I realise that, to some extent, the problems of the agricultural industry are over-elaborated. At the same time, where fundamental changes are afoot, and certainly where changes will impact disproportionately on the industry, there is a need to recognise its special features.
Questions were asked about how MAFF will stand in relation to IPPC when the DETR is the lead Department and how it will stand in relation to the climate change levy, on which the Treasury is the lead Department. We believe that MAFF should not be squeezed out completely because it is the voice of agriculture, through which farmers like to express their influence. That needed to be clarified, but the Government have listened and responded to that.
In conclusion, the report was good and the Government have listened. They can go further and carefully monitor the true impact of the changes when they are introduced. Success will be measured in terms of not only environmental benefits, but the fact that those benefits are not achieved at the cost of British farming. The worst thing would be if we made environmental changes and were faced with ever more imports from nations that have failed to live up to their environmental obligations.
3.36 pm
Mr. James Paice: It is a shame that this sort of debate must take place in Westminster Hall, partly because it lacks atmosphere, as so many hon. Members would agree, but also because it seems to defuse criticism. As anyone who has read the report knows, it is a damning criticism of the Government. Although I accept that things have moved on since its publication, the report is extremely critical, but that fact is virtually lost to the public by being debated in this Chamber. The old story is if you want to keep a secret, tell it to the House of Commons; but tell it in Westminster Hall and it becomes a negative secret.
I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and the Select Committee on the report, not only because it is critical of the Government—although from my perspective that is helpful—but because it goes into the issues in great detail. From the evidence sessions, especially those with the Minister and with the Financial
128WH
Secretary to the Treasury, it is obvious that some extremely probing and articulate questioning took place. However, as I said, things have moved on. I welcome the changes announced by the Government on 30 March in the action plan for farming, as well as one or two other changes that have been put forward in response to the report. Unlike some right hon. and hon. Members, I want to consider one or two aspects in detail, although I assure the Chamber that I shall not take up too much time.
The decision to put off implementation of the IPPC charges until 2007 is welcome, but we must ask—the question was implicit in some of the speeches made by other hon. Members—why it was ever considered necessary to implement them earlier. We know from experience that if other European countries do anything at all, they will leave it until the last minute to comply with whatever rules and regulations are made.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) rightly questioned the Whitehall culture regarding regulations. In the Government's response to the Committee, they quoted figures for the units affected, which seem generally to be agreed by the industry, the Government and the Environment Agency, but that is only part of the issue. The point at stake is that the proportion of the pig and poultry industries that will be hit by the regulations is larger in Britain than in competitor countries, purely because our industries are generally larger in their unit size. That is worrying because it means that our industry would pay heavier penalties even if everything else were the same. As has already been made clear, however, many other aspects are not the same. For example, it is clear that the proportion of the pig herd included within the large grouping that is caught by the regulation is significantly greater in Britain than in other European countries.
Obviously, I welcome the proposed reductions in the charges, but as the Agriculture Committee Chairman said, the payment is still high and we must ask why that is the case. A number of hon. Members have mentioned comparable charges elsewhere, which should also be considered. I was fascinated to read a paragraph that appears on page 5 of the Government's response and which deals with the Committee's recommendation that research should be conducted into how other member states are implementing the directive. It states:
The Agency is undertaking a study of how IPPC is being implemented in other Member States. The results of a short preliminary investigation suggested that there is currently some uncertainty in a number of other Member States as to exactly how IPPC will be implemented.
That is a masterly piece of Whitehall understatement and it is absolute gobbledegook, as is shown by the NFU, which can provide some facts. The facts are that in Denmark the full cost recovery of the implementation of the regulations is £1,000, and in Holland there is no charge at all. Those countries are probably the two biggest European pig producers that are competitors with the British pig industry. In France, there is a charge for the implementation of the regulations, but the money is used to fund pollution prevention measures on farms. In other words, the money is taken, but given back in net terms so that farming does not suffer.

129WH
That is the problem that this country is up against, and I am not pretending that it has arisen in only the past three years. I would not be so stupid as to suggest that. It is clearly a cultural problem and it has been getting worse while our pig and poultry industries have been in immense difficulty, like so many other sectors of agriculture. Of course, many of them are still experiencing huge difficulties and the impact even of just £1,000 or £2,000 a year can make the difference between survival and the end.
I want to mention the costs that have been recovered. The problem is that there is no external challenge to the Environment Agency on how it formulates the charges that are necessary for full cost recovery. Even if one accepts that full cost recovery should include all the overheads and so on—there is a debate to be had on that issue—one can see that there is nothing to bear down on how the organisation manages its costs so as to minimise the impact of the charges that it then applies. If we want to see an example of how that can go wildly wrong, we should consider the Meat Hygiene Service because there have been many concerns about its charging methods. I think that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire referred to those charges and mentioned that it was researched at his behest. The overall amount that had to be recovered by charging was completely uncontrolled.
Will the Minister explain what the Government can do to ensure that the Environment Agency tries to bear down on the costs that it seeks to recover? My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to the lesson from Scotland, which is obviously important in that respect. If Scotland can do it for that price, why cannot the Environment Agency do so in England? What do the Government intend to do when they receive the result of the study on implementation in other states, to which they refer on page 5 of their response? How do they plan to ensure that whatever information they obtain is built in and used so that our charging mechanism is not out of balance with the rest of Europe?
I turn now to the matter of climate change. Recommendation (o) is about negotiated agreements and whether the National Farmers Union and others should be responsible on behalf of the industry for negotiating an agreement with Customs and Excise. I can put it no better than the NFU, which said that the Government's response did not address the fundamental issue of why it, or any other trade body, should do the Government's work for no payment.
Competitiveness has been a common theme this afternoon. Of course I welcome the concessions for horticulture, as does every other hon. Member who has spoken, but they seem to have been squeezed out of the Government. Reading the evidence given to the Select Committee by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, it seems that he did not fully understand the issues involved. I remember that during an earlier inquiry he said that the industry had no problems with his proposals; but he was proved to be categorically mistaken.
Agriculture and horticulture are currently excluded from the rebate scheme, for the reasons set out in the Government's response to the report, yet the energy costs for horticulture are huge. As the NFU said, they can be as much as 50 per cent. or even 65 per cent. of gross turnover. By any assessment, the industry depends heavily on energy, and I wonder why it was excluded.
130WH
To say, as the Government do, that no other criteria could be used that would not cause more problems is an excuse.
On climate change, the unique aspect of agriculture and horticulture is the carbon fixation element. A large proportion of the carbon dioxide emissions that result from the energy used in growing horticultural crops is absorbed by the plants as they grow. Yes, it is recycled, but much of that consumption and digestion recycles the same carbon dioxide; it is not a net emission. The Committee raised that point only tangentially, but the Government did not consider it properly. That is why agriculture and horticulture are unique; no other industry takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and fixes it, temporarily or permanently. They should have dealt with that more coherently.
The Government want to stick with the horticulture concessions at the suggested level, but for only five years at 50 per cent. We do not yet understand why. I wonder whether the Government think that the fuss will have died down by then and they can get rid of the concessions, or that things will have changed—or even that they may not be in office. Why did they choose five years rather than making the concession permanent? The net effect will be to drive production abroad
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to imports being produced to less exacting standards than ours. That is our worry. Imposing regulations to restrict carbon dioxide emissions is of no use if we drive our business overseas and the tomatoes or whatever are produced in another country without those controls. Carbon dioxide does not remain over one country; it is part of the global environment. We need to understand that.
The Committee raises, rightly, the issue of increased imports of horticultural produce under recommendation (q), which says:
We recommend that a full assessment be made of the implications for carbon emissions of decreased horticultural production within the UK and increased transportation of fruit, vegetables, plants and flowers.
All the Government say in response is:
As section (p) above indicates, Budget 2000 contained a special package of support for the horticulture industry, in recognition of its unique position, which has been designed to address the suggested problems.
That is another example of Whitehall-speak: it says absolutely nothing and does nothing whatever to deal with the fundamental issue of carbon fixation.
Some hon. Members have referred to MAFF's role. I am slightly surprised by its relatively small involvement in developing the IPPC charging system and the climate control levy, because MAFF is supposed to be the Department that understands the horticultural and agricultural industries. I can draw one of two conclusions, either MAFF was not consulted or it was consulted, but failed to convince the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions of the importance of those two sectors. That is worrying.
The action plan for farming refers to waste management on page 7. It talks about ensuring that the new regulations are not burdensome and about the waste framework directive. I hope that the Government will consider carefully what is defined as waste. Over the

131WH
past few years, I have come across many absurd definitions of waste by local waste control authorities. The action plan states that the Government will
start from the position that the Directive does not apply to manure and other natural, non-dangerous substances used on farms for agricultural benefit.
I am sure that we all agree that that is sensible and wise.
However, that is not actually happening. A large amount of manure comes from the racing stables in my constituency around Newmarket. The council classifies it as waste, instead of accepting it as manure. Large quantities of vegetable waste are classified as waste, because they come from a vegetable pack house. Another example is sawdust classified as waste. That does not happen in my constituency, because of the obvious shortage of trees in Cambridgeshire, but I have had discussions with people from sawmills in other parts of the country. Sawdust and shavings are classified as waste, even though paper mills use them as raw material for paper. That is not sensible, and I hope that the Government will, in the spirit of their action plan, address the problem.
I welcome the deferral in implementing the IPPC regulations until 2007, but Britain's pig and poultry sectors will then face charges that their competitors overseas do not. A larger proportion of our industry in the large units is covered by IPPC than that of our competition. I have already described the charges being introduced in Denmark, Holland and France. In introducing the climate change levy, the Government have not understood how the industry works. The 50 per cent. reduction is clearly designed to defuse the row, and to some extent it has, but underneath it is a refusal, an unwillingness or an inability to understand the unique nature of agriculture and horticulture to which I refer.
Mention was made earlier of the fact that we had a debate on the climate change levy during proceedings on the Finance Bill two days ago. Some of the issues involved have therefore been discussed in the House this week. In that debate, the Financial Secretary reaffirmed his belief that the rest of Europe will introduce a similar tax. However, there is little evidence of its doing so, and even if there were evidence that it might, to return to a point that other hon. Members have made, there is a great difference between Government intent and the reality on the ground.
Long ago, when the Conservatives were in office, and before I joined the Government as a Minister, I pressed the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to find out what our competitors abroad were doing on the ground. It is all very well for our civil servants to ring up civil servants in Paris to ask what they are doing about the directive and to be given wonderful explanations of how France is implementing it to the letter, but what really matters is what is happening on the ground.
All Departments, not only the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, need to make a much greater effort to find out what is happening on the ground in other member states. That does not necessarily mean merely going there and wandering around. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of Ministers and civil servants to devise a way of finding out the reality. I regret to say that, despite all the fine
132WH
words in the report and the Government's response to it, I do not yet see real evidence that the Government are set to remove the competitive disadvantage that the measures will place on the industry. I hope that the Minister will now prove me wrong, but so far we have seen a lot of words and not much action.
3.57 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, on an excellent report that probed extremely hard, made a series of fair points and has, as almost all hon. Members who participated in the debate recognised, achieved a considerable shift in the Government's position and a recognition that the Committee was right and that, in some respects, we were wrong.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) is disappointed that there seems to be a general feeling in the Committee that the Government's response was fair and thoughtful, and feels that the setting of the debate in Westminster Hall is disadvantageous because it undermines the combativeness that he associates with the Chamber of the House of Commons. Before he said that, while listening to the debate as we all were, I was about to say that I had exactly the opposite response. This is my second debate in this Chamber, and I believe that a great deal is to be said for debates in this Chamber, precisely because, as in Select and Standing Committees, there is a much greater readiness for thoughtful discussion and less easy point scoring. That was extremely apparent here today. I thought that it was a rather good debate.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon recognises that there is a need for environmental regulation in agriculture, as, indeed, no one disputes. Considerable discussion has taken place on the manner in which it is done, as I shall discuss in a moment, and, once again, much of it is probably fair.
It is not controversial to say that the pig and poultry sectors are potentially large point sources of air pollution from ammonia, which also increases nitrogen deposition, and that poorly managed or excessive waste spreading increases the risk of diffuse pollution of both surface and ground waters. The previous Government tried to prevent the inclusion of agriculture in IPPC. There was little support for that in Europe and they decided the burden should be minimised by, for example, raising thresholds, replacing some emission limit values with technical control measures and taking account of costs and benefits. Those are measures that I acknowledge and support. What we have been left with is not the result of any Government not trying to minimise those burdens.
It can be said, although it was not said by any hon. Member today, that agriculture is already adequately covered by environmental legislation; however, the sum of the different environmental regulations for agriculture is not the same as IPPC. The Environment Protection Act 1990 goes much wider than IPPC, but it does not cover the impacts addressed by IPPC.

133WH
The only other point that I want to make relates to pesticides, which are an issue at present. We are committed to minimise the environmental impact of pesticides. The British Agrochemicals Association, which has changed its name to the Crop Protection Association, has brought forward proposals that we are now evaluating. We made it clear that we would not introduce a pesticides tax in the Budget. Again, the Government have tried to listen to industry's concerns.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon also referred to the extent or the scope of the regulations. I do not think that that is in dispute. They apply to installations with more than 40,000 places for poultry, 2,000 places for production of pigs of over 30 kg and 750 places for sows. Some of those are increases on the earlier thresholds as a result of UK negotiations.
The question of charging is critical. I am sorry that my opposite number, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, is not satisfied by the much lower charges that the Committee said that it expected in its report. We have achieved those and more. Where general binding rules are in place the application fees will now be less than a quarter of those originally proposed, and subsistence fees less than half; fees for site-specific permits have also been reduced to less than half.
I shall come to the list of the questions that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon raised with me. We have lots of experience of sparring in Committee on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill and I can see that it will continue here. It is a perfectly fair to ask why the original charges were fixed at such a high level. They were fixed at £12,000 to £18,000 for the initial application and £7,000 a year in subsistence charges. I made it clear in Committee that we were asking the Environment Agency to look again at its proposals and that we would not approve any charging scheme unless we were content that it fairly reflected the regulatory effort involved. The Environment Agency has taken account of that and the fees are now at the lowest level possible to maintain a level of regulation proportionate with the risk that intensive farming installations present.
Mr. Paice: I thought that I said that I welcomed what the Government have done on this matter, as announced in the action plan. The point that I want to make is this. In some ways he has just summed it up by saying that the fees are at their lowest possible level, but a quarter of those original figures is still £3,000, even if one takes the bottom of the £12,000 to £18,000 bracket. That is £3,000 compared with £1,000 in Denmark and nothing in Holland. How can our industry compete when it is being penalised like that and its competitors are not?
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is too eager. I am coming on to the question of other member states, which his right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon raised. In any case, the £12,000 to £18,000 figures have now been reduced to £6,000.
Some member states, such as the Netherlands, fully subsidise permitting for these sectors. Others, such as Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland, subsidise only partially. However. France, Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands already permit intensive farming
134WH
installations, the latter under IPPC. Ireland, Finland, Italy and Denmark plan to implement IPPC for the sector before 2007. While it is true that farmers in those member states may not face the same implementation costs, they will face compliance costs sooner, and in some cases before the BREF note—best available techniques reference note—has been finalised.
That may still not be a satisfactory answer because we are talking about an initial transition of the first few years as compared to the medium and longer term. I regard as important, and intend to press, the fact that we are now launching a financial and management policy review of the agency which may well indicate efficiency savings that can be passed on to operators through the longer-term scheme, because such things as interim charges and the longer-term scheme charges come into effect in 2002. It is important to have secured on the review team or advisory body representatives of industry, including those from the NFU and agriculture and from the whole range of industry who are concerned about the operation of the Environment Agency. They will be able to bear down on the costs charged by the agency and have the opportunity in this important review to make their case extremely clearly and in detail, and we shall require answers from the Environment Agency. We are listening, but I know that we must take it further still.
Mr. Curry: Before the Minister leaves the subject of charges, can he tell us whether a parallel exercise of containing charges has taken place in Scotland and the level of the charges that he expects to be applied there?
Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that point, which the Committee examined closely. I am no expert on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, but I understand that there are significant differences in the way in which costs are approached in Scotland. For example, the Environment Agency makes annual subsistence charges for deemed authorisations, while SEPA does not; the Environment Agency south of the border can charge subsistence fees at the outset, whereas SEPA cannot, but SEPA has a higher application fee. It is a perfectly fair question that must be looked at in the round. However, it is not as simple as it looks.
When I come to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) I shall acknowledge the force of what he said about these types of comparisons having to be made more fully and thoroughly before the charges—even interim charges—are set initially. I have to say that the EA consulted on its interim charges; they were not, as some hon. Members suggested, somehow plucked out of the air, nor did the civil service just pick on a figure. It was done more thoroughly than that. Consultation was the basis on which interim charges were initially fixed.
Mr. Curry: When the review of the Environment Agency takes place—I recognise that bodies are reviewed regularly—will it be based on some internally generated criteria or will it be regarded as a legitimate exercise to do a peer group review by stacking up the criteria retained by the Environment Agency next to those of their Scottish equivalent? Under devolution,

135WH
people are more sensitive to differences north and south of the border, so there may be an argument in favour of developing some common criteria.
Mr. Meacher: That is perfectly fair. We are finding our way in the post-devolution environment. The devolved Administration are keen to do their own thing, and the environment is a wholly devolved matter, with the exception of international obligations for which the UK Government retain an override. I hope that we do not have to use it and that there will be agreement on what Scotland and Wales have to do for the UK as a whole to meet its obligations. We should learn from each other, and I am the first to say that we may learn from them as much as they may learn from us. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that sort of exercise should have been done more thoroughly.
Mr. Todd: The Committee specifically suggested that, should SEPA continue to produce charges lower than those of our own body, it should be invited to tender for this particular service. The Government did not rule out that option definitively, but viewed it as not entirely appropriate. Will the Minister give further thought to the point?
Mr. Meacher: I will give further thought to it, but that is as far as I will go. It is a radical suggestion, but if the Government were in a competitive mood, they would take it seriously. No public agency should regard itself as automatically the guardian of a particular function or role; it has to justify the retention of its roles and we certainly gave that matter consideration in connection with the Environment Agency. I repeat that FMPR—financial management and policy review—is now being launched and it is the first since the Environment Agency was established four years ago. It will provide an opportunity for industry and agriculture to hold the Environment Agency thoroughly to account.
I move on to implementation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) rightly said, we have gone even further than the Committee's recommendation and deferred implementation of IPPC until 2007—just about the last possible date consistent with issuing all permits before the directive deadline, which is 30 October 2007. The industry is now understandably expressing concern—as have the Committee and the agency—about the short time available in 2007 to issue permits for the 1,500 or so installations in the sector. That is how the matter now stands.
Under the pressure of questions from other hon. Members, I have already dealt with the general issue raised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon about competitiveness and full recovery. I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding, so I may not need to pursue the matter further, but, under the Environment Protection Act 1990, the Environment Agency is required to obtain full recovery of costs. We must do so in a manner that, so far as possible, maintains the overall competitiveness of the industrial or agricultural sector. Our case is that the charges and their timing go
136WH
as far as possible to meet the requirements of the directive while keeping any threats to our competitiveness to a minimum.
Mr. Paice: The Minister is entirely right. The obligation to recover costs is enshrined in that legislation. However, it also applies to the Scottish agency, which was set up on the same basis and, to the best of my knowledge, the Scottish Parliament has not changed that. So we must return to the question why, under the same legislation, Scotland can operate a system that is apparently far cheaper.
Mr. Meacher: Again, that is an interesting point. One reason why SEPA charges are lower is that they get more grant in aid. I leave hon. Members to ponder the interesting notion that Scottish taxpayers should subsidise the regulation of English pollution.
Mr. Curry: The Minister has been extremely helpful. He said that he had got the charges as low as possible, consistent with full economic cost recovery. During the review, he will, no doubt, consider how those costs are calculated, as there is a permanent argument about what constitutes a full recovery of costs. We could do with a general rule on that point so that we know what we are talking about.
Mr. Meacher: I am sure that that suggestion will be pressed in the course of the agency review. I understand that the agency can recover costs in the form of gross salaries, common services such as finance, personal and information technology, staff development and training, technical guidance and service provided, administrative and management costs of inspection, policy work in regard to authorisations and the cost of environmental assessment. That is in accordance with the Treasury guidelines; each of those items can be costed and the basis on which they are calculated can be sought.
Mr. David Heath rose—
Mr. Meacher: I have such respect for the hon. Gentleman after the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill that I will always give way to him, although I should probably begin to move on now.
Mr. Heath: The Minister is kind. I am puzzled by what he said about the Scottish cost recovery, because the items that he included could not possibly be affected by grant in aid, however generously it was applied by the Barnett formula. None of those items changes the management costs involved, therefore they should not be different on either side of the border.
Mr. Meacher: I did not say that the items that I read out as constituting a basis of cost recovery were specifically grant aided, but that the level of grant aid in general to SEPA is different from that for the Environment Agency. It will be an interesting issue to pursue in the financial management and policy review.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire made a thoughtful speech, and I am grateful for his initial comment about the Government's response; I have much sympathy with what he said. He asked a

137WH
philosophical question about the nature of the regulation in this country; other hon. Members wanted to know how it was constructed, whether a competitive analysis of its effects had been undertaken, what impact on the sector had been calculated and what other countries are doing. Those are perfectly fair questions and, although I cannot go into detail now, I believe that the Environment Agency has a rationale of a kind. It carried out a consultation on interim charging, which gave all partners, stakeholders or those likely to be affected—victims, if you like—an opportunity to express their views. It was entirely transparent; the interim charges were set and proposals were made for long-term charging in the light of a proper public debate.
We must also consider the question of subsidiarity; we in this country are entitled—we are very demanding about it—to set our own charges and have our own taxes and fees. However, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire is entirely right to say that we should consider very carefully what happens in other countries, and ask whether their practices are better and more equitable. My hon. Friend also talked about the Environment Agency, which will shortly publish a comparison of the costs of implementing IPPC in eight member states. That report will include information on charging practices. I agree that that should have been done earlier. As a result of the Committee's work, I suspect that such practices will be followed in the future. My hon. Friend also talked about horticulture, which several hon. Members mentioned. We recognise the unique position of the horticulture industry, which does not meet the criteria for a negotiated agreement under the IPPC, for understandable reasons. We recognise that the industry will be penalised because it uses a significant amount of energy.
However, the 2000 Budget contained a special package of measures to improve the industry's position. Although I will not spend too much time on history, it is only fair to mention that the Budget included targeted support for agriculture allocated from the energy efficiency fund, and an extension to the list of investments qualifying for enhanced capital allowances to include thermal screens. There are targeted fiscal incentives for horticulture firms to invest in energy-saving technologies, and there is a temporary 50 per cent. discount on the levy for up to five years. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire criticised the time limit as too short, but that is the time within which we initially expect the energy measures to take effect. We have tried to do what we can, in a sense by breaking our own rules about access to the negotiated agreements, because we recognise that the horticulture industry has a good case.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made a wide-ranging point about a strategic environment in which farmers could plan. That goes beyond the issues under discussion, and hon. Members will be delighted to know that I shall not respond at length to that. The causes of the crisis go deep. They include the collapse of world prices, overcapacity, overproduction, the level of the exchange rate—although that has begun to decrease—and several other deep-rooted and perhaps endemic factors. Those problems cannot be resolved immediately. The action plan for farming responds only to particular grievances,
138WH
and I honestly believe that no Government could do much more, given that the causes of the crisis are global and do not relate only to the state of United Kingdom agriculture.
Mr. Öpik: As I said, I understand that the Minister cannot give the strategic reply that I want. I simply hope that the Government will consider taking the opportunity to protect the British farming industry from dramatic policy shifts. That is probably within their control.
Mr. Meacher: There is no doubt about that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the lead in presenting the action plan for farming and he is determined that it should be implemented properly. All the edicts from on high about the speed with which we are implementing every detail of the action plan show that the issue is a high priority at No. 10. The measures are being implemented accordingly speedily.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree for his comments about the charges and the Government's responsiveness. He also asked about inspections. We are keen to develop a system of general and binding rules as requirements that the Secretary of State can set out instead of permit conditions. That should reduce the Environment Agency's frequency and depth of inspection, and therefore lower costs. Following advice from the Committee and the Government, the agency will keep the number of inspections to the minimum commensurate with essential regulation. It has received that message clearly. This is a new field of regulation, and to some extent the agency will want to learn from experience in determining inspection cycles for the sector, but I repeat, the agency has certainly got the message.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to gold-plating, which I have heard about before. I did wonder whether he was arguing that we should aim for a deliberately sloppy response to directives, but decided that he was arguing instead for something that is merely a little less thorough, rigorous and British. I shall not mention any southern European states, but we all know what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If we agree to a measure and we pass it, it should be implemented—I note that you are looking a little uneasy, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I take the point that it should not be over-implemented.
On the question of joined-up government and insufficient co-ordination, relations between the DETR and MAFF have improved. I was not involved in such matters during the previous Government, but I am led to believe that co-ordination has improved significantly. I have some sympathy with the point about charging, because IPPC is concerned primarily with industry. Perhaps the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is saying that there should be a specific regulatory framework for agriculture, but there is no obvious reason why—there are considerable differences between industrial sectors, but no one would suggest that the paper industry should be treated differently from iron and steel. However, I agree that the provision should be proportionate and timely, and take note of the impact on the UK's competitiveness.

139WH
I appear to have misplaced my notes, but as I recall, the laying hens directive requires cages to be built on a larger scale. Should that require that an installation be extended, emissions are not likely to increase per se, so we do not believe that the directive will have a substantial effect.
Mr. Paice: I do not want to allow the Minister time to think of too many answers, but I should point out that, as a result of the directive, farmers will have to consider more than the number of birds that they keep in a cage. The Government's response makes it clear that farmers will not necessarily keep fewer hens, but I should remind the Minister that the same directive phases out battery cages altogether. No one is going to provide extra cages to re-house hens, when those cages will themselves be illegal in about 10 years' time. Increasingly, farmers will have to spend money on entirely different ways of keeping laying hens, or, as the Agriculture Committee suggested, cut down on numbers.
Mr. Meacher: If, as a result of the laying hens directive, they decide to reduce the size of the flock, they might fall outside the scope of the IPPC. I am not recommending that they do so, but that may be the effect of such a decision.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and others wondered whether a unique feature of horticulture is its contribution to net carbon dioxide emissions. Of course, there is no doubt that plants sequestrate carbon dioxide. Lord Marshall, the former president of the Confederation of British Industry, chaired the report that lay behind the climate change levy. The report made it clear that there must be an incentive for all businesses to save energy at the margin, which I am sure is right. He also noted that there was scope for energy efficiency savings right across business, including the agricultural sector. The levy will result in improved energy efficiency and even lower carbon emissions for the horticulture sector. It is, therefore, wrong to exclude the sector, but the contribution that it makes should be taken into account. Bearing in mind that the requirement under the climate change levy relates to all cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the fact that it saves carbon dioxide is already encapsulated in that definition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made a series of points, most of which I have already covered, about gold-plating and costs in relation to the rest of Europe. He also made the point, with which I agree, that we must not make things more difficult for sectors of farming such as the organic sector, which are very environmentally sensitive. Indeed, during the debate on genetic modification—I always say that I will make a speech without mentioning that, but here I go again—we concluded that we need a model of sustainability in agriculture. It is not a question of whether one is pro or anti-GM, but rather of what one means by sustainability in agriculture. We need to give a lead on that issue.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked why the charges for 2003–04 changed at the last minute. The proposals for the phasing-in of IPPC were
140WH
made by the Environment Agency and a very wide tranche of industry had to be brought within it, so not everything could be left to the last moment. I agree that the proposal, which I neither defend nor resist, to begin in 2003–04 might not have taken account of the state of the farming industry and, under pressure, it was pushed back to 2007. However, the idea that everyone can begin in 2007 is patently wrong. The only way in which the pig and poultry sectors can begin in 2007 is to bring forward other industrial sectors. On balance, I think that we agree that that is the correct approach.
The hon. Gentleman said that the charges remain high, and we have discussed that matter. He also asked how we should bear down on costs, and I have already said that the proper way to do that is via the review to which I have referred.
Mr. Curry: Or more competition.
Mr. Meacher: Indeed.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire also asked what action we should take regarding the costs of other member states, in relation to the review of those costs that is being undertaken. We shall, of course, look at them extremely closely. If it is true that our proposed costs constitute the lowest level that could be maintained consistent with proper regulation of intensive farming—as the Environment Agency suggests—it would be difficult to reduce them further. However, if the analysis showed that they could be taken lower, we should want an explanation of why that could not be carried through.
With regard to the NFU having to carry through the costs of arranging the negotiated agreements or reliefs, the Government want to keep the system for such agreements as straightforward as possible, to provide administrative simplicity for business. That can most efficiently be achieved by collective negotiation with trade associations. If anyone found a better, cheaper, more efficient way of doing it, we should be quite prepared to look at it.
With regard to horticulture and the 50 per cent. discount, our view is that if the right balance can be struck between protecting the competitiveness of UK horticulture and maintaining an added incentive to save energy, the firms that are subject to the negotiated agreements will have to implement all cost-effective energy saving measures to qualify for the discount, but for the horticulture sector the discount is unconditional. That is an important and unique concession on the part of the Government.
The points that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire raised about the definition of waste are best dealt with by correspondence. Under the 1991 waste framework directive that was introduced under his party's Government, the UK has outstanding obligations to transpose the directive's requirements on agricultural waste. I am told that it excludes animal carcasses, faecal matter and other natural non-dangerous substances. We can discuss in correspondence whether the examples that he gave, such as sawdust and the contents of certain barns, should be classified as waste or as a resource.
The hon. Gentleman asked about other countries introducing climate change-related taxes. The evidence is that they are doing so. Eight European countries have

141WH
a form of energy or carbon tax, and France and Belgium are working on proposals. It is difficult to compare such taxes between countries, because they work in different ways, but the headline rates for the UK's climate change levy place us towards the middle of the range of rates that operate in the eight EU countries that have carbon or energy taxes.
The picture is changing all the time. My latest information is that the German Parliament has agreed stages 2 and 3 of its eco-tax reform, which will significantly increase the rates that operate there before the climate change levy comes into effect in 2001. Industry is not unduly penalised in this country—we are probably around the middle of the pack in that respect.
142WH
However, I entirely support the view that we should not impose any higher costs than are strictly necessary for environmental purposes and for environmental regulation under IPPC.
I hope that I have not tested your patience too much, Madam Deputy Speaker, in seeking to respond to all the points that hon. Members raised. One or two items require further correspondence, and I shall be happy to deal with that. We await the report on practices in other countries, and I am sure that we shall return to the matter in the autumn.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Five o'clock.

DEFENCE

  HMS Cambridge
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the closure of HMS Cambridge. [132232]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 338W, to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). The investment appraisal concluded that the establishment's residual training activities could be delivered more cost-effectively elsewhere and the matter was subject to a period of formal consultation with the MOD trade unions. No representations have been received and consultation on this matter is now complete.

  I have, therefore, endorsed the proposal that HMS Cambridge should close and that plans for decommissioning and site vacation should proceed accordingly.

  Consultation will continue on matters affecting staff.

  Duke of York's Royal Military School
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Key Targets have been set for the Duke of York's Royal Military School for the financial year 2000–01. [132238]

  Dr. Moonie
  The chief executive of The Duke of York's Royal Military School has been set the following Key Targets for 2000–01.

  Key Target 1
  To achieve 100 per cent. of GCSE passes at grades A* to G.

  Key Target 2
  To achieve five or more GCSE passes at grades A* to C; 2000–01 target is 88 per cent.

  Key Target 3
  To achieve 90 per cent. of A level passes at grades A to E.

  Key Target 4
  To achieve three or more A level passes at grades A to E; 2000–01 target is 84 per cent.

  Key Target 5
  To achieve 36.5 per cent. of A level passes at Grades A and B.

  Key Target 6
  To achieve 100 per cent. award rate for GNVQ Advanced and BTEC National Diploma courses.

  Key Target 7
  To achieve places in higher education for at least 82 per cent. of sixth form leavers.

  Key Target 8
  To achieve a pupil per capita cost of no more than £13,064.
  246W
  Key Target 9
  To generate income of at least £500,000.

  Key Target 10
  To achieve at least 280 applications for September 2001 intake.

  Defence Estates Agency
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Key Targets have been set for the Defence Estates Agency for the financial year 2000–01. [132239]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following key targets have been set for Defence Estates for 2000–01:

  Key Target 1
  To demonstrate an improvement of 5 per cent. (over the figure for 1999–2000) in the levels of satisfaction expressed by the agency's customers both with customer service and effectiveness of communication, as measured by the 2000–01 customer survey.

  Key Target 2
  To achieve net disposal receipts of £155 million by 31 March 2001.

  Key Target 3
  To launch the procurement phase of three 'one stop shop' prime contracts by 31 March 2001.

  Key Target 4
  To publish an interim stewardship report on performance against the strategy for the defence estate by 31 December 2000.

  Key Target 5
  To achieve 90 per cent. of all agreed project milestones during 2000–01.

  Key Target 6
  To launch an improved guide to public access to the defence estate supported by an internet website during 2000–01.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the pattern of military low flying activity in the United Kingdom during the training year 1999–2000. [132240]

  Dr. Moonie
  The ability to fly fast and low continues to be an essential skill in our armoury of tactics. Training for aircrew to achieve and maintain these skills is vital.

  The amount of low flying training carried out in the UK Low Flying System during the training year April 1999 to March 2000 was the minimum necessary for aircrew to reach and maintain these skills. Hours booked for low flying training during this period amounted to some 15 per cent. less than for 1998. Some of this reduction can be attributed to the number of aircraft and crews committed to overseas deployments. Since detailed records of hours booked began in 1995, the total overall has reduced by 36 per cent. (some 24,200 hours) with fixed-wing activity showing the greatest reduction of 42 per cent. (19,800 hours).

  The distribution of low flying training across the UK has not changed significantly. We continue to try and spread it as widely as practicable, but for a variety of operational, geographical and climatic constraints some parts of the country will see more than others.

  The paper published for 1998 (see the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) 28 April 1999, Official Report, column 147W), made clear that for the future this information

  247W
  would be published on a financial year basis. I have today placed in the Library of the House a paper giving a detailed account of low flying training in the UK Low Flying System. It provides information for the transitional period January 1999 to March 2000.

  Further copies of the paper, and the video and leaflet mentioned in the text, can be obtained from the following address:

  Secretariat (Air Staff) 2

  Ministry of Defence

  Room 8247

  Main Building

  Whitehall

  London SWIA 2HB.

  Gulf Veterans
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the most recent figures for deaths among(a) Gulf veterans and (b) the comparison group. [132241]

  Deaths of UK Gulf veterans1 April 1991–30 June 2000—Causes (coded to ICD-9)2

  ICD Chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality rate

  All deaths

  452

  439

  1.03

  All cause coded deaths

  445

  429

  1.04

  Disease-related causes

  156

  190

  0.82

  I

  Infectious and parasitic diseases

  3

  2

  1.50

  II

  Cancers

  64

  68

  0.94

  III

  Endocrine and immune disorders

  1

  4

  0.25

  V

  Mental disorders

  8

  11

  0.73

  VI

  Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs

  7

  4

  1.75

  VII

  Diseases of the circulatory system

  57

  76

  0.75

  VIII

  Diseases of the respiratory system

  7

  4

  1.75

  IX

  Diseases of the digestive system

  6

  11

  0.55

  IV, X-XVI

  All other disease-related causes

  3

  10

  0.30

  EXVII

  External causes of injury and poisoning

  289

  239

  1.21

  Railway accidents

  4

  1

  4.00

  Motor vehicle accidents

  103

  80

  1.29

  Water transport accidents

  3

  1

  3.00

  Air and space accidents

  25

  16

  1.56

  Other vehicle accidents

  0

  2

  0.00

  Accidental poisoning

  9

  12

  0.75

  Accidental falls

  7

  6

  1.17

  Accidents due to fire/flames

  0

  1

  0.00

  Accidents due to natural environmental factors

  2

  2

  1.00

  Accidents due to submersion/suffocation/foreign bodies

  15

  6

  2.50

  Other accidents

  31

  24

  1.29

  Late effects of accident/injury

  0

  1

  0.00

  Suicide and injury undetermined whether accidental

  83

  79

  1.05

  Homicide

  4

  4

  1.00

  Injury resulting from the operations of war

  3

  4

  0.75

  Other deaths for which coded cause data are not yet available

  4

  5

  —

  Overseas deaths for which cause data are not available

  3

  5

  —

  1 Service and ex-Service personnel only

  2 World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision 1977

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what data he has collated on the general pattern of chemical warfare agent alerts during the Gulf conflict. [132242]

  Mr. Spellar
  Our 1997 policy statement "Gulf Veterans' Illnesses: A New Beginning" set out a number of commitments to help address the health concerns of Gulf Veterans. One of these commitments was to review specific incidents of suggested biological or chemical
  248W
  Mr. Spellar
  Peer reviewed scientific data comparing the mortality of UK Gulf veterans to an era group of service personnel who did not deploy to the Gulf was published for the first time in "The Lancet" on 1 July 2000. The Ministry of Defence will now continue to monitor the mortality of both Gulf veterans and the era group and will publish updated figures on a regular basis. The figures as at 30 June 2000 are shown in the table. Overall, in the period 1 April 1991 to 30 June 2000 the mortality of UK Gulf veterans was only slightly greater than that of the comparison group. The number of Gulf veterans dying from disease-related causes is rather less than for the comparison group, whereas the number of Gulf veterans dying of external causes is rather higher than for the comparison group.

  The Ministry of Defence will conduct a more detailed analysis of road traffic accidents, to establish whether there are any underlying tends that might help explain this excess.

  warfare exposures. As part of this commitment I am today publishing the third paper looking at incidents where veterans have suggested they were exposed to chemical warfare agents. This paper is entitled "A Review of UK Forces Chemical Warfare Agent Alerts During the 1990–1991 Gulf Conflict". I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.

  This paper looks at the general pattern of chemical alarms during the conflict. The review has shown that

  249W
  there was usually a straightforward explanation given at the time for chemical warfare agent detection equipment alarming. There is no evidence to suggest Iraqi use of chemical weapons, or the presence of chemical weapons in any of the UK alarms.

  The paper reviews in detail two specific incidents: Dhahran on the night of 20 January 1991 when a Scud was destroyed by a Patriot missile close to the airfield there, and Al Jubayl on the morning of 16 February 1991 when a Scud landed in the water in the port area. On both occasions there is no evidence to suggest that the Scuds carried anything other than a conventional warhead.

  Military Bases (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the(a) RAF, (b) Royal Naval, (c) Army and (d) other military bases in the United Kingdom where US personnel outnumber UK personnel have been visited by Ministers from his Department since 1 May 1997; and what percentage this represents of the total number of each such base in the United Kingdom. [131330]

  Dr. Moonie
  Of the bases, all RAF, in the UK where US personnel outnumber UK personnel, two have been visited by Ministers from this Department since 1 May 1997. These are RAF Fairford and RAF Menwith Hill. This represents 25 per cent. of the total number of such bases.

  Chinook Crash
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the simulation undertaken by the Defence Research Agency as part of the Board of Inquiry investigation into the crash of RAF Chinook ZD576 was able to determine the(a) precise indicated airspeed and (b) height of the aircraft 40 seconds prior to impact; [131525]

  (2) if DERA at Boscombe Down considered the FADEC system for the Chinook MKII to be flight safety critical at the time of the Mull of Kintyre crash in 1994. [131524]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Air Accident Investigation Branch were given unrestricted access to all personnel and all information during the investigation into the crash of RAF Chinook ZD576. [131526]

  Mr. Spellar
  Yes.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will describe the deployment of each home unit of the Royal Irish Regiment on each day from 2 to 13 July. [130465]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the period in question, the six Home Service Battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment were deployed at various locations around the Province on security duties in support of the RUC. Information about the specific deployment of each unit within each 250W
  Battalion for each day in the period 2–13 July is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment in each unit(a) applied to take and (b) took leave from their duties on (i) 25 June, (ii) 2 July and (iii) 9 July. [130466]

  Mr. Spellar
  The dates mentioned fell within a period during which the Royal Irish Regiment were either preparing for, or actually engaged in, operations to support the RUC over the Marching Season. This precludes the taking of leave.

  Special Investigations Branch
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 June 2000,Official Report, column 449W, (a) in what circumstances this photograph was taken, what interpretation he puts on this photo-shoot and what assessment has he made of the impact of this upon community relations in the area, (b) what formal administrative action procedures have been initiated and what stage they are at now, (c) what body or rank of officer was responsible for considering whether to initiate disciplinary action against (i) the major and (ii) the warrant officer who took photographs, (d) what instructions have been issued subsequent to this inquiry concerning soldiers agreeing to pose for photographs with sectarian displays, (e) if the soldiers were under orders to pose for these photographs, (f) how many refused, (g) what attempts have been made to seek the return and destruction of these photographs, (h) if the flag was obtained with the consent of the Loyal Orange Lodge, (i) how the flag was transported to the Royal Irish Regiment barracks, (j) what the cost of printing 40 copies of the photograph was, (k) who paid this bill, (1) who owned the camera with which the photograph was taken, (m) how many companies of the Royal Irish Regiment have posed for regimental photographs with sectarian flags or banners in the current year and (n) if he will place a copy of the Special Investigations report in the Library. [130467]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Loyal Orange Order
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his answer of 15 March 2000,Official Report, column 204W, if he will review his decision not to deem the Loyal Orange Order a secretive organisation within the scope of the Joint Service Defence Council Instruction (JS DCI 75/99) on Membership of Societies such as Freemasons. [130468]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have no plans to review my decision.

  Type 45 Destroyers (Procurement)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will quantify the amount of work potentially available to yards other than those of BAE Systems and Vosper Thornycroft under the modular procurement system to be used for the purchase of Type 45 destroyers. [130632]

  Mr. Hoon
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.
  251W
  Letter from G. Beaven to Mr. Ben Chapman, dated 20 July 2000:
  I am writing in response to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence with regard to the amount of Type 45 work potentially available to yards other than those of BAE SYSTEMS and Vosper Thornycroft. This falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Subject to the completion of satisfactory negotiations, the order for the first three Type 45 destroyers is planned for placement later this year with BAE SYSTEMS, the Prime Contractor for the Programme. The first and third ship are planned to be assembled by BAE SYSTEMS Marine and the second by Vosper Thornycroft.
  The intended construction method distinguishes between `assembly' and the 'manufacture' of modules which can be constructed at a number of different locations and brought together at a shipyard for final assembly. We intend that BAE SYSTEMS Marine and Vosper Thornycroft will, between them, undertake as a minimum about 50 per cent. of the manufacture of the first three ships with the remainder being competed widely within UK industry. This provides the opportunity for shipyards around the UK such as Cammell Laird to bid for work in this programme. If they wish to do so, it is important that they contact the Prime Contractor and register their interest.
  I expect an order to be placed around 2004 for the second batch of three Type 45 ships and we anticipate that the competition for sub-contracts to manufacture the modules for these vessels will rise to 100 per cent.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Expenditure
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what amounts were(a) budgeted for by her Department, (b) expended and (c) not spent in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000; and if the funds not spent in each of those years were carried forward. [130864]

  Clare Short
  Expenditure compared with Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) for the period in question is as follows:

  £ million

  Total DEL

  Total expenditure

  Balance carried forward

  1997–98

  1,595

  1,592

  3

  1998–99

  1,777

  1,740

  37

  1999–2000

  1,943

  11,938

  5

  1 Estimated, subject to confirmation by the National Audit Office.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BNFL
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will request from BNFL copies of technical papers on the subject of the dry storage of previously wet stored magnox fuel and place them in the Library. [131364]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I understand that BNFL does hold technical papers which deal with this issue. These are the property of either BNFL or other companies. I have, therefore, asked the Chairman of BNFL to write to my hon. Friend directly in response to his request.
  252W
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the implications of the agreement at the June 2000 OSPAR conference for BNFL's future business plan. [130866]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In planning its future business, BNFL will need to take account of the UK's commitments to OSPAR and in particular of the draft National Discharge Strategy published by DETR in June. BNFL has already stated that it welcomes that strategy document and has expressed its commitment to helping to achieve its aims.

  Bereavement
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance the Government provide to people who have recently suffered a bereavement or who are considering funeral arrangements. [132231]

  Dr. Howells
  In conjunction with his ongoing inquires into consumer issues related to at-need funerals, the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading has published online advice to help anyone who is in the daunting position of planning a funeral. The website is at www.oft.gov.uk

  E-commerce
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans to assist firms to develop e-commerce capacity. [130166]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) on 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 457W, which described plans to support firms to develop e-commerce capacity.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April which requested information, pursuant to his previous answers. [131227]

  Mr. Byers
  Of the 1,552 parliamentary questions tabled during the period, 56 requested information pursuant to previous answers.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  GM Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 501, if he will list the (a) dates on which meetings took place between Advanta Seeds and officials from his Department between 17 April and 17 May, (b) names and functions of the officials attending those meetings, (c) subjects discussed, (d) conclusions reached and (e) advice given by his officials to Advanta Seeds. [128467]
  253W
  Mr. Meacher
  Officials from my Department met with representatives from Advanta Seeds Ltd. on 17 April. A note of that meeting, which gives the information requested, is available in the House Library. There were no subsequent meetings.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on evaluating research commissioned by him on the effect of GMOs in the human and animal food chain; and what representations he has received on such research. [128595]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has not commissioned any research on the effect of the GMOs in the human and animal food chain. Responsibility for this lies with the Food Standards Agency.

  MOT Centres
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by administrative region for each of the last five years the number of(a) MOT centres that have lost their certification, (b) nominated testers that have lost their accreditation in these centres, (c) nominated testers that have lost their accreditation in centres that have not closed, (d) complaints

  Summary of authorised examiners withdrawn and nominated testers disqualified following a check by VI

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  Area

  AEs withdrawn

  Testers disqualified

  AEs withdrawn

  Testers disqualified

  AEs withdrawn

  Testers disqualified

  AEs withdrawn

  Testers disqualified

  AEs withdrawn

  Testers disqualified

  Scotland

  13

  23

  7

  18

  10

  25

  18

  35

  17

  30

  North Eastern

  13

  60

  19

  44

  31

  55

  25

  73

  37

  67

  North Western

  13

  23

  19

  27

  14

  28

  17

  68

  15

  53

  West Midlands

  10

  25

  32

  34

  17

  37

  19

  45

  12

  21

  Eastern

  8

  32

  19

  31

  26

  34

  21

  25

  17

  28

  South Eastern

  12

  33

  15

  65

  13

  64

  53

  87

  35

  53

  Western

  9

  24

  17

  51

  17

  50

  21

  66

  24

  75

  South Wales

  15

  22

  15

  19

  13

  7

  7

  9

  10

  9

  National

  93

  242

  143

  289

  141

  300

  181

  407

  167

  336

  Total checks

  55,561

  57,913

  74,742

  73,642

  72,202

  As percentage of checks

  0.17

  0.44

  0.25

  0.50

  0.19

  0.40

  0.25

  0.55

  0.23

  0.47

  Note:

  Total checks includes routine visits, targeted checks and inspections following a complaint

  Summary of authorised examiners withdrawn and nominated testers disqualified following a targeted check or complaint

  Number

  Targeted checks and complaints

  As percentage of checks

  1999–2000

  Authorised Examiners

  67

  16,176

  0.41

  Nominated Testers

  232

  1.43

  1998–99

  Authorised Examiners

  127

  19,567

  0.65

  Nominated Testers

  274

  1.40

  1997–98

  Authorised Examiners

  133

  25,668

  0.52

  Nominated Testers

  286

  1.11

  1996–97

  Authorised Examiners

  145

  26,024

  0.56

  Nominated Testers

  381

  1.46

  1995–96

  Authorised Examiners

  140

  26,888

  0.52

  Nominated Testers

  330

  1.23

  254W
  investigated about MOT centres and the percentage which led to the withdrawal of (i) MOT centre certification and (ii) nominated tester accreditation and (e) routine inspections carried out and the percentage which have led to the withdrawal of (i) MOT centre certification and (ii) nominated tester accreditation. [130021]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: The premises at which MOT testing is carried out are known as vehicle testing stations (VTS), operated by an Authorised Examiner (AE), which may be an individual, a partnership or a company. If an examiner's authorisation is withdrawn, the premises can no longer be used as a Vehicle Testing Station and identity as such ceases. Nominated Testers (NT) work under the direction of the Authorised Examiner.

  The number of Authorised Examiners that have had their authorisation withdrawn and nominated testers disqualified from testing in the last five years, by region, is shown in the table.

  The number of authorisations withdrawn or testers disqualified, following complaint to, or targeted check by the Vehicle Inspectorate, or following a routine check, is not collated by region and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost; the tables show the figures nationally.

  The number of nominated testers disqualified from testing at VTS where the authorised examiner's authorisation has not been withdrawn is not held centrally.

  Summary of authorised examiners withdrawn and nominated testers disqualified following a routine check by VI

  Number

  Routine checks

  As percentage of checks

  1999–2000

  Authorised Examiners

  26

  39,385

  0.07

  Nominated Testers

  10

  0.03

  1998–99

  Authorised Examiners

  16

  38,346

  0.04

  Nominated Testers

  15

  0.04

  1997–98

  Authorised Examiners

  8

  49,074

  0.02

  Nominated Testers

  14

  0.03

  7996–97

  Authorised Examiners

  36

  47,618

  0.08

  Nominated Testers

  26

  0.05

  1995–96

  Authorised Examiners

  27

  45,314

  0.06

  Nominated Testers

  6

  0.01

  Vehicle Ownership (Registration)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to(a) strengthen and (b) enforce the legal requirement for changes of vehicle ownership to be registered; and if he will make a statement. [130644]

  Mr. Hill
  The Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (VCRAT) has drawn up a number of proposals, which will strengthen vehicle registration requirements. The Government are seeking a suitable opportunity to introduce the necessary legislation.

  Both the buyer and seller are required to tell the Secretary of State of a vehicle transfer. DVLA already takes enforcement action against vehicle keepers who do not comply with the requirements to notify acquisition and disposal. Around 39,000 cases were dealt with last year. In addition, a further 12,000 cases were actioned following failure to undertake Statutory Off-Road Notification (SORN).

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance his Department is giving to councils which, because changes of vehicle ownership have not been registered, are(a) unable to recover the cost of removing abandoned vehicles and (b) cannot take action to prosecute; and if he will make a statement. [130645]

  Mr. Hill
  No assistance is being given at this time. The existing arrangements with local authorities will be reviewed as we develop proposals for implementing the proposed European End-of-Life Vehicles Directive in the UK.

  Former Railway Land
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if RDAs are notified by the British Railways Board of its intention to dispose of former railway land; if their consent for disposal is needed; and if he will make a statement. [130627]

  Mr. Hill
  Before the British Railways Board disposes of former railway land, the marketing process requires the Board to notify rail industry parties, local authorities, local transport operators and Passenger Transport Executives of its intention. The British Railways Board has confirmed that it includes Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in this notification process. The consent of RDAs is not a prerequisite for disposal but their views are taken into account before a final decision is taken.

  London Tramways
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the development of a tramway system in the Greater London area. [131161]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a matter for the Mayor of London. However, as the Government's 10 year plan for transport indicates, the Government will provide resources which could deliver at least two new tram/guided bus schemes in London.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his reasons were for delegating to the Government Office of the South East the response to Horsham District Council's letter of 31 May regarding regional planning guidance. [130793]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government Office for the South East, who lead on the work on Regional Planning Guidance, have received over 900 responses to consultation on the draft Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9). In the case of such consultation exercises it is normal practice for the Secretary of State to delegate to officials the task of collating, analysing and acknowledging responses.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on measures to increase rural bus services in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [131158]

  Mr. Hill
  Shropshire County Council was allocated £630,354 of Rural Bus Subsidy Grant in 1998–99, with the same amount allocated to the Council for 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  In 1999–2000 the Council used its allocation to fund 58 services, of which 28 served Shrewsbury. Of the services serving Shrewsbury, 10 were entirely new and 18 were improvements to existing services. The County Council have also introduced a bike bus between Ellesmere and Shrewsbury, funded through the 1999 Rural Bus Challenge Competition, and on 11 July we invited bids for the 2000 Rural Bus Challenge Competition.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received on the hearing held by the European Parliament's Transport Committee in June on the transport of nuclear waste and other radioactive materials. [130847]

  Mr. Hill
  I have not received any reports of the public hearings held by the European Parliament's Committee on Regional policy, Transport and Tourism on 21 June into the Transport of Radioactive Material in the European Union at this time. I understand that information on these hearings, including any reports, will be made available on the internet website http://www.europarl.eu.int/ when they are published.

  Ports
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will request from the European Commission more time for the European Transport Workers' Federation to consult its members on the Commission's proposals on Access to the Port Service Market; [R] [130858]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications for the Port of London Authority of the proposals of the European Commissioner for Energy and Transport made on 26 May in respect of state aid and port services; and if he will make a statement; [R] [130860]
  257W
  (3) if Ministers will meet dock and maritime trade union representatives prior to formulating the United Kingdom response to the proposals of the European Commissioner for Energy and Transport made on 26 May in respect of ports competition and which are now the subject of consultation; and if he will make a statement. [R] [130861]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: The European Commission has not yet published formal proposals on port services and state aid, but we understand that proposals are planned for later this year. Officials are continuing to keep in touch with the Commission on these issues. We shall consult widely on any specific proposals that the Commission brings forward, and I would be happy to meet representatives of the dock and maritime trade unions in due course.

  Power Stations (Carlisle)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his officials last met representatives of Border Biofuels; and what discussions they had concerning the construction of a power station at Carlisle. [131411]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There have been no meetings between the Secretary of State's officials and Border Biofuels to discuss their planning application, but I understand that the company has been in discussion with the Environment Agency about related (IPPC) authorisations.

  Port Waste Reception Facilities
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the Scottish port authorities consulted by his Department regarding the inclusion of indirect fees for port waste management facilities into the harbour dues, proposed by the European Parliament in the Draft Directive on Port Waste Reception Facilities; and if he will make a statement. [131013]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 19 July 2000]: Throughout the process of working up the Government's policy on port waste management planning, we developed our proposals through consultation with the Marine Pollution Advisory Group, which includes representatives of central and local government, the ports, shipping and waste industries and environmental non-governmental organisations. Because the provision of adequate port waste reception facilities is an international obligation under the MARPOL Convention, we need a national strategy. That strategy takes account of the interests of ports in all parts of the UK.

  The EC Directive substantially mirrors the UK's own port waste management legislation and practice. The UK has been involved at every stage of the Directive, and—while we have not consulted, or received representations from, any individual ports—we have consulted closely with the representative bodies of the UK ports industry on specific issues associated with the Directive.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how he monitors the application of building regulations; and if he will make a statement; [131575]
  258W
  (2) which organisation is responsible for ensuring that building regulations are complied with; and if he will make a statement. [131573]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under the Building Act 1984, local authorities are responsible for enforcing building regulations in the areas, subject to provisions in the Act for private sector approved inspectors to carry out building control in cases where the person carrying out the work opts for this alternative. Local authorities' building control services are subject to the duty of Best Value, and are periodically inspected by the Audit Commission.

  Under the approved inspectors regulations persons or bodies wishing to become approved inspectors must apply to the Construction Industry Council which is the body designated by the Secretary of State for the purpose of approving inspectors. The CIC carefully scrutinises applicants' qualifications and experience. Approved inspectors' terms of approval last for five years, and those wishing to continue must apply to the CIC for re-approval.

  OSPAR Conference
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the June 2000 OSPAR conference. [130867]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 10 July 2000,Official Report, columns 397–98W.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what written guidance he has given to BNFL on ensuring its commitments under the OSPAR Sintra agreement are met in respect of discharges from Sellafield. [130868]

  Mr. Meacher
  BNFL is aware of the Government's policy that there should be progressive reductions in radioactive discharges. The Government will shortly publish for consultation a draft of the statutory guidance that it proposes to issue to the Environment Agency on the setting of radioactive discharge authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act. The draft guidance will reiterate the requirement that there should be progressive reductions in radioactive discharges. The guidance will also ensure that discharge authorisations granted by the Agency are consistent with the Government's radioactive discharges strategy, a draft of which was published for consultation on 21 June. The strategy sets out how the Government are going to meet the commitments entered into at the OSPAR meeting in Sintra in 1998 to reduce radioactive discharges.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received a copy of the resolution passed by the Isle of Man Tynwald on 21 June in respect of the OSPAR convention and Sellafield; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [130869]

  Mr. Meacher
  Yes. I understand that the text of the resolution can be found in the Tynwald Votes and Proceedings on the Tynwald website www.tynwald.isle-of-man.org.im. I will place a copy in the Library.

  Fuel Duty Rebate
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will extend the fuel duty rebate to electrically-operated vehicles which perform taxi duties. [131531]

  Mr. Hill
  Under current legislation operators of local bus services are rebated part of the duty they have paid on the fuel used in providing those services. We have no plans to pay fuel duty rebate to the operators of taxi services or to extend it so that it provides a grant to operators of vehicles to which fuel duty is not applicable.

  The Commission for Integrated Transport is currently examining possible changes to the fuel duty rebate scheme as part of its study of all aspects of public funding for bus services. We will carefully consider the Commission's recommendations which are due later this year.

  Regional Planning Guidance (South West)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the public examination of the draft Regional Planning Guidance for the South West will be completed; when the Inspector's report on the draft Regional Planning Guidance for the South West will be issued; when the final Regional Planning Guidance for the South West will be issued for material consideration by planning authorities; and if he will make a statement. [131580]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Public Examination of the draft Regional Planning Guidance for the South West took place in March 2000. The report of the Panel for the Public Examination has not yet been received, but is expected shortly. Arrangements will be made for its publication on receipt of it. The Secretary of State's proposals for change to the draft Regional Planning Guidance will be made in the light of the Panel's report and recommendations, and other consultation comments received by the Panel in autumn 1999 but not addressed at the Public Examination. These proposals for change should be available for consultation in the autumn, and the final revised Regional Planning Guidance for the South West published early in 2001.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the net present cost is of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road project under the Private Finance Initiative; what the value is of the public sector comparators in(a) pre-risk and (b) risk adjusted terms; what risks are identified as having been transferred; and if he will make a statement. [131585]

  Mr. Hill
  The Birmingham Northern Relief Road is to be built, financed, operated and maintained by the concessionaire Midland Expressway Ltd. at its own cost and risk and without recourse to Government Funds or to Government guarantees. A cost benefit analysis carried out in 1991 showed the scheme proposed by Midland Expressway having a benefit: cost ratio of more than 2:1.

  Pollution
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government Response to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's 21 report (Setting Environmental Standards) will be published. [132371]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's Response to the Commission's Report on Setting Environmental Standards has been published today. I wish to express my thanks to the previous Chairman of the Commission, Sir John Houghton, the current Chairman, Sir Tom Blundell, and their colleagues for their continued commitment to issues which are of equal importance to the public as to the Government.

  The Government are responding positively to many of the points made by the Commission in its report on Setting Environmental Standards;
  On the significance of environmental standards the Government agree with the Commission that the nature of environmental standards has significantly changed over the last 30 years. There are more numerical standards, more standards set internationally and more formal techniques to aid decision-making. There is also increased recognition that environmental standards need to be seen more broadly, hence the emphasis the Government are putting on sustainable development.
  On procedures for setting standards the Government agree with the Commission that policy analysis needs to identify various components, such as scientific assessment, risk and economic appraisal. There is a need for transparency in the decision-making process and public values need to be articulated and considered.
  On scientific understanding the Government agree with the Commission that limitations and uncertainties in scientific understanding must be openly acknowledged, and that social and ethical considerations must be accounted for.
  On technological options the Government agree with the importance the Commission accords life cycle assessment as a tool for managing environmental impacts, and wishes to point out that they are actively addressing particular concerns on chemicals following the Chemicals Strategy.
  On risk and uncertainty the Government recognise the importance of transparent risk assessment and would like to point out that much work is in hand by the HSE and the Environment Agency, among others.
  On economic appraisal the Government agree with the Commission that economic appraisal is a part of all policy-making, although this can pose particular challenges as many environmental goods cannot be valued in money terms. As part of the "Modernising Government" work on good policy-making, the Cabinet Office has developed a "Toolkit for Policy-makers". The aim of this Toolkit is to ensure that policy makers take into account the impact of policy proposals on environment, business, charities and the voluntary sector, health, race, gender, the disabled, etc.
  On implementing environmental policies the Government agree that different instruments should be used in combination to achieve the best result; economic instruments and voluntary agreements are complementary to direct regulation and not alternatives.
  On articulating values the Government recognise that traditional methods of consultation are not always adequate, and are making a real effort to give attention to new, more open, participation methods.

  The full Response will be available on the Department website (www.detr.gov.uk) and I am placing copies in the Library.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to implement the proposal in his White Paper, entitled "Tomorrow's Roads, a Review of Penalties for Road Traffic Offences". [130304]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  The work of the review of penalties for road traffic offences is almost complete. The Government hope to publish a consultation document, setting out the proposals of the review, shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  House of Lords
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will break down the appointments to the House of Lords, by party affiliation, since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [123626]

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is as follows:

  Appointments to the House of Lords since 1 May 19971

  Party

  New life peerages2

  Hereditaries who became life peers on 2 November 19993

  Law Lords

  Conservative

  30

  7

  —

  Labour4

  98

  2

  —

  Lib. Dem.

  31

  0

  —

  Crossbench

  27

  1

  4

  Other

  1

  —

  —

  1 Appointment is taken to mean the date on which a peerage was publicly announced

  2 Includes the right hon. Member for Huntingdon's (Mr. Major) Resignation Honours (10 Conservative, announced on 2 August 1997), but not his Dissolution Honours which were announced before 1 May 1997

  3 Four Hereditaries of first creation who accepted life peerages and six Hereditaries who were former Leaders of the House

  4 Includes Baroness Lester, now deceased

  The current position is that there are 233 Conservative peers, compared to 199 Labour peers and 63 Liberal Democrats. The remainder are 164 Crossbenchers, 26 archbishops and bishops and 10 others.

  From 1979 to 1997 the last Conservative Government created 365 peers (excluding Law Lords). Despite retaining an almost 4 to 1 advantage over Labour in the House of Lords the number of Conservative peers created was nearly double that of Labour peers. The party breakdown of these was as follows: Conservative 173, Labour 96, Liberal/SDP/Liberal Democrats 27 and Independent/Crossbencher 69.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the Director of the Serious Fraud Office intends to publish her annual report. [132237]
  262W
  The Solicitor-General
  I can confirm that I have today placed copies of the annual report in the Libraries of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  GM Seeds
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when Ministers in(a) his Department, (b) the DETR, (c) the Scotland Office, (d) the Wales Office, (e) the Northern Ireland Office and (f) the Cabinet Office were first informed of the contamination of Advanta rapeseed with GM varieties. [126859]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: MAFF Ministers were informed on 18 April. The co-ordination of Government policy in this area falls outside my ministerial responsibilities.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government first informed(a) the Food Standards Agency, (b) English Nature, (c) the Scottish Executive, (d) the Welsh Assembly, (e) the Advisory Commission on Releases into the Environment and (f) the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes that Advanta rapeseed had become contaminated with GM varieties. [126820]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: The co-ordination of Government policy in this area is not part of my ministerial responsibility.

  Agricultural Aid
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the administration costs of paying agricultural aid. [128304]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 29 June 2000]: The administration costs of paying agricultural aid was approximately £67.5 million in the last financial year. This figure covers the payment of some £2.2 billion under CAP and agri-environment schemes, and BSE emergency measures, by the Ministry's regional organisation and the Intervention Board. It also includes the cost of support work carried out by the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency and ADAS on the agri-environment schemes.

  Fallen Stock
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent estimate he has made of the proportion of the national herds of cattle and national flocks of sheep which die each year and have to be disposed of as fallen stock; what estimates he has made of the costs involved; and to what extent such work is currently performed by hunts. [130264]

  Ms Quin
  This Department has made no estimates of the proportion of the cattle and sheep populations which have to be disposed of as fallen stock, or of the costs involved. However, the Meat and Livestock Commission estimates that for all livestock production, the proportion is between 2 and 4 per cent. For cattle, the Licensed Animal Slaughterers and Salvage Association has estimated the proportions as 7.5 per cent. (dairy) 3.5 per cent. (beef) and 5.5 per cent. (other cattle). A small-scale and limited survey carried out by this Department suggested that, of these
  263W
  fallen stock, around 40 per cent. of calves, 32 per cent. of adult bovines and 15 per cent. of sheep were disposed of to hunt kennels in 1999.

  Food Distribution Industry
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Institute of Grocery Distribution in respect of a code of practice for buyers and sellers in the food chain. [130925]

  Ms Quin
  We have encouraged the major retailers to draw up a code of good practice covering business relationships throughout the food chain. The Institute of Grocery Distribution is facilitating this exercise and is keeping us informed of progress.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the level of quota swap which has occurred between sand eels and Baltic cod. [131252]

  Mr. Morley
  None. There have been no recent exchanges of quota between member states involving sand eels and Baltic cod.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government support the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation policy document, "Zonal management; a new vision of Europe's fisheries". [131352]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government welcome this document which makes a useful and constructive contribution to the debate on how to secure an improved regional dimension to the Common Fisheries Policy and greater involvement by fishermen in fisheries management.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on expenditure in the UK in the past three years from EU budget line B2–903A. [130786]

  Mr. Morley
  This is a new budget line established in 2000. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 28 June 2000,Official Report, column 497W, which explained its purpose and that it does not cover funding of national projects.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vessels, broken down by nationality, fish for sand eels within the six and 12 mile limits. [130789]

  Mr. Morley
  Only UK vessels are able to fish for sand eels within the six to 12 mile limits. However, our records do not enable us to identify how many do so.

  Specified Risk Material
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if any specified risk material has been imported for destruction in this country. [131378]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: The Specified Risk Material Order 1997 and the Specified Risk Material (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, in force since 1 January 1998, do not permit the importation of SRM into the UK for destruction.
  264W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the applications he has received seeking permission to import specified risk material into this country, indicating in each case the(a) name of the applicant, (b) date of the application and (c) outcome of the application. [131377]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: Since the introduction of the Specified Risk Material Order 1997 and the Specified Risk Material (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 on 1 January 1998, eight applications have been received to import SRM into the UK, all of which were approved. Details of the names of the applicants are commercially confidential.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1999–2000 Annual Report for the Central Science Laboratory. [132367]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The 1999–2000 Annual Report and Accounts for the Central Science Laboratory were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for resources allocated under the outgoers element of the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme have been made by pig producers(a) nationally, (b) in the Bury St. Edmunds parliamentary constituency and (c) in Suffolk. [131134]

  Ms Quin
  None; under state aid rules, we must await European Commission clearance of the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme before opening the outgoers element for applications.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many abattoirs have closed in each of the past 18 months. [131097]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of abattoirs in Great Britain which ceased operating in each month from January 1999 to June 2000 is in the table.

  Fresh meat

  Poultry meat, farmed game meat and rabbit meat

  Full throughput

  Low throughput

  Full throughput

  Low throughput

  1999

  January

  —

  —

  1

  2

  February

  —

  2

  —

  1

  March

  —

  3

  —

  1

  April

  —

  3

  —

  2

  May

  2

  —

  —

  —

  June

  —

  2

  —

  —

  July

  —

  3

  —

  1

  August

  —

  —

  —

  —

  September

  —

  1

  —

  —

  October

  —

  2

  —

  —

  November

  1

  1

  —

  1

  December

  —

  2

  1

  —

  265W

  Fresh meat

  Poultry meat, farmed game meat and rabbit meat

  Full throughput

  Low throughput

  Full throughput

  Low throughput

  2000

  January

  —

  —

  —

  1

  February

  1

  —

  —

  —

  March

  3

  4

  1

  —

  April

  1

  —

  —

  —

  May

  2

  2

  —

  —

  June

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Total for Period

  10

  26

  3

  9

WALES

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for his Department and its agencies the approved list of manufacturers of(a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles; and if he will make a statement on his Department's leasing and purchasing policy. [128995]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The only cars used by the Wales Office are provided for ministerial use by the Government Car Service, and no commercial vehicles are used. My Department does not have any agencies, and neither leases nor buys vehicles.

  The answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 19 July 2000, Official Report, column 191W, gives details for cars provided for the use of Ministers by the Government Car Service.

  New Deal
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales who have completed the New Deal once have(a) re-entered the gateway to New Deal for a second time and (b) progressed onto a second New Deal option. [130987]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  To the end of April 2000, 2,560 young people in Wales entered the gateway for a second time. Of these, 873 progressed onto a New Deal option.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales who have been participants in(a) the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, (b) the New Deal for those aged 25 and over and (c) the New Deal for older workers have subsequently enrolled on the New Deal for a second time. [130989]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  To the end of April 2000, 3,030 young people in Wales and 4,100 people aged 25+ entered the New Deal for a second time. Similar information is not available for the 50+ New Deal programme.

  Assembly
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures are in place to monitor the effectiveness of the concordats between the Government and the Welsh Assembly. [131042]
  266W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Office has responsibility for ensuring that the devolution settlement for Wales continues to be implemented as effectively as possible. This includes monitoring the mechanisms and procedures which have been put in place to deliver devolution.

  The concordats are informal and flexible agreements to which both parties commit themselves. The overarching and bilateral concordats provide for a review by the parties to them after one year of operation and thereafter at regular intervals.

  The Joint Ministerial Committee also keeps the broad operation of the settlement under review and looks at the effectiveness of concordats and bilateral relations in general.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April which requested information, pursuant to his previous answers. [131226]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000 there were three parliamentary questions tabled to my Department which requested information pursuant to previous answers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has for ministerial visits in(a) the rest of 2000 and (b) 2001 to (i) Bulgaria, (ii) Cyprus, (iii) the Czech Republic, (iv) Estonia, (v) Hungary, (vi) Latvia, (vii) Lithuania, (viii) Malta, (ix) Poland, (x) Romania, (xi) the Slovak Republic, (xii) Slovenia and (xiii) Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [130855]

  Mr. Vaz
  The ministerial visits programme for 2001 has not yet been agreed. For the remainder of 2000 the visits programme is as follows:

  (i) Bulgaria
  I intend to visit later this year.

  (ii) Cyprus
  I intend to visit later this year.

  (iii) Czech Republic
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit on 25–26 July. I intend to visit later this year.

  (iv) Estonia
  I intend to visit next year. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited last year and President Men visited the UK in March this year.

  (v) Hungary
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit on 24–25 July.

  (vi) Latvia
  I intend to visit later this year.

  (vii) Lithuania
  I intend to visit later this year.

  (viii) Malta
  I visited earlier this month.
  267W
  (ix) Poland
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Baroness Scotland attended the 'Community of Democracies' conference from 25–27 June.

  (x) Romania
  President Constantinescu and Foreign Minister Roman have both visited the UK this year. I do not intend to visit this year but hope to do so in early 2001 after the Romanian general elections.

  (xi) Slovak Republic
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited in March. I intend to visit later this year.

  (xii) Slovenia
  I intend to visit later this year.

  (xiii) Turkey
  The Minister of State my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) intends to visit in November. I also intend to visit later this year.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions in each year from 1995 to 2000 when(a) Bulgaria, (b) Cyprus, (c) the Czech Republic, (d) Estonia, (e) Hungary, (f) Latvia, (g) Lithuania, (h) Malta, (i) Poland, (j) Romania, (k) the Slovak Republic, (l) Slovenia and (m) Turkey received ministerial visits from his Department; in each instance indicating the (i) head of the UK delegation and (ii) length of stay; and if he will make a statement. [130854]

  Mr. Vaz
  It will take some time to collate all the information requested by the hon. Member. I will write to him once it is available and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Sanctions (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take following the admission by Romania that it broke United Nations sanctions against Yugoslavia. [130948]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK has consistently urged all states to comply fully with their obligations to implement and enforce mandatory United Nations sanctions. We understand that the Romanian Government is conducting an inquiry into allegations concerning violations of the UN sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the previous Romanian Administration.

  Middle East
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest Middle East talks chaired by President Clinton. [130951]

  Mr. Hain
  We welcome the summit at Camp David between the Israelis and Palestinians, called by President Clinton. It is an important event in the progress towards a Permanent Status Agreement. We encourage all participants to show the courage needed to reach an agreement which is just and lasting.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the ethnic conflict in Indonesia. [130953]
  268W
  Mr. Battle
  We have been deeply disturbed by reports of escalating violence in Maluku. Diplomatic efforts are focused on bringing pressure to bear on the Indonesian government to take effective action and bring the perpetrators of violence to justice. I discussed this with the Indonesian Ambassador on 3 July. The head of the Diplomatic Service raised our concerns directly with President Wahid on 4 July and EU Ambassadors reinforced this at a further meeting with the President on 17 July. There is an urgent need to respond to the growing humanitarian crisis. We are pressing the Indonesians to ensure guaranteed safe access and acceptance of a humanitarian response by UN agencies and Indonesian NGOs. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is working closely with the Indonesians on humanitarian co-ordination.

  Iran
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of assassinations of Christian leaders in Iran in the past five years. [130773]

  Mr. Hain
  None, however I refer my hon. Friend to my answer today to his question UIN 130772,Official Report column 269W.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage religious tolerance in Iran. [130771]

  Mr. Hain
  Human Rights are a high priority in our dealings with the Iranian Government. We and our EU partners take every appropriate opportunity to press the Iranian authorities over our concerns about their treatment of religious minorities in Iran, particularly the Bahai and Jewish communities. The Iranian authorities are well aware that we and our EU partners view persecution on religious grounds as totally unacceptable.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning religious liberty in Iran. [130792]

  Mr. Hain
  We receive reports from a number of sources on a wide range of human rights issues in Iran including religious liberty. These sources include among others our Embassy in Tehran, the UK and Iranian media, Amnesty International and the United Nations Commission of Human Rights Special Representative's annual reports. Most of these sources recognise that there have been a number of improvements in Iran since the election of President Khatami in 1997, but that a number of concerns remain. Our policy of engagement allows us to raise our concerns with the Iranian authorities.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the activities of the Ministry of Islamic Guidance in Iran. [130790]

  Mr. Hain
  Our Embassy in Tehran has reported that the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance is responsible for issuing licences and control of all printed material, music, film and other cultural and touristic activities. It also has responsibility for maintaining religious standards.
  269W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Iranian authorities concerning the assassination of Christian pastors. [130772]

  Mr. Hain
  There have recently been a number of calls in Iran for further investigation into the appalling killings of four Christian clerics in 1994. We and our EU partners continue to hope that those responsible for these crimes will be brought to justice.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Iranian authorities concerning(a) equality of access to education for all religions,(b) freedom of the press and (c) the death sentence for apostasy. [130791]

  Mr. Hain
  (a) and (c) are most relevant in the context of Iranian treatment of the Baha'i community. We and our EU partners regularly raise our concerns about Iranian treatment of the Baha'is. We do so bilaterally through our Embassy in Tehran, and the Iranian Ambassador to London. We also do so multilaterally through the twice yearly UN resolutions on Human Rights in Iran, which we sponsor in conjunction with our EU partners, the most recent of which was adopted in April.

  We also raise our concerns through the EU/Iran dialogue. On (b), at the last meeting in Tehran in June, the EU presidency, on behalf of all EU partners, pressed the Iranian authorities over our concern about the recent suppression of freedom of the press in Iran.

  Ministers' Spouses (Hospitality)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those spouses of Ministers who within the last year have stayed as guests at the British(a) Embassy and (b) Residence in Lisbon when not accompanied by their Minister spouses; and if he will give the duration of the stay in each case. [131260]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: The only unaccompanied ministerial spouse to stay at the Residence in Lisbon during the last year was my wife, Maria Fernandes, who stayed for one night on 26 June before the EU-India Business Summit on 27 June. As Minister for Europe, I had planned to attend the Summit but was forced to cancel owing to other ministerial duties. Ms Fernandes attended the Summit in her own right as a Member of the Council of the Law Society for Ethnic Minorities and met her own travel expenses to and from the Summit.

  TV Licence Discounts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government have taken to ensure that people who are partially sighted claim their entitled discount on their TV licence; and if he will make a statement. [130289]

  Janet Anderson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The 50 per cent. reduction in the television licence fee which the Government introduced on 1 April this year is available to all registered blind people. Statutory responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system, including concessions, rests with the BBC. I understand that the BBC's agent, TV Licensing, is
  270W
  including details of the concession in letters that are being sent to every household about free television licences for the over-75s. Additional leaflets have also been produced, with audio and Braille versions. Other promotional activity includes local radio trails, information on the BBC's Website and liaison with community links and outreach centres. The BBC has liaised with the Royal National Institute for the Blind on the subject of this concession and Post Office Counters staff have been informed of it.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in the Carlisle constituency received Winter Fuel Payments in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and how much was paid in total in each of those years. [127807]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Winter Fuel Payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Eric Martlew, dated 20 July 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many pensioners in the Carlisle constituency received Winter Fuel Payments (WFPs) in (a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and how much was paid in total in each of those years.
  In 1998/99, there were 13,157 WFPs made in the Carlisle constituency totalling £283,210. In 1999–00, there were 14,938 payments totalling £1,138,350.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount spent on Cold Weather Payments and Winter Fuel Payments to pensioners in Warrington, North constituency for each year since 1979. [127316]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: The administration of Cold Weather and Winter Fuel Payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Helen Jones, dated 20 July 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for the total amount spent on Cold Weather Payments (CWPs) and Winter Fuel Payments (WFPs) to pensioners in the Warrington North constituency for each year since 1979.
  The information requested on CWPs is not available. CWP information is collected on the estimated number of qualifying customers, which include non-pensioners, and by weather station area rather than by Benefits Agency district or MP constituency areas. There are no details held of CWPs before 1995/96. The information that is available is provided in the attached table.
  The Warrington North constituency was served by the Manchester Airport (Ringway) weather station until the winter of 1995/96 and by Crosby weather station since 1996. These weather stations also cover postcodes outside of the Warrington North constituency.
  WFPs were introduced in the winter of 1997/98. In 1997/98, WFP expenditure for Warrington North constituency was £258,170; in 1998/99 it was £239,780; and in 1999/00 it was £963,700.
  I hope this is helpful.
  271W

  Estimated qualifiers and total expenditure on Cold Weather Payments since the winter of 1995–96 at the weather stations linked to Warrington, North constituency

  Estimated number of qualifiers

  Total expenditure (£)

  Weather station

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Ringway

  244,000

  —

  16,213,000

  —

  Crosby

  —

  232,000

  —

  21,971,000

  1 Three periods of cold weather were triggered at Ringway weather station in 1995–96

  2 One period of cold weather triggered at Crosby weather station in 1996–97

  Notes:

  1. The figures provided are rounded to the nearest £1,000

  2. No data are held for periods prior to 1995–96

  3. Figures for estimated qualifiers include non-pensioners.

  4. An estimate of the number of pensioners among the estimated qualifiers is not available.

  5. No periods of cold weather have triggered at either station since 1996–97.

  6. All Postcode areas served by the weather stations are detailed in Schedule 1 of the Social Fund Cold Weather payments (General) Regulations.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many valid Winter Fuel Payment claims for the years(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 are outstanding; and when he expects all these payments to be completed. [130125]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the original Winter Fuel Payment scheme, before changes in light of the European Court of Justice ruling on 'Taylor', Winter Fuel Payments were made automatically to those entitled. Claims were not required. All payments for last winter were made before Christmas 1999.

  However, in light of the changes, those who are now eligible to Winter Fuel Payments must make a claim for payments for any of the past winters if they think they are eligible (1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000).

  We are currently processing these claims and payments for past winters are being made just as soon as the claims are determined. The first payments were issued in the week commencing 26 June 2000 and our current plan is that all payments should be issued by the end of September.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 25 May 2000,Official Report, column 618W, how many people were denied Winter Fuel Payments because they were in temporary respite care from 20 to 26 September 1999; what the cost would be of paying them Winter Fuel Payments; and for what reason the revisions to regulations were not applied in respect of such people. [130126]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Under the original Winter Fuel Payment scheme people living in residential care or nursing homes who received Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance were not eligible for a Winter Fuel Payment (unless they were a member of a couple admitted temporarily while their partner remained in the family home). This provision was made on the basis that people in such situations were already receiving public assistance with their care costs—which includes heating.
  272W
  However, in the light of representations highlighting some difficult cases, we changed the eligibility conditions of the scheme. The new provision means that people getting Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance and living in residential care or nursing homes for a temporary period1 are eligible for a Winter Fuel Payment based on their usual household circumstances.

  The Social Fund legislation was amended in time to take effect for this coming winter's payments. We have no power to make regulations retrospectively therefore the changes cannot apply to previous winters.

  1 'temporary' for the purposes of the Winter Fuel Payment scheme is less than 13 weeks by the end of the qualifying week.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what, in each European Union country, the(a) average pensioner income and (b) average state pension, is on a comparable basis; and what each of these figures was at the beginning of 1997. [130690]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Information in relation to Great Britain pensioner income is set out in The Pensioners' Incomes Series.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the estimated rate of return on capital is to the contractors under the PFI contracts in his Department. [131348]

  Angela Eagle
  We currently have only one PFI contract, the Private Sector Resource Initiative for Management of the Estate (PRIME), and this information is commercially confidential to the contractor, Trillium.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total paid in 1999 by fathers to their children via the CSA; and what was the total unpaid liability. [131108]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Gerald Howarth, dated 20 July 2000:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  During 1999/2000, CSA collected and arranged almost £731m in child maintenance. Of this money, over £492m was passed via the Agency's collection service and the remainder arranged by the Agency but passed directly between the Non-resident parent (NRP) and the Parent with Care (PWC). The figure of £731m represents an 11% increase over the previous year and is nearly double the figure (£400m) for 96/97. A small part of the money collected will have represented arrears owed from previous years but paid during 1999/00.
  Unfortunately, figures are not available to say exactly how much liability was not met, but the Department's statistical division has estimated that just under £210m was unpaid in 1999/00. This does not include interim assessments set deliberately high in order to encourage non-compliant NRP's to co-operate and provide the details to make a full assessment.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners receive the Minimum Income Guarantee and live in the London Borough of Wandsworth. [131472]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are around 7,400 pensioners benefiting from the Minimum Income Guarantee in the local authority area of Wandsworth.

  Source:

  Data drawn from Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, February 2000

  Pensions
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of his calculation of the estimated total spending on pensions during the life of this Parliament. [131488]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information on actual and forecast Social Security expenditure on people aged 60 or over during the life of this Parliament is shown in Table 3 of the Social Security Departmental Report (Cm 4614) as Objective 4, "Support for people over working age".

  Households Below Average Income
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security where the 1998–99 Households Below Average Income Statistics was available to(a) hon. Members and (b) the public on the day it was published. [131523]

  Mr. Bayley
  On 13 July, copies of "Households Below Average Income" were placed in the library. Copies of all departmental publications are available to hon. Members on request.

  Copies were on sale to the public directly from the publisher. Volumes were also available for reference in the library of the Office for National Statistics.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral answer of 17 July 2000,Official Report, column 7–8, if he will identify the specific results from his Department's Households Below Average Income report on which he based his statement that the proportion of pensioners living in poverty was the same in 1998–99 as in the last year of the previous Parliament. [131582]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer the hon. Member to the table on Page 135 of "Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 1998–99". This shows that the proportion of pensioners living below a threshold of 60 per cent. of median income, after housing costs, remained static at 27 per cent. between 1996–97 and 1998–99.

  Disability Living Allowance (Multiple Sclerosis)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the difficulties facing individuals who suffer from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in seeking to qualify for Disability Living Allowance. [131219]

  Mr. Bayley
  Entitlement to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is based on a person's needs, and not in recognition of their specific medical condition. People with multiple sclerosis, as with other potentially disabling conditions, are 274W
  therefore asked to state their care and mobility needs arising from their condition when completing a DLA claim form. Decision makers are given information on the needs arising from disabilities, including multiple sclerosis, in the "Disability Handbook", which is compiled by senior doctors in the Department and approved and monitored by the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board.

  With conditions such as remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis, decision makers must consider the help required over a period of time. Due to the variable nature of this condition, the Disability Handbook advises decision makers that a medical report may be helpful where a person's needs over a period of time are unclear.

  If someone claiming DLA is dissatisfied with the decision on their application (including on the grounds that the decision does not adequately recognise a fluctuating condition), they can ask for it to be looked at again or they can appeal the decision to an independent tribunal.

  We are exploring alternatives to the current tests for DLA. Following discussions with groups representing disabled people, we have developed a possible approach based on an assessment of activities involved in managing life. We plan to commence trialling this early next year, to see if it would lead to a better system.

  Fraud
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions his Department has had with the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of(a) St. Edmundsbury borough council and (b) Mid Suffolk district council; and if he will make a statement. [131133]

  Mr. Rooker
  None.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department has a target to reduce fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 10 per cent. by 2002. [131605]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have now raised our targets with a view to reducing losses from fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker' s Allowance by 25 per cent. by March 2004 and by 50 per cent. by March 2006. The expectation is that by March 2002 at least 10 per cent. will have been saved.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000 have not received substantive answers, citing as the reason that the information is(a) not held centrally, (b) not held in the form requested and (c) not available. [131233]

  Mr. Rooker
  Of the 1,815 questions we received during this period, we answered two questions where the information was not held centrally1, 108 questions where the information was not available in the form requested and 25 questions where the information was not available.

  1 These were answers where the information was not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what per capita Government spending on tourism was in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in this last financial year; and what the planned figures are for the current year. [129724]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: Grant-in-aid to the national tourist boards and per capita spend for the last financial year as well as planned figures for the current year are set out in the table.

  GIA (£ million)

  Population (million)

  £ per head (£/pence)

  BTA

  1999–2000

  34.5

  57.78

  0.60

  2000–01

  35.5

  58.01

  0.61

  ETC

  1999–2000

  10

  49.73

  0.20

  2000–01

  10

  49.96

  0.20

  STB

  1999–2000

  19.6

  5.12

  3.82

  2000–01

  24.3

  5.11

  4.76

  WTB

  1999–2000

  15.436

  2.94

  5.25

  2000–01

  15.436

  2.95

  5.23

  NITB

  1999–2000

  13.9

  1.70

  8.18

  2000–01

  13.9

  1.70

  8.18

  Notes:

  1. An additional £2.8 million was made available to the ETC over 2 years for the transition costs of transforming the English Tourist Board to the more strategic English Tourism Council

  Distributor

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Arts Council of England

  3,111,553

  168,688

  57,790

  14,732

  Millennium Commission

  0

  945,947

  0

  0

  National Lottery Charities Board

  463,455

  927,072

  2,052,365

  264,205

  New Opportunities Fund

  0

  0

  1,056,702

  213,967

  Sport England

  35,098

  49,771

  13,360

  9,209

  UK Sport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000 which requested information, pursuant to his previous answers. [131189]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: Thirty four such questions were tabled to my Department.

HEALTH

  Acute Hospital Beds
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute hospital beds there are per 1,000 of local populations in each health authority area of England and Wales; and how many such beds there will be in the
  276W
  2. All population figures are BTA's estimates based on the 'Annual Abstract of Statistics—2000 Edition'

  3. The population of Britain under BTA excludes Northern Ireland

  4. BTA grant-in-aid excludes Focus London grant (£1.5 million in 1999–2000 and 2000–01)

  5. STB 2000–01 grant-in-aid includes additional "special projects" funding

  Departmental Initiatives
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list each departmental initiative since May 1997 requiring bids for funding together with the total resources available, the number of successful bids and the proportion this represents of total bids received; and what data he collects on the average expenditure of organisations bidding for funding through each initiative. [131081]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  New spending plans for the years 2001–02 and 2003–04 were considered in the current Spending Review. The outcome of the Review was announced on 18 July.

  Lottery Funding
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Lottery funding has been awarded by(a) the Arts Council of England, (b) the Millennium Commission, (c) the National Lotteries Charities Board, (d) the New Opportunities Fund, (e) Sport England and (f) UK Sport to organisations and individuals in Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [131135]

  Kate Hoey
  The table shows the amount of Lottery funding, according to my Department's National Lottery Awards Database, for each of the six distributors requested for each year since 1997.

  Worcestershire health authority area per 1,000 of population after the complete implementation of the authority's Investing in Excellence strategy. [125457]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]: We are committed to ensuring more beds in the whole care system. The average daily number of acute beds in 1998–99 by National Health Service trusts in England aggregated to health authority location, per 1,000 population, is given in the table. Figures for Wales are a matter for the devolved administration. There are no acute beds in this health authority because patients are treated within acute trusts in the neighbouring Birmingham health authority area, which, as a result, has a higher than average figure.

  The important issue for the health service in Worcestershire is the number of patients who need to be treated and the appropriateness of their care. In line with this, the current estimate is that following hospital reorganisation there will be approximately 1,400 acute and

  277W
  community based beds available across Worcestershire. There will be more high dependency unit and intensive care unit beds in the new acute hospital for Worcester due to the investment the Government have made to modernise services in Worcestershire. The Government have awarded Worcestershire health authority a special allocation over the last two years to help with the re-configuration of their health services, amounting to £3.5 million in 1998–99 and £4.5 million in 1999–2000.

  The report of the Government's National Beds Inquiry, set up to review assumptions about the demand for inpatient care and the implications for hospital bed numbers, was published for consultation on 10 February 2000. The consultation, which completed on 15 May, focused on how health services, and specifically hospital beds, should be developed over the next 10–20 years. The aim of the consultation is to enable us to get the right number of the right sort of beds in the right places. Our response to the consultation will be published in the summer.

  Average daily number of available acute beds per 1,000 population, wards open overnight (ie 24 hours), by NHS trusts aggregated to health authority location, 1998–99

  Health authority

  Acute beds per 1,000 population

  Avon

  2.12

  Barking and Havering

  1.81

  Barnet

  1.23

  Barnsley

  2.28

  Bedfordshire

  1.11

  Berkshire

  1.48

  Bexley and Greenwich

  1.53

  Birmingham

  3.38

  Bradford

  2.19

  Brent and Harrow

  1.50

  Bromley

  1.17

  Buckinghamshire

  1.75

  Bury and Rochdale

  2.41

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  1.61

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  2.68

  Camden and Islington

  6.32

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1.78

  County Durham

  1.95

  Coventry

  3.74

  Croydon

  1.47

  Doncaster

  2.39

  Dorset

  2.24

  Dudley

  2.48

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  2.47

  East Kent

  1.83

  East Lancashire

  2.42

  East London and The City

  3.13

  East Norfolk

  2.28

  East Riding

  2.07

  East Surrey

  0.72

  East Sussex

  1.86

  Enfield and Haringey

  1.49

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  2.36

  Gloucester

  2.08

  Herefordshire

  1.81

  Hillingdon

  1.13

  Isle of Wight

  1.86

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  4.31

  Kingston and Richmond

  1.32

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  3.13

  Leeds

  2.98

  Leicestershire

  2.02

  Lincolnshire

  2.04

  Liverpool

  3.18

  Manchester

  5.39

  278W

  Average daily number of available acute beds per 1,000 population, wards open overnight (ie 24 hours), by NHS trusts aggregated to health authority location, 1998–99

  Health authority

  Acute beds per 1,000 population

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  2.00

  Morecambe Bay

  2.32

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  3.27

  North and East Devon

  2.64

  North and East Hertfordshire

  1.33

  North and Mid Hampshire

  1.21

  North Cheshire

  1.78

  North Cumbria

  2.09

  North Derbyshire

  1.42

  North Essex

  1.56

  North Nottinghamshire

  2.25

  North Staffordshire

  2.42

  North West Anglia

  2.08

  North West Lancashire

  3.07

  North Yorkshire

  1.88

  Northamptonshire

  1.73

  Northumberland

  2.75

  Nottingham

  2.75

  Oxfordshire

  2.39

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  1.73

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  1.77

  Rotherham

  1.88

  Salford and Trafford

  2.60

  Sandwell

  1.86

  Sefton

  4.05

  Sheffield

  3.73

  Shropshire

  1.86

  Solihull

  0.00

  Somerset

  2.01

  South and West Devon

  2.78

  South Cheshire

  1.75

  South Derbyshire

  1.87

  South Essex

  1.30

  South Humber

  2.28

  South Lancashire

  2.07

  South Staffordshire

  1.34

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  2.43

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  1.93

  Stockport

  1.92

  Suffolk

  1.53

  Sunderland

  2.27

  Tees

  2.87

  Wakefield

  2.82

  Walsall

  1.76

  Warwickshire

  1.46

  West Hertfordshire

  1.42

  West Kent

  1.63

  West Pennine

  2.11

  West Surrey

  2.23

  West Sussex

  1.83

  Wigan and Bolton

  1.95

  Wiltshire

  3.05

  Wirral

  2.85

  Wolverhampton

  2.55

  Worcester

  1.52

  Source:

  DH form KHO3

  The figures in the table have been created by aggregating data from NHS trusts to health authorities determined by the location of the NHS Trust's main site. Therefore, where NHS trusts have hospital sites which cross health authority boundaries (e.g. Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull) the figures do not reflect the actual number of beds located within those health authorities.
  279W
  The latest figures are for 1998–99 and are available in the annual publication 'Bed Availability and Occupancy, England', copies of which are in the Library.

  NDPBs (Appointments)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of the(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129840]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: A total of 429 appointments have been made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997. 289 of these were paid appointments, of which 105 (36.3 per cent.) were women. 140 were unpaid appointments, of which 51 (36.4 per cent.) were women. In addition, a total of 3,400 appointments have been made to the boards of National Health Service Trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts since 1 May 1997. All these posts are paid, and 1,695 (49.8 per cent.) of those appointed were women.

  We are committed to increasing the representation of women in public life. In support of this the Department has drawn up an action plan for increasing the number of women and people from the ethnic minorities holding public appointments. The latest plans, together with the Government's overall plan, were published on 24 May 2000 in "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments 2000–2003", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ambulance Service (Tees, East and North Yorkshire)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has made to TENYAS for additional funding to enable it to meet the ORCON standards. [130423]

  Ms Stuart
  On 16 May 2000 we announced an additional £21 million to achieve ORCON standards, of which the Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust (TENYAS) received £720,390.

  Glyphosates
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the maximum safe level is of glyphosates for daily intake, per kilogram of body weight per day. [131005]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  The World Health Organisation has established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for glyphosate of a maximum of 0.3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. The ADI is the amount of a chemical which can be consumed every day of an individual's entire lifetime in the practical certainty, on the basis of all known facts, that no harm will result.

  E.coli
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons suffered from the E.coli bacterium during the most recent 12 months for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made of the trends in the frequency of such outbreaks. [131419]
  280W
  Ms Stuart
  Provisional figures indicate there were 1,084 confirmed isolations of verocytotoxin-producing "E.coli" 0157 (VTEC 0157) from humans in England and Wales in 1999.

  There has been a rising trend in laboratory reports of VTEC 0157 from humans in England and Wales during the 1990s.

  Midwifery
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the consultation process for his draft orders on regulation of midwives and other professions will commence. [131313]

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the timescale for consulting with the Stakeholder Reference Group on midwifery regulations. [130817]

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the Government are making on consultation prior to introducing legislation required for the regulation of midwives and midwifery. [131308]

  Mr. Denham
  Consultation on the new legislation will begin shortly.

  NHS Contracts
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS contracts, with their annual value, undertaken by private sector companies for the provision of goods and services for the financial years(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [131156]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) of 3 July 2000,Official Report, column 46W, which major private finance initiative new hospital scheme has had a penalty clause invoked; what the nature of the breach of contract was; and what the penalty was under that clause. [130840]

  Mr. Denham
  The only instance to date of a penalty clause being invoked on a new major private finance initiative hospital scheme has been for the failure of the electrical power supply system at South Buckinghamshire National Health Service Trust. The exact value of the penalty has yet to be finalised.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) acute and (b) immediate case beds are included in hospital projects currently being pursued under the PFI in (i) the outline business case and (ii) the final contract. [131347]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures for bed numbers are provided for all the major private finance initiative hospital schemes (capital value £25 million or over) which have a
  281W
  signed final contract. 'Acute' beds is interpreted as meaning all staffed in-patient beds excluding day case beds. In addition to providing the indicative requirement

  Trust

  Current number of in-patient beds

  Number of in-patient beds proposed in the OBC

  Number of in-patient beds in PFI scheme

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  453

  400

  402

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  1—

  474

  444

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  550

  537

  537

  Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust

  955

  809

  953

  North Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  544

  565

  476

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  588

  621

  571

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  704

  569

  569

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  882

  881

  910

  Bromley Healthcare NHS Trust

  621

  540

  525

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  437

  406

  426

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  483

  390

  474

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  379

  340

  340

  South Durham Healthcare NHS Trust

  334

  304

  304

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,033

  955

  1,010

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  540

  516

  463

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  903

  895

  902

  St. George's Hospital NHS Trust

  1,026

  1,017

  1,050

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust (UCLH)

  660

  619

  664

  1 New PFI hospital now fully open

  All of these schemes apart from UCLH reached financial close before the publication of the National Beds Inquiry (NBI) report. NHS trusts and health authorities were not required to specifically identify intermediate care bed provision as part of their service planning strategies.

  UCLH revised its general and acute bed numbers in the light of the NBI report. Also following from the NBI report, all PH and publicly funded hospital schemes under construction and which involve reductions in bed numbers have been instructed to ensure that parallel plans, for example for expanding intermediate care, should be established as quickly as possible.

  Muslim Patients
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on caring for Muslim patients. [130949]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department's strategy for meeting the needs of minority ethnic communities, including Muslims, is to mainstream race equality issues into all aspects of its work, including policy development, NHS and social care service delivery and workforce issues. This approach was set out in the race equality agenda of the Department, published in January, and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Primary Care Groups and Trusts
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons for setting up(a) primary care groups and (b) primary care trusts; and what estimate he has made of the overall impact of the establishment of groups and trusts on the numbers employed in the administration of the Health Service. [131306]

  Mr. Denham
  Primary care groups and trusts are already making real differences to the way services are being provided to benefit patients across the country.
  282W
  as identified in the outline business case and those to be provided under the PFI solution we have also provided the current number of staffed in-patient beds.

  They have begun to integrate the delivery of primary and community services and have started to build real partnerships with social services.

  That is why they are a key part of our programme for improving care, through empowering clinicians to deliver accessible, convenient local services for patients.

  In September 1999 the numbers employed in administration and estates in the health service was 204,620 (an increase of 3 per cent.). It is estimated that the real terms savings in year on total National Health Service management costs for the financial year 1998–99 were in excess of £65 million.

  Drug Addiction
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of places currently available for in-patient treatment for drug addiction in each county in England. [131315]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The number of hospital admissions in 1998–99 of National Health Service and private patients for diagnoses relating to drug misuse are shown in the table, by health authority of treatment. The data do not include treatment in private hospitals.

  Number of drug addiction related admissions to NHS hospitals of NHS and private patients by health authority of treatment, England 1998–99

  Health authority

  Number of admissions

  England

  9,282

  QA2 Hillingdon

  43

  QA3 Kensington Chelsea and Westminster

  134

  QA4 Enfield and Haringey

  60

  QA5 Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  80

  QA6 Bedfordshire

  40

  283W

  Number of drug addiction related admissions to NHS hospitals of NHS and private patients by health authority of treatment, England 1998–99

  Health authority

  Number of admissions

  QA7 Berkshire

  42

  QA8 Buckinghamshire

  39

  QA9 Cambridge and Huntingdon

  187

  QAA Bexley and Greenwich

  55

  QAC Bromley

  455

  QAD Croydon

  4

  QAE East Kent

  44

  QAF West Kent

  116

  QAG Kingston and Richmond

  28

  QAH Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham

  45

  QAJ Merton Sutton and Wandsworth

  211

  QAK East Surrey

  29

  QAL West Surrey

  138

  QAM East Sussex Brighton and Hove

  150

  QAN West Sussex

  11

  QAP Barking and Havering

  29

  QAQ Barnet

  1

  QAR Brent and Harrow

  55

  QAT Camden and Islington

  132

  QAV Ealing Hammersmith and Hounslow

  175

  QAW East London and The City

  94

  QAX North Essex

  90

  QAY South Essex

  126

  QC1 South Lancashire

  57

  QC2 Liverpool

  316

  QC3 Manchester

  103

  QC4 Morecambe Bay

  55

  QC5 St. Helens and Knowsley

  51

  QC6 Salford and Trafford

  467

  QC7 Sefton

  73

  QC8 Stockport

  17

  QC9 West Pennine

  134

  QCA East Norfolk

  97

  QCC Northamptonshire

  33

  QCD North West Anglia

  36

  QCE Oxfordshire

  83

  QCF Suffolk

  53

  QCG Barnsley

  253

  QCH North Derbyshire

  24

  QCJ South Derbyshire

  49

  QCK Doncaster

  63

  QCL Leicestershire

  127

  QCM Lincolnshire

  142

  QCN North Nottingamshire

  45

  QCP Nottingham

  253

  QCQ Rotherham

  118

  QCR Sheffield

  168

  QCT Bury and Rochdale

  61

  QCV North Cheshire

  73

  QCW South Cheshire

  92

  QCX East Lancashire

  81

  QCY North West Lancashire

  68

  QD1 North and Mid Hampshire

  38

  QD2 Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  304

  QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire

  44

  QD4 Isle of Wight

  33

  QD5 Somerset

  67

  QD6 South and West Devon

  97

  QD7 Wiltshire

  76

  QD8 Avon

  112

  QD9 Birmingham

  85

  QDA Wigan and Bolton

  111

  QDC Wirral

  150

  QDD Bradford

  51

  QDE County Durham

  96

  QDF East Riding

  37

  QDG Gateshead and South Tyneside

  49

  QDH Leeds

  68

  284W

  Number of drug addiction related admissions to NHS hospitals of NHS and private patients by health authority of treatment, England 1998–99

  Health authority

  Number of admissions

  QDJ Newcastle and North Tyneside

  110

  QDK North Cumbria

  48

  QDL South Humber

  46

  QDM Northumberland

  53

  QDN Sunderland

  59

  QDP Tees

  222

  QDQ Wakefield

  61

  QDR North Yorkshire

  43

  QDT Calderdale and Kirlees

  70

  QDV Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  61

  QDW Dorset

  186

  QDX North and East Devon

  97

  QDY Gloucestershire

  122

  QEA Coventry

  86

  QEC Dudley

  59

  QED Herefordshire

  3

  QEE Sandwell

  2

  QEF Shropshire

  155

  QEG Solihull

  11

  QEH North Staffordshire

  139

  QEJ South Staffordshire

  174

  QEK Walsall

  43

  QEL Warwickshire

  60

  QEM Wolverhampton

  36

  QEN Worcestershire

  47

  QEP East and North Hertfordshire

  26

  QEQ West Hertfordshire

  40

  Notes:

  1. The data relate to admissions where the primary condition is shown as belonging to one of the following International Classification Diseases (ICD revision 10) diseases—Mental and behavioural disorders due to use of: opioids (F11); cannabinoids (F12), sedatives or hypnotics (F13); cocaine (F14); other stimulants, including caffeine (F15); hallucinogens (F16); volatile solvents (F18); multiple drug use and use of other psychoactive substances (F 19).

  2. Data in this table are grossed for both coverage and unknown/ invalid clinical data.

  Contractual Liabilities
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health authorities, NHS trusts or social services departments engaged Mrs. Jenny Upshall as a consultant or trainer or in any other capacity during the time she worked for Integrate Services in Warrington; and if he will estimate the cost of these services to the NHS; [130670]

  (2) what advice was given to the North Cheshire Health Authority on the use of NHS funds to underwrite redundancy payments to Mr. T. Upshall and Mrs. J. Upshall of Integrate Services by (a) his Department, (b) the North-west Regional Office and (c) other public bodies; and if he will place copies of that advice in the Library. [130705]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: Full details of Mrs. Upshall' s employment history are not held by the Department. North Cheshire Health Authority took legal advice about underwriting redundancy payments; neither the Department centrally or regionally, nor any other public body as far as I can ascertain, were approached for guidance.

  Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Young People in Care)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason his Department does not collect data on the incidence of pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases among young people who are in the care of the state; and if he will make a statement. [131416]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 19 July 2000]: The Department does not collect data through social care systems on the incidence of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases among young people who are in the care of the state. Young people over 16 and those under 16 who are deemed to be Gillick-competent have the right to seek medical advice for pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases without the consent or knowledge of parents or carers.

  Within the Quality Protects programme, the Department does require councils to draw up proposals for assessing and reducing rates of teenage pregnancy in their areas, especially among those young people for whom they have parenting responsibilities.

  CJD
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the cases of confirmed or probable new variant CJD in the UK have been individuals who have lived in Leicestershire; what assessment he has made of whether this constitutes a cluster which is unlikely to have occurred by chance; what investigation into this problem in Leicestershire is planned; and if he will make a statement. [131213]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 19 July 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on 17 July 2000, Official Report, column 78W.

  Radiographers
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to publish annually the decisions of the Radiographers Board in relation to applications from foreign qualified radiographers to work as diagnostic radiographers in the UK, indicating the number who(a) apply by country, (b) are rejected by country, (c) appeal successfully and (d) after an adaptation period are accepted by the Board, stating the length of adaptation period. [131217]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand that decisions of the Radiographers Board relating to applications from radiographers qualified in other member states of the European Economic Area are provided biennially to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, together with decisions made by all other competent authorities in the member states. The combined figures for all member states are published biennially by the European Commission. The figures for 1997–98 were published on 1 May 2000 and are available from the European Commission Rue de la Loi 200, B, 1049, Brussels, Belgium under reference number MARKT/ D4/8550/2-EN. Information about applications from other foreign qualified radiographers is available from the Radiographers Board on request.
  286W
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons German-trained radiographers are not accepted by the Radiographers Board for work in the United Kingdom until they have completed a period of adaptation. [131218]

  Mr. Denham
  This is a matter for the Radiographers Board of the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. The Board may require applicants from member states of the European Economic Area to complete an adaptation period or take an aptitude test where the education and training they have received differs substantially from those required for registration in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many radiographers qualified in Germany, who applied to the Radiographers Board for registration in the UK as diagnostic radiographers and have been rejected until they have completed a period of adaptation, have successfully appealed against the decision in the last three years. [131220]

  Mr. Denham
  This is a matter for the Radiographers Board of the Council of Professions Supplementary to Medicine, but I understand that there have been no successful appeals against a Board decision.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many radiographers who qualified in Germany and have applied for registration as a diagnostic radiographer to the Radiographers Board have been registered in each of the last three years. [131221]

  Mr. Denham
  The Radiographers Board has informed me that in 1997 there were two applications from German-trained radiographers of whom one was registered and one was given a period of 12 months adaptation; in 1998, there were no applications; and in 1999 there was one application which resulted in a 12 month period of adaptation. Both have successfully completed the period of adaptation and have been registered.

  "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents"
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses have been received to his Department's consultative paper entitled "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents" which organisations and individuals responded to the consultation; if he will place copies of the responses in the Library; and when he plans to publish the Government's proposals. [131236]

  Mr. Hutton
  Responses to the consultation document "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents" are still being logged, but over 865 responses had been received by the end of April 2000.

  This substantial set of responses is currently being analysed and once this is complete, a summary of the views will be published, together with our proposals. We expect this to be available in the autumn.

  It is not normal practice to list the names of all those who have responded, nor to place copies of responses in the Library, and we have no plans to do so. It is of course open to individuals and organisations to make their responses public, should they wish to do so.

  HC1 Forms
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to simplify the HC1 form in order to reduce the number of forms which are incorrectly filled in. [130972]

  Ms Stuart
  The HC1 claim form has to collect all the information needed to calculate entitlement to help with health costs under the National Health Service Low Income Scheme. The options for making it simpler are therefore limited. It is already written in plain english, set out in sections and is fully "signposted" to guide people through it. It has been amended recently and the effectiveness of the latest version will be monitored closely.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many written parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April; and how many have not received substantive answers, with disproportionate cost cited as the reason. [131223]

  Ms Stuart
  Of the 2,797 Questions tabled to the Department in the period between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000, we were unable to answer nine questions wholly or partially without incurring disproportionate costs.

  "Fit for the Future?"
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce his conclusions based on the responses received to "Fit For The Future?"; and if he will make a statement. [132064]

  Mr. Hutton
  I am today announcing the conclusions the Government have reached in relation to the physical standards in residential and nursing homes based on the responses to the consultation process on "Fit for the Future?". These are:

  the standard for single rooms in existing care homes will be 10 sq m from 2007;

  the standard for single rooms in new care homes will be 12 sq m from 2002;

  wheelchair users should have rooms of 12 sq m and door widths of 800 mm for their own accommodation and communal rooms;

  each resident should, in addition to the above, have a minimum of 4.1 sq m of communal day space within the care home;

  shared rooms in existing homes may constitute no more than 20 per cent. of overall resident places from 2002.

  To ensure flexibility for existing provision that does not meet all of these standards but is otherwise of good quality, specific criteria will be set out over the standard relating to room sizes to allow some rooms which do not currently meet the 10 sq m standard to remain in use. These criteria will include:
  an expectation that no room should fall below 9.3 sq m (equivalent to 100 sq ft) provided compensatory space either in the form of en-suite facilities or additional communal day space which residents can use individually if they wish, is made available;
  homes which provide spacious individual rooms, but do not currently meet the standard of 4.1 sq m communal space per resident will be allowed to meet a lower minimum of 3.7 sq m.
  The net result should be that a total space of 14.1 sq m per resident is provided, with some flexibility about how it is deployed.
  288W
  The standards for nine out of the 11 topic areas that we consulted upon in "Fit for the Future?" received overwhelming support and these will form the basis for the full set of national minimum standards which the Government will publish later this year.

  I have today written to hon. and right hon. Members, as well as to the residential and nursing home organisations and other relevant bodies who have made representations on these issues.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the annual report and accounts of the Medicines Control Agency. [132235]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Medical Devices Agency
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the 1999–2000 annual report and accounts of the Medical Devices Agency. [132233]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have received the Report and Accounts of the Medical Devices Agency and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Medicines Commission
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will receive the annual report of the Medicines Commission for 1999; and if he will publish it. [132234]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have received the report, and copies have been laid before both Houses of Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 1999 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Advisory Board on the Registration of Homoeopathic Products, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission and the Veterinary Products Committee.

  We are glad to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act Advisory Bodies and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Drumcree
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Parades Commission to discuss the Drumcree marches. [125472]
  289W
  Mr. Mandelson
  The Parades Commission is an independent body responsible for making binding determinations on contentious parades like Drumcree. I have not met them to discuss how they carry out their function.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of correctly presented bills were paid by his Department in(a)1998–99 and (b)1999–2000 within 30 days of receipt of (i) goods and services, (ii) a valid invoice and (iii) other agreed payment terms. [130045]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on 23 July 1999, Official Report, columns 677–78W.

  (b) Departments and their Agencies are currently collating this information for 1999–2000 and this will be made available to the House shortly.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each departmental initiative requiring bids for funding together with the total resources available, the number of successful bids and the proportion this represents of total bids received; and what data he collects on the average expenditure of organisations bidding for funding through each initiative. [131087]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 2000,Official Report, column 93W.

  Ulster Freedom Fighters
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons participated in protest actions in Portadown on 2 July wearing T-shirts soliciting support for the Ulster Freedom Fighters; how many persons carried the banner with the inscription Shankill Road UFF 2 Battalion C Company; how many photographs were taken of this parade by the police; how many participants have

  Company

  Responsibilities within the Department

  Balfour and Manson

  Solicitor's Office—Motorway Development

  Balfour and Manson

  Solicitor's Office—Motorway Development

  Bank of Scotland

  Health Department—Private Finance

  BP

  Personnel Division—Devolution Planning

  Fife Careers Ltd.

  Education Department—Skills and Life Long Learning

  Project Management International plc

  Parliament Building Division

  Shepherd and Wedderburn

  Solicitor's Office—Reciprocal Trainee Scheme

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees of his Department and its agencies have been recruited from the New Deal; and what percentage this represents of total staff. [129092]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department has one member of staff from the New Deal and this represents 1 per cent. of total staff.
  290W
  now been identified; what actions against these persons are being taken by the police; how many have been charged with criminal offences; and if police have identified the organisers of the event. [130464]

  Mr. Ingram
  The investigations into this incident on 3 July are still at an early stage. However, the Royal Ulster Constabulary have advised that approximately 50 persons were dressed wearing the T-shirts referred to. Two persons carried the flag. Video tape has not yet been fully processed and the number of still photographs from it has yet to be quantified. There is an investigatory process relating to the use of video evidence and at 14 July no controlled viewings have taken place because of the demand on resources. When evidence has been fully collated and analysed, and offences and offenders identified, files will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for directions. As a result of this no persons have yet been charged to date and no formal identifications yet made.

SCOTLAND

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) of 10 February 2000,Official Report, column 279W, on secondments, if he will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded into his Department from each organisation mentioned, stating in each case the name of the section they were seconded to and a summary of the work that they were involved with. [128245]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 29 June 2000]:Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations. Before an Interchange can occur all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interest arises.

  Further information on the inward secondments to the Scotland Office referred to in my previous answer is provided as follows:

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, excluding those not answered citing disproportionate cost, stating that the information is(a) not available, (b) not held centrally, (c) not held in the form requested and (d) citing commercial or other confidentiality; [131235]
  291W
  (2) how many written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April did not receive substantive answers, citing as the reason commercial or other confidentiality. [131169]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Where answer states that the information is:

  In respect of part of the information requested

  In respect of all information requested

  (a) Not available

  1

  1

  (b) Not held centrally

  4

  2

  (c) Not held in the form requested

  0

  0

  (d) Citing commercial or other confidentiality

  0

  2

  £ million

  ESCOM

  PFI contract IT Partnership

  HR Partnership

  Net present cost of contract

  5.5

  289.0

  30.4

  Net present cost—public sector comparator (pre risk)

  24.6

  353.0

  38.4

  Net present cost—public sector comparator (risk adjusted)

  1—

  392.0

  41.4

  1 Not calculated

  Vocational Training Courses
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action his Department is taking to provide vocational training courses in building and allied trades for non-academic school leavers; and if he will make a statement. [130643]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government have made a substantial investment in vocational training for young people who have decided not to continue in learning through the academic route. Foundation and Advanced Modern Apprenticeships provide young people with a high quality work-based route to learning in over 80 sectors of industry and business. Construction is one of the more popular with some 9,200 Advanced and 4,200 Foundation Modern Apprentices in training. In order to build on the strong foundations that Modern Apprenticeships have developed we are currently consulting on how to introduce further measures which will create an apprenticeship framework which better meets the needs of the individuals and businesses; is broader and more coherent than before; offers even greater opportunities for progression including HE; secures the highest possible standards; and is part of a coherent vocational learning system.

  Students in schools and colleges can take Foundation, Intermediate and Advanced GNVQs (to be known as vocational A levels) in subjects such as Art and Design, Business, Construction and the Built Environment, and Health and Social Care. These qualifications can lead on to employment, higher education or further study such as Modern Apprenticeships.

  From 2002 "vocational GCSEs" will replace the current Foundation, Intermediate and Part One GNVQs and will be available for 14 to 16-year-olds in schools, as well as students in colleges, to study.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the net present cost is of each project undertaken in his Department under the private finance initiative; what the value is of their public sector comparators in(a) pre-risk and (b) risk-adjusted terms; what risks have been identified as having been transferred; and if he will place information on other relevant costs for each private finance initiative project in the Library. [130251]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: Net present costs of the Department's PFI projects are as follows:

  The ESCOM contractor's major risk relates to the demand for the service. Both the IT Partnership and the HR Partnership contracts have transferred the risks relating to service availability and performance, which are seen as critical in the delivery of services under the contract.

  The bids made during the competition to select the successful private finance initiative contractor, in particular any financial information, are commercially confidential as is any subsequent documentation directly referring to the bids. I am therefore unfortunately unable to place information on costs in the Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of the Birmingham LEA grouped school refurbishment PFI project at each stage of its development; if he will list the causes of significant change in costs; and if he will make a statement. [131586]

  Jacqui Smith
  Birmingham local education authority's outline business case for the school rebuilds package PFI scheme was approved by the Treasury-chaired Project Review Group in December 1998 at an estimated cost in net present value (NPV) terms of £61.2 million. A contract was signed in February 2000 on the basis of a final business case which estimated the cost of the scheme, in NPV terms, at £78 million. The main causes of the increase were:

  (a) improvements to the output specification—for example, to accommodate children with special needs in mainstream schools and to improve sports facilities;

  (b) technical changes to the calculation of the cost of the scheme—for example, the fall in the local authority rate of discount from 8.9 per cent. to 8.4 per cent.;

  (c) an underestimate in the outline business case of the cost of operation of the new and refurbished schools over the 30 year life of the contract.

  The local authority has confirmed that this PH scheme provides better value for money than would have been achieved through conventional procurement.

  Assaults (Teachers)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers have been assaulted by(a) pupils and (b) others in school in each of the last six years; and if he will make a statement. [130978]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not available centrally.

  Reports by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools have shown that most schools are orderly places, and Ofsted inspections show that violent or exceptionally malicious behaviour by pupils is fortunately rare.

  My Department's Circular "Social Inclusion
  Pupil Support" provides detailed guidance to schools on managing pupil behaviour and we have made clear that we support headteachers who permanently exclude violent pupils. In addition, our Circular on "The use of force to control or restrain pupils" makes clear that teachers have the right to defend themselves against an attack provided they do not use a disproportionate degree of force. We have also issued joint guidance with the Home Office on "School Security: Dealing with Troublemakers", which offers advice about, among other things, dealing with any assaults on teachers.

  Teachers (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many additional teachers have been employed since 1997 in schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [131143]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on the numbers of full-time equivalent qualified teachers1 employed within maintained primary and secondary schools in the Shrewsbury and Atcham parliamentary constituency is shown in the following table.

  There was a growth of 6,900 full-time equivalent regular teachers2 in service in the maintained sector between January 1998 and January 2000.

  1 Excludes all unqualified teachers and teachers providing short term cover as well as teachers absent for a term or more but including the latter's qualified replacements, if any-Source: Annual Census of schools.
  2 Teachers in service includes both qualified teachers (including those not in school) and teachers without qualified teacher status—Source: 618a. Regular teachers are teachers either on a permanent contract or who have a temporary contract of one month or more.

  Full-time equivalent1.2 number of qualified teachers in maintained Primary and Secondary schools in the parliamentary constituency area of Shrewsbury and Atcham: 1997 to 20003

  Position at January each year

  Number of full-time equivalent qualified teachers

  20003

  614

  1999

  607

  1998

  607

  1997

  603

  1 Excludes all unqualified teachers and teachers providing short term cover.

  2 The Schools Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document has, since 1987, required a full-time teacher to be available to undertake the professional duties assigned to him or her by the headteacher for 1,265 hours allocated reasonably throughout a working year of 195 days. The 'directed' hours per week of part-time teachers are converted to full-time equivalent teacher numbers by dividing by

  294W
  32.5. This conversion factor is derived by dividing 1,265 (directed hours per year) by 195 (working days per year) and multiplying by 5 (working days per week).

  3 Provisional

  School Statistics
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 20 June 2000,Official Report, column 168W, on statistics, if he will list (a) in total and (b) by parliamentary constituency of the school, the number of unauthorised absences for 1998–99. [131190]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: The number and percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absence for 1998–99, analysed by (a) England and (b) by parliamentary constituency is shown in the following table.

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absences— England 1998–99 analysed by parliamentary constituency

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of half days missed (thousand)

  Percentage of half days missed

  England

  14,964.8

  0.7

  Aldershot

  19.1

  0.4

  Aldridge-Brownhills

  16.2

  0.4

  Altrincham and Sale, West

  9.0

  0.2

  Amber Valley

  28.9

  0.7

  Arundel and South Downs

  12.6

  0.4

  Ashfield

  33.2

  0.8

  Ashford

  24.0

  0.6

  Ashton-upon-Lyne

  38.4

  0.8

  Aylesbury

  17.2

  0.3

  Banbury

  45.3

  1.1

  Barking

  42.1

  1.5

  Barnsley, Central

  44.4

  1.3

  Barnsley, East and Mexborough

  49.8

  1.3

  Barnsley, West and Penistone

  34.5

  1.1

  Barrow and Fumess

  15.7

  0.4

  Basildon

  53.1

  1.1

  Basingstoke

  31.4

  0.7

  Bassetlaw

  40.7

  1.2

  Bath

  16.7

  0.5

  Batley and Spen

  72.3

  1.7

  Battersea

  15.6

  0.8

  Beaconsfield

  6.9

  0.2

  Beckenham

  19.3

  0.5

  Bedford

  21.7

  0.6

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  10.7

  0.4

  Bethnal Green and Bow

  85.7

  1.7

  Beverley and Holderness

  35.0

  0.8

  Bexhill and Battle

  10.2

  0.3

  Bexleyheath and Crayford

  21.3

  0.6

  Billericay

  32.6

  0.8

  Birkenhead

  34.3

  0.9

  Birmingham, Edgbaston

  28.3

  0.9

  Birmingham, Erdington

  41.1

  1.2

  Birmingham, Hall Green

  22.7

  0.7

  Birmingham, Hodge Hill

  65.0

  1.5

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  87.2

  1.7

  Birmingham, Northfield

  45.6

  1.3

  Birmingham, Perry Barr

  53.3

  1.1

  Birmingham, Selly Oak

  28.6

  0.6

  Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath

  91.9

  1.5

  Birmingham, Yardley

  28.0

  1.1

  Bishop Auckland

  22.0

  0.6

  Blaby

  11.9

  0.3

  Blackburn

  55.2

  1.0

  Blackpool, North and Fleetwood

  25.1

  0.7

  Blackpool. South

  44.5

  1.2

  Blaydon

  16.0

  0.5

  295W

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absences—England 1998–99 analysed by Parliamentary constituency

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of half days missed (thousand)

  Percentage of half days missed

  Blyth Valley

  12.8

  0.4

  Bognor Regis and Littlehampton

  19.4

  0.7

  Bolsover

  33.2

  1.0

  Bolton, North-East

  36.8

  0.9

  Bolton, South-East

  36.3

  0.8

  Bolton, West

  33.3

  1.0

  Bootle

  29.4

  0.8

  Boston and Skegness

  32.4

  1.0

  Bosworth

  28.8

  0.7

  Bournemouth, East

  22.5

  0.7

  Bournemouth, West

  17.7

  0.7

  Bracknell

  23.7

  0.5

  Bradford, North

  96.6

  2.1

  Bradford, South

  80.3

  1.9

  Bradford, West

  84.4

  1.8

  Braintree

  21.6

  0.5

  Brent, East

  19.7

  0.8

  Brent, North

  15.9

  0.5

  Brent, South

  32.1

  1.0

  Brentford and Isleworth

  48.1

  1.0

  Brentwood and Ongar

  12.9

  0.3

  Bridgwater

  19.6

  0.6

  Brigg and Goole

  14.0

  0.4

  Brighton, Kemptown

  26.8

  1.0

  Brighton, Pavilion

  13.8

  0.6

  Bristol, East

  43.0

  1.4

  Bristol, North-West

  55.1

  1.2

  Bristol, South

  67.4

  1.6

  Bristol, West

  16.8

  0.7

  Bromley and Chislehurst

  15.8

  0.4

  Bromsgrove

  16.9

  0.4

  Broxbourne

  16.3

  0.4

  Broxtowe

  25.8

  0.7

  Buckingham

  3.2

  0.1

  Burnley

  45.7

  1.0

  Burton

  18.7

  0.4

  Bury, North

  21.5

  0.4

  Bury, South

  20.0

  0.5

  Bury St. Edmunds

  8.2

  0.2

  Calder Valley

  15.1

  0.3

  Camberwell and Peckham

  47.0

  1.6

  Cambridge

  23.3

  1.0

  Cannock Chase

  17.3

  0.4

  Canterbury

  30.0

  0.7

  Carlisle

  21.1

  0.6

  Carshalton and Wallington

  19.3

  0.5

  Castle Point

  21.3

  0.5

  Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North

  13.0

  0.4

  Charnwood

  12.8

  0.3

  Chatham and Aylesford

  18.8

  0.4

  Cheadle

  25.5

  0.6

  Cheltenham

  12.3

  0.4

  Chesham and Amersham

  11.0

  0.3

  Chesterfield

  29.1

  0.8

  Chichester

  15.6

  0.4

  Chingford and Woodford Green

  27.5

  0.7

  Chipping Barnet

  24.4

  0.6

  Chorley

  18.5

  0.4

  Christchurch

  13.7

  0.4

  Cities of London and Westminster

  29.5

  1.4

  City of Chester

  29.4

  0.8

  City of Durham

  15.0

  0.5

  City of York

  26.5

  0.8

  Cleethorpes

  34.5

  0.7

  Colchester

  28.8

  0.6

  Colne Valley

  15.2

  0.4

  Congleton

  10.7

  0.3

  Copeland

  12.7

  0.4

  Corby

  24.2

  0.6

  Cotswold

  4.9

  0.1

  Coventry, North-East

  46.9

  1.0

  Coventry, North-West

  33.5

  0.8

  Coventry, South

  30.2

  0.8

  296W

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absences — England 1998–99 analysed by parliamentary constituency

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of half days missed (thousand)

  Percentage of half days missed

  Crawley

  18.2

  0.4

  Crewe and Nantwich

  23.1

  0.6

  Crosby

  4.3

  0.1

  Croydon, Central

  39.0

  0.9

  Croydon, North

  33.3

  0.8

  Croydon, South

  13.4

  0.4

  Dagenham

  76.4

  1.8

  Darlington

  25.5

  0.7

  Dartford

  12.9

  0.3

  Daventry

  15.7

  0.3

  Denton and Reddish

  21.8

  0.5

  Derby, North

  20.1

  0.5

  Derby, South

  36.3

  0.8

  Devizes

  23.5

  0.5

  Dewsbury

  54.1

  1.2

  Doncaster, Central

  51.1

  1.2

  Doncaster, North

  60.8

  1.7

  Don Valley

  41.0

  1.0

  Dover

  18.0

  0.5

  Dudley, North

  25.3

  0.6

  Dudley, South

  21.8

  0.7

  Dulwich and West Norwood

  41.7

  1.7

  Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush

  57.7

  1.9

  Ealing, North

  22.8

  0.6

  Ealing, Southall

  36.7

  0.8

  Easington

  28.8

  0.8

  East Devon

  18.1

  0.7

  East Ham

  111.1

  2.2

  East Hampshire

  20.9

  0.5

  East Surrey

  7.9

  0.2

  East Worthing and Shoreham

  19.4

  0.5

  East Yorkshire

  27.2

  0.8

  Eastbourne

  22.0

  0.7

  Eastleigh

  17.2

  0.4

  Eccles

  44.0

  1.0

  Eddisbury

  12.9

  0.4

  Edmonton

  65.1

  1.6

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  16.7

  0.5

  Elmet

  9.1

  0.2

  Eltham

  49.3

  1.5

  Enfield, North

  51.9

  1.1

  Enfield, Southgate

  22.0

  0.7

  Epping Forest

  15.4

  0.5

  Epsom and Ewell

  15.1

  0.4

  Erewash

  22.3

  0.5

  Erith and Thamesmead

  48.3

  1.1

  Esher and Walton

  11.3

  0.5

  Exeter

  36.4

  1.0

  Falmouth and Camborne

  20.0

  0.5

  Fareham

  18.1

  0.5

  Faversham and Mid Kent

  8.8

  0.3

  Feltham and Heston

  37.0

  0.9

  Finchley and Golders Green

  26.2

  0.7

  Folkestone and Hythe

  22.0

  0.6

  Forest of Dean

  8.0

  0.3

  Fylde

  11.3

  0.3

  Gainsborough

  15.0

  0.4

  Gateshead, East and Washington, West

  37.6

  0.9

  Gedling

  34.8

  0.9

  Gillingham

  42.9

  0.9

  Gloucester

  36.1

  0.7

  Gosport

  35.0

  0.9

  Grantham and Stamford

  11.3

  0.3

  Gravesham

  35.5

  0.8

  Great Grimsby

  44.6

  1.3

  Great Yarmouth

  28.8

  0.8

  Greenwich and Woolwich

  74.5

  2.1

  Guildford

  15.4

  0.4

  Hackney, North and Stoke Newington

  57.9

  2.2

  Hackney, South and Shoreditch

  59.7

  1.6

  Halesowen and Rowley Regis

  27.8

  0.7

  Halifax

  31.8

  0.7

  Haltemprice and Howden

  17.4

  0.4

  297W

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absences— England 1998–99 analysed by parliamentary constituency

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of half days missed (thousand)

  Percentage of half days missed

  Halton

  42.3

  1.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  42.6

  1.4

  Hampstead and Highgate

  27.5

  1.2

  Harborough

  26.2

  0.5

  Harlow

  28.8

  0.8

  Harrogate and Knaresborough

  9.5

  0.2

  Harrow, East

  20.2

  0.5

  Harrow, West

  18.2

  0.5

  Hartlepool

  54.9

  1.2

  Harwich

  38.6

  1.1

  Hastings and Rye

  58.9

  1.5

  Havant

  36.6

  0.9

  Hayes and Harlington

  42.0

  1.4

  Hazel Grove

  27.9

  0.8

  Hemel Hempstead

  27.1

  0.7

  Hemsworth

  27.3

  0.6

  Hendon

  32.1

  0.8

  Henley

  20.2

  0.6

  Hereford

  18.2

  0.5

  Hertford and Stortford

  14.5

  0.3

  Hertsmere

  31.0

  0.8

  Hexham

  5.0

  0.2

  Heywood and Middleton

  37.0

  0.8

  High Peak

  17.8

  0.4

  Hitchin and Harpenden

  9.8

  0.3

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  53.1

  1.7

  Hornchurch

  11.8

  0.3

  Hornsey and Wood Green

  61.1

  1.5

  Horsham

  9.3

  0.3

  Houghton and Washington, East

  18.9

  0.6

  Hove

  16.2

  0.5

  Huddersfield

  55.8

  1.5

  Huntingdon

  26.3

  0.6

  Hyndburn

  37.9

  0.9

  Ilford, North

  21.0

  0.5

  Ilford, South

  36.3

  0.9

  Ipswich

  19.7

  0.5

  Isle of Wight

  23.6

  0.5

  Islington, North

  49.5

  1.6

  Islington, South and Finsbury

  52.4

  1.9

  Jarrow

  12.0

  0.3

  Keighley

  41.1

  1.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  28.9

  1.8

  Kettering

  26.2

  0.5

  Kingston and Surbiton

  19.9

  0.6

  Kingston upon Hull, East

  77.2

  1.7

  Kingston upon Hull, North

  81.1

  2.0

  Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle

  38.3

  1.6

  Kingswood

  35.6

  0.9

  Knowsley, North and Sefton, East

  48.5

  1.0

  Knowsley, South

  74.8

  1.6

  Lancaster and Wyre

  13.0

  0.3

  Leeds, Central

  100.5

  2.4

  Leeds, East

  47.3

  1.5

  Leeds, North-East

  48.9

  1.3

  Leeds, North-West

  22.2

  0.8

  Leeds, West

  47.4

  1.6

  Leicester, East

  42.2

  0.8

  Leicester, South

  39.5

  1.0

  Leicester, West

  74.6

  1.8

  Leigh

  39.3

  1.0

  Leominster

  12.5

  0.4

  Lewes

  15.3

  0.5

  Lewisham, Deptford

  41.6

  1.6

  Lewisham, East

  45.4

  1.6

  Lewisham, West

  59.8

  2.0

  Leyton and Wanstead

  36.1

  1.0

  Lichfield

  10.3

  0.3

  Lincoln

  43.9

  1.3

  Liverpool, Garston

  57.1

  1.3

  Liverpool, Riverside

  32.8

  1.0

  Liverpool, Walton

  48.1

  1.2

  Liverpool, Wavertree

  46.0

  1.0

  298W

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absences — England 1998–99 analysed by parliamentary constituency

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of half days missed (thousand)

  Percentage of half days missed

  Liverpool, West Derby

  48.3

  1.2

  Loughborough

  34.7

  0.8

  Louth and Horncastle

  21.3

  0.6

  Ludlow

  10.2

  0.3

  Luton, North

  34.2

  0.7

  Luton, South

  24.3

  0.6

  Macclesfield

  14.7

  0.4

  Maidenhead

  10.5

  0.3

  Maidstone and The Weald

  18.4

  0.4

  Makerfield

  28.3

  0.6

  Maldon and East Chelmsford

  13.8

  0.4

  Manchester, Blackley

  58.0

  1.3

  Manchester, Central

  51.2

  1.6

  Manchester, Gorton

  54.6

  1.7

  Manchester, Withington

  35.6

  1.0

  Mansfield

  52.4

  1.3

  Medway

  23.5

  0.5

  Meriden

  28.1

  0.6

  Mid Bedfordshire

  13.9

  0.3

  Mid Dorset and North Pool

  18.2

  0.4

  Mid Norfolk

  7.2

  0.2

  Mid Sussex

  9.7

  0.2

  Mid Worcestershire

  14.4

  0.4

  Middlesbrough

  45.4

  0.9

  Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East

  20.4

  0.5

  Milton Keynes, South-West

  24.6

  0.5

  Milton Keynes, North-East

  13.9

  0.4

  Mitcham and Morden

  50.0

  1.6

  Mole Valley

  7.2

  0.3

  Morecambe and Lunesdale

  25.1

  0.7

  Morley and Rothwell

  50.4

  1.1

  New Forest, East

  20.3

  0.6

  New Forest, West

  7.7

  0.3

  Newark

  39.4

  0.9

  Newbury

  11.5

  0.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne, Central

  24.1

  0.8

  Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend

  33.3

  1.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne, North

  18.8

  0.6

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  16.6

  0.5

  Normanton

  19.8

  0.5

  North Cornwall

  19.6

  0.4

  North Devon

  16.1

  0.4

  North Dorset

  10.6

  0.3

  North Durham

  21.3

  0.6

  North-East Bedfordshire

  14.6

  0.4

  North-East Cambridgeshire

  43.0

  1.2

  North-East Derbyshire

  31.6

  0.8

  North-East Hampshire

  15.5

  0.4

  North-East Hertfordshire

  12.2

  0.3

  North Essex

  11.3

  0.4

  North Norfolk

  15.7

  0.5

  North Shropshire

  13.2

  0.4

  North Swindon

  18.4

  0.5

  North Thanet

  26.8

  0.9

  North Tyneside

  12.1

  0.4

  North Warwickshire

  16.0

  0.4

  North-West Cambridgeshire

  24.9

  0.6

  North-West Durham

  18.6

  0.6

  North-West Hampshire

  23.0

  0.6

  North-West Leicestershire

  22.0

  0.6

  North-West Norfolk

  38.1

  1.0

  North Wiltshire

  11.4

  0.2

  Northampton, North

  39.2

  0.9

  Northampton, South

  22.9

  0.6

  Northavon

  14.4

  0.3

  Norwich, North

  32.4

  0.8

  Norwich, South

  19.8

  0.7

  Nottingham, East

  45.9

  1.7

  Nottingham, North

  109.2

  2.2

  Nottingham, South

  36.3

  1.2

  Nuneaton

  19.2

  0.5

  Old Bexley and Sidcup

  12.9

  0.3

  Oldham, East and Saddleworth

  43.6

  0.9

  299W

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absences — England 1998–99 analysed by parliamentary constituency

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of half days missed (thousand)

  Percentage of half days missed

  Oldham, West and Royton

  66.9

  1.3

  Orpington

  19.5

  0.5

  Oxford, East

  58.3

  1.8

  Oxford, West and Abingdon

  28.0

  0.8

  Pendle

  36.5

  0.8

  Penrith and The Border

  7.2

  0.2

  Peterborough

  40.0

  0.8

  Plymouth, Devonport

  25.0

  0.5

  Plymouth, Sutton

  23.3

  0.7

  Pontefract and Castleford

  40.7

  1.1

  Poole

  17.0

  0.7

  Poplar and Canning Town

  92.3

  2.0

  Portsmouth, North

  45.2

  1.2

  Portsmouth, South

  28.4

  0.9

  Preston

  39.5

  1.1

  Pudsey

  22.4

  0.5

  Putney

  20.5

  1.0

  Rayleigh

  10.2

  0.3

  Reading, East

  20.5

  0.7

  Reading, West

  37.1

  0.8

  Redcar

  41.8

  0.9

  Redditch

  26.6

  0.7

  Regent's Park and Kensington, North

  98.0

  3.0

  Reigate

  7.3

  0.3

  Ribble Valley

  9.6

  0.2

  Richmond, Yorks

  9.9

  0.3

  Richmond Park

  15.4

  0.5

  Rochdale

  36.3

  0.8

  Rochford and Southend, East

  39.5

  1.0

  Romford

  10.0

  0.3

  Romsey

  12.1

  0.3

  Rossendale and Darwen

  35.1

  0.7

  Rother Valley

  47.1

  1.0

  Rotherham

  30.4

  0.8

  Rugby and Kenilworth

  16.7

  0.4

  Ruislip-Northwood

  21.4

  0.7

  Runnymede and Weybridge

  9.2

  0.3

  Rushcliffe

  23.9

  0.6

  Rutland and Melton

  12.0

  0.3

  Ryedale

  7.0

  0.2

  Saffron Walden

  14.3

  0.4

  St. Albans

  16.7

  0.4

  St. Helens, North

  7.5

  0.2

  St. Helens, South

  21.9

  0.6

  St. Ives

  15.0

  0.4

  Salford

  44.1

  1.4

  Salisbury

  19.5

  0.5

  Scarborough and Whitby

  24.4

  0.6

  Scunthorpe

  29.5

  0.7

  Sedgefield

  28.7

  0.8

  Selby

  10.0

  0.2

  Sevenoaks

  10.8

  0.5

  Sheffield, Attercliffe

  30.6

  0.9

  Sheffield, Brightside

  99.5

  2.8

  Sheffield, Central

  52.4

  2.5

  Sheffield, Hallam

  15.9

  0.4

  Sheffield, Heeley

  42.7

  1.3

  Sheffield, Hillsborough

  25.0

  0.7

  Sherwood

  25.7

  0.6

  Shipley

  42.7

  1.1

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  11.8

  0.3

  Sittingbourne and Sheppey

  18.0

  0.4

  Skipton and Ripon

  11.4

  0.3

  Sleaford and North, Hykeham

  8.4

  0.2

  Slough

  43.8

  0.9

  Solihull

  13.1

  0.3

  Somerton and Frome

  12.3

  0.3

  South Cambridgeshire

  6.4

  0.2

  South Derbyshire

  23.0

  0.5

  South Dorset

  13.7

  0.5

  South-East Cambridgeshire

  14.0

  0.3

  South-East Cornwall

  12.8

  0.3

  South Holland and The Deepings

  19.9

  0.5

  300W

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absences — England 1998–99 analysed by parliamentary constituency

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of half days missed (thousand)

  Percentage of half days missed

  South Norfolk

  14.1

  0.3

  South Ribble

  14.3

  0.3

  South Shields

  8.7

  0.2

  South Staffordshire

  13.7

  0.4

  South Suffolk

  10.4

  0.3

  South Swindon

  24.1

  0.6

  South Thanet

  17.9

  0.5

  South-West Bedfordshire

  18.4

  0.4

  South-West Devon

  9.4

  0.2

  South-West Hertfordshire

  14.5

  0.4

  South-West Norfolk

  25.8

  0.6

  South-West Surrey

  9.4

  0.3

  Southampton, Itchen

  44.6

  1.0

  Southampton, Test

  37.4

  1.1

  Southend, West

  26.7

  0.8

  Southport

  8.4

  0.3

  Southwark, North and Bermondsey

  80.4

  2.1

  Spelthorne

  16.0

  0.5

  Stafford

  17.2

  0.5

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  9.9

  0.3

  Stalybridge and Hyde

  38.1

  0.9

  Stevenage

  24.8

  0.5

  Stockport

  29.8

  1.0

  Stockton, North

  20.7

  0.5

  Stockton, South

  20.5

  0.4

  Stoke-on-Trent, Central

  27.1

  0.9

  Stoke-on-Trent, North

  31.3

  0.9

  Stoke-on-Trent, South

  26.7

  0.7

  Stone

  6.2

  0.2

  Stourbridge

  5.7

  0.2

  Stratford-on-Avon

  9.1

  0.2

  Streatham

  23.7

  0.8

  Stretford and Urmston

  45.8

  1.1

  Stroud

  5.6

  0.2

  Suffolk Coastal

  9.7

  0.3

  Sunderland, North

  15.4

  0.5

  Sunderland, South

  41.2

  0.9

  Surrey Heath

  13.8

  0.4

  Sutton and Cheam

  9.5

  0.3

  Sutton Coldfield

  16.7

  0.4

  Tamworth

  23.2

  0.6

  Tatton

  10.1

  0.4

  Taunton

  10.2

  0.3

  Teignbridge

  15.8

  0.4

  Telford

  23.9

  0.6

  Tewkesbury

  9.0

  0.2

  The Wrekin

  21.4

  0.6

  Thurrock

  52.3

  1.2

  Tiverton and Honiton

  17.2

  0.4

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  12.2

  0.3

  Tooting

  19.4

  0.7

  Torbay

  23.5

  0.6

  Torridge and West Devon

  24.1

  0.6

  Totnes

  13.0

  0.4

  Tottenham

  71.0

  1.9

  Truro and St. Austell

  15.8

  0.4

  Tunbridge Wells

  9.2

  0.3

  Twickenham

  30.5

  0.8

  Tyne Bridge

  26.0

  1.2

  Tynemouth

  11.7

  0.3

  Upminster

  13.6

  0.4

  Uxbridge

  48.5

  1.3

  Vale of York

  5.5

  0.2

  Vauxhall

  34.7

  1.2

  Wakefield

  28.5

  0.9

  Wallasey

  27.8

  0.7

  Walsall, North

  35.7

  0.9

  Walsall, South

  39.5

  1.0

  Walthamstow

  44.1

  1.2

  Wansbeck

  23.8

  0.6

  Wansdyke

  24.1

  0.5

  Wantage

  17.5

  0.5

  Warley

  32.6

  0.9

  301W

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absences — England 1998–99 analysed by parliamentary constituency

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of half days missed (thousand)

  Percentage of half days missed

  Warrington, North

  20.2

  0.5

  Warrington, South

  12.0

  0.3

  Warwick and Leamington

  16.5

  0.4

  Watford

  19.8

  0.5

  Waveney

  14.4

  0.3

  Wealden

  16.3

  0.4

  Weaver Vale

  36.3

  0.8

  Wellingborough

  33.0

  0.8

  Wells

  12.8

  0.3

  Welwyn Hatfield

  18.4

  0.5

  Wentworth

  33.5

  0.8

  West Bromwich, East

  34.8

  0.9

  West Bromwich, West

  40.5

  1.1

  West Chelmsford

  13.4

  0.3

  West Derbyshire

  14.4

  0.4

  West Dorset

  13.7

  0.4

  West Ham

  135.6

  2.5

  West Lancashire

  22.8

  0.5

  West Suffolk

  12.4

  0.4

  West Worcestershire

  16.8

  0.5

  Westbury

  17.2

  0.4

  Westmorland and Lonsdale

  5.4

  0.2

  Weston-super-Mare

  30.7

  0.8

  Wigan

  23.9

  0.6

  Wimbledon

  31.1

  1.1

  Winchester

  11.5

  0.3

  Windsor

  10.4

  0.4

  Wirral, South

  6.7

  0.2

  Wirral, West

  15.0

  0.4

  Witney

  14.6

  0.4

  Woking

  13.5

  0.4

  Wokingham

  13.5

  0.3

  Wolverhampton, North-East

  53.1

  1.3

  Wolverhampton, South-East

  42.3

  1.4

  Wolverhampton, South-West

  16.7

  0.5

  Woodspring

  12.3

  0.3

  Worcester

  28.4

  0.9

  Workington

  7.0

  0.2

  Worsley

  31.9

  0.7

  Worthing, West

  11.0

  0.4

  Wycombe

  16.1

  0.4

  Wyre Forest

  19.9

  0.5

  Wythenshawe and Sale, East

  58.5

  1.3

  Yeovil

  10.4

  0.3

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have taken advantage of individual learning accounts in(a) the UK, (b) Teesside Region and (c) the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East; and if he will make a statement. [131209]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: From April 1999 to the end of April 2000 a total of 125,992 accounts had been opened through Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs). The national framework for Individual Learning Accounts became partly operational on 12 June 2000 since when an additional 8,000 Individual Learning Accounts have been opened with the national Individual
  302W
  Learning Accounts Centre. Tees Valley TEC have opened 4,682 Individual Learning Accounts of which 840 are held by people in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency.

  By April 2001 we aim to have 500,000 Individual Learning Accounts opened rising to a million by April 2002.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to promote Individual Learning Accounts; and if he will make a statement. [131208]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs) have been available locally through Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) in England and Wales since April 1999 and have therefore been promoted locally. A national framework for learning accounts has now been developed and a part service, where individuals and learning providers can register for the initiative, has been available since 12 June 2000. The national framework, operating a full service in England, will replace local accounts with effect from 4 September 2000. A total of 125,992 accounts have been opened through TECs by the end of April 2000 with a further 8,000 under national arrangements.

  Since April this year officials from my Department have held more than 30 events with public and private learning providers to promote the introduction of the national framework. In addition, more than 750,000 leaflets setting out details of the national framework have been distributed since the part-service became operational in June. The leaflets have been sent to public and private learning providers, advice centres, partner organisations and members of the public. The Individual Learning Account website also provides our partners with regular updates and marketing information. We will build on this initial promotional work over the coming months by working, for example, with employers and trade unions, to ensure that those people who will benefit most from Individual Learning Accounts get the information they need.

  Adult Education (Middlesbrough)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding plans he has made to improve(a) levels of literacy and numeracy and (b) IT skills among the adult population of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East; and if he will make a statement. [131207]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: Government support to improve adult basic skills in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East includes funding for family learning, which supports programmes like 'Story Teller' and 'Computers Together'. Additional funding for family literacy and numeracy announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in May will mean that Middlesbrough LEA will receive funding for an additional 41 'Keeping up with the Children' courses, five 'Family Numeracy' courses, five 'Family Literacy' courses and 13 'Family Numeracy' workshops.

  We recognise the importance of ensuring that there are opportunities for people of all ages to develop IT skills in areas such as Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East.

  303W
  That is why we have provided £252 million nationally to fund ICT Learning Centres. Within the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East areas we have received one full application to establish two centres in the Skinningrove area, and three expressions of interest for later phases of the initiative.

  The Government have already announced an additional £37 million nationally for improvements in the quality and range of adult basic skills provision, including family literacy and numeracy, over the past year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment plans to announce later this year the Government's full strategy to help adults with poor basic skills.

  Truancy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent discussions he has had with London education departments on truancy of school children within their boroughs. [131470]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are in regular contact with many local education authorities in London about truancy, and the disruption it has on continuity of learning and the wider social and community costs.

  We have in place a range of measures to tackle truancy and improve attendance in our schools. Our Social Inclusion: Pupil Support Grant—worth over £500 million in three years—is providing practical support to local education authorities and schools. For 2000–01, London local education authorities will receive just over £26.5 million out of the grant to support local projects. Projects include electronic equipment to monitor attendance, additional staff to chase-up truants and reward schemes for acknowledging regular attendance.

  £ million

  Provisional expenditure1

  Programme

  1999–2000 allocation

  Amount

  Percentage

  Carry forward

  New Deal for young people

  775

  287

  37

  488

  New Deal for long-term unemployed

  222

  80

  36

  142

  New Deal for lone parents2

  51

  34

  67

  17

  New Deal for disabled2

  12

  9

  75

  3

  Total

  1,060

  410

  38

  3650

  1 Expenditure figures, while unlikely to change significantly, remain provisional until end year accounts are finalised and exclude a total of £86 million spent out of existing departmental provision

  2 New Deals for lone parents and the disabled are programmes operating jointly between the DfEE and DSS and figures given are those for DfEE only

  3 Underspends are either carried forward to cover anticipated expenditure for respective New Deals into future years or made available to support the Welfare to Work programme

  The numbers of people entering New Deal programmes were lower than had earlier been projected on the basis of the Government's unemployment assumption at the time. That is one major reason why expenditure in 1999–2000 was considerably below the level of the original allocation. A second reason is the success of the New Deal for young people itself which also contributed to the level of expenditure being much lower than the original allocations.

  The programme aims to help as many people as possible to leave its Gateway for jobs. The original planning assumption was that 60 per cent. would need to
  304W
  We are also encouraging local education authorities to undertake regular "Truancy Sweeps" in conjunction with the police. During these sweeps, truants are picked up from the streets during school hours and are taken back either to their schools or a designated place. Several effective sweeps have been undertaken in London with our support.

  In addition, I recently announced the pilot areas to test the devolvement of Education Welfare Services to secondary schools. The aim is to see whether attendance officers employed directly by schools would make it easier to deal with truancy quickly. Of the 15 local education authorities selected, five are from London—Barnet, Camden, Haringey, Havering and Westminster. I am pleased that the pilot will be fully tested in London, in a variety of boroughs. We will be in regular contact with these authorities as the pilot progresses.

  Windfall Tax (New Deal)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) amount and (b) percentage of the proceeds of the Windfall Tax allocated in the 1999 Budget to (i) the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, (ii) the New Deal for the long-term unemployed, (iii) the New Deal for lone parents and (iv) the New Deal for the sick and disabled, for expenditure during the 1999–2000 financial year was (1) spent during that year and (2) carried forward for future years, indicating the reasons for underspend. [131216]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The following table shows the amount of windfall tax set out in the 1999 Budget Report allocated to the Department for Education and Employment, for the New Deal programmes shown, in 1999–2000 together with provisional expenditure estimates and carry forward.

  move on from the New Deal Gateway into one of the four options. Because of the effective performance of the Gateway in 1998–99, only some 45 per cent. of entrant were in fact moving into an option. The New Deal for young people did better still in 1999–2000, when this figure reduced to some 40 per cent. Fewer young people into options has the effect of reducing expenditure on option provision, allowances and Follow-Through.

  Expenditure on the Government's Welfare to Work programme is, of course, planned over the medium term and unspent resources in any single year are available for spending in future years. Revised estimates were

  305W
  calculated at the time of Budget 2000, to reflect our latest assumptions about unemployment and what we have now learned from experience about the way the New Deal operates.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about the consistency of the allocation process of funds by the Further Education Funding Council to further education colleges in Manchester, as part of the national settlement; and if he will make a statement. [131415]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 19 July 2000]: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the allocation of funds by the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) to further education colleges in Manchester. The representations raise a series of complex technical points which the FEFC is now pursuing urgently. I will write to my hon. Friend when the FEFC has responded to the concerns raised.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the possibility of legal liability arising from the overruling and reversal of advice given by officers acting for the Further Education Funding Council. [131359]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 19 July 2000]: Any potential liability arising in the circumstances described in the question would be an issue between the Further Education Funding Council and any colleges affected.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those colleges of further education which are in dispute with the Further Education Funding Council over the interpretation of the Council's two per cent. tolerance policy based on the 1996–97 funding agreement; and what assessment he has made of the impact on those colleges' financial planning and policies of advice on interpretation of the two per cent. tolerance policy given by the Council's officers. [131358]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 19 July 2000]: One college, Eastleigh, has lodged a formal complaint with the Further Education Funding Council and others are in discussion with the Council. A college which had assumed it could write off a 2 per cent. shortfall should now aim to make up the difference either by repaying the funds or absorbing some unfunded growth. The Council has offered flexible terms to assist any college in this position.

  Performance Tables
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to include the publication of pupil achievements at entry and foundation level in the annual publication of the school performance league tables. [130870]

  Jacqui Smith
  The achievements of pupils at foundation level are already included in the annual secondary school performance tables. The first results in Entry Level qualifications are available this year, following accreditation of courses from 1998. We have recently sought advice from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority on the suitability of Entry Level qualifications for inclusion in the calculation of measures 306W
  of value added for publication in the performance tables. Doing so would ensure increased coverage of the achievements of pupils with special educational needs in our measurement of pupils' progress in schools from one stage of education to another, in line with our overall policy of inclusion for these pupils.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to adjust the reporting of data in the school performance tables to provide a more accurate picture of schools which take in pupils from overseas with English language difficulties. [132063]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government have considered very carefully the representations they have received from schools which take in significant numbers of pupils form overseas, including refugee and asylum seeker children, who have difficulties with the English language. Until they have had an opportunity to improve their language skills and to become familiar with the English curriculum, such pupils will not do their best in National Curriculum tests and in public examinations.

  We have therefore decided that pupils recently arrived from overseas, with English language difficulties, should not be counted as being on school rolls when performance is calculated for the purpose of producing the primary and secondary school performance tables. This change will apply with effect from this year's performance tables, which will be published towards the end of the year. It will apply to all pupils from overseas whose first language is not English and who were admitted to an English school for the first time on or after the start of Year 5 (for the primary school tables) or Year 10 (for the secondary school tables).

  Schools will be invited in the autumn to provide officials in the Department for Education and Employment with information about those pupils who fall into the category described above and who should not be counted as being on the school roll for performance tables purposes. Further details will be made available to schools early in the autumn term.

  This change will apply only to school and local educational authority level data in the performance tables. National data will continue to be reported on the same basis as in previous years, with overseas pupils included.

TREASURY

  National Health Service
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the changes made to the level of NHS spending as a result of his Budget announcements. [130137]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In Budget 2000, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the biggest, most sustained growth in funding of any 4-year period in the history of the NHS, with annual average real terms growth of 6.1 per cent. in the UK, over double the rate achieved under the last Government. Table 5.1 in the Economic and Financial Strategy Report gives NHS spending plans.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Scotland will benefit from the Children's Tax Credit when it is introduced next April. [130142]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We estimate that 400,000 families in Scotland could benefit from the Children's Tax Credit.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in the West Midlands region will benefit from the Children's Tax Credit. [130152]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We estimate that 450,000 families in the West Midlands region could benefit from the Children's Tax Credit.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in the North-west region will benefit from the Children's Tax Credit when it is introduced in April 2001. [130158]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We estimate that 625,000 families in the North-west region could benefit from the Children's Tax Credit.

  Financial Products (Mis-selling)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Financial Services Authority's role in respect of the mis-selling of endowment mortgages. [130143]

  Mr. Timms
  Where mortgage borrowers have been mis-sold an endowment, the regulators have powers to take disciplinary action which can result in firms being directed to make compensation. Lower inflation has meant that the proceeds of an endowment may be lower than initially hoped for, but that does not necessarily mean that there has been mis-selling. The borrower will also of course have benefited from lower mortgage interest payments.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to reduce the mis-selling of financial products. [130150]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Financial Services and Markets Act puts in place a single regulator, with statutory objectives to maintain market confidence, protect customers, promote consumer awareness and reduce financial crime.

  Single Currency
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to measure public opinion on the question of the United Kingdom joining the single European currency. [130144]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government receive a large number of letters from members of the public expressing their views about UK membership of the single currency. The Government also have access to independent surveys of public opinion on UK membership, which are in the public domain.

  The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement to the house in October 1997 and restated recently in his speech at the Mansion House.
  308W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary about the UK's eventual membership of a European single currency. [130153]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets Cabinet colleagues to discuss a range of issues. The Government's policy towards the single currency has not changed and will not change. We will only recommend joining a successful single currency if it is in our national economic interest to do so, and if the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous. The Treasury will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues concerning his policy on the euro. [130157]

  Mr. Timms
  The Chancellor meets with his colleagues to discuss a range of issues.

  Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission an independent assessment at the appropriate time of whether the five economic tests for entry into the single currency have been met. [130163]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 5 July 2000,Official Report, column 200W.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on his policy on the euro. [130164]

  Mr. Timms
  I frequently receive representations on a range of Government policies including the Government's policy on the euro.

  Business Taxation
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning business taxes introduced since May 1997. [130146]

  Mr. Timms
  The Treasury has received a number of representations from business, including comments from the Institute of Directors that the Budget shows that the Government believe in the enterprise culture.

  Third-world Debt
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the IMF's role in reducing the debts of third-world countries. [130147]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The IMF has committed to providing $2.3 billion of debt relief (in net present value terms) under the enhanced HIPC initiative. In the context of assisting countries to prepare their Poverty Reduction Strategies and ensuring progress on delivering the enhanced debt relief, the IMF will work together with the World bank and the HIPC countries themselves to ensure that the benefits of this debt relief go to reducing poverty.

  Education (Investment)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated cost is to public funds of his plans for investment in education in each of the next four years. [130148]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Plans for expenditure on education and training were set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18 July in the Spending Review White Paper. Expenditure on education and training in England will rise from £38.8 billion this year to £42.1 billion in 2001–02, £45.6 billion in 2002–03 and £49.2 billion in 2003–04—an average real increase of 5.6 per cent. across the three years.

  E-commerce
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect his tax relief on computer and IT investments will have on e-commerce in the UK. [130149]

  Mr. Timms
  The new 100 per cent. capital allowances on computer and IT investments will encourage small businesses to acquire the means to exploit the opportunities offered by e-commerce. These opportunities include access to markets that were previously inaccessible and potentially lower business transaction costs. Small businesses are targeted because they are less prepared for e-commerce than larger businesses. This measure complements other Government initiatives to encourage e-commerce, including investing £60 million to provide advice and planning to help small and medium-sized businesses get on line.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the tax changes he has made since May 1997. [130151]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all taxes under review and receive representations on a range of issues.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the finances of an average-income family of changes to indirect taxation since May 1997. [130156]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on changes in indirect taxes and the effect on typical amounts can be found in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Tax and National Insurance
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the percentage of GDP which was accounted for by net taxes and social security contributions in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1999–2000. [130154]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury updates its fiscal and economic forecasts, and the ratio of tax receipts to GDP, twice a year in the Budget and Pre-Budget Report, and most recently in the Budget Red Book, where it shows the share falling from 37 per cent. of GDP last year to 36.9 per cent. of GDP this year and 36.7 per cent. of GDP in 2003–04.
  310W
  As the Chancellor said on Tuesday, the combination of a stronger economy leading to higher revenues and £4.5 billion lower spending meant that the net debt repayment last year was not £11.9 billion, as we said at the time of the Budget, but £18.1 billion.

  Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to promote the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises. [130155]

  Mr. Timms
  Since 1997, the Government have cut the average corporation tax bill for small companies by nearly 25 per cent., transformed the capital gains tax system and introduced enhanced capital allowances, including 100 per cent. capital allowances for investment by small companies in ICT equipment.

  The Spending Review builds on this by substantially increasing the resources available to the Small Business Service and Regional Development Agencies. This represents a comprehensive approach to improving the climate for enterprise and innovation.

  Taxpayer Confidentiality
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of current measures to ensure the security of taxpayers' information. [130159]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue issues a range of guidance material to staff which emphasises the need to be extremely vigilant when dealing with people over the telephone. They also issue periodic reminders to reinforce this message.

  Employment
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect his Department's policies have had on levels of employment in the eastern region since May 1997. [130160]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In the east, as in the rest of the UK, we have created a sound and credible platform of economic stability that will help us attain our objective of high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the election, employment in the east has risen by 134,000 and unemployment has fallen by 59,000.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the policies announced in the Budget to increase employment. [130161]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor announced a range of measures in Budget 2000 which build on existing employment programmes. These policies are all set out in Chapter 4 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, which outlines progress made towards the Government's aim of providing employment opportunity for all—the modern definition of full employment.

  Macroeconomic stability is a prerequisite for achieving this aim, and the microeconomic policies announced, reinforced by reforms in the tax and benefits systems, are designed to help people move from welfare into work, and to ensure that employment is rewarding, that there is

  311W
  a secure transition into work, and that there is the chance to gain skills which will help progression up the earnings ladder.

  One of the new measures in the Budget was the introduction of Action Teams. These will work to match long term unemployed people in areas with high unemployment to nearby vacancies. As revealed last week, Lewisham is to be an Action Team area.

  Married Persons Tax Allowance
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received following the abolition of the Married Persons Tax Allowance; and if he will make a statement. [130162]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers regularly receive representations about all aspects of the tax system.

  The abolition of the Married Couples Allowance for couples aged under 65, and associated reliefs, was part of a package of reforms designed to focus more support on families with children. By April 2001, we will be spending an extra £7 billion a year on support for children. As a result of all our measures, families with children will on average be £850 a year better off.

  Inflation Forecasts
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the inflation forecasts set out in the Red Book. [130165]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) on 22 June 2000,Official Report, column 286W.

  Bank Closures
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of bank closures on financial activities and investment levels in communities that have experienced bank closures; and if he will make a statement; [129663]

  (2) what steps he has taken to encourage banks to make social impact assessments before announcing branch closures. [129712]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The Government have challenged banks to develop new products and delivery channels—including working closely with the Post Office on its plans for a Universal bank—to meet the financial services needs of deprived communities.

  Former Civil Servants
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date Mike Burt(a) ceased to be the head of procurement practice and development at HM Treasury and (b) became Chief Executive of Cityjobs.com plc. [130054]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Mike Burt was an employee of my Department on loan to HM Treasury at the time of his resignation. I understand
  312W
  that he ceased to be the head of procurement practice and development at HM Treasury on 26 May 2000 and became Chief Executive of Cityjobs.com plc on 5 June 2000.

  Cross-departmental Initiatives
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the cross-departmental initiatives that his Department leads; and if he will make a statement. [130266]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 12 July 2000]: The Treasury is involved in a wide range of cross-departmental initiatives. Fifteen cross-departmental reviews were conducted as part of Spending Review 2000 and are listed on page 101 of the Spending Review 2000 White Paper. Each review was conducted by an interdepartmental team, including Treasury officials.

  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Spending Review 2000 on Tuesday 18 July.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent on consultants in respect of private finance initiative projects in each of the last five years. [130504]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: The information sought is not held centrally.

  Technical Note No. 3, "How to Appoint and Manage Advisers", issued by the former Treasury taskforce, sets out best practice in this area. It suggests that accounting officers may wish to take the guidance into account in accordance with their responsibilities on value for money.

  Procurement Guidance No. 3, "Appointment of Consultants and Contractors", issued by the former procurement group of HM Treasury, provides advice on how to achieve value for money in the appointment of consultants and contractors.

  Both publications are now the responsibility of the Office of Government Commerce.

  I am today placing copies of both publications in the Library.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the small business community in Scotland regarding the additional responsibilities placed on small businesses through Government fiscal policy, with special reference to the Working Families Tax Credit. [130547]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: The Inland Revenue has been consulting employer representatives, including those from the small business community, since May 1998 with the aim of minimising any additional costs to employers who pay tax credits through the payroll. This consultation process is ongoing.

  The regulations relating to employer's involvement in Working Families Tax Credit reflect many of the comments received from the representative bodies and others during the consultation period.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who work full-time(a) in the UK, (b) in Teesside Region and (c) in the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. [131011]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Ashok Kumar, dated 17 July 2000:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about 16 and 17 year olds in full-time employment in the UK, Teesside and the constituency of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland.
  The latest available non-seasonally adjusted data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), which is National Statistics' main source of labour market data on individuals, show that there were 182,000 16 and 17 year olds in full-time employment in the UK in the spring (March-May) quarter of 2000.
  The LFS is able to provide estimates at local or small area levels but as with any sample survey these are subject to sampling variability. The smaller the estimate, the larger the variability relative to the size of the estimate. Unfortunately, analyses of employment among 16 & 17 year olds for both the Teesside area and the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency do not provide reliable estimates.
  People aged 16 or over are classed as in employment by the LFS if they have done at least one hour of paid work (as an employee or self-employed) in the week prior to their LFS interview or if they have a job that they are temporarily away from. People who do unpaid work in a family business and people on Government-supported training and employment programmes are also included according to the International Labour Organisation convention.

  Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the timetable for implementation of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [131530]

  Table 2.4: Changes in the surplus on current budget and net borrowing since Budget 991

  £ billion

  Outturn2

  Estimate

  Projections

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Surplus on current budget1,3

  Budget 99

  4.1

  2

  4

  8

  9

  11

  —

  Effect of revision/forecasting changes

  3.1

  7

  8

  6

  4

  1

  —

  Effect of policy measures

  —

  —

  -1

  -1

  -1

  -1

  —

  PBR99

  7.2

  9.5

  11

  13

  13

  12

  11

  Effect of revision/forecasting changes

  0.3

  7.5

  6

  11

  10

  8

  9

  Effect of policy measures

  —

  —

  -3

  -9

  -10

  -12

  -12

  Net borrowing1,3

  Budget 99

  -1.0

  3

  3

  1

  3

  4

  —

  Effect of revision/forecasting changes

  -1.5

  -6

  -7

  -5

  -3

  0

  —

  Effect of policy measures

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  PBR99

  -2.5

  -3.5

  -3

  -3

  1

  4

  6

  Effect of revision/forecasting changes

  -0.3

  -8.4

  -6

  -13

  -10

  -8

  -9

  Effect of policy measures

  —

  —

  4

  12

  13

  16

  16

  Budget 2000

  -2.8

  -11.9

  -6

  -5

  3

  1113

  1 Excluding windfall tax receipts and associated spending

  2 The 1998–99 figures were estimates in Budget 99

  3 Figures may not sum due to rounding

  314W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 18 July 2000,Official Report, column 109W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2000,Official Report, column 508W, concerning targets for answering parliamentary questions, if he will list the performance of his Department in financial year 1999–2000 against each of the targets; and if he will make a statement. [131642]

  Mr. Timms
  The Treasury's targets for answering parliamentary questions relate to parliamentary sessions not financial years. We are on track to meet our targets in the 1999–2000 session: 62 per cent. of named day questions have been answered on time; 75 per cent. of ordinary written questions; and 93 per cent. of House of Lords written questions.

  Economic Growth Rates
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 July 2000,Official Report, column 689W, what estimate he has made of the correlation coefficient of the UK against the growth rates of (a) the USA, (b) France and (c) Germany; and if he will make a statement. [131618]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Economic Secretary gave him on 3 February 2000,Official Report, column 685W.

  Economic and Financial Strategy Report
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about Table 2.4 in the Economic and Financial Strategy report of March 2000. [132236]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There were some minor errors in this table affecting the decomposition of changes between projects. A corrected version is printed as follows:

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if EU funds for transport improvements in Scotland have been(a) paid in addition to or (b) included in, the Barnett Formula settlement in each year since 1997. [129800]

  Dr. Reid
  I have been asked to reply:

  Public expenditure funded by the European Union for transport improvements in Scotland has been provided for in the Scottish Block (now the Scottish Assigned Budget). The level of provision is determined with regard to plans agreed with the Commission and to the submission of claims by project sponsors.

  The Barnett Formula is a mechanism for determining aggregate expenditure provision for the Assigned Budget, by providing an increase in total provision over current

  As at 13 July 2000

  Rover

  Jaguar

  Ford

  Department

  800 UK

  400 UK

  R45 UK

  Discovery UK

  Jag/Daimler UK

  Limousine UK

  Mondeo Belgium

  Galaxy Portugal

  Sierra Belgium

  Cabinet Office

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  2

  —

  Crown Prosecution Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Department for Education and Employment

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Department for International Development

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Department of Social Security

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Department for Trade and Industry

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Export Credit Guarantee Department

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Department of Health

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  HM Treasury

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Home Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Law Officer's Department

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  >

  3

  —

  —

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Ministry of Defence

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Office of Government Commerce

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Privy Council Office

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Scotland Office

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Treasury Solicitor

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wales Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Sub total

  10

  5

  2

  0

  5

  0

  41

  2

  0

  GCDA1

  25

  0

  0

  2

  6

  1

  14

  1

  1

  Total

  35

  5

  2

  2

  11

  1

  55

  3

  1

  1 Includes security vehicles

  As at 13 July 2000

  Vauxhall

  Nissan

  Department

  Omega Germany

  Vectra Germany

  Vectra UK

  Astra Germany

  Cavalier UK

  Primera UK

  Total

  Cabinet Office

  5

  1

  2

  4

  —

  —

  20

  Crown Prosecution Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  9

  Department for Education and Employment

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Department for International Development

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Department of Social Security

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Department for Trade and Industry

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7

  Export Credit Guarantee Department

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Department of Health

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  8

  HM Treasury

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  316W
  plans equivalent to a population-based share of increases in England on comparable programmes.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Cars
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list by Department the numbers of cars in the Government car fleet, broken down by make of car and country of manufacture. [126550]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Information for cars operated by the Government Car and Despatch Agency, on behalf of the Government as a whole, and the Cabinet Office is set out in the table. Some Departments, such as the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue, operate cars in addition to those on the list but details of the make and the country of origin are not held centrally.
  317W

  As at 13 July 2000

  Vauxhall

  Nissan

  Department

  Omega Germany

  Vectra Germany

  Vectra UK

  Astra Germany

  Cavalier UK

  Primera UK

  Total

  Home Office

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Law Officer's Department

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  Ministry of Defence

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Office of Government Commerce

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Privy Council Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Scotland Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Treasury Solicitor

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wales Office

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Sub total

  15

  18

  2

  4

  0

  6

  110

  GCDA1

  20

  8

  1

  0

  1

  0

  80

  Total

  35

  26

  3

  4

  1

  6

  190

  1 Includes security vehicles

  Agenda Computer System
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 23 June 2000,Official Report, column 306W, regarding the Agenda computer system, what the non-IT costs were with regard to the Agenda computer system in each year since it became operational in February 1998. [129721]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The non-IT costs incurred by my Department in supporting the Agenda system since it became operational in February 1998 are summarised in the table:

  Financial year

  £

  1997–98

  4,750

  1998–99

  30,636

  1999–2000

  37,014

  2000 to date

  9,621

  Civil Servants (Television Appearances)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what rules govern the appearance of civil servants on television programmes about politics. [130720]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Civil servants appearing on the radio or on television must comply with the requirements of the Civil Service Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Mileage Rates
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to review the mileage rates paid to civil service staff who use their own cars to carry out contractual duties, with particular reference to bringing these rates in line with the Inland Revenue's fixed profit car scheme. [131345]

  Mr. Stringer
  Motor mileage rates for civil servants who use their own cars on official business are not set centrally. Departments and agencies have delegated authority to reimburse the expenses incurred by their own staff in connection with their employment.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Gavin Mellor
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much has been spent on legal aid to date in respect of the case of Gavin Mellor. [131307]

  Mr. Lock
  Mr. Mellor was granted a legal aid certificate on 1 February 1999, to bring judicial review proceedings against the Home Secretary's decision not to allow him and his wife access to artificial insemination facilities.

  In a complex legal matter such as this, it is the practice of the Legal Services Commission to carry out periodic reviews of the case to ensure that the criteria for public funding continue to be met. It would be unusual to fund a case of this type unless a favourable counsel's opinion had been received.

  As at 14 July 2000, the total amount that had been paid on the certificate was a disbursement of £277. No other bills have so far been submitted by Mr. Mellor's solicitors.

  Nuisance Actions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate she has made of the number of actions for nuisance brought in the last 12 months by local authorities for which figures are available where professional witnesses of fact were involved. [131170]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Court Service does not collect statistics on the reasons for the issue of possession actions such as nuisance, nor the type of witnesses involved in such cases. This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost to the Department.

  Freedom of Information Bill
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he proposes to publish a
  319W
  draft code of practice on the management of records under the proposals contained in the Freedom of Information Bill. [132305]

  Mr. Lock
  I am delighted to publish today a working draft of the Code of Practice on the management of records under Freedom of Information. Copies of the draft have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report will also be available on the internet.

  The aims of the Code are twofold. The first is to set out practices which bodies subject to the Freedom of Information Act should follow in relation to the creation, keeping, management and destruction of their records. The second is to provide guidance on the review and transfer of public records to the Public Record Office, to places of deposit for public records appointed under the Public Records Act 1958, and to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland. The Code covers records in all technical or physical formats.

  Any freedom of information legislation is only as good as the quality of the records to which it provides access. Such rights are of little use if reliable records are not created in the first place, if they cannot be found when needed or if the arrangements for their eventual archiving or destruction are inadequate. Consequently all public authorities are encouraged to pay heed to the guidance in the Code. Authorities should note that if they fail to comply with the Code, they may be in breach of their statutory obligations.

  The Code would satisfy a duty proposed in the Freedom of Information Bill.

  Electronic Records
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to publish a policy statement on electronic records management. [132306]

  Mr. Lock
  The Government's policy on electronic records management was published in April. It is called the "Framework for Information Age Government: Electronic Records Management, an Annex to e-government, A strategic framework for public services in the Information Age". Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report is also available on the internet.

  Effective management of electronic records is essential to the Information Age Government programme. The replacement of manual and paper based processes with electronic processes requires the development of effective records management, covering existing as well as new electronic records. In government such records must be managed so as to retain their integrity, authenticity and accessibility through migrations as hardware and software change and to conform with the relevant Data Protection and Freedom of Information regulations.

  Any electronic government record is potentially a public record and for this reason all such records will be subject to additional controls including retention and disposal scheduling and prevention of content alteration.

  The development of a common system of electronic records management will facilitate collaboration between Government Departments and agencies.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April which requested information, pursuant to his previous answers. [131225]

  Mr. Lock
  According to departmental records covering the relevant period, six parliamentary questions were tabled to the Lord Chancellor's Department requesting information pursuant to previous answers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Rural Police Forces
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to allocate in the current year the money recently agreed for police forces in rural areas. [132066]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) of 15 June 2000,Official Report, column 714W, announced provision of £15 million, made available in the Budget, for assistance to police forces in rural areas this year.

  The allocations for 2000–01 are shown in the table.

  Police authority

  £

  Avon and Somerset

  494,892

  Bedfordshire

  81,390

  Cambridgeshire

  561,585

  Cheshire

  115,058

  City of London

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  Cumbria

  690,613

  Derbyshire

  208,347

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,554,673

  Dorset

  221,858

  Durham

  124,270

  Dyfed Powys

  1,297,570

  Essex

  251,315

  Gloucestershire

  387,093

  Greater Manchester

  0

  Gwent

  102,895

  Hampshire

  110,175

  Hertfordshire

  0

  Humberside

  357,640

  Kent

  298,863

  Lancashire

  32,228

  Leicestershire

  216,758

  Lincolnshire

  985,951

  Merseyside

  0

  Metropolitan

  0

  Norfolk

  1,036,848

  North Wales

  770,617

  North Yorkshire

  1,005,224

  Northamptonshire

  350,892

  Northumbria

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  South Wales

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  Staffordshire

  138,358

  Suffolk

  711,353

  Surrey

  5,463

  Sussex

  273,834

  Thames Valley

  629,559

  Warwickshire

  282,108

  West Mercia

  1,157,670

  321W

  Police authority

  £

  West Midlands

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  Wiltshire

  544,900

  All police authorities

  15,000,000

  The sums have been apportioned on the basis of population weighted by a sparsity score. Payment will be made shortly.

  Financial provision for future years has been included in the Spending Review 2000 settlement.

  Leave to Remain Application Forms
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to replace the current application forms for foreign nationals wishing to apply for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [132067]

  Mrs. Roche
  The current application forms are valid for use only until 14 October 2000. Revised forms will be prescribed before then. It is planned to make them available before the end of September. From the time they are issued until 14 October 2000, applications may be made on either the newly prescribed forms or the present versions. Only the new forms may be used for applications made on or after 15 October 2000. Copies will be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the outcome of the invitation to tender for the Criminal Records Bureau Information Systems and Services; and if he will make a statement. [132068]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Criminal Records Bureau issued an invitation to tender on 12 June 2000, for the provision of information systems and services through a public private sector partnership. Three firms had previously been shortlisted, and they provided their submissions in response to the invitation to tender on 28 June.

  Following a thorough evaluation against separate qualitative and financial criteria, Bernard Herdan, chief executive of the Criminal Records Bureau, has accepted the recommendation of the tender evaluation board that the tender from Capita should be selected as the one which is the most economically advantageous based on the best combination of technical design, customer service, quality, schedule, risk transfer and cost. The Criminal Records Bureau and Capita will now commence preferred supplier negotiations with a view to awarding a contract in the near future, subject to completion of a satisfactory appraisal and business case.

  National Probation Service
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to meet urgent expenditure relating to the new National Probation Service for England and Wales prior to the enactment of the Criminal Justice and Court Service Bill. [132069]
  322W
  Mr. Boateng
  Parliamentary approval for expenditure on the new National Probation Service for England and Wales will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for the Home Office Vote (Class IV Vote 1). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £670,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund. This expenditure is required to ensure that the National Probation Service would be able to come into effect on 1 April 2001, subject to the successful passage of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.

  Reform of the Probation Service is key to the Government's crime reduction and effective punishment strategy. Current plans envisage a vesting date of 1 April 2001 for the new National Probation Service. This date is key for delivering operational effectiveness gains, which would otherwise be lost or significantly delayed. Two critical ingredients of reform are changes in governance and leadership of the new service and it is in these areas that urgent expenditure would be incurred. The critical path for achieving the target date is dependent upon starting the process of selection to the 42 new probation boards, and the recruitment of chief officers for the eight amalgamated services, by July.

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employees of his Department and its agencies have been recruited from the New Deal; and what percentage of total staff this represents. [129143]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 22 July 1999,Official Report, column 618W, and also the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Marjorie Mowlam) to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) on 6 July 2000, Official Report, column 286W.

  Since my reply of 22 July 1999 the number of people recruited to the Home Office and its agencies under New Deal has increased to 25. This represents 0.71 per cent. of the total number of administrative assistants and equivalent grades (the grade at which New Dealers are engaged) in the Home Office.

  In addition, a further 39 people on New Deal have secured employment with the Prison Service through normal recruitment channels. This brings the percentage up to 1.83 per cent. of the total number of staff in the grade.

  Police Numbers (Suffolk)
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of serving police constables in the Suffolk Constabulary in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000. [130761]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of constables in the Suffolk Constabulary is set out in the table and is for 31 March of each year.
  323W

  Suffolk Constabulary

  Financial year (as at 31 March)

  Number of constables1

  1996–97: at 31 March 1997

  932

  1997–98: at 31 March 1998

  927

  1998–99: at 31 March 2000

  935

  1999–2000: at 13 March 2000

  890

  1 Full-time equivalents

  Road Safety (Cyclists)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted under section 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for being drunk in charge of a bicycle. [131244]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information for 1989 to 1999 taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table.

  Number of defendants prosecuted for the offence of riding a pedal cycle under the influence of drink or drugs, England and Wales, 1989–99

  Year

  Number of defendants prosecuted

  1989

  261

  1990

  211

  1991

  191

  1992

  108

  1993

  105

  1994

  71

  1995

  75

  1996

  85

  1997

  103

  1998

  98

  19991

  84

  1 1999 data are provisional

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when on-the-spot fines for cyclists riding on the pavement were introduced; and how many have been imposed. [131062]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Cycling on the pavement was made a fixed penalty offence on 1 August 1999. The fixed penalty is not an on-the-spot fine: payment is not required on-the-spot and the person receiving it can challenge its issue in court. In the period August to December 1999, 39 police forces in England and Wales issued 570 fixed penalty notices for the offence of cycling on the pavement; figures for the other four are not available.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2000,Official Report, column 166W, ref. 128237, how many asylum seekers were supported in 1999–2000. [130841]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1999–2000, asylum seekers were supported by either the Department of Social Security or local authorities. The available information shows that in the final quarter of 1999–2000, there were estimated to be 49,660 asylum seeker principal applicants being supported by the Department of Social Security each month. In the week ending 31 March 2000, 35,815 asylum seeker principal applicants were being supported by local authorities in London.
  324W
  Information on asylum seeker principal applicants supported by local authorities outside of London is not held centrally.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 July 2000,Official Report, column 166W, on asylum seekers, for what reason information on average decision times was not available; and if he will make a statement. [130843]

  Mrs. Roche
  Average times for initial decisions were calculated until the end of 1999. In December 1999 the average time taken to reach initial decisions was 13 months. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) are setting in place new systems, which will enable average decision times to be calculated and to report the percentage of applications receiving an initial decision within two months.

  Details of the time to final resolution, as previously requested, are not available as there is no source from which to obtain this information. IND and the Lord Chancellor's Department are working together to enable such information to be available in future.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have been allocated to the performance monitoring inspections team for asylum seeker accommodation providers; how many of these staff will be engaged on personally inspecting accommodation and support arrangements; and what targets have been set for the proportion of asylum seeker accommodation to be inspected by the performance monitoring inspections team. [131424]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is currently anticipated that the performance monitoring section of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) will comprise of around 83 staff. About 20 of these will be involved in personally inspecting accommodation. Inspections will also be carried out by the property advisers to the civil estate. The remaining staff in the performance monitoring section will be engaged in carrying out investigations into complaints and allegations of fraud. Final targets have not yet been set but the accommodation inspection team is required to have inspected all NASS contracted houses of multiple occupancy of 20 bed spaces or more by 31 March 2001.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill implements the recommendation in paragraph 65 of the 1999 report of the Commissioner for the Interception of Communications relating to sections 6 and 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1989. [130945]

  Mr. Straw
  Clause 18 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill implements the recommendation in paragraph 65 of the report. It imposes a duty on all those involved in the interception of communications in obedience to a warrant to keep secret the existence and contents of a warrant and anything done in pursuance to it. It also creates a criminal offence where a person makes a disclosure to another of anything that he is required to keep secret, and sets out certain statutory defences.

  Football (Disorder)
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the nature of the several offences committed by the 390 UK citizens arrested at Charleroi in Belgium during Euro 2000, indicating how many had committed each such offence. [131401]

  Mr. Straw
  As I told the House in my Statement on 4 July 2000,Official Report, columns 170–183, 965 England supporters were arrested or detained during Euro 2000. Of these, 391 had previously been convicted of a criminal offence. The National Criminal Intelligence Service advise that these people had between them: 133 convictions for violence, 200 for disorder, 38 for the possession of an offensive weapon, 122 for criminal damage and 250 for other offences. Some supporters will have been convicted of more than one type of offence.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in relation to each of the past five years the periods which would have been control periods in relation to external tournaments, pursuant to paragraph 14(6) of the Football Spectators Act 1989 as amended by the Football (Disorder) Bill. [131402]

  Mr. Straw
  The Football (Disorder) Bill defines the term "control period" in respect of an external tournament. It relates to any period beginning five days before the day of the first match of the tournament. If this was applied to external tournaments involving England and Wales within the last five years, the designated control periods would be: Friday 5 June—Friday 17 July 1998 (World Cup—France 98) and Monday 5 June—Friday 7 July 2000 (Euro 2000—Holland/Belgium).

  Rape
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of alleged rape were reported in England and Wales in 1999 which resulted in charges being brought against the alleged perpetrators. [131164]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of cases reported to the police and persons charged for rape offences are not available centrally.

  Initiatives

  May 1997–98 (£000)

  1998–99 (£000)

  1999–2000 (£000)

  2000–01 (£000)

  Successful bids

  Percentage of total bids

  Crime Reduction Programme

  Crime Reduction Partnership Training and Support

  0

  0

  800

  5,642

  —1

  —1

  Reducing Burglary

  0

  0

  600

  20,200

  161

  93

  Targeted Policing

  0

  0

  600

  13,000

  27

  16

  On Track

  0

  0

  200

  12,500

  24

  32

  Work With Offenders

  0

  0

  900

  8,000

  —2

  —2

  Intervention in Schools

  0

  0

  600

  6,000

  —2

  —2

  Youth Inclusion Schemes

  0

  0

  100

  4,250

  —1

  —1

  Sentencing and Restorative Justice

  0

  0

  200

  500

  1

  100

  Design Against Crime

  0

  0

  400

  1,500

  —1

  —1

  Drug Arrest Referral Schemes

  0

  0

  700

  9,000

  —2

  —2

  CCTV

  15,000

  1,500

  3,600

  60,000

  —2

  —2

  Violence against Women

  0

  0

  0

  5,000

  34

  16

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  0

  0

  0

  1,500

  —2

  —2

  Crime Fighting Fund3

  0

  0

  0

  59,000

  43

  100

  Support After Murder and Manslaughter

  0

  43

  100

  100

  —1

  —1

  326W
  The number of rape offences recorded by the police, and the number of cautions, prosecutions and convictions for rape offences1 are as follows:

  Number

  Rape offences recorded in 1999–2000

  8,409

  Cautions for offences of rape 19992

  33

  Prosecutions for offences of rape 19992

  2,157

  of which: Convictions

  634

  1 Includes offences of rape and attempted rape

  2 Provisional

  It should be noted that as the recorded crime figures relate to offences, and the number of cautions, prosecutions and convictions relate to defendants, the two types of data are not directly comparable.

  Armed Police Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions armed police officers were called to incidents in the Greater London area during the last 12 months. [130766]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Over the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, armed officers were called to a total of 26,743 incidents in the Greater London area. Of these, armed officers were actually deployed in 1,494 incidents. Deployment is defined as the use of armed officers to resolve the incident.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each departmental initiative since May 1997 requiring bids for funding together with the total resources available, the number of successful bids and the proportion this represents of total bids received; and what data he collects on the average expenditure of organisations bidding for funding through each initiative. [131089]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested for Home Office initiatives for which grants are given, including those subject to a competitive bidding process, for the four financial years from May 1997 to 2000–01 is provided in the table.
  327W

  Initiatives

  May 1997–98 (£000)

  1998–99 (£000)

  1999–2000 (£000)

  2000–01 (£000)

  Successful bids

  Percentage of total bids

  Community Support Grants

  Active Community Initiatives

  0

  0

  700

  1,311

  5

  45

  Older Volunteers Initiative

  0

  0

  788

  416

  27

  93

  Regional Voluntary Sector Networks

  0

  0

  573

  1,060

  18

  100

  Support for Community Self-Help

  0

  0

  420

  820

  2

  100

  Business Partnerships

  0

  0

  137

  220

  3

  100

  Family Support Grant

  National Family and Parenting Institute

  0

  0

  200

  2,205

  —2

  —2

  Family Support Grant

  0

  0

  1,000

  3,000

  64

  30

  Parent Line

  0

  0

  333

  333

  —2

  —2

  Fire Service Youth Training Association

  0

  0

  25

  58

  —2

  —2

  Reception and Resettlement of Refugees

  Montserrat

  723

  511

  537

  0

  —1

  —1

  Kosovo

  0

  0

  14,400

  20,200

  43

  94

  Voluntary Bodies to Support Kosovan Refugees

  0

  0

  8,900

  5,500

  6

  100

  National Asylum Support Services (NASS)4

  Hard Cases Grant

  0

  0

  0

  7,011

  —1

  —1

  Refugee Council

  0

  0

  930

  6,532

  —1

  —1

  Central Services Team

  0

  0

  160

  294

  —1

  —1

  Refugee Council Offices

  0

  0

  54

  68

  —1

  —1

  Migrant Helpline

  0

  0

  294

  2,070

  —1

  —1

  Refugee Arrivals Project

  0

  0

  293

  1,802

  —1

  —1

  Refugee Action

  0

  0

  304

  2,024

  —1

  —1

  Scottish Refugee Council

  0

  0

  128

  651

  —1

  —1

  Welsh Refugee Council

  0

  0

  0

  537

  —1

  —1

  Prison Service Initiatives

  Partners of Prisoners' Support Groups

  0

  27

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Federation of Prisoners' Families Support Groups

  0

  19

  20

  0

  0

  0

  Institute of Linguists Educational Trust

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Prisoners' Community Liaison

  0

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Female Prisoners' Welfare Project

  0

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The New Bridge to support rehabilitative projects

  0

  20

  20

  20

  —1

  —1

  Prisons' Video Trust

  0

  0

  70

  70

  —1

  —1

  Literacy and Black Incarceration Project

  0

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  Race Equality Grant

  0

  0

  0

  2,200

  0

  0

  Research

  Innovative Research Fund

  0

  0

  840

  200

  —

  —

  1 Initiatives not subject to a competitive bidding process.

  2 Initiatives for which the bidding process is still in progress, as the total and successful number of bids are not yet known.

  3 The Crime Fighting Fund was set up to enable recruitment of 3,000 police officers over and above current levels. All 43 police authorities bid for funding and all were successful in at least part of their bid.

  4 Grant funding arrangements for NASS arose out of an existing relationship with the refugee voluntary sector. There are no plans to put bids for these initiatives out to competitive tender until after 31 March 2000. The existing organisations receiving funds will be notified of such a move by 31 March 2001.

  Note:

  1. The figures for 2000–01 are estimates and could be subject to in-year changes. The figures do not take account of any locally funded initiatives undertaken by individual prisons nor all those funded by the Home Office's non-departmental public bodies, as such detail could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The figures for "successful bids" and "proportion of total bids" are for 2000–01 only, as figures for the three previous years could also be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The table does not include specific grants to bodies where these were initiated before May 1997. Nor does the table include the Capital Modernisation Fund and the Invest to Save Budget, which are not Home Office specific initiatives.

  The data collected on average expenditure of organisations bidding for funding through each initiative
  328W
  is dependent on the type of grants and size of payment. The minimum requirements are that an organisation provides:
  either, a copy of the receipts and payments accounts and Assets and Liabilities Statement (or, if one is produced, an Income and Expenditure account),
  or, in the case of charities or organisations with a turnover in excess of £1,000,000, a copy of the Income and Expenditure account, balance sheet, external audit report or independent accountants' opinion.

  New Year's Eve 2000–01
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans in respect of extending licensing hours on new year's eve 2000–01. [130946]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We still hope to have made a deregulation order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to reduce the present restrictions on Sunday dancing in time to be of benefit for the coming new year's eve. Such an order, as well as removing the statutory ban on commercial dancing, would give licensing justices the power in appropriate cases to extend permitted drinking hours on Sunday nights on licensed premises providing entertainment in the form of music or dancing.

  So far as other licensed premises are concerned, any extension of permitted hours nationally would need a separate deregulation order under the 1994 Act. The timescales for statutory public consultation and the subsequent parliamentary process are dictated by the 1994 Act, and it is now unlikely that the process could be completed in time for next new year.

  Under existing licensing law, it remains the case that any holder of a justices' on-licence may apply to the licensing justices in his or her area for a special order of exemption extending permitted hours during a special occasion such as new year's eve.

  Computer Disasters
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the time it would take to get new computers running in the wake of a major computer disaster in his Department. [130971]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 19 July 2000]: Each computer system used by my Department has contingency arrangements in accordance with its operational needs. The timing of recovery to normal working depends on the nature of the system and the extent of the disaster, but would be planned to be commensurate with importance of the business process concerned.
  330W
  These arrangements are part of wider business continuity plans, which were reviewed recently as part of preparations for the year 2000 date change.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, excluding those not answered citing(a) disproportionate cost, (b) that the information is not available, not held centrally, or not held in the form requested and (c) commercial or other confidentiality; [131124]

  (2) how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, excluding those not answered citing (a) disproportionate cost, (b) that the information is not available, not held centrally, or not held in the form requested and (c) commercial confidentiality or other confidentiality. [131122]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: My Department answered a total of 2,751 written parliamentary questions between 19 October-20 April 2000. Other than for the reasons set out in my replies to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) on 23 June 2000, Official Report, columns 339–40W, and on 4 July 2000, Official Report, columns 165–66W respectively, there were no other occasions when I gave non-substantive replies.

  Clay Pigeon Shooting
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of persons involved in clay pigeon shooting, both as(a) participants in the sport and (b) employees of the organisations providing the facilities. [131305]

  Kate Hoey
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has contacted Sport England, UK Sport and the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association to request the information required, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Derby): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

High Garden Hedges
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to make public their analysis of the replies to the consultation paper Higher Hedges: Possible Solutions.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government expect to publish the main results from the consultation of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on possible solutions to the problems caused by high garden hedges very, very soon. When we do so, I shall ensure that a copy of the analysis is placed in the Library of the House. The Government have always taken this issue most seriously.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I am rather encouraged by her comment of, "very, very soon". We have waited a long time; indeed, the consultation process finished on 31st January. I had a reply to my Written Question on 19th April, telling me that there had been 3,000 responses. Is the Minister aware that that was a large display of public interest in the issue? Is she also aware that matters have gone from bad to worse in the hedge world, not only as regards the information I receive through my correspondence but also because one man was recently shot dead over the issue of a garden hedge?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I, too, noticed the report about that tragedy; I read it in The Times on 7th July. I know that the noble Baroness and the House will understand that I cannot comment on that case because court action could well follow. We understand the degree of suffering that some people endure. We are talking about a small proportion of cases, but the nuisance experienced is severe. The Government wish to get right their response to the problem and hope to do so very, very soon.
Lord Richard: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will know that there is considerable Celtic interest in higher hedges, especially along the English Border. Can my noble friend tell us whether any policy that emerges from the Government's consultation will apply to Wales as well as to England?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as my noble friend made absolutely clear as recently as
1158
yesterday, were the Government to decide to take decisions with regard to this problem in England, following the devolution settlement, we would consult the National Assembly for Wales on whether such proposals should extend to Wales. Were it to be a matter of being on the border as my noble friend implied, I am sure that we could reach an amicable resolution of the issue with the Assembly.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I note that my noble friend the Minister is hedging her bets.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will my noble friend join with me in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, not only on her persistence in these matters but also on her patience? A measure has been introduced but its progress has been delayed so that the maximum collaboration between those who are suffering and the Government can be achieved. In the Government's consideration of the analysis, can my noble friend confirm that the major matter that will be agreed upon is that local authorities should play a more important part in the process and that, therefore, further resources will be needed? Can my noble friend say whether that aspect of the matter has been borne in mind?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his questions. Were the Government, following their analysis of the consultation, to reach a conclusion that involved local government and were that solution to involve money, I am sure that the appropriate discussions would take place at the appropriate time as regards any new responsibilities being placed upon local authorities.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that not all owners and tenants with high hedges have the apparatus for cutting them down—or, at any rate, reducing their height—but that every local authority has such equipment? Surely, therefore, local authorities should be called upon to help, where necessary; but, of course, be paid for so doing.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I know from my experience in local government that it is always extremely dangerous to make a comment on what local authorities ought, or ought not, to be made to do; or, indeed, "required" to do. I am sure that we could take into account the point raised by the noble Lord, especially with regard to elderly people.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that one of the problems that arises is how to manage a conciliation process and reach an agreement in situations where neighbours are in dispute over hedges? Indeed, this also applies to disputes on other matters. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether there is any code of good practice that local authorities could follow? In the course of this debate we have all learned that local authorities treat this

1159
matter in different ways as regards which department deals with it, and so on. Therefore, some guidance, or the establishment of good practice, would be a help in resolving such issues.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. Were the Government to reach the conclusion that further measures ought to be taken and were they to decide that local authorities should play a larger part in the process than is the case now, I am quite sure that the noble Baroness's point about the importance of good practice would be borne in mind. We know that nurserymen and horticulturists have been giving advice on good practice when they sell hedges.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister accept my thanks for the great efforts that she personally has made in the matter? I hope that she will also accept the thanks of those people who now look to her not just for an announcement on the analysis but for some promise of future action.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that comment. I also thank her for raising this issue on behalf of those people—I stress again that they comprise a small number—for whom such problems can be extremely severe.

Mental Health Review Tribunals
3.7 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:
What view they take of the recommendations in the Special Report on Mental Health Review Tribunals published by the Council on Tribunals on 28th June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the special report from the Council on Tribunals has been of particular value in helping the tribunal to improve its performance and informing the development of any new tribunal emerging from the reform of the Mental Health Act.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the press release issued by the Council on Tribunals, together with the report, referred to a number of issues of concern that arise over and over again. Will the Government ensure that those matters of concern are properly dealt with at long last? Further, will the Government pay particular attention to Recommendation 5 in the report about legal aid at mental health review tribunals? Do the Government regard it as acceptable that there are only 43 legal practices in the whole of England and Wales that currently hold franchises to represent patients before these mental health review tribunals?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I believe my first Answer implied, we have taken the recommendations of the council most seriously. More resources have been put into servicing the mental health review tribunals and more members have been appointed. We are also recruiting more clerks in order to ensure smoother administration. As regards legal aid representation, my understanding is that that non-means tested legal aid is freely available to all patients. Less than 1 per cent of patients applying for review do so without the services of a lawyer.
As regards the question of franchises, I believe that that is a matter for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor rather than myself. However, I shall be very happy to report the noble Lord's comments to my noble and learned friend. As I understand it, there are currently 348 providers in England and Wales who are contracted under the commission dealing with mental health.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, while I appreciate that the Government require some time to consider their response to the report, does my noble friend recognise that there is some urgency about this matter? Does he agree that what is needed is a single national service, with one judicial head, to co-ordinate matters such as training and to encourage consistency in practice? Does he appreciate that both members and administrators, who have been trying very hard for years to keep this show on the road, need some reassurance that someone cares?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend is absolutely right to point out the enormous public service undertaken by the nearly 600 members of the review tribunals. I also accept my noble friend's point in regard to the desirability of appointing a president to provide the right kind of leadership identified by the report. That would require primary legislation. We shall of course consider this matter as we come to a view on possible new mental health legislation. In the meantime we are encouraging the four regional chairs to work together in order to give as much collective leadership as possible in the current circumstances.

Millennium Dome: Funding
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give an assurance that no further public funds will be allocated to the New Millennium Experience Company for the Dome and that the Dome will not cease to operate without the disclosure of full information to Parliament.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, no taxpayers' money has gone into the Dome; no taxpayers' money will be going into the Dome. The Dome has been funded by the lottery, sponsorship and commercial revenue. The

1161
New Millennium Experience Company is confident that it will deliver the project within its lifetime budget of £758 million. This confidence is based on the steps it is taking in relation to cost efficiency and revenue generation, and the expectation of proceeds from the legacy sale. As sole shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company, I shall continue to ensure that Parliament is kept informed of developments in the operation of the company.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the Minister is the sole shareholder of the company, can he give the House an assurance that the Dome will not require a further injection of cash in order to remain solvent until the end of the year—yes or no? Will the expected receipts from the sale of the Dome be equal to or greater than the £399 million initial lottery grant and the subsequent £126 million grant?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I indicated in my Answer, the New Millennium Experience Company is confident that it will deliver the project within its budget. So far as concerns the grant from the lottery, it was never envisaged that the full amount of £399 million or the subsequent amount would be repaid in full.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the constant attacks on the Dome cause great distress to those who work there? Prior to working in the Dome they did not have employment in the area because they live in one of the most deprived boroughs in London. As a resident of the area, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend whether he agrees that, rather than emphasise the attacks on the Dome, it would be better to emphasise the great rejuvenation that has taken place, not only in the Greenwich peninsula but in the Thames gateway and beyond?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware that a large number of people are working very hard and in a committed way at the Dome to make the project a success. What they have achieved so far is a project which is now the most popular pay-to-visit attraction in the United Kingdom. It has satisfaction ratings of 85 per cent among the people who visit, and 90 per cent expressed particular satisfaction with the way in which the staff operated. The staff are utterly determined that the Dome should succeed, both as a pay-to-visit attraction and as something which has brought regeneration to the fifth poorest borough in England. That is a prize worth fighting for.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the criticism is not of the employees—who, no doubt, have done a good job—but of the board?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend asked in her supplementary question whether the criticism in the press had the effect of demoralising the staff. That is the question I answered.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government considered what the cost of a
1162
new royal yacht would have been when compared with the cost of the Dome? Would not a royal yacht have been far more effective in promoting this country's interests?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have not made a comparison. I think that the Dome has achieved a great deal. It is estimated that more than 30,000 jobs will be created in Greenwich over the next five years.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, without in any way wishing to undermine the great achievements In relation to the Dome, is the Minister aware that, in answer to a Question a year or two ago, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicated that, at 1998 prices, the Great Exhibition of 1851 would have cost a total of £30 million, as distinct from £850 million for the Dome at 1998 prices.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of the figures. As to the Dome's achievements, if in the years to come one looks at the permanent regeneration of the Thames gateway, it will be regarded as money well spent.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will answer my noble friend's Question in regard to the viability of the Dome for the remainder of this year. Will there be an extra input of money to keep it afloat? Will whoever buys it be required as a part of that sale to put down an early deposit in order to keep the Dome open?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the terms upon which bids have been sought are set out and are public knowledge. I repeat: the New Millennium Experience Company is confident that it will deliver the project within its lifetime budget of £758 million. That confidence is based upon revenue, costs and the legacy receipt.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has not answered my Question: will the Dome require a further injection of cash in order to remain solvent until the end of the year—yes or no?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in order to survive it needs revenue, the proceeds of the legacy and costs that match that. It will achieve that.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can the Minister answer the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch? He has ducked and dived like Muhammed Ali on a good day. He has not answered the Question.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with respect to the noble Earl, I have answered the Question. The noble Baroness asked whether the project will get to the end of the year and whether it will require an injection of cash. As to whether it will get there, I have made it clear that I sincerely believe that it will. It will depend upon the revenue, the costs and the proceeds of the legacy.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, given that the extent of the mismanagement and chaos at the Dome has seen the resignation of the chief executive and chairman, when can we expect Ministers to take responsibility for this? When can we expect to see a Minister resign, given the huge losses of public money that have occurred?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have indicated, this is a cross-party scheme supported by both sides. It has created the most successful pay-to-visit attraction in the UK, with very high satisfaction rates. It has contributed substantially to the regeneration of the Thames gateway. That is a prize well worth fighting for. The Government remain fully behind it.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Natural History Museum and the Science Museum were all built from the profits of the 1851 exhibition? Can he tell the House what he hopes to build from the profits of the Dome?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the result of the building of the Dome is a regenerated north Greenwich peninsula. Before the Dome was built, Greenwich was a peninsula in east London which was so contaminated that it could not be used for anything. The effect of building the Dome was, first, that the area was decontaminated; then the Dome was constructed; then followed further housing, industrial and retail development. The prize of the building of the Dome is the regeneration of the area and 30,000 jobs. I regard that as a prize worth fighting for.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, is it correct to use that amount of lottery money for the regeneration of such an area?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, my Lords, it is. One can see the good that the lottery has brought to that area and to areas throughout the country through such projects. For example, there is a project in the centre of Bristol that is bringing jobs and regeneration to areas that were previously derelict. I regard that as a very worthwhile expenditure of lottery money.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, when does the noble and learned Lord think he will be in a position to be able to inform Parliament as to the future plans for the Dome; when the sale will be completed; and what the financial arrangements will be until the end of the year? Will the noble and learned Lord be able to answer the question before the start of the Summer Recess?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, during the course of next week, yes.

Asylum
3.20 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
How far the aim stated in their Annual Report that "the United Kingdom will continue to offer refuge to those in genuine fear of political persecution in their own country" is compatible with the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, it is entirely compatible. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will help to create a fairer, faster and firmer asylum system under which we can more quickly provide protection to genuine refugees and deal firmly with unfounded asylum claims.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I offer to the Government's commitment in their Annual Report a welcome equal to the Government's equal success in delivering it? But about half an hour after the Question was tabled, in paragraph 10.11 of the Spending Review 2000, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated,
"while the number of those with unfounded claims who are removed from the UK will rise to at least 30,000 per year".
How did the Chancellor of the Exchequer know that those claims would be discovered to be unfounded when they have not yet been heard?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is a coherent and cogent explanation. I am more than prepared to try to give this coherent and cogent explanation. The Home Secretary's explanation is based clearly on an extrapolation of figures in terms of unfounded applicants and the basis on which they apply over an increasing number of decisions that will be made in the next 12 months.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, since many thousands of citizens of member states of the Council of Europe have sought asylum in this country yet come from countries which have fully subscribed to the European Convention on Human Rights, may I ask whether the Government advise such individuals of their rights in their own country and if they have drawn the attention of their governments to their attempts to secure asylum here?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we do fully meet our international obligations. We do publicise actively our role and participation under those obligations. It is in all our interests that we make plain that we are a civilised and humane nation that treats people fairly when they make a reasonable application for asylum.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister will recall that several weeks ago the Prime Minister, to his great credit, distinguished between illegal asylum seekers and those whom we should respect, and said that the country should continue to

1165
uphold the long tradition of asylum in this country. However, this month the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees stated,
"the protection that is owed to refugees under the 1951 Convention may be 'rendered meaningless' if refugees are unable to reach, and then claim asylum in, States party to the Convention".
Can the Minister tell us how a legitimate asylum seeker, perhaps one who has been tortured for upholding of the principles of democracy, can actually reach this country today?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I well understand the noble Baroness's point. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary Jack Straw made the comments that he did in his important Lisbon speech. I would simply say to the noble Baroness that that speech is worth studying. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is right to pursue a line of debate which opens up ways for legitimate claims that asylum seekers make on those countries which offer protection.
Lord Renton: My Lords, are the Government aware that they are fully entitled to draw attention to the considerable number of bogus asylum seekers? Have the Government taken on board the fact, which has been published a great deal in the press, that there are corrupt agencies which are being paid for getting asylum seekers here in a clandestine way?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government have a good record in dealing with unfounded asylum claims. We are extremely concerned. I have made it plain from our side of the House that we are extremely concerned at the activities of those who seek to bring people here in the backs of lorries and trucks and so on. Indeed, the tragic events in Dover a few weeks ago underline the need for our continued vigilance and commitment to ensuring that that kind of criminal activity in profiteering does not take place.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that for many in this country the figure in which we take pride is the number of genuine asylum seekers for whom we have provided secure refuge and not the number of "bogus asylum seekers" we send home? Does my noble friend further agree that it is how we treat those who have been through hell in their own country that matters too, and that there are grounds for concern that the voucher scheme is not working as it should, both by stigmatising asylum seekers and by being too inflexible, by not providing change in supermarkets and so on? Does he agree that this needs to be looked at again?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we treat in a very civilised way those who make a proper and well-founded application. The number granted asylum status in this country is about 20 per cent of all applications. A further 20 per cent are given exceptional leave to remain. Those who are received by the national asylum support scheme are treated well
1166
and humanely and given adequate resources on which to live. That system is now working well and the numbers are very encouraging. The feedback we are getting suggests that it is highly effective.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, in that context would the Minister like to comment on the success or otherwise of the policy of dispersal of asylum seekers away from London and the South East? Does he agree that there is a growing body of evidence that legal advice is simply unavailable to refugees? Some solicitors firms are closing down in the North West or are turning away cases because they are simply unable to look after refugees.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I know that some concern has been expressed. Clearly where there are individual cases and those individual cases are brought to the attention of the Home Office we will investigate them. I am confident that there is a more than adequate system of legal aid, advice and support for people seeking and making asylum applications in the United Kingdom. If the noble Earl has specific cases he wishes to draw to our attention, I shall be more than happy to receive those cases and forward them on as appropriate.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the statement in the annual report, to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, drew attention, regarded as consistent with having a list of countries regarded as "safe", from which, or through which, no asylum is necessary, such as our EU allies?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the statement in compatible. We are working extremely closely with our EU colleagues to achieve a humane asylum system across Europe. That is right. It is clearly also right that we keep that system under review and that the obligations are fairly and reasonably shared. That is what we seek at all times. I shall be keen to see that we continue that dialogue to ensure that other European states follow the same high standards that we do.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the Government lay more emphasis on the welcome we give to genuine asylum seekers and less emphasis on repeating the constant association in the Daily Mail of the word "bogus" with asylum seeker? Given the difficulty that asylum seekers now have in reaching this country, can we have some assurance that British embassies in countries of concern will be encouraged and given proper information about how they should treat potential dissidents who might be wishing to seek asylum in this country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that our consular officials act quite properly. I know they are in receipt of proper advice. I am confident that we are fulfilling our obligations. We operate our system very fairly. We also have to operate it firmly. That is

1167
also right. If the system of processing asylum applications is to retain credibility and integrity, we need that firm but also fair approach.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, how many prosecutions have there been in the past three years of people who have helped immigrants to gain illegal entry into this country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a question of which I should prefer to have advance notice. I am quite happy to write to the noble Baroness and provide her with those details.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Following on from the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it would seem that in certain countries—in particular, Turkey and Sri Lanka—agents are employed to bring people into this country. The agents are known at immigration points both in this country and in the countries of origin. I understand that the fines in Sri Lanka for carrying on such activities are minimal, so they do not deter people from acting as agents. What applications have the Government made to those countries in an effort to stamp out the problem at source?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the point behind the noble Countess's question is extremely important. We have detailed discussions with those countries that are perhaps responsible for generating some of the problems which we then receive. Those complex and detailed discussions need to be carefully thought through so what we can maintain a rational approach. That is what we are trying to do with Sri Lanka in particular.

Finance Bill
3.30 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Carers and Disabled Children Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Transport: 10-year Plan
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the 10-year plan for transport that has been made in
1168
another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Transport is a subject that has been close to my heart for all my working life. But for decades it has been in decline, dogged by stop-go funding and a short-term approach. On Tuesday the Chancellor set out how we can now begin to invest properly in our public services. He was able to do that because we have dealt with debt and sorted out the public finances. This meant we had to stick to the depressed Tory spending figures we inherited. We continued the previous government's fuel duty escalator both to limit greenhouse gas emissions and restore the public finances. That was not easy. It was not popular. But it was the right thing to do. Now we can build and invest for the future.
"Decades of under-investment and the lack of strategic planning had left us with a transport system in crisis. That is already changing. In three years, we have made real improvements: we have begun to tackle the road maintenance backlog; the overall decline in bus passengers has been halted and in many areas passenger numbers are rising; and rail passengers have increased by 17 per cent and rail freight by 22 per cent since the general election.
"Transport is now a growth industry, and many of the problems it faces are of expansion, not decline. We have laid the foundations for the long term. We needed to integrate the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport; we have done that. We needed a new strategy; we have done that. We needed radical new legislation; we have done that. We needed new forms of finance; we have done that. And today I am announcing the new resources to bring about a step-change in transport.
"These are new ideas, new powers, new resources— a new approach for a new century. It is on these foundations that we are building today's 10-year programme. It is based on long-term investment by government and business to modernise the country's transport system. It is vital for our economic success, and for the quality of our lives. It is excellent news for manufacturers and the construction sector which will be able to plan for the long term.
"On Tuesday the Chancellor announced that in the next three years public spending on transport will rise from £5 billion to more than £9 billion. Capital investment will double in real terms. This was widely welcomed. The Automobile Association said it was,
"a welcome change from decades of penny-pinching and under-investment".
It also said:
"There's no doubt that this represents the most serious attempt to tackle our transport crisis in years".
The rail users' committee said the announcement was,
"good news for rail passengers and for the country".

1169
The CBI also welcomed it. The CBI chair, Digby Jones, said on the "Today" programme this morning that what is needed is a 10-year programme providing substantial public and private investment, up to £180 billion. My department's modelling, analysis and consultation come to a similar conclusion. Our analysis is published in a document available in the Library.
"There is now a broad consensus about what is needed to reduce congestion, provide a bigger, better and safer railway and real choice in public transport. With public investment keeping pace with economic growth after 2004, total spending over the 10 years— public and private—will be £180 billion; £132 billion of that—almost three-quarters—will come from the public purse.
"This is not all new money. But even if we maintained this year's spending as the norm, that means more than £50 billion of extra public expenditure. So capital investment by government and business together will be 75 per cent more in real terms than over the past decade. The plan addresses the issues in a realistic and businesslike way. No frills, no promises of a rosy, traffic-free future. Just our best judgments, based on detailed analysis of what the new resources will deliver.
"We are securing long-term investment through long-term partnership contracts: new rail franchises lasting up to 20 years, 30-year contracts for roads and 30-year contracts for the London Underground. But let me make it absolutely clear; if we put in public money, we expect rail and bus companies, and local authorities, to deliver the goods: more investment and better services for the travelling public, on budget and on time.
"The policy we inherited on the railways planned for decline and reduced public support. Our programme includes £60 billion for a bigger, better, safer railway—the biggest investment in railways for generations. We will deliver better quality for the travelling public, lower regulated fares, 50 per cent more passengers and 80 per cent more rail freight; a new Strategic Rail Authority with a new rail modernisation fund of £7 billion to help deliver those goals.
"So we will deliver a railway system which is better for passengers, better for freight, better for the economy, better for the environment; a good deal all round. Our programme includes £59 billion for modernising local transport in every region throughout the country; increasing bus use by 10 per cent, with guided buses, priority routes, park-and-ride and a modern fleet—building on the £400 million of private investment that has already taken place.
"Light rail can transform our cities. Manchester and other cities have already shown what a difference it can make. So we are going to provide the resources for up to 25 new projects in our major cities. We will create greater social justice with: more accessible buses, trains and taxis for disabled people; cut-price fares for pensioners and disabled
1170
people. And for the first time we are recognising the problems of people who live in poorly-served, deprived urban areas, cut off from jobs and services. They can look to help from a new urban bus challenge fund to provide new links to their communities. Our successful rural transport fund, which has already secured 2,000 extra services, will rise from £60 million to £95 million a year with a rural transport partnership established in every county. Both urban and rural communities will benefit from an extension to fuel duty rebate for community transport.
"Small-scale, local improvements can make a big difference to people's lives, such as schemes to make walking and cycling safer and easier and 20 mph zones, especially where children are most at risk. We will increase funding for these schemes.
"In London, our great capital city, we inherited a creaking transport system, congested roads and overcrowded trains. We have already made major investments in the capital, with the Jubilee Line and the Docklands Light Railway extensions and other projects. But our programme goes much further.
"The Mayor of London asked for £3 billion over the next three years. London will receive £3.2 billion. Over the next 10 years our programme provides £25 billion to support the London Transport strategy, with better buses, less crowded trains and less congestion on the roads. This will be enough to produce a step change in bus services, town centre improvements and safer walking and cycling.
"The public/private partnership will secure investment in the existing Underground, and we have made provision for new links; an orbital London railway and longer-term projects such as a new east-west rail link and East Thames crossings. We are determined to use refranchising to get better, more reliable rail services for commuters.
"These major improvements in public transport throughout the country will help to reduce congestion and pollution. Sensible land-use planning and new technology can make a difference, but we also need to make better use of our road network. We have already set up studies into our busiest transport corridors to find solutions that involve all types of transport. The first conclusions will emerge over the next few months and we are providing the resources to implement the results.
"The programme includes £21 billion for the strategic road network. This is enough to widen 360 miles of the most congested roads, such as the A1 and the M6; to invest in 'electronic motorways' to manage traffic better and to keep drivers informed. There will be 100 new bypasses to take traffic out of hard-pressed villages and towns; schemes to tackle congestion and safety hotspots; and low noise surfaces on 60 per cent of the trunk road network, including all concrete roads.

1171
"We have already dealt with the backlog of trunk road repairs. We will enable local authorities to get rid of the backlog on our local roads with a £30 billion maintenance programme.
"Without the measures in the plan, congestion is forecast to grow by 28 per cent on inter-urban trunk roads and by 15 per cent in larger urban areas. With the plan, we will not only eliminate this forecast growth, we will actually reduce congestion to below current levels by 2010. Our proposals will produce savings in greenhouse gas emissions, helping to achieve our Kyoto targets and more. We will improve air quality, with new resources to encourage cleaner fuels and vehicles.
"Safety is fundamental to our plan. The terrible accidents at Ladbroke Grove and Southall, and over 3,000 deaths on our roads every year, are vivid reminders that we can never afford to be complacent. We will ensure the installation of train protection systems, as recommended by Sir David Davies. I have repeatedly stressed that we will not pre-empt Lord Cullen's Inquiry, but I also give a categorical assurance that the Plan will deliver any further measures arising from Lord Cullen's Inquiry. Safety will always come first in my priorities.
"Our roads are already among the safest in Europe. Over the next decade we are determined to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents by 40 per cent, and by 50 per cent for children. We are providing the resources to enable government, the Highways Agency and local authorities to play their part in achieving these targets.
"It has often been the role of Labour governments to modernise this country's infrastructure. That is what we are doing again with our 10-year plan: long-term investment and public/private partnerships to increase choice and cut congestion. The Opposition have no plans to cut congestion, only to cut public spending. The public will ask them to declare where they would make their cuts in our programme.
"This is a Labour Government working with business to deliver the long-term investment needed to rebuild our infrastructure, cut congestion, improve public transport and give people choice. Modernising the transport system will take time. New roads and railways are not built overnight, but with sustained government investment and the backing of business, we will make year-on-year improvements to get the job done.
"This plan will get Britain moving and give the people of this country a transport system they can rely on. The British people have waited decades for a long-term approach like this. It is what the people of Britain deserve and I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister in another place. We have waited three years for this Statement. During that time, expenditure on transport has in fact gone down rather than up. Having said that, there is much in the Statement and in the plan that we can welcome.
I should like to endorse the part of the Statement that deals with safety, both on the railways and on the roads, in particular the target for the reduction in child casualties. As the Statement said, we have a very good record on road safety in this country, built up largely by measures taken over the years by successive governments. However, there is no room for complacency and we must always strive for improvements.
Turning to specific items in the Statement, can the Minister confirm that the figure of £180 billion of total spending pales into insignificance when compared with the £423 billion in transport taxes that the Government will collect from road users over the same period? That represents £18,000 per household, and that is before allowing for any revenues to be raised by congestion and parking taxes. Can the Minister say what are the estimated revenues from those two new taxes over the 10-year period?
When the Statement said that the Government continued the last government's fuel duty escalator, is that not a little misleading? In fact, they raised it. Then, having decided that they wanted to climb off the escalator, they then proceeded to raise petrol taxes by an inflation rate three times higher than that used for old age pensions.
We welcome the £60 billion to be invested in the railways, of which the vast proportion will come from the private sector. What a benefit privatisation has been, despite being vilified at the time by the then Opposition. Can the Minister clarify one particular point? How will the £7 billion rail modernisation fund work? How will it be allocated and to whom? Furthermore, of the £60 billion that was mentioned, how much of that has already been announced, for example, as regards the East and West Coast main lines?
I note that the Government have set a target of 50 per cent more passengers and 80 per cent more railfreight, but once we heard a promise that railfreight would be trebled. What has happened to that?
I note that the part of the Statement dealing with London takes credit for the Jubilee Line extension and the Docklands Light Railway. Perhaps I may gently remind the Minister that both projects were started off by the previous government. Can the Minister say what the Government have started up from new in London during the three years that they have been in power?
I welcome in particular the Government's complete U-turn on road building. Having virtually scrapped the programme three years ago, I am pleased that they are now planning to build 100 new bypasses and widen 360 miles of trunk roads and motorways. Can I ask the

1173
Minister whether that includes the M25? I can remember remarks made by the then Opposition which were completely opposed to any widening of the M25. Can we see a list of what is to be included in the bypass and motorway widening programme?
I note the plans for 25 new light rail systems in our major cities. However, in October 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister said that light rail systems are an extremely expensive way of dealing with congestion. That represents another U-turn. How many of these schemes can we expect to see completed, or even started, in the 10-year period, given the long length of time it takes to complete feasibility studies and planning inquiries? Can the Minister say whether those feasibility studies will attract funding from the Government as a preliminary part of this process?
We shall need time to study in detail the documents, of which there are several to add to the long list of glossy documents that have been produced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions over the past three years. However, as I have said, welcome measures have been proposed. We have waited three years for this. Now we want to see the Government deliver on their promises for a better transport system.
3.49 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for making the Statement. I regard it not as a set of measures but as a way of encapsulating a whole programme of activity in transport. We on these Benches very much welcome that change in government thinking. Considering that we are talking about a 10-year programme, I hope that it will mean not just more funding, but a consistency of funding to an extent that has not been achieved over many years. In the past, every time there was a problem in the economy, any kind of capital programme was cut, and road or rail transport programmes were the easiest to cut. I hope that we shall see the programme announced in the Statement carried out and the general approach of setting targets for a reduction in congestion and of working in a practical, consistent and cost-effective way to achieve those targets carried forward by this Government—and, it is to be hoped, by any successor government.
The question arises as to whether a reduction in congestion can be achieved. I believe that it can. This 10-year programme is merely the start in terms of what needs to be done. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that among many of our European neighbours, this kind of programme was started not this year, not five or 10 years ago, but nearly 20 years ago. We must make real efforts to achieve what has been laid down.
There are couple of important items in the Statement which we support. Obviously, increased capital investment is a key part of the programme. The lengthening of rail franchises is also extremely important: it enables the franchisees to invest in their services, whereas the original ridiculous and highly criticised seven-year franchises did not succeed in
1174
achieving that, as forecast. I also welcome the £60 billion for a bigger, better, safer railway. We do not know all the details, but I welcome also the £59 billion set aside for road investment—particularly if it is to be used in relation to smaller projects and where it will enable better use to be made of the existing road network.
I shall not query the "new old money". That cannot be done without knowing much more detail than is available in the transport paper. I understand the general figures to be £60 billion for rail, £59 billion for local transport, and £21 billion for the strategic road network. Is the £25 billion for London in addition to those figures? Or is it London's share of that general programme?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, I welcome the emphasis on safety, particularly when it is to be carried forward to the road and rail system. I welcome in particular the promise regarding the installation of train protection systems, as recommended by Sir David Davies.
There are many minor pieces of good news in the Statement. The low-noise road surfaces on the trunk road network, for example, will bring environmental benefits to people living near trunk roads. One should not forget that many trunk roads go through built-up areas.
The programme for new bypasses is presently not known to us, but a couple of major items were left over or abandoned when the Government came into office. In particular, there is the highly controversial Salisbury bypass, and the less controversial but extremely expensive tunnel bypass at Hindhead. Are those included in the programme announced in the Statement? Perhaps I may remind the Minister that "Swampy" is said to be "re-grouping", as someone said to me recently. I hope that the Minister has borne that in mind!
Finally, I hope that as the programme is carried forward, the twin themes of integration and sustainability will continue throughout as a major part of everything that is done.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, over his weary three-year wait. The more world-weary among us feel that we have wasted 21 years waiting for an integrated planning strategy. However, I am grateful for the noble Lord's gracious words in favour of some aspects of the plan.
The noble Lord asked about the estimated revenue from taxes and road user charging. That would be limited to charging at local level, whether in terms of road user charging or workplace parking schemes. We have factored into the 10-year plan a net income of £2.7 billion from that source. We have included no revenue at all from any anticipated charging for the trunk road or motorway network. That matter would, anyway, require primary legislation. We have made no provision and given no consideration to that, beyond

1175
the inclusion of some illustrative scenarios. Her Majesty's Treasury will make the decision on taxes; the Chancellor will do so year by year.
On the question of the fuel duty escalator, yes, we did raise it by 1 per cent. That was about half the increase introduced by Chancellor Kenneth Clarke after the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, had first introduced it. It went from 3 per cent, to 5 per cent, to 6 per cent. I am pleased to remind your Lordships that the fuel duty escalator was abolished in the last Budget—the first for 11 years in which there was no increase in fuel duty above the rate of inflation.
On the question of privatisation and the private sector, I do not think anyone would dispute that the way in which privatisation took place left us with a very fragmented system. We have spent the past three years trying to bring some coherence to that. We are happy that £60 billion will be invested for working alongside private business to rebuild our railways. I am delighted to point to increases in rail passengers and in rail freight, which will grow markedly over the next 10 years—by 50 per cent in the case of rail passengers and by 80 per cent in relation to rail freight.
Noble Lords may recall that the idea of trebling rail freight was not government policy. It was raised in a statement by the chief executive of the EWS company. It was his ambition to treble rail freight over the next 10 years. He has now left the company, and his successor has set a more modest target, in line with our own predictions.
We have announced nothing in the plan in relation to moneys to be spent that will have been invested before March next year. If we take as an example the Channel Tunnel rail link, there is a second phase to be completed and the moneys that will be made available through the plan will help to assure its completion. That will be the case also for the West Coast Main Line. Again, it is not a specific plan. Our plan puts the resources in place in an attempt to encourage the right deals to come forward. Whether or not the right deals are in place is a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority. Sir Alastair Morton will have £7 billion at his disposal to invest alongside the private sector, Railtrack, and the train operating companies.
Three hundred and sixty miles of motorway may be widened with the available resources. Which parts of the system are chosen for this purpose depends very much on the outcome of the multi-modal studies, some of which will report in a month or two. Others we are accelerating. Noble Lords, some of whom have had experience as transport Ministers, will be aware that on average the period between the beginning of consideration of a medium-sized road scheme and its completion is 10 years. That process will be speeded up. Noble Lords will see from the documentation we have produced that the new planning guidelines suggest that the process may take three to five years less than the present time by dealing with some parts of the process in parallel without in any sense usurping people's right to protest. We certainly shall not seek to subvert the work that we have under way in the multi-modal studies.
1176
We believe that most of the major projects in prospect will be completed inside 10 years. Obviously, there are unallocated billions in our plan to cope with major projects as they arise. I am particularly pleased that we have in prospect large projects for London such as CrossRail which will add 15 per cent capacity to the Underground and commuter train services in central London. That could be completed by 2010.
As far as concerns London, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that we inherited the contract to build the Lewisham extension which provided for a toll each way on top of the normal fare. Ministers have agreed that an extra £20 million should be invested in new trains for that line and that no toll should be imposed. I believe that that is important.
I agree very much with the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. One important aspect of the 10-year plan is the consistency of funding which it offers to speed up the planning and procurement processes. We believe that it will allow all parties to work together, particularly big companies that may have to make decisions about staffing levels. I have no doubt that there will be resource constraints in some areas of the transport industry. This policy will allow people to plan better.
I have no doubt that we can lock in £56 billion of private investment alongside the £132 billion of public moneys that are in prospect over the 10 years. We look forward to London receiving its £25 billion share. We have tried not to double-count in any area. The major rail schemes that have been considered for London fall mainly within the £60 billion that Sir Alastair Morton and others in the rail industry will look to invest.
As regards bypasses, I give the assurance that in areas like Salisbury and Hereford we shall not do anything to undermine the planning procedures. There are in total 100 bypasses which can be looked at in various ways. There are 30 on the trunk road network and 70 at local level. Of those 100, half are in rural areas and half in urban areas. All of them will be subject to our new approach to appraisal which gives due weight to environmental, economic and safety factors. Contrary to what has been implied, I do not anticipate that there will be any strong reaction to what we have suggested. We have discussed this matter in advance very fully with environmental groups which understand the methodology that we have employed. I am grateful for the general support we have received from all sections of the transport industry today.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the £3.2 billion which is to be made available for transport within London is conditional on the mayor abandoning the policies on which he was elected some two months ago? Can the noble Lord explain to the House how he is able to give such a glowing assessment of the prospects for London

1177
when the mayor is quoted as saying that the Government's proposals betray the capital's transport plans and have stitched up his administration?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, contrary to the suggestion that is perhaps implicit in the noble Lord's latter point, we have done no deals here. We have simply looked at what we believe London needs over the next three years. The mayor is on record as saying on 3rd July when he took over Transport for London that his ambition was to achieve an increase in funding of between 50 and 100 per cent. Had he achieved 100 per cent he would have received £3 billion. As it is, he has more than 100 per cent. I read with interest today that the mayor now says that he would really have liked £4 billion.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the statement by the CBI which welcomes the transport plan as a monumental victory for the business community? If so, does he agree that it is almost without precedent for the CBI to say that it has achieved all that it wants and accepts that the private sector will invest £60 billion alongside the Government's contribution?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am grateful for the CBI's endorsement of our intentions. The uncanny relationship between the CBI's £180 billion prediction of British business needs and ours was a happy coincidence since we were working from the bottom up across all these modes. It is perhaps even more uncanny that the CBI had asked for £130 billion of public money for capital investment and revenue and the figure came out at £132 billion. As a former member of the CBI, I formally deny any close collusion.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I welcome the Statement, although some of the figures quoted are astronomic. I am very distressed that there are no plans in the Statement to put money into research and development of alternative fuels, especially as farming is going through the worst crisis in living memory. Yet the Government are committed to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. That is a great sadness.
I welcome the idea of 20-year rail franchises. I hope and pray that the Government have no plans not to renew the franchise on the East Coast line. Will the Minister place at the very top of his list of priorities the dual ling of the A1 between Newcastle and the Border at Berwick-upon-Tweed, which is currently the most dangerous road in Britain?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I believe that a closer inspection of what we intend will show that there is a considerable investment of about £100 million to encourage the development of alternative fuels and more efficient vehicles. The analysis in the research documents that accompany our plan shows that because of advances in technology it is anticipated that there will be a 20 per cent decrease in the cost of running cars over the next 10 years.
1178
As to franchising, that matter is probably best left to the Strategic Rail Authority. However, I agree with the noble Lord's analysis of the dangers of the A1. We are all aware of the fatalities that have occurred on the road between Newcastle and Scotland. In the past decade there have been 60 deaths, including some terrible head-on collisions, on that road. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who visited the region recently, has said that the Government will take a fresh look. We have advanced the multi-modal study on the A1. It is hoped that with the speeded-up procedures described earlier, action can be taken on that road. I agree it is very much overdue.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the Minister has taken great credit for the Jubilee line and given a confident forecast about CrossRail. Is the noble Lord aware that Mr Livingstone's office has expressed very strong views saying that the mayor will now have to pick up the very substantial costs of the large overrun on the Jubilee line and, as a consequence, it will not be possible to start CrossRail in the foreseeable future?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I take no credit for the great delay in the building of the Jubilee Line. I certainly want to take no credit for the contracts put in place under the previous administration that led us to pay in the end £3.5 billion. However, the tail end of the budgeting for the Jubilee Line runs into little more than £100 million. If that is taken in context with the £3.2 billion about which we are talking over the next three years, I do not think that noble Lords should share the dismay—if that has been expressed—of the mayor.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I pursue that expression of dismay, although I welcome the total package. Anyone ambitious for London can see the scope for spending more. Can the Minister confirm that the package for London has been backloaded to years two and three requiring, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, the completion of the Jubilee Line to be paid for out of year one, a matter of which I understand the mayor was unaware until yesterday, leaving only something of the order of 100 million for new investment in what the Minister rightly describes as London's creaking transport system? Work on items such as the river crossings will therefore be delayed.
Will the noble Lord take back to his ministerial colleagues and the Treasury a request to reconsider the phasing? I do not refer to the total amount of money. For instance, could an extra £50 million out of year two and £50 million out of year three be brought forward to year one in order that London can get on with investment in its creaking transport system?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, when the noble Baroness implies an underfunded year, we talk of a year which was in fact the backloaded year of the last CSR settlement. Yes, indeed the package progresses steeply across years two and three to

1179
£3.2 billion which, only a few weeks ago, was beyond the highest aspiration of the mayor. If it is now inadequate, that comes as no surprise to me.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, knowing the Minister as I do, it came as no surprise to me to hear his emphasis today on new help for disabled people. Am I right in assuming that all this extra spending will be available on the strictly non-negotiable condition that it must take fully into account the rightful claims of disabled people and that full access for them will be central to the development of all new projects?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I mentioned that our roads were among the safest in Europe. We can also take credit for doing more for access and transportation of disabled people in this country than any other country in Europe. My noble friend will know that we have put provision in the Transport Bill now going through your Lordships' House for the £50 million-worth of concessionary fares for disabled people. Noble Lords may be assured that as regards every investment we shall try to make it clear that those engaged in it must take account of the needs of the disabled.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to what extent will central government monitor London mayoral projects and performance?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, all public spending will be kept under continual review.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I welcome the general package which is long overdue and highly desirable. I concentrate my questions to the Minister on the London Underground to which he referred. As he will be aware, it has been a controversial issue for some time. First, what progress is being made in putting in place the public/private partnership? How late is that progress compared with the original intentions? Secondly, due to the delay in implementing the scheme can we be assured that in the meantime the funding of the London Underground will be adequate and that for those who regularly use the London Underground particular attention will be paid to its faulty signalling system?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I assure the House that there have been strong expressions of interest by various consortia in running the London Underground system under our public/private partnership plans. I assure noble Lords that those plans are on time and on course for a conclusion early next year. I also assure noble Lords that, just as we have put very adequate funding over the past two years into London Underground, we shall continue to ensure that its needs are met until the PPP is in place.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, many in this House are delighted by the scope and nature of the Statement.
1180
I refer to two aspects. First, it will have a major impact on our manufacturing industry. Many billions of pounds will be available for the rail and road manufacturing industry, a major fillip needed by the industry.
Secondly, there will be a great sigh of relief that for the first time for many years we have long-term planning on transport. We must stick to a 10-year cycle not only because of the time it takes to plan a project—the Minister referred to this—but also for confidence at every level of industry and local government that the economic, parliamentary and town and country planning cycles can be aligned. The package will not work if there is no confidence in those cycles. The Statement contains a new commitment to ensure those long-term cycles. We need consensus in the House which goes beyond general elections that the plan will be adhered to, giving confidence to industry, local government and everyone concerned with transport.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am delighted to have that reaction from the noble Lord, Lord Lea, with his background with the Trades Union Congress. I am delighted, too, that the TUC has lined up today with the Confederation of British Industry to welcome this plan. It will indeed be a great boost for our manufacturing industry if it takes advantage of the opportunities there. I am told that some 3,000 people are working on the West Coast Main Line project alone. From advanced telematic skills needed for smarter road networks to the building of viaducts and laying of tracks, there are tens of thousands of new jobs in prospect. We have to ensure that business and industry are able to give us the skills required to take advantage of that opportunity. I am sure that we can put the finance in place but we have to consider where any resource constraints might come from inside the planning cycles referred to.
There is no doubt that a 10-year plan gives the horizon necessary for the projects in this area with which noble Lords will be familiar, some of which may take five, 10 or more years to complete. I am pleased that the transportation sector will receive such a major boost from this plan.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, when the Minister's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Statement it was perhaps fortunate for the Government that the latest minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England had not then been published. I hope that it is no more than coincidence that those minutes are reported today.
Those minutes reveal that the public may well have to pay twice for these announcements. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara mentioned the direct cost through taxation. However, perhaps I may paraphrase the minutes. They say that, looking forward, given the likely increases in public spending over the next few years, private sector spending will be required to slow further if the inflation target is to be met. At the very least that implies probably higher interest rates. It implies also a lower or smaller private sector. I accept

1181
that there is a balance in these things. I wonder if the noble Lord the Minister could tell me whether—in the event that the slings and arrows of outrageous economic fortune were to become adverse—in the discussions between his two noble friends, his right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been able to achieve what would be a first within any government in my time in public life which would be that transport expenditure should not be the first and automatic target for reduction if things start to unwind. Can the Minister help us on that point?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the Chancellor has the economic implications of transport very much in mind with all the spending that he has approved, and that it is also a very high priority with my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Access to jobs, the transportation improvements in regeneration areas, the fact that we can ease the congestion in the strategic network for our road haulage industry are all things that are very important to the Chancellor. I believe that they will help to sustain the very strong and steady economic growth that he has helped to create.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am generally very supportive of what I see in this document and the statements about a quantum leap, particularly in the resources that will he available for public transport.
Without detracting from the many people in this place who are concerned about the needs of London and its environs, perhaps I may make the following point. Particularly in the PTE areas, the metropolitan areas and those places around them, it seems to me that there is a significant opportunity for investment to help the transport needs in rail, with new stations, new lines and so forth. Would the Minister agree with that and say whether there will be resources available for these metropolitan areas which have deep problems? Quite frankly, for many people, they are just as important as this city of London.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that we will have £59 billion in local transport plans, £31 billion of that being for local roads. For instance, there are 25 light-rail systems allowed for in the resources. The great majority of those would fall outside London. There will be very considerable investment in rail and in new stations, as I have seen in Newcastle and Leeds already. That programme will be underpinned and driven forward by us.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate that the trade unions involved in transport will be fully consulted, not simply at the beginning of the scheme but throughout its implementation?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we talk much of public/private partnerships, but the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, may be assured that partnership is at the very centre of our approach. It is
1182
a time-consuming process, but it is proving to be very productive. We maintain very good relationships with the trade unions, the CBI and other business interests.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I should like to join in the warm commendation of the Government on their policy. Following on the question asked a moment ago, I welcome the actual and the anticipated increase in rail traffic. But if it is to reach the proportions for which we aim and which are desirable, does my noble friend accept that it is necessary to see very considerable attention given to improved car parking at many stations, especially those which serve the commuter traffic to London?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I agree that that is a very important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, will be pleased to know that there are 100 park-and-ride schemes proposed in the plan.

Football (Disorder) Bill
4.23 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill has excited a certain amount of controversy, both during its passage in another place and more widely. I should like to make clear to your Lordships exactly why the Government believe that the measure is needed now, not next year.
Our national reputation—and I am speaking very specifically of England, not the United Kingdom—not many years ago stood among the highest for tolerance, good manners and civilised behaviour. It is hardly too much to say that that reputation, so far as many of our international friends are concerned, lies in tatters as a result of a small number of people who believe that watching an international football match is an occasion for obnoxious, loutish behaviour and sometimes indiscriminate violence. In other countries, international football matches are seen as an opportunity for people from different traditions and cultures to come together, to celebrate something they have in common—the love of a beautiful game. But for far too many English supporters, that appears to be a wholly alien way of thinking. They go to matches not so much to cheer their team but to provoke fights with rival supporters or uninvolved local people. They cannot think of Europe except in terms of outdated, Second World War stereotypes. They consider it entirely reasonable to insult people purely because they are foreign, to make racist remarks, to shout mindless and often offensive songs at the tops of their voices and to get into fights as soon as they imagine anyone is failing to treat them with the respect they have so clearly forfeited.
This Government cannot agree with critics.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? While giving his analysis of the present ills, will he take the opportunity to repudiate the insulting

1183
remarks of the Home Secretary in which he linked football hooliganism with what he called "the baggage of Empire"? Will he recognise that I, as president of the Overseas Service Pensions Association, have just come from a meeting of some of this "baggage"—colonial civil servants who went out to our colonies and served unselfishly for years and years? They gave of their best, and they take very badly these slurs on their reputation. We should be congratulating them on what they did in the colonies rather than insulting them.
Lord Bach: My Lords, this is the Second Reading of an important Bill in this House. The normal convention is to allow the Minister to open the debate, make his comments and analyse the Bill. It is not normal for there to be interjections of this kind at this stage of Second Reading. Of course the noble Lord will make his comments and can expect a reply in the windup. Can this House now not hear what the Minister has to say, and the debate then take its course? I do not honestly think it necessary for there to be more interventions before the Minister is allowed to continue describing this important Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the noble Lord refer us to a point in Standing Orders? Is there a rule of the House that prevents an intervention or is the noble Lord making up the rules as he goes along?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I understand it—and the noble Baroness has been in this place much longer than I have—this House bases itself on conventions as much as on rules. It would seem to be not just a convention of the House but good manners as well to allow the Minister make his speech. The noble Lord can make his speech in due course. The Minister will have to reply to what the noble Lord says. I wonder if we can get on with this business now.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I think that this does need talking through. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, with impeccable good manners, gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I have been in this House since 1971, when Attlee and Eden were still here, and that is how it has always behaved. The noble Lord is making a mountain out of a molehill. I know that the Government are panicking over this rotten little Bill and want to rush it through; but do not blame those of us who want proper debate.
Lord McNally: My Lords, further to that point, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is not on the speakers' list. Those of us who have served in another place know that some Members there have an exceedingly bad habit of making an early intervention to appear on the record but participate no further. That has not been the convention in this House.
I hear much in the corridors from Members on the Opposition Benches about the declining standards of the new and reformed House. Some of those declining standards will come from those Benches if they play
1184
this kind of stunt. This House has conventions which should be protected and which differentiate it from another place. I believe that we need to protect those conventions and not play sharp party politics as those Benches appear to be doing now.
I want to hear the Minister and I believe that we should get on with it. The Conservatives should stop playing politics. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, should have put his name down to speak in the debate, as have other Members, and not intervened in that way.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Waddington: My Lords, as an attack has been made on me, I want to say that the Minister, with absolute courtesy, gave way. He had no need to do so. I thought that it was a perfectly appropriate matter to raise when he was dealing with the so-called "causes" of the present trouble.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before we leave the subject, am I right in believing that the relevant passage in the Companion indicates that interventions should be brief?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hope that this debate can be conducted with due courtesy and that we can all refrain from being hooligans. I am unapologetic in my passionate support of this legislation. I believe that it will do much to restore the good name of our country and protect our participation in future international sporting events, particularly on the football field.
When on 4th July the Home Secretary announced in his Statement in the other place the measures we would be introducing to prevent future reoccurrence of the atrocious scenes of thuggery, hooliganism, racism and xenophobia, carried out by English football supporters in Brussels and Charleroi during Euro 2000, he highlighted the need for speedy but carefully scrutinised legislation. The qualifying stages for the World Cup begin in October and England play France in Paris as soon as 2nd September. The European club competitions will be well into their stride in the next few weeks. The need to bring in new measures swiftly could hardly be clearer.
Consequently, on 7th July the Home Secretary published a preliminary draft of the Bill and made himself available to Members of both Houses in order that the key points of the Bill could be discussed and Members' constructive proposals taken on board before the Bill was introduced into the Commons. At this stage, two specific proposals made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, which I shall outline later, were incorporated into the Bill.
The Bill was introduced into the House of Commons and received its Second Reading on 13th July. Having carefully considered amendments tabled both by the Government and the Opposition, the House of Commons completed the Committee,

1185
Report and Third Reading stages of the Bill on 17th July. We therefore have before us a Bill that is a speedy response to a pressing need but also one that has benefited from very careful scrutiny by Members of the House of Commons and which has been amended to reflect Members' deep concerns for issues of individual liberties and due process of law.
The need for new powers to prevent the hooliganism of many English supporters abroad has become apparent as a result of the Euro 2000 experience. This brought home the fact that there is a large swathe of English fans, typically male, white and aged 20 to 35 who, although not convicted of football-related offences, or perhaps not even known as football hooligans, are capable of violence and disorder when supporting England abroad.
Furthermore, it has become apparent that it is not always possible to rely on authorities abroad to prosecute offenders, which is necessary if our courts are to use their existing powers to make banning orders on the basis of offences committed outside this country. Too often, overseas authorities have preferred simply to deport English offenders rather than to deal with them as their conduct deserves.
There are four key measures contained within the Bill, the first two of which have been virtually universally welcomed. The first is the combining of domestic and international banning orders into one. That is important because currently those subject only to domestic banning order (80 per cent of the total bans m force) are at liberty to go to overseas matches despite their known propensity to commit football-related offences.
The mandatory withdrawal of the passports of those made subject to the new combined banning order, unless there are exceptional circumstances, for a certain period of days leading up to the match in question is the second measure.
The other two new measures are more complex and have been the subject of debate because, by extending the powers of the courts and the police, they seek to increase the number of people who, by their past or present conduct, make themselves liable to the new combined banning order. These new measures are, in the Government's opinion, absolutely necessary if the experience of Euro 2000 is not to be repeated.
The first of those two measures will give magistrates' courts the power to issue a banning order where it would help to prevent violence or disorder at certain football matches. Thus, magistrates will now have the power not only to issue banning orders in consequence of an offence, but also if they have reasonable grounds to believe the individual has caused or contributed to violence or disorder and that a banning order would help to prevent violence and disorder in future in relation to football matches.
The procedure has been structured in a similar manner to the anti-social behaviour orders that were introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and were designed to deal with low-level violence and disorder that can be seriously disruptive of other
1186
people's lives. The new power will be triggered by an application by a police officer under new Section 14B of the Bill.
As with anti-social behaviour orders, the standard of proof required for the imposition of a banning order will be civil. In addition to other relevant evidence, magistrates will be able to take into account evidence of involvement in violence against persons or property, including threatening violence and doing anything to endanger the life of a person. They will also be able to take into account evidence of involvement in disorder, including stirring up hatred against persons on the basis of their colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. They will also be able to take into consideration any relevant convictions received outside England and Wales; deportation or exclusion from a country outside the UK; the removal or exclusion from a football stadium in the UK or elsewhere; or conduct recorded on video or by any other means. Breach of an order would constitute a criminal offence. Proof of that offence would of course be to the criminal standard.
Our intention is that the police will, wherever possible, apply for these orders well in advance of a particular fixture in order to prevent suspected hooligans from even setting out for the game. But inevitably there will be people who will not have come to the notice of the police until they reach their port of embarkation. For example, during Euro 2000 there were a number of examples of people travelling to Belgium who had previous convictions for violent offences and whom the police could not prevent leaving the country. That is why the Government see it as crucial that the last of the four new measures is also adopted. It was subject to much debate in the House of Commons surrounding issues of civil liberty Those concerns, we believe, have been addressed in the revised Bill that I am now introducing to the House.
The provisions contained in proposed new Sections 21A, 21B and 21C, introduced by Schedule 1, would empower a police constable in uniform during a prescribed period leading up to a specific match, to issue a notice preventing a person leaving England and Wales where the officer had "reasonable grounds" for suspecting that the individual may have caused or contributed to violence and disorder at any time in the past and reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order in his case would help to prevent violence or disorder in connection with a regulated football match.
Such a notice not only prevents the person concerned leaving England and Wales; it also requires him to attend a magistrates' court within 24 hours, where the notice will be treated as an application for a banning order. The police may detain a person while they consider whether or not to issue a notice provided that the above conditions are met. The constable must give the person in writing the reasons for detaining him. The maximum period of detention will be four hours, or six hours with the authority of an inspector. If, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, a notice is issued during consideration of the original draft of the Bill, the notice must state the

1187
officer's grounds for issue. A constable may arrest the person issued with such a notice if he reasonably believes it to be necessary in order to secure compliance with the order.
I have gone into the detail of the last measure thoroughly to draw to your Lordships' attention the significant changes that the Government have made to the Bill in order to ensure cross-party assent in both Houses.
The Bill received detailed scrutiny in another place. It may have been condensed but it was thorough. We listened and responded to concerns expressed during that scrutiny. As a result, a number of government amendments will be tabled in Committee, including one relating to compensation. The Opposition Front Bench in another place tabled such an amendment and it was agreed in principle. It proposed that compensation should be met from local police authority funds, but the preferred option is for the cost to be met centrally. The amendment will deal also with the questions of maximum amount of compensation and appeals against refusal to grant compensation.
An amendment will also be brought forward to limit the number of times a person can be detained. It will prevent a person who is detained and released without issue of a notice being further detained during the control period concerned unless evidence, unavailable at the time of the first detention, becomes available. It will also cover a person who is released by the court following issue of a notice preventing departure.
Noble Lords may well be aware that, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, spent convictions will not be admissible in banning orders by complaint proceedings because of their civil character. Therefore, it would be inconsistent if a time limit were not placed also on evidence of conduct. As a result, an amendment will be tabled making evidence of misbehaviour inadmissible if it is more than 10 years old. That limitation will apply only to banning orders by complaint.
An amendment will also be tabled removing "any decision of a public authority, whether in the UK or elsewhere" from the examples of other matters which can be taken into account in determining whether a person has previously caused or contributed to violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere and if a banning order will help to prevent football-related disorder. An amendment will remove the need for a person who is subject to a banning order to surrender his passport when an external tournament is being played in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
The Lord Chancellor's Department will bring forward regulations under Clause 3 of the Bill to make legal advice and assistance available for proceedings by way of complaint under new Section 14B. Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State power to allow NCIS to disclose information to persons prescribed by order. We shall table an amendment to ensure that such an order will be subject to negative resolution procedure. The Lords Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has recommended an amendment to that effect and the Government agree.
1188
In that spirit of co-operation the Government have already accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, to insert a sunset clause which will ensure that the last two measures contained in the Bill are renewed by affirmative resolution after one year and will lapse four years after that.
In the drafting of this vital piece of legislation, the Government have abided by the principle—
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene and I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. He referred to the intention to bring forward an amendment to Clause 3. Does he propose to introduce amendments to cover the other recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that I should deal with that matter in my closing remarks to the debate later this evening.
The Government believe that the Bill is a proportionate and measured response to a problem which requires determined and effective action. It balances the liberties of the individual against the well-founded rights of decent people both here and abroad to go about their business without being subjected to drunken insult, racism, xenophobia and violence. I commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned amendments which are to be tabled by the Government. In order to clarify the position, can he tell us whether the civil or the criminal standard of proof will apply? It appeared, having read the Hansard report of the debates in the other place, that Ministers, even at Third Reading, did not know the answer to that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, where the procedure is civil, the civil standard of proof will apply; where it is a criminal procedure, the criminal standard of proof will apply.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we all look forward in the course of this debate to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Hodgson, especially those of us who have heard him speak as a colleague in another place and on other occasions since.
I should perhaps say at the start that I am not a regular attender at football matches and I cannot offer first-hand experience of hooliganism in that respect. However, I know how much I hate to see our nation's reputation dragged down by so-called supporters who have nothing whatever to do with those who built and served the British Empire.
Those so-called supporters appear to view football violence as a legitimate sport in its own right. I understand that they travel without a ticket and, frequently, with little hope of obtaining one when they arrive to see the match. Some apparently view the

1189
occasion as a continuation of the Second World War by other means. Indeed, I believe that one of the worst features of the whole matter is the way in which that view of football is sometimes encouraged by the choice of words of tabloid editors when matches take place. I believe that to be disgraceful and very damaging.
However, we are here today to consider this Bill, given that background. My first point is that I believe that we all hate legislating at this speed. The history of rushed legislation, cobbled together in haste in response to an event, is pretty rotten. I am not making a party political point. Some on this side of the House have scars to prove the point that I am making. The difficulty comes down partly to a question of time-scale and partly to one of emotion. There is little time for reflection and little time for people outside Parliament to take on board what is happening and to comment on it. Ministers, officials and parliamentary draftsmen must all rush their work, and that is made all the worse in this case because the Home Office is trying to cram through Parliament an enormously long list of legislation.
The Minister and I, and many others present today, yesterday evening finished consideration of a version of the extremely complex Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill—a very different version, I may say, from the version that we received, but that is another matter. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is the Minister with personal responsibility for the topic of this Bill. Presumably for several weeks he has been trying to prepare the Bill and oversee debates in the Commons, as well as conducting business here. It is difficult for all of us to get legislation right in those circumstances. During the so-called spillover, when we come back from the recess, we shall have no fewer than seven Home Office Bills to deal with.
This extra Bill comes on top of a very heavy burden for all those concerned with the preparation of Home Office legislation. It has inevitably had to be rushed and it is no surprise that it has already been through several versions.
Not only are we legislating in haste, we are doing so under the emotions generated by seeing the dreadful scenes in Brussels and Charleroi. It is natural to say that something must be done. We all sympathise with that emotion, but the difficulty is to get the right legislation, not just any legislation on the subject. The Bill is the Government's attempt to do that. We should all be careful about such hasty legislation. That is why my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon suggested a sunset clause during a meeting with the Home Secretary about the Bill. The Government have inserted a five-year sunset provision for the most controversial and novel aspects of the Bill. We believe that five years is too long, but we shall return to that point later.
However, not all of the Bill is novel and controversial. There are four main aspects to it. First, domestic and international football banning orders are being combined into one. We accept that proposition, which has been around for many years, having originally been advanced by one of my right honourable friends in another place.
1190
Secondly, the withdrawal of passports for the period of specified football matches from those with banning orders against them will become mandatory in all but exceptional cases, rather than being at the discretion of the courts. We also accept that.
Thirdly, there is a proposal to allow the police to apply to the magistrates' court to seek a football banning order against someone who may not have committed a football-related offence, but who has been involved in violence and disorder in another way.
As the Minister emphasised, the fourth proposal is the difficult one. A police constable will be able to detain a suspect for four hours on suspicion while he investigates. It is a sus law. A police inspector can extend that period by a further two hours to six hours. When they have investigated, they can serve art order, with reasons—the Bill has been properly amended in that respect—to appear before a magistrate within 24 hours, when the banning order will be considered. That means that the police can detain for six hours and limit travel for 24 hours on suspicion.
I was glad to hear the Minister refer to the arrangements for legal advice and assistance for people faced with such applications. The circumstances can sometimes be difficult. The events will often take place over the weekend while someone is away from home, travelling overseas. We are dealing with strong powers—all the more so because of the circumstances in which they are likely to be used.
I appreciate that the police will often wish to apply for a banning order in advance of a match, before anybody has had a chance to travel even as far as an airport, but they will often seek to detain someone who is about to travel by air or by sea. In these days of cheap flights, a delay of even one hour usually means losing one's seat and one's money. I was glad to hear that the Government will propose a scheme, as suggested by my right honourable and honourable friends in another place, to allow claims for those deprived of their trip and their money, if the magistrates subsequently decide that a banning order should not properly be made.
Being deprived of the right to travel is a considerable deprivation of liberty. We shall press for stipendiary magistrates to sit at airports when the powers are likely to be used. That will speed up the process of judicial decision-taking and minimise the time that people are held under suspicion by the police.
We have to decide whether the strong powers in the Bill are justified by the mischief to which they are addressed and whether they will work. We know that there are some serious loopholes. The first is the well documented Scottish loophole. Someone who has not yet had a banning order can avoid going through an English or Welsh airport or port by going to Scotland to travel to the continent, or wherever the match is taking place. Ministers suggested at an earlier stage that that loophole could be closed if the Scottish Parliament enacted similar legislation. Since then, Scottish Ministers have made it clear that they have no intention of doing so. Besides, they cannot possibly do so now, because the Scottish Parliament has already gone into recess.

1191
The Government are aware of the problem. That is why Englishmen—and, indeed, Scotsmen—will be prevented from travelling from Scotland while they are subject to restrictions by the police. This is not internal exile, but internal control of a type that the Government abolished for Northern Ireland comparatively recently with great trumpets. I am not sure what the precedents are for a Scotsman being prevented from travelling to Scotland by an English policeman on suspicion.
There is a similar Northern Ireland loophole. People could fly or drive to Northern Ireland and then go on to a European destination. Alternatively, they could cross over the land border to the Republic of Ireland and either go on from there or go directly to Dublin, if a match was being held there.
When challenged, the Home Secretary said that he understood about the Scottish and Irish loophole, but claimed that it did not matter much, because people could go to Spain in any case. That is true. If someone travels to Spain first when the match is in Germany, they are not likely to be picked up. That widens the loophole even further.
There is also a problem—I do not know whether it is a loophole—of recognition. Not all football hooligans will turn up at the airport dressed in their war paint and all the necessary gear for causing trouble. They may well come disguised in suits and carrying briefcases and, Lord preserve us, probably even mobile telephones. It will be difficult for the police to identify them in the crowds, particularly as they will need to be identified on first arrival at the airport, before they check in. Stopping someone after any baggage has been handed in and the ticket preliminaries have been dealt with at the check-in desk means stopping the whole flight to sort out the relevant baggage. I am sure that your Lordships will sometimes have seen this done when someone fails to turn up and one lot of baggage has to be taken out and everything else is spread out on the tarmac. If that should be caused by the police trying to stop a probable football hooligan dressed in a suit with a briefcase, I do not think it would make the police very popular on a busy weekend.
However, given all this and given the difficulties of the legislation, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will tell us when he winds up, at least in broad terms, how many individuals he expects or believes will become subject to these orders in the first 12 months, or whatever period is deemed suitable. He gave us some figures, and the Home Secretary gave more figures, of those who went to Belgium and what happened to them and so on. We have had quite a lot of figures of a historical nature, but we do not know how effective this legislation is likely to be in terms of the numbers of people being prevented from going overseas and damaging our national reputation.
I assume that the Government have done a calculation of the numbers, because the explanatory memorandum tells us how much it will cost the magistrates' courts. They must have an idea of the
1192
number of hearings they expect to hold in order to arrive at the figure for the magistrates' courts. Therefore, I do not think I am asking the noble Lord the Minister for a figure that does not exist; I am only asking for a figure which we have not yet been given.
The noble Lord has made very clear once again the reason for the Government's sense of urgency over this matter; that is, the urgency they feel of the need not only to get this Bill through but also to get Parliament away for Recess perhaps before anything else goes wrong—and certainly before there are any more leaks from Downing Street. There are a number of questions to which I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to respond when he winds up. First, what is the opinion of the European Union authorities of this restriction of movement within the European Union? They have quite strong opinions about that and about freedom of movement, and this is clearly a restriction.
I find it difficult to understand, although I have read several clever bits of paper on the subject, how these very arbitrary powers can be consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. It would be helpful if we were told more about that and, for that matter, whether any of these powers are consistent with Article 12 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which also covers this kind of area.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I would be interested to know whether the Government intend to implement this of their own volition or whether we shall have to press for the implementation of all three of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. They are all sensible recommendations, and your Lordships' House has a long tradition of carrying out sensible recommendations from that particular very distinguished Select Committee.
This Bill, as I say, is very much a rushed affair. It has important and very difficult—probably irremediable—loopholes. Nevertheless, we are prepared from these Benches to let the Government try this as an experiment, but not to place it permanently on the statute book. We shall also be doing our best in the limited time that will be available to us next week to improve the Bill but we are not going to stand in its way at this stage.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, at the great risk of irritating the noble Lord, Lord McNally—for which I apologise most sincerely—I think that the point made by my noble friend Lord Cope is important. The number of people to whom this might apply is so vital to this procedure that I am absolutely convinced that the polite and generous noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, will have the figures at his fingertips. Could he please let us know what they are before the debate continues?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I think perhaps that might be regarded as an intervention at the end of my speech and I am grateful for the support. I do not

1193
think, however, that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to respond immediately to my noble friend, so I shall sit down.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall endeavour to reply to the questions that have been raised at the closing-speech stage.
5.4 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl is very much a tease, but those of us with experience of another place are aware of the wrecking of ministerial speeches. It is a well-known tactic. I merely point out that if we reach a stage where, with our limited convention, interventions become the norm and we have speeches, as in the other place, which last for 20 minutes longer than they would normally do because there have been 20 or 30 interventions, usually from Members who want to get their name in Hansard without troubling to participate in the debate, then the nature of debates in this House will change.
One of the things I have found since coming to this House is that the general public now have a general appreciation of the quality of debates in this House and of our ability to listen at length to each other without nipping in with party political points and spur-of-the-moment interventions which disrupt so much of considered debate in the other place. I am willing to go down the slippery slope as far as the noble Earl: it is up to him. In the end I think it is your Lordships' House that will be the loser if we allow that to happen here.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I have been an unashamed football fan since the age of 10 when I watched Blackpool win the FA Cup on a nine-inch television set owned by a neighbour. Television technology has improved immensely since those days—alas, Blackpool Football Club has not but it has left me with a great love of the game. A moment of childhood which always remains in my mind is that sense of excitement as I ran up the steps of the Spion Kop at Blackpool on the third Saturday in August, knowing that as I reached the summit there was the field and there would be Stanley Matthews, Stanley Mortensen and Ernie Taylor, together with my other heroes who would be entertaining us for the next nine months.
Part of my concern about this Bill and this debate is that I want to see my children and their contemporaries getting as much enjoyment and pleasure from football as I have had during my lifetime. The noble Lord supports Brighton, and so we are fellow sufferers. As he rightly said, it is a beautiful game and one which needs protecting if it is not to be destroyed in a pincer movement between yobbery and greed.
I want football to be able to play what I believe is its positive role in our society, as an influence on youth in particular and on society at large, both nationally and internationally. Its potential for good, if properly run in all its aspects, is immense, and so none of us denies
1194
the need to stamp out the so-called yob culture which has attached itself to the game. Our doubts rest in the Government's haste in bringing this legislation before Parliament.
We are told that the Government need this legislation before England plays France in Paris in September. Indeed some cynics point out that by doing it this way the Government are in a win-win situation: trouble in Paris and the Government will have done their best; no trouble and the Government will take credit; if the Opposition delay the measure they carry the can. That is wonderful news-management politics, but in a sense that goes to the heart of the wider dilemma of this Government and their credibility. Are we dealing with a considered response or, to quote the Prime Minister, one of those "eye-catching initiatives" needed for short-term political ends?
There is not much use having a long inquest into whether the lack of action to date is the result of government miscalculation, inertia or opposition chicanery in the other place. Is the situation of such a serious and immediate nature that we should abandon normal parliamentary scrutiny and consideration? We have to judge whether the proposed measures get the balance right between the civil right of society to conduct its business free from the threat of violent behaviour and the threat to individual civil liberties posed by the Government's response.
To the first point—the Government's bounce, underpinned by the implication that we take the blame if anything goes wrong—my response is, so be it. The French and British police are not without powers to deal with public disorders. I have just watched the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, on television— somebody was watching. He pointed out that the police have a wide range of powers to deal with public disorder. So it is absurd to claim that Paris faces mayhem without the Bill.
The history of panic legislation is not good. This House and the other place put their rules and timetables in place for good reasons. There should be good reasons before we abandon them. I hope that the House will not be intimidated into cutting corners but will take as long as is necessary. The list of speakers indicates the degree of interest and concern. I give the Government no guarantee of safe passage until we have heard those concerns and the Government's response.
My noble friends Lord Goodhart and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, with their legal background, and others will be expressing our concerns in detail and will study the government amendments announced today. I will repeat the Liberal Democrat position, as expressed by my honourable friend Simon Hughes in the other place. We have always said that we wanted further legislation to deal with football hooliganism and that, in the UK context, the problem is a particularly English one—so we support the England and Wales context of the Bill.
We support the extension and interoperability of domestic and international bans. In that context, the courts should have the power to require the surrender

1195
of passports. However, banning orders must have the precondition of conviction. We question summary detention on the basis of a record that might not have involved a conviction or never involve one. As my honourable friend said, that would be a piece of legislation too far.
We will be tabling amendments relating to those issues, among others. We will not play politics with the Bill but seek to improve it. We will do so for the good of our national reputation, football and the ordinary citizen, who has a civil right to enjoy leisure and sport free from violence.
The Government must realise that law and order and civil liberties are not to be dealt with by gimmicks and eye-catching initiatives. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that the Government's proposed sunset clause of five years is far too long. We want the matter dealt with seriously. The legislation was announced three days before the famous World Cup vote at the behest, we are told, of Mr. Tony Banks in a late-night telephone call from Zurich. Is that the atmosphere in which to deal with fundamental rights concerning passports and travel?
I say to the Home Office and to No. 10 that there is no future in trying to out-Tory the Tories on a law and order issue. We used to laugh at Tory Home Secretaries when they turned up at Blackpool or Brighton to make their ritual abasement to the blue-rinse brigade. Now we are told that David Blunkett wants to be Home Secretary. According to the Sunday Times, his ambition will be to make Jack Straw look like a liberal.
There have been more signs in recent months of the Home Office, and the Home Secretary in particular, losing the plot on law and order and related civil liberty matters. All the more reason for the House to resist government bounce and intimidation. The Bill must be viewed in a wider context. It is no use pushing through emergency legislation while leaving contributory factors completely untouched. There is a crying need for those associated with football to put their house in order. The litany is familiar—players who employ cheating, dissent and violent play as part of their everyday game, as well as the coaches who instil and encourage such conduct. I make no apology for still seeing Stanley Matthews as a role model. I wonder how many youngsters today can find similar role models among modern footballers.
I call on the clubs to show at least the minimum of social responsibility to the communities from which they spring. The media, which encourage matches to be seen in terms of confrontation and international matches in terms of xenophobia and racism, must clean up their act. Channel 4 used time this week to devote a whole programme to the hard men of soccer and the best cheats in football. Is that the best use of media time? I think not.
Fans also have a role to play. They need to be more assertive in reclaiming their games from the yobs and disowning violence and racist language. I have sometimes been critical of Manchester United but I
1196
received an interesting letter from the chairman of that club's supporters' association. He makes the point that the experience of the association in dealing with such matters is ignored by government or the club. The fans must be involved and given ownership of the campaign against violence and racism. Our schools should be encouraged to set high standards—but for that, they will need playing fields on which to play.
There should be a close watch on appropriate measures to deal with alcohol. At two games in the European Cup alcohol consumption was dealt with differently, with a different outcome in terms of violence. The Dutch game was much better policed and better behaved than the Belgian game. Are there some lessons to be learned?
All is not gloom. The 5 per cent of television money going to grass roots soccer is a start, although far too little of the wealth flooding into football finds itself into the wider game. Before the lottery, the football pools paid more than 40 per cent of their income to the Football Trust or in direct taxation. The premiership league is capable of making a much bigger contribution to sport and its communities than it does now. It would help to have an independent football commission, which seems a long time coming into existence. All we know so far from the media is that Dr. Jack Cunningham is to be slotted into the chairmanship of that body and that Lord Faulkner of Worcester has been vetoed by the premiership from taking part. Instead of the Government bouncing Parliament with legislation that the Law Society describes as
"half-baked; a mixture of injustice and ineffectuality",
perhaps they should give priority to creating a football commission with teeth, which would instil into the industry its share of responsibility for dealing with yobbery and violence in the game.
In the meantime, both on this Second Reading and in Committee, let this House do its duty. I find it a little strange riding into battle flanked by the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Rees-Mogg. However, seeing him in his place, I have to say that I always think of the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, as the author of, "You Don't Break a Butterfly on a Wheel", so I know that his credentials on civil liberties are strong and of long standing. As I said, I have already passed the "Tebbit test" in that, with increasing gloom, my eyes go to the Blackpool result first on Saturday afternoons.
I find that what both those noble Lords have said on these matters reflects much more closely the duties and responsibilities of this House than do some of the remarks of Home Office Ministers. Those responsibilities have special regard to the protection of civil liberties and the rule of law, given the expertise that resides in this House on those subjects. So I say to Ministers that we shall discharge our duties at all stages of this Bill in the days ahead. We can offer them no safe conduct for the Bill, but a rigorous examination before we make a final decision.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, in common with many other noble Lords, I am a frequent purchaser of raffle tickets. I am not usually very successful, but no charitable or political function that I attend appears to be complete without this particular fund-raising event. However, my luck changed a few weeks ago and I was successful in winning a first prize that turned out to be an hour's private flying instruction. When I presented myself to collect my prize last week, I asked the instructor whether this was not a dangerous way to earn a living. He assured me that it was not, so long as one remembered two golden rules: first, that one should "treat the air with respect at all times"; and, secondly, that most accidents take place at take off and landing, so one had to be particularly vigilant at those times.
It occurred to me that that was pretty good advice for a maiden speaker in your Lordships' House—behave with respect at all times and exercise particular care at take off and landing. If I may say so, there was also a further similarity. When, at 750 feet over the airfield, the instructor said, "I think it's time that you had a go now", took his hands of the controls and sat back, I experienced the same mixture of exhilaration and terror that I am currently experiencing in your Lordships' House. No maiden speaker could fail to experience exhilaration and terror. It is not just the splendour of the surroundings, although it is that; it is not just the ghosts of the past looking down on one, although it is that as well: it is the knowledge that one is speaking before a body of individuals of all political persuasions and of none, with the widest possible range of knowledge and skills who are all bound together by the single silken thread of a lifetime of commitment to the public life of this country. In those circumstances, I am sure that every maiden speaker should be properly humble.
I was, perhaps, ready for that in part, but what I was not ready for was the way that noble Lords—again, from all sides of the House—have been so kind and encouraging to a new boy on his arrival. That applies not only to noble Lords but also to the staff of the House, who have dealt with my no doubt repetitious and silly questions with extraordinary courtesy and grace.
Having thus wobbled my plane uncertainly off the runway, I turn now to the matter under discussion. I begin by saying that I quite understand and support the strategic objective of this piece of legislation. No one who watched the televised scenes of what happened in Charleroi and Brussels with our fellow countrymen half dressed, or worse, half drunk, or worse and hurling abuse, or worse, at innocent passers-by, can have failed to feel a sense of deep shame. But I hope that it will not be considered provocative for a maiden speaker to seek of the Minister enlightenment and clarification on just a few points.
The first point, which has already been raised, relates to the difficult balance to be struck between the right of a citizen to travel freely and the need to
1198
maintain public order. Obviously I am particularly concerned here about the proposed powers in Clause 1(1)(d). My concerns are only partially addressed by the announcement of the "sunset clause" proposal. Even convicted hooligans, reprehensible though their conduct may be, have rights. As I understand it, we are not considering convicted hooligans with a record; we are considering would-be hooligans, could-be hooligans or even might-be hooligans, and how much more important it is that their rights should be protected.
Therefore, when the Minister responds, I should be grateful if he could give his view on that balance and on the point made by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley about the effectiveness of the powers contained in Clause 1(1)(d). Perhaps he could also say how the determined malefactor—and these malefactors are undoubtedly determined—will be prevented and how the Scottish, the Irish and the Spanish bolt-holes, to which reference has been made, can be properly closed. If they cannot be closed, it will mean that this provision falls only on the ordinary law-abiding citizen whose freedom is, in this small but significant way, greatly diminished.
My second point relates to relationships between the police and the public and this legislation's impact on them. Recent public opinion surveys have indicated that public trust and confidence in the police have declined. The reasons for this are many and various, but I regret the result. It seems to me that a close relationship between the police and the public is an essential part of an effective fight against crime. I am concerned that these powers will put further stress on that relationship. The identification and detention of individuals will inevitably be seen by those individuals as being capricious—rightly so, if the courts do not subsequently uphold the view of the police. Of course, by that time, the plane or ferry will have departed and the match may well have taken place.
It is not just the impact on the individual; the individual has friends, family and work mates. Therefore, there will be a rippling effect of these cases whereby increasingly large groups of individuals feel and take a more jaundiced view of the police and will, perhaps, be less inclined to afford their co-operation to them in other ways. I hope that the Minster will, confirm—and will not mind my asking—whether he believes this price to be worth paying.
In conclusion, when I heard that I might be invited to join your Lordships' House, one of the reasons that I felt particularly honoured was that it seemed to me as an outsider—which I was until a few short weeks ago—that this House had sought always to take the long view. I emphasise the fact that I say this in no party-political sense: I say it in a constitutional sense. Your Lordships' House has stood out for essential principles, while governments of both colours in another place perforce, and probably rightly, have been blown very strongly by the ephemeral winds of political expediency. As a maiden speaker, I have to bow to your Lordships' judgment as to whether in all respects in this piece of legislation it is principle or political expediency that has triumphed.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, when I am likely to speak in a debate and, therefore, will be placed on the speakers' list, I usually look at the list initially without wearing my glasses because I can still find my own name. Having discovered where I am on the list, I then put on my glasses and view the team. On this occasion, I noticed that I was relatively high up the list and congratulated myself on having achieved that privileged position. However, when I studied the list with the aid of my glasses, I saw that my privilege had been greatly enhanced by the maiden speaker who was due to speak immediately in front of me. I knew that the noble Lord's past experience in business, in finance and in the Conservative Party, and even his pastimes as revealed in Who's Who—an interesting mixture of squash, fishing and theatre—would be productive of a very interesting maiden speech.
I congratulate him as an advocate. He first of all complimented his audience, so that they were relaxed and feeling genial towards him; and he then provided an amusing speech that captured everyone. It is an indication that we have many good times to look forward to—which is not always the case.
I do not think I shall take up much of your Lordships' time. I say that as probably my best point. The summary measures in the proposed new Section 21 involve a potentially serious interference with civil liberties. The Home Secretary clearly recognised that the powers could be abused, and he has provided in the Bill restraints on the exercise of those powers with a view to preventing those abuses.
The restraints come under two categories. First, there are the time restraints. Under proposed new Section 21A(3), the powers of detention are limited to four hours, increased to six hours if backed by an inspector or a more senior officer; and the application for the banning order must be made within 24 hours to the appropriate magistrates' court. These are important restraints and ones which, no doubt, will be generally viewed as most helpful.
The next category of restraint is the information that is to be given to the respondent to enable him to contest the allegations made against him. I am grateful to the Minister for having listened to my rather diffident comments with such sympathy at his meeting and for having reflected—or hoped to have reflected—what I was seeking to say in proposed new Sections 21A and 21B. I was anxious that he should achieve compliance with one of the first rules of natural justice—namely, that you must be given the complete information in regard to what you are charged with; what you have to meet; what you must be prepared to refute when you come to court.
The Minister has purported to reflect this initially in proposed new Section 21A(2), which states:
"The constable may detain the person in his custody…until he has decided whether or not to issue a notice under section 21B below, and shall give the person his reasons for detaining him in writing".
I did not ask for that obligation because the constable's response can be perfectly properly given: "My reasons are that I have reasonable grounds for
1200
suspecting that you, the respondent, have at some time caused or contributed or been involved in violence or disorder, and I have reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order in your case would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches". Those are basically the reasons which the officer would be perfectly properly entitled to give.
What he should be obliged to give is quite simply what one frequently obliges a defendant in a civil case to give—and it has been stressed that this part of the proceedings is a civil procedure—and that is what is known as further and better particulars. What should be provided under proposed new Section 21A(2) is not the reasons but full particulars of the facts and matters relied upon in support of his suspicion as proposed in new Section 21A(1)(a) and in support of his belief as proposed in new Section 21A(1)(b). Then you have a clear statement of the case you have to meet. Without that obligation you have not obliged him so to provide.
I come to proposed new Section 21B. It seems to me that the proposed new section has two defects. In proposed new Section 21B(2), on page 9, we see that the obligation is,
"The constable may give the person a notice in writing requiring him"—
and then it is set out what is required—
"and stating the grounds referred to in section 21A(1)".
The first defect is that the proposed new Section 21B(2) does not state that,
"The constable may"—
and I interpolate these words, "on the grounds set out in section 21A", and then read on—
"give the person a notice in writing".
The proposed new section does not provide the initial basis, the initial justification, which entitles him to give a notice at all.
This is in contrast with what one finds in the explanatory notes at page 4, paragraph 22, which states:
"Section 21B empowers a constable in uniform, during a control period, to issue a notice to any person on the grounds set out in section 21A".
That is absent from proposed new Section 21B. That is the first defect—a drafting defect which is easily remedied.
But again we have the same rather strange proposition that he must state the grounds referred to in proposed new Section 21A(1). In proposed new Section 21A he has to state "the reasons"; we now change to "the grounds"—quite why I do not know. The obligation should be similar to the proposed new Section 21A. You should set out a full statement providing the facts and matters relied upon in support of the suspicion or the belief. Unless you set out a statement of those facts and matters you have not provided the respondent with the case he has to meet.
I am sure that the Minister will be prepared to make the alterations I have suggested. It may be said that I can raise this issue in Committee. Of course I can. But we are adopting not a fast-track but super fast-track

1201
procedure. In order to assist the Minister with speed, when we come on Monday to the Committee stage, I hope in his initial speech he will confirm that the corn plaints I have made have been accepted and will be met in the manner that I have suggested. Of course, if I can be of assistance to the Minister by the use of my fading legal skills, I should be only too happy. Until those defects are remedied, this is a defective way of answering the major natural justice obligation of telling the accused what the complaint against him really is.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it is my privilege to be the first from these Benches to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure that I speak for all my noble friends on this side when I say how much we enjoyed it and look forward to many more contributions from him. The noble Lord was, as I recall, a famous by-election victor in the 1970s when we had a Labour Government which was rather more unpopular than this one. I know that he had a distinguished career on the voluntary side of his party thereafter. We look forward to hearing from him many times in the future. Before I turn to the Bill, I should like also to respond to the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about myself.
All I would say about the Government's plans for football regulation is that the final whistle has not yet been blown, the game is still going on, and there may be some changes before the match ends. It seems a little odd for one of the regulated bodies to be seeking to exercise a veto over who the Government wish to have as their regulator. I say no more about that, at this stage anyway.
This is a rather depressing occasion. It is a necessary occasion. But I think that all of us would wish it was not necessary to have to bring forward a Bill of this type. Fresh in noble Lords' minds will be those terrible television scenes from Charleroi and Brussels just a few weeks ago. Had those scenes been an aberration, an isolated incident which was not going to reoccur, it might have been possible to say that the Bill was unnecessary or its provisions excessive. That is not the case. In preparing for the debate, I asked the Library to provide some information for me on incidents involving English fans abroad. When I read through the history of the past 25 years or so, I was struck by how frequently incidents have occurred, and how similar, predictable and how utterly ineffective have been the reactions of the football authorities and the government of the time to them.
There were appalling scenes of disorder in Luxembourg in 1977, in Turin in 1980, in Basle and in Oslo in 1981, in Paris in 1984, in West Germany in 1988, during the 1990 World Cup in Italy, in Sweden in 1992 and in Amsterdam and Rotterdam in 1993. In Dublin in 1995 there was crowd violence at a so-called friendly match and the match had to be abandoned after 27 minutes. There was trouble in 1997 in Rome, in Marseilles during the last World Cup and in Glasgow in November last year. Then we have
1202
Charleroi and Brussels. These were not one-off incidents; there is a continued pattern of violent behaviour. It is up to all of us to see what we can do about it.
I was present on a number of those occasions. I understand—I hope your Lordships will understand—why, when one sees what is going on around one, that watching England abroad has ceased to be a pleasure. I am sick and tired of having to apologise to my hosts for the bizarre drunken behaviour of my fellow citizens; having to express regret for the damage done to cafés, bars and restaurants in normally peaceful and pleasant city centres; explaining that not everyone who follows football in England is a racist or a nationalist bigot; and reassuring them that no one really takes seriously the xenophobic rubbish which appears in our tabloid newspapers—I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, referred to that in his speech—regarding the way they describe foreign football teams. Indeed, only a month ago they were still managing to refer to Germans as "Huns".
In the face of all that, the attitude of our friends in European football bodies has been extraordinarily restrained and remarkably friendly. They have attempted to help us. I recall that during the time that English clubs were banned from European Cup matches in the late 1980s, after the disaster at the Heysel stadium in 1985, the then president of UEFA, offered some helpful, and in view of the proposals in the Bill, remarkably prescient advice to us. I read from a report of the Independent of 12th March 1987:
"The President of UEFA is to go over the FA's heads and ask the British government for a change of mind on the vexed issue of hooligans' passports".
He said he was asking the FA chairman to go back to his government and seek action to stop these people coming to the Continent. He said:
"It is said that there is difficulty in telling who is a hooligan and who is not. But you have them in the courts, don't you? You know who they are. So why can nothing be done?
I know the government will quote to me the Treaty of Rome. They will talk of liberty. But is it right that dangerous people should be allowed to leave your shores?"
That was 13 years ago. There has been much broken glass on the streets and the squares of Europe since then.
It is important to understand that there is now a great difference between crowd behaviour in our domestic game in Great Britain and what happens when England plays abroad. Crowd behaviour here is now dramatically better than it was in the 1970s or the 1980s and the early 1990s for a whole variety of reasons, which I shall not go into this afternoon. But while that improvement has taken place domestically, the hard core of trouble-makers who follow the England national team have continued on their merry way. Indeed, their behaviour has got worse. So the test that the Bill must pass is whether it will solve this problem. I do not believe that it will solve it in every circumstance. I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is being a little unfair when he talks about loopholes, because loopholes will inevitably let

1203
through a small number of people. But will the Bill solve the problem in a material way and make a real difference?
I was worried when I read the first draft of the Bill and the early statements from the Home Office about the civil liberty aspects. I was much reassured by the changes which were made in another place, and particularly following the meeting which many noble Lords attended on 10th July when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, made important contributions which have had such a material effect.
However, I am concerned that representatives of football supporters—I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to them—feel that they have been inadequately consulted about this legislation. The two official groups have played positive and responsible roles in helping to tackle the game's social problems, particularly in the battle against racism. The contribution which the Football Supporters Association has made in organising and running unofficial "embassies" for fans in foreign cities where England has been playing has been outstanding. The help and comfort which these embassies have provided for decent fans, who through no fault of their own find themselves in trouble abroad, has been very important and helpful.
The Football Supporters Association sent me a note this morning. It said that it has statements from over 70 fans who were arrested in Belgium and deported. The fans say that they were deported,
"for no other reason that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
"The vast majority of those we have spoken to had not even witnessed any trouble and were bewildered to find themselves behinds bars. Some were tourists who were not even aware that a football match was taking place."
I was greatly reassured that there was no question of automatically imposing banning orders on everyone who was deported from Belgium. I believe I speak for the Minister when I say that. Equally though, it is important that those responsible for that disorder are dealt with and are banned from domestic and international football. There should be enough video footage and first-hand accounts to identify the majority of them. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bassam will take seriously the concerns expressed about the Bill by supporters. I would hope that a number of their concerns have been addressed by the amendments which have already been made to it.
I also ask my noble friend to take a closer look at the England Members Club. It is run by the Football Association and provides the principal, and often the only, official route for fans to buy tickets for matches abroad. There is much anecdotal evidence that club members, despite being enjoined by the rules to,
"behave in a responsible manner at all times",
and to dress "moderately"—the rules do not say what that means—have been involved in some of the worst incidents of violence and offensive behaviour in recent
1204
years. In a colourful piece in the Observer on 13th February this year, Mr Charlie Whelan, in his new role as newspaper columnist and pundit, claimed:
"During the World Cup in France the people who caused the most trouble inside the stadiums were those in the section allocated to the England Members Club".
In the same piece Mr Whelan went on to claim that many of the worst examples of right-wing bigotry also involved club members.
Earlier this month the FA published some media briefing notes on football hooliganism. They contained a commitment on measures to be taken by the football authorities over the coming weeks. I regret, however, that there was no suggestion that the FA would review the membership of the club and include in the rules a description of the forms of behaviour which would give automatic grounds for expulsion. I see from press reports that the working group being established by my noble friend will take a close look at the England Members Club. I greatly welcome that.
We have put up with this deeply unpleasant and peculiarly English problem for far too long. It has damaged our national reputation and it has also had a debilitating effect on the performance of the England national team, although that is rather secondary to the other issues that we are considering today. So I wish my noble friend well. He is the latest Home Office Minister to try to tackle it. This is an initiative which deserves to succeed and I hope that your Lordships will support him.
5.51 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is a convention of the House that congratulations to maiden speakers should be confined to the two speakers immediately following them. I have rarely been more frustrated by the conventions of the House. But I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, will forgive me for abiding by them.
I should like also to offer my thanks to the Minister and to the Home Secretary for the meeting on 10th July and for the publication of the draft Bill. Those two measures were extremely helpful and they are a precedent which I hope may be followed.
I understand that something needs to be done about football crowds and football supporters. My home tube station is on the way to Wembley. In the days of the late and unlamented home internationals, going home was sometimes a rather worrying process. I shall never forget one occasion when I was cataloguing a collection of historical manuscripts whose value was well into six figures. I was taking them home to work on them while they were still the property of the noble Lord who was selling them. I had forgotten that England were playing The Netherlands at Wembley. In changing trains at Finchley Road, I needed all the half-remembered skills of the other form of football. So I know that something needs to be done.
I should like also to offer a small word of warning about the word "hooligan". One of my graduate students discovered the origins of the word:

1205
Captain Patrick Hooligan, an Irish officer in the British Army, who led a Jacobite riot in Southwark in 1716 and was executed for treason. The original hooligan was another Captain Paddy. The word also has some distinct anti-Irish overtones. As the Home Secretary rightly dislikes racist use of language, I wonder whether I might ask him to beware of the possible anti-Irish implications of the word "hooligan".
Why is the Bill confined only to football? Disorder has a nasty habit of migrating from one place to another. I recall the days when I used to think that betting was about horse-racing. If we drive disorder out of football, it may well go somewhere else. I am tempted to put down an amendment in Committee to delete the word "association" from the Long Title. The Minister might save the time of the House later today if he were able to show me why that is, in his opinion, unnecessary. But I will say that single purpose, single issue legislation reminds me of the remark of a colleague, an 18th century parliamentary historian, who commented that 18th century MPs were always bringing in legislation about the thing which had just happened to them. The MP who had had his turnips stolen introduced a Bill to bring in the death penalty for stealing turnips, never thinking that the catastrophe which happened one year to his turnips might happen the following year to his potatoes. So we might think about whether we need a rather more general framework for dealing with disorder.
It also strikes me more and more, in what is still the short but no longer very short time I have been in the House, that one thing is even worse than rushed legislation; that is legislation addressed obsessively to a single purpose. When we legislate, we touch a cat's-cradle of interlocking rights, powers, duties and habits. If you pull one thread in a cat's-cradle, you can create great confusion. I think, for example, of the way it was not perceived that bringing in the poll tax would create what is now council tax benefit. I think of the CSA in all its various incarnations. When the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, referred to loopholes, he may have been a little optimistic. Loopholes have been found in legislation which have occasionally made some pieces of legislation totally ineffective. One of the effects of legislating only for a single purpose is that one does not spot the loopholes. There is some cause for concern in that respect.
I am also still concerned about Clause 3—the Henry VIII clause. I have read the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I congratulate the committee on the speed with which it has reported. I notice that the committee's remarks are on the whole reassuring. I take the committee's point about it being bound by Clause 3(1). But I should like to ask—this is the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—what is the difference between transitional and transitory powers? In the eyes of the theologian, anything on this earth is transitory. I wonder exactly what that means. I should be grateful if we could have a little more precise declaration about what actually could be done under these vires. The Bill says that the Home Secretary may
1206
do anything which he considers necessary. Home Secretaries have considered some fairly odd things before now. I want to know how much could be done with the provision.
I am a little concerned about Clause 6(2)—the devolution clause. It states:
"But the amendment or repeal by this Act of an enactment extending to Scotland or Northern Ireland also extends to Scotland or, as the case may be, Northern Ireland".
That is potentially a very large coach and horses driven through the Northern Ireland legislation and the Scotland Act. I am concerned about what may be done under it.
The power to confiscate a passport, which is the major part of the Bill, is a moderately serious matter. It is prohibited by Clause 41 of Magna Carta. Before anyone says that that is an entirely antiquarian matter, Magna Carta was last invoked in the United States Supreme Court as recently as 1955 in order to stop a McCarthyite denial of a passport to a nuclear scientist, which illustrates the point that powers of this kind may on occasion be used for political purposes.
I am not a fundamentalist. It is a well-established legal point that, as Parliament is sovereign, Parliament may amend Magna Carta. I am—with a little reluctance, I must confess—prepared on this occasion to agree that Parliament may amend Magna Carta. I am prepared to accept new Section 14A in Schedule 1 to the Bill which deals with people who have committed a known offence.
However, I am a little worried by the mandatory character of the legislation. I can recall an occasion on which, thankfully, I was not prosecuted. As an undergraduate I attended a party where, unbeknownst to any of us, the drinks had been heavily laced with vodka, which is of course tasteless. The only person to leave that party sober was Mr Brian Walden, who was so busy discussing the future of the Labour Party that he never had time to finish his first glass. I was carried out of hall on the shoulders of the head scout, who rejoiced in the name of Baskerville. In other circumstances I might have found myself in the court. To suffer a mandatory penalty for that incident would, I should like to think, have been unjust. I hope that the Minister might perhaps agree with that.
My major problem rests with cases of suspicion, covered by new Sections 14B and 14C. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with all his allegedly failing legal powers—that was a wonderful piece of acting—laid his hand most gently on what I think is the central flaw in the Bill. He asked about the "further and better particulars". The central problem as regards these new sections on suspicion is that one wants to know what type of evidence would be material to put in such further and better particulars.
It would be no good to say, "They are wearing football colours". That proves only that people wanted to go to the match, which is a perfectly lawful activity. It would be no good to say, "They are associated with a lot of disorderly people".

1207
Association, in this country, is not a crime. What kind of thing could, hypothetically, be introduced in evidence to justify the suspicion?
I have thought of one or two possible parallels in English law: the old offence of loitering with intent to commit a felony. There we might find some cases. If someone was found to be lurking in a dark alley opposite a jeweller's shop, carry a jemmy, a mask, gloves and a dark lantern, one might have reasonable grounds for suspicion that that person was loitering with intent to break into the jeweller's opposite. Alternatively, my great grandfather once found one of his servants heating the poker until it was red hot. He asked him what he was going to do with it. The servant replied, "T'kill kitchen maid". There, too, I think one might reasonably have a warrantable suspicion.
However, what I cannot see is any equivalent warrantable suspicion to be introduced here. That is why I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, was absolutely right to say that the power will be seen to be capricious in its exercise and will therefore do grave harm to police public relations. That is something that I do not think we should do. Where there is no coherent ground of suspicion, inevitably we shall see stereotyping, on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, spoke so well when we debated the Lawrence report.
Precedents have been set for "suspicion". When Roman Catholics used to be arrested on suspicion of their intent to follow the example of Guy Fawkes, people did not think that it was proper to arrest them for being suspected of being Roman Catholics. However, it was acceptable to arrest them if they were suspected of being "vehemently" Roman Catholic. It has been said to me that "vehemently" is not a 20th century word, but I am sure that the Home Secretary could find an appropriate translation.
I fear that that is how this legislation is going to work. We should look at how it was used as regards 17th century Roman Catholics. If they were local gentlemen, they were almost never convicted. If they were the Duke of Norfolk, they were never convicted. If they were respectable neighbours, they were rarely convicted. If they were "furriners"; that is, people from the next parish, they might quite often be convicted. If they were Irish, they were almost always convicted. When one is focusing suspicion with little to go on, one tends to use stereotypes. That is one reason why I believe that it is dangerous to introduce it into English law.
I take the point made by the Minister and the Home Secretary that many of the people who were involved in the recent disorder had no previous criminal records. Under the existing provisions, it would not have been possible to stop them. However, I need to be satisfied that, if we introduce these powers, they will catch more guilty people than innocent ones. Until I can be satisfied of that, I do not see any good ground
1208
on which to let them through. If the Minister can satisfy me on that point, I shall be very much reassured.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech. He suggested that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord is of course correct in relation to present legislation. However, 17th century Parliaments treated Magna Carta, in its 1229 version, as being an Act of Parliament. I spoke loosely and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, one of the wonderful features of this House is that a debate on football hooligans can embrace an exchange of the kind we have just heard on the 17th century interpretation of Magna Carta.
I regret that I must offer an apology to the House. I shall have to leave not too long after I have made my contribution. If I explain to noble Lords that I have undertaken to dine this evening with both my wife and my secretary to celebrate the latter's birthday, I think that noble Lords will understand the perils of not complying with that commitment.
Because statements of one kind or another about football seem to be de rigueur, I shall plead guilty to having once attended a professional football match. It took place, I think, in 1953, in Edinburgh between Hearts and Hibs. The experience led me to conclude that I never wished to attend another football match in my life. Perhaps I may say that hooliganism at football matches did not start only in the last 20 years.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I, too, have found myself in difficult circumstances, although not so well equipped. On a Saturday night I was travelling home from Merseyside in a train filled with Millwall supporters whose team had lost that day. I have to say, however, that although they were extraordinarily drunk, they were extraordinarily well behaved.
I doubt whether any noble Lord would not want to see an end to hooliganism, but, as has been made plain, a good many noble Lords have considerable reservations about the Bill. First—I find myself once again in agreement with the noble Earl—I regret that the Bill is so limited in its ambition. It is not a Bill about hooliganism or even about "drunks throwing traffic cones around". It is a Bill about football hooliganism.
It is not even a Bill to prevent football hooliganism in our cities but rather to keep our hooligans here at home rather than on the loose on the Continent. In its scope, its defects are those of omission rather than commission. In my view, however, the most serious defects are in the nature and extent of the powers it would grant to authorities to penalise individuals outside the normal judicial process.

1209
I should say that, since the publication of the draft Bill, the willingness of the Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to meet and listen to Members of both Houses and to respond to some of their concerns has been both wise and welcome.
The Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, deserve sympathy at having the Bill dumped on them in such great haste so late in the year. We hardly need DNA testing to establish its true parentage. We know that the Home Secretary was on the circulation list of the Prime Minister's famous minute of 29th April, which stated:
"as ever we arc lacking a tough public message … we should think now of an initiative — e.g. locking up street muggers".
I thought that somebody had thought of that before now.
The Prime Minister called for "eye-catching initiatives". The Home Secretary did his bit and what we have is exactly what the Prime Minister asked for. Legislating in that manner, in response to such vapourings, in haste, on such a narrow front and so obsessively about one small issue of law and order—it is small—produces ill-conceived and badly drafted legislation. Weak men, wanting to appear tough, look rather like Norman Wisdom dressed as Superman. As Mr Gould acknowledged, that leads to public derision.
The problem for us legislators, however, is that the clamour for tough measures threatens to produce unjust measures. I believe that none of us has any problem with the first two of the main four measures proposed: the combining of domestic and international banning orders—that seems sensible—and the empowering of magistrates' courts to impose a banning order to prevent violence or disorder associated with particular football matches.
The third and fourth measures, however, give concern. I hope noble Lords will understand my embarrassment at finding myself in the same bed as the civil rights lobby. It is made bearable only by the thought of their embarrassment at having me there with them. Perhaps it might cause Ministers to reflect and consider whether they might have misjudged the matter. Perhaps I may instance my concern.
Schedule 1 amends the Football Spectators Act 1989. I am surprised that nobody else has noticed that this provision falls under new Section 14B. Is my recollection at fault or was it not Section 14B which was used during the war to put away Oswald Mosley and others on the evidence of officials?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Section 18B!
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I apologise; I am wrong. None the less, it has a relevance. New Section 14B relates to the applications for banning orders. It states the condition that,
"the respondent has at any time (whether before or after the commencement of this section)",
which is rather worrying,
"caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere".
1210
It states "any". Would a person involved in a disorderly incident in a field of genetically modified maize, or perhaps even illegal squatting, be caught by Section 14B(2)?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, yes.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, it is suggested from the Liberal Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that it would. That seems to be extraordinary. What connection is there between the two matters? If that is the case, that seems to be fundamentally wrong.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. However, it is not even as simple as that. If you drive someone to a field of genetically modified crops in which there were disorderly activities you would have contributed to disorder and that too would be caught. You do not even need to get your hands dirty, so to speak.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, it is even worse than I believed. I am grateful for the intervention. It shows that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is not always right on such matters.
After that, it only requires that the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder. Then the court must make a banning order. Again, I find that slightly doubtful by my standards of how the law should operate. This all rests on a belief about what a man might do, not so much on what he has done, even to the extent that it requires some belief that he might have done something.
New Section 14C also allows a court to take account of a deportation or exclusion from a country outside the United Kingdom. I am greatly encouraged by what was said earlier. The Government have intended to ensure that that would not mean that perfectly innocent people rounded up by the Belgian "hooligan police" and having their passport stamped that they had been excluded from Belgium would thereafter fall foul of this law. Clearly, many of them were absolutely innocent. Certainly, they have not been convicted under British law of any crime. That would have amounted to accepting the word of a Belgian police officer, not even a Belgian court, as to a man's character and his convictions.
Further on, at page 9, line 28, we come to another matter to which reference has already been made. I refer to the new section to be inserted into the 1989 Act. That would give wide powers to constables to prevent people leaving England and Wales and force them to give up their passports. It does not even require the word of a chief police officer, only an authorisation by an inspector, provided that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the conditions at Section 14B(2) are met. I can add nothing to that which has not already been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.

1211
I wonder, too, what are the precedents for preventing a man, perhaps a Scot, from going home to Scotland, which is what this Bill can do. Perhaps he is perfectly innocent. He may have been a bit of a tearaway in his youth and may even have tattoos on his arms, or something unseemly such as that. The Bill would give powers to prevent him going home to Scotland. The noble Lord looks incredulous, but that is what it does. Curiously, it does not prevent an Ulsterman from going home to Ulster. Perhaps I might say to the noble Earl that there is no anti-Irish ethic there.
I have considerable concerns, too, as to whether an offence of driving under the influence of drink or drugs on the way to a football match should necessarily be translated into an offence of football-related disorder. These are separate matters. Because one has committed an offence under the Road Traffic Act, one should not therefore be found guilty of an offence of football hooliganism in the future.
As I read all this, it struck me that a few years ago, during the coal strike, there were the most severe disorders which this country had seen for many years. There were flying pickets, mass picketing and violent picketing. All those matters were dealt with within the existing law without taking extra powers. We are now looking at a question of football hooliganism by a relatively limited number of people and taking these extraordinary powers to change the very nature of English justice to deal with them. It would be a pity to grant powers that were not needed during the coal strike just to deal with these matters.
I hope that the Government will think again. Above all, I hope that they will tell our friends on the Continent that much of this problem has grown up as a result of their failure to prosecute and punish hooligans who commit offences in their countries. They cannot complain excessively about us failing to keep our hooligans at home when they fail to prosecute and punish them for offences committed in their lands.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for the first time in this place, if not in the other place, I must tell him that he was unfortunate in his choice of a football game that put him off forever. As anyone would have told him, Hibs versus Hearts is not a fixture for any neutral spectator. It is known for being rather partisan. So I am sorry that the noble Lord went down that track.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, claimed that he was a football supporter, and that he supported Blackpool. I feel that I have stronger claims in supporting Bolton in recent years. Both of us have a right to speak on football matters. My interest in sport is well known—although on other games the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and I do not always agree. While civil liberties supporters might indeed be rather surprised to have the noble Lord on their side, they might also be surprised that we are on opposite sides in relation to the Bill.
1212
Something had to be done about this problem. Much has been said about why we should not introduce such a measure. But we should examine the issue behind the Bill. It is not one of locking people away, except for perhaps a few hours; and cases must be brought to court within 24 hours. It is a matter not of sending anyone to prison, but of preventing people watching the football game. Although I bow to no one in terms of people's rights, certainly when it comes to civil liberties, we should keep the matter in perspective.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, spoke of hooliganism and disorder at home. I must remind the noble Lord that, at present, there is a disparate atmosphere at football matches in this country. There is rarely any disorder at home matches. It is a question of dealing with those who travel to matches abroad, in many cases not just to watch the match but to cause disorder and to make xenophobic and racist remarks. That was brought home to us during Euro 2000. It is right to introduce this Bill. We have another match coming up against France. It is right also, in relation to the club matches that will be played and other international matches that are in the pipeline, that we should begin to consider what can be done.
The Bill has been improved in another place. Given the concern expressed by Members of this House, I have no doubt that it will also be improved during its passage through this place. Many believe that four or five years is too long a period. But if the Home Secretary wants to change or strengthen the requirement, he must give a reason and provide written evidence before bringing in an order to do so. So the Bill has been strengthened by provisions introduced in another place.
We found during Euro 2000 that, of the 965 who were arrested, only 30 were known football hooligans. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that of those who were there, 40 per cent had previous criminal convictions. In other words, 391 of the 965 had previous convictions, and the majority of those were for public order offences, not necessarily, as the noble Lord was right in saying, football-related offences. My noble friend came before the House prior to the matches taking place and talked about the measures that the Government had taken to prevent known hooligans from travelling abroad. Their success is clear in that the figure was only 30. It is not those people who will cause trouble overseas; it is others with an interest in violence or racism, or in causing disturbances. I do not see why genuine football supporters and holidaymakers, or residents of the towns or cities where matches are played, should have their pleasure disrupted by people travelling abroad whose real interest is xenophobia rather than watching a football match. That is why I welcome this legislation.
Let us examine the Bill carefully to see whether we, too, can make further improvements that will safeguard civil liberties. Several speakers have asked whether it is right that the police should have such powers; and what makes them think that a particular person has committed acts of violence or will cause disorder? At the end of the day, this measure is about

1213
preventing people from going to matches abroad who will bring not only football but this country into disrepute if they are allowed to travel.
We also have a duty to the country that is hosting the matches to try to prevent disturbances if possible. It is right that we should provide the police with these powers. As I said, a third of those charged had convictions for violence and public disorder but not connected with football. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but does the noble Lord happen to know what percentage of young men aged around 25 in the population at large have convictions for violence or public order offences? It may be an alarmingly high percentage.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I do not doubt that the noble Lord is right. Unfortunately, given the society in which we live, this is a recurring problem. Alarming figures are published for those charged with one offence or another—although the offences are not normally violent, those people will have appeared before a court before they are 30.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the figure for men under 30 convicted of offences of violence or dishonesty is in excess of 30 per cent.
Lord Hoyle: That is right, my Lords. But we have allowed many among that 30 per cent to travel abroad. What we seek to do is to deal with the matter in this country and to prevent those people travelling overseas. Is anyone suggesting that we should turn a blind eye because a similar percentage of people are arrested in this country? Surely that is not a logical argument. If we can begin to prevent such people travelling abroad and causing trouble, we should do so. I was merely quoting the percentage of those arrested. The offences may follow the pattern in this country, but it behoves us to take any steps that we can to prevent it occurring.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. It follows from the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that this Bill will allow the police to stop 30 per cent of the population under 25 from going to a football match simply on suspicion.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I do not agree with that. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, can speak for himself. I see the noble Lord shaking his head in disagreement. If we can take measures to improve relationships between this country and others we should do so. I do not claim for a moment that the disturbances resulted in the UK being unable to host the next World Cup. Many say it is probable that the decision as to that had been taken before the disturbances. However, I do not believe that anyone in this House or outside it would argue that those disturbances materially helped our cause in trying to stage that particular tournament.
I hope noble Lords will bear in mind that, at the end of the day, this measure is designed simply to stop people who may be troublemakers from
1214
attending a football match, not to put them in prison. Noble Lords will examine the Bill in detail, and if it can be strengthened in any way we should seek to do so. I hope that the Bill is implemented as soon as possible.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, this is a remarkably civilised debate on a very intractable and shaming problem. I begin by indicating where my views coincide with those expressed earlier. I very much share the view of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the talents of the late Sir Stanley Matthews. Born as I was in the potteries, I have always regarded Stoke City as first and last his natural home. I have always regarded the interregnum of his years at Blackpool with sadness, although it is surely mitigated by memories of the greatest 15 minutes in football at Wembley in 1953. If I remember rightly, Sir Stanley Matthews, like the late Billy Wright, was never cautioned, had a maximum wage of £14 a week and received a £50 ex gratia bonus for his deeds in that cup final.
I also share the views expressed by several speakers, notably the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Hoyle, about the undesirability of exporting our football hooligans. But we must remember that the civil liberties of real football supporters are undoubtedly inhibited in practice, if not sometimes in law, by actions which they disown and mar their pleasure in following a legitimate activity.
I also share the view that existing measures have simply not worked. I respect the support of the Association of Chief Police Officers for the measures in this Bill. It is police officers who have to deal at the coal face—the ports—with this immensely difficult problem. I am grateful to both the Home Secretary and the Minister for their willingness to debate the difficulties of this Bill. I do not believe that anyone who heard those debates would suggest that in bringing forward this Bill the Government in any way seek to be authoritarian.
For all that, I too share the view that the measures in this Bill give rise to serious issues of civil liberties; in summary, the potential to place people in custody before banning them without the accusation of a criminal offence. I simply do not know whether these measures will work. I have a fear that they may be operated—it is difficult to do otherwise—on a scattergun basis. It may be very hard for the police at ports, where a number of people may wish to travel, to differentiate between those against whom they might wish, on further inquiry, to seek a banning order and those against whom, once they know the true facts, they would not. These people may well be in crowds. Is there to be guilt by association, or by gear or garb, or simply because one is in the wrong place at the wrong time, to adapt the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester?

1215
Having expressed those shared concerns, perhaps I may mention two other matters. The first relates to new Section 14G, which provides:
"A banning order may, if the court making the order thinks fit, impose additional requirements on the person subject to the order in relation to any regulated football matches".
I turn to the Explanatory Notes to discover the additional requirements. It will not help the Minister to do so because the words of the note simply echo the clause. When the Minister responds to the debate can he tell the House what is envisaged? Is tagging or a residence condition contemplated? We should know what falls within the ambit of those very wide words.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who is to speak later, I am concerned about the standard of proof. So far the Government have dealt with it by saying that the standard of proof in criminal and civil cases is different. I agree. However, I do not find it easy to discover from the provisions of this Bill whether the Government regard this measure as falling within the criminal or civil law. In many ways it appears to be concerned more with the criminal law. The matter can be preceded by arrest and it then comes before a magistrates' court. The right of appeal is to the Crown Court, and there are serious penalties for breach of a banning order. This is either criminal or quasi-criminal in nature. I hope that the least the Minister will accept is that before a banning order can be imposed the standard of proof should be very high.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I think back to the old "sus" laws. In the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars the soldiery who returned unrewarded by a not very grateful nation sometimes resorted to vagabondage. In 1824 Parliament introduced an offence whereby someone could be charged as a suspected person loitering with intent. Through no fault of their own, the police had to play a game: they had to form a suspicion and a few minutes later they could decide that someone was loitering with intent. When I was called to the Bar that law had been utterly discredited, yet it remained on the statute book until its repeal in 1981. That is a good illustration of a law that is totally discredited because it provides for the imposition of a penalty without guilt. Who suffered that penalty? It was suffered by the socially unfortunate, the outcasts, minor drunks and those who wore shabby clothing. That law was regarded as deeply unfair, and towards the end of its time prosecutions were rarely brought. Yet nothing reminds me so much of the old "sus" laws as the characteristics which underlie this offence.
I, too, share the concern about the speed. This legislation is due to go through the House on the Government's programme in less than one full week. But I recognise that the Home Secretary gracefully and promptly accepted that the nature of the issues and the speed meant that the law should be experimental. The procedure for annual renewal by affirmative instrument is helpful. We all know that debate on affirmative instruments can be relatively cursory, so it is good that the House will receive an annual report on
1216
the operation of the Act. I also feel that a sunset provision is very important. I personally would prefer to see a sunset provision of three years.
On balance, and perhaps contrary to others who do not normally find themselves in the civil liberties camp, to which sometimes I feel proud to belong, I would give cautious support to this legislation on an experimental basis and with amendment but for one difficulty. That difficulty is the impact of European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights, soon to become our own Human Rights Act. I am chairman of Justice, although the views I have expressed so far are purely personal and may not be shared by some of my colleagues in Justice whom I see here today.
On one issue Justice has, as it seeks to do on new legislation, taken the opinion of counsel, Clare Montgomery, QC, and Rhodri Thompson. Because of the haste with which it had to be obtained, that opinion has become available today. As the Minister knows it always does, Justice will communicate it promptly to the Home Office to be considered. But it is troubling in its conclusions. It concludes that this legislation is incompatible with both the European Union treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights. It considers, therefore, that the statement that the proposed legislation is compatible with convention rights is not accurate. It considers that if the legislation were brought in, new Sections 14B and 21A to 21C would have to be disapplied under European Union law and the United Kingdom Government would be at risk of action for damages.
I have had no real opportunity, and probably lack the specialist competence, to assess the validity of that opinion. However, in view of the care with which it is expressed and its strength, I would hope that the Minister will seek on it the views of the Attorney-General before we return to this issue in Committee. I know the convention that the Attorney-General's advice is never disclosed, although I have never fully understood the desirability of that. However, I think that with the help of that advice we should be given every reassurance in Committee that there is compatibility with both European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights before we are asked to give our blessing to this legislation.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he will amplify something he said. New Section 14A refers to the court being satisfied,
"that there are reasonable grounds to believe",
that a banning order should be made. My noble friend discussed the burden of proof. As a magistrate who may be faced with having to deal with this problem, it is important for me that we clarify at this stage whether a magistrate will decide on the balance of probability that someone will be a troublemaker or on the test of beyond reasonable doubt. Those are two very different tests. They matter when we talk about civil liberties.

1217
Before he finishes, perhaps my noble friend will explain further. The matter must be clarified in this Chamber.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I do not want in any sense to decline the opportunity to amplify. However, I am puzzled. It seems to me wholly ambiguous whether the words to which my noble friend Lady Hanham referred mean satisfied so that one is sure or satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there are reasonable grounds. I see a potential lacuna. I sympathise with the difficulties which magistrates may have if that point is not clarified in the passage of the legislation; and I suspect that it would need clarification not only by way of ministerial reassurance but also on the face of the legislation.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is to listen to the wise words of people like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am sure that the legislation can and will be improved tremendously by such detailed debate. Even though I do not agree with everything that has been said, it is a pleasure to listen to the contributions to the debate.
I start by declaring an interest as a lifelong supporter of Darlington Football Club. It is not renowned for being one of the most successful. I also confess as a police office to having imposed summary justice on football fans. I remember policing a match at Darlington many years ago. I caught a young lad climbing over the fence and I made him go back in and watch the end as a punishment. So summary justice is useful from time to time. We used to have rival matches with the nearby towns of West Hartlepool and Old Hartlepool. They are now called Hartlepool. I confess that I was 15 years old before I realised that it was not called Hartlepool nil.
I refer in particular to the power in the Bill which may concern most noble Lords: the power under Part II. I disagree that the power is similar to the old "sus" law. I think that it is more akin to the power the police have to arrest people for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. Indeed, it is an extension of that old common law power. It is also similar in a sense to the anti-social behaviour provisions under the Crime and Disorder Act because that offence initially starts as a civil complaint. It becomes a criminal offence only if that anti-social behaviour order is breached. The police officer needs grounds to suspect that the suspect has been involved in violence and disorder. "Reasonable grounds to suspect" is a test a police officer exercises every minute of every hour of every day of every week. Under statute, most powers of arrest will often require the police officer to have suspicion; it does not require him to have evidence. Many people do not realise that. The police officer does not need evidence; he simply has to have reasonable grounds to suspect. He has to justify that afterwards. In this Bill, he has to justify it before the magistrates' court within 24 hours. That seems to me to be a reasonable price to pay.
1218
What are we preventing? We are simply preventing someone from going abroad to watch a football match. I think that it is a reasonable and moderate response to the violence we have seen over the past few months and years. There is at present a restriction that a constable can hold the suspect only for four hours, or for six hours with the authority of a police inspector. When one used to arrest people for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, one held them probably for the weekend and brought them before the magistrates on the Monday morning. I do not think this provision can be compared even with that situation. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable response given the fact that the violence that has shamed the country has been seen throughout the world. Clearly, we need to take some steps to prevent that.
What are the objections? I have read the comments by the Law Society, which says that it is an erosion of free movement; of course, it is. Any arrest is an erosion of free movement. I have given an example of someone who is likely to commit a breach of the peace being detained for, perhaps, a whole weekend. That is an erosion of someone's free movement. What we are talking about here is probably preventing them from travelling abroad, not necessarily for longer than four hours.
It is also alleged that it can be used arbitrarily and prejudicially. I object to that. That kind of comment by the Law Society is unhelpful because one could apply that to any statute dealing with any power the police are given. Yes, occasionally, we do see powers being abused, quite often because the powers perhaps are misunderstood. Even where that is not the case, I think it is wrong to complain about this particular statute by saying there is a likelihood that it will be arbitrarily and prejudicially used. I think that we would not give the police any powers if we really believed that.
It has not been mentioned yet, but a lot of the complaints made by the police about being unable to deal with this particular problem were due to the fact that they had intelligence. The police obtain intelligence from many sources. I am certainly not going to go through them in detail here. If I can give an example, it may well be information or it may well be because they have someone working undercover in one of these groups that are planning to go abroad and, in various ways and means, to cause mayhem and bring shame and despair on the country. The police have this intelligence but, of course, they do not have the power to do anything about it. They have to stand at the airports and seaports and watch people going abroad.
This power provides a measure of prevention. It is a preventative power. It results in the suspect going before the court. Then the police, quite rightly, have to justify their actions. We have the provision now, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for compensation if the police get it wrong. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable response to an extremely difficult problem.

1219
I have heard it suggested that the police would be concerned that actions could be brought against them for wrongful arrest and so forth. I should say that if we ever reach the stage in this country where the police are deterred from taking action which they believe legitimate simply because of the fear of litigation then we go down a very slippery slope. I have seen cases in America where the police—a small police force, admittedly—have stood and watched a violent rape at knifepoint taking place inside premises without taking any action because they felt that if they went in and acted the damages against them might well be greater if the girl was injured and killed than it would have been because of the rape. I can assure you that is not a consideration that the police in this country would ever take into account, and I hope that always remains so. The threat of litigation should not be a factor at all.
This is a preventative power. One has to have confidence. That is why the suggestion it be a temporary provision and be reviewed is helpful because one has to put trust in the police and see if it works. If it does not, then let us have another look at it and perhaps improve it. But to do nothing is not an option.
To touch on the question of breach of the peace, I wrote a letter to The Times in response to an article by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg. I said in that letter that I have on many occasions arrested innocent people. What I meant was—and perhaps I should have explained this—innocent of an offence, a criminal offence. Of course, arresting someone for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace is not a criminal offence. It is a complaint that one can lay before the magistrate. The consequences are that the person concerned is bound over. Nonetheless, one still removes his or her liberty. That power is used throughout the land on a regular basis for the right reasons. That is what I was talking about when I said I arrested innocent persons for an offence.
There is a power, obviously, for breach of the peace. It is useful to look at the areas for which the breach of the peace provision has been used in the past. It has been used for persons inciting a rent strike, believe it or not, eavesdropping, peeping toms—whose conduct is likely, if someone else sees them, to cause a breach of the peace—using abusive words, accosting someone immorally and, the obvious one, issuing and using racial threats. I am sorry to say that we see a lot of racial abuse and threats at football matches. That is something that we should be attempting to eradicate.
It is no good complaining about police inaction. What we should do is to provide the police with some tools to do the job, but properly accountable, and to involve the courts in this provision. I do not think that it is a draconian measure; I think it is reasonable and proportionate. It is a response to ugly, violent and often racist conduct that we need to try and take out of the game of football. It degrades the men concerned—it is usually men—and it also brings shame on the country.
1220
What we cannot do, and cannot afford to do, is to allow a repeat of the events in Charleroi and Brussels. To be frank, I do not think that restricting people's right to travel to see a football match is the end of civilisation as we know it when they can watch the game on television.
We have checks and balances. I do not think that the police would abuse the power. They have no reason to abuse the power. All they want is a power that can be used when they believe they have good intelligence. If we can take out the ringleaders and the people who are orchestrating this behaviour, then I think we will go a long way towards tackling the problem. One thing is certain, and that is that the problem has to be tackled. I do not think it is any good, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, suggested, simply blaming the foreigners. It is our problem and we have to deal with it. We have to try and prevent these people going abroad.
Certainly, I support the provisions of the Bill, with the sensible comments taken into account. The Home Secretary has gone quite a long way to improve the Bill and I am sure it can be improved by the deliberations of this House in the course of the next week.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, like other speakers, I wish to preface my remarks by complimenting the Home Secretary on his willingness to meet with us a fortnight ago in order to explore concerns. I should also acknowledge readily that the task of any Home Secretary in dealing with this deep-rooted problem is a most intractable and difficult one. Nothing that I have to say in relation to this Bill should cast any aspersions on the Home Secretary and on the way in which he tries, with difficulty, to carry out his obligations, and that applies to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam also.
I should like to take up the main point of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, in that it concentrated on the power to arrest for breach of the peace and then for magistrates to bind over the person to keep the peace. With great respect, I think that this is something of a red herring. The only analogy that the Government have relied on in justifying the measures in this Bill is the Crime and Disorder Act which allows for anti-social behaviour orders. The binding over process of justices of the peace, which is ancient in origin although now embraced in the Justices of the Peace Act 1968, does not have any immediate consequence such as a banning order will have in this case. A banning order will deprive someone of the right to attend football matches for between two and 10 years and could involve confiscation of passports, the requirement of reporting at police stations and the addition of other conditions as referred to by an earlier speaker. The binding over process involves nothing beyond the binding over and the agreement of the person to keep the peace. If he fails to do so, consequences follow but

1221
it is not an analogy. In any event, under the clause a banning order can be made only—and I quote from Stone's Justices' Manual—
"where there is evidence before the court which indicates a likelihood that the peace will not be kept".
Before going further, perhaps I may put beyond doubt the order of proof which must be established under the Bill in order for a banning order to be made. There is no doubt that it is a civil test. The Government made it clear in the other place and the Home Secretary said so when he met us. Indeed, new Section 14J clearly states that if there is a breach of one of the conditions of the banning order, then an offence is committed and certain consequences ensue.
A conversation I had with a Minister at the Home Office on the Bill team related to the civil standard of proof required in particular by new Section 14B. The answer is that there must be a balance of probabilities and it must not be beyond reasonable doubt. However, the civil test is not a single test; it can vary in intensity. I was assured that in this case the higher rather than the lower end would be required. I do not know whether that is of consolation to the magistrate who spoke earlier, but were I a magistrate having to construe the Bill it would be of no consolation to me.
In my view this is a baker's dozen of objections to the Bill, however well intentioned and necessary its purpose. I believe that the House will want to guard against what is perhaps the grandest illusion of legislators; that is, their assumptions as to the extent to which legislation will achieve its purpose "on the ground". Are they real or unreal?
Perhaps I may remind the House that in recent times we have had the Football Spectators Act 1989; the Football (Offences) Act 1991; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the Police Act 1996; the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999; and now we have this Bill. Anyone in this House who believes that the way to deal with these problems is to pile more draconian laws on top of existing laws is living in Cloud-cuckoo-land.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Having listened to him, I ask, "How would you deal with the problem?".
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, if the good Lord is patient, I shall come to that. The haste with which the Government are seeking to bring the Bill into force is not only unseemly but likely to prove counterproductive, particularly on the back of all that legislation. We know full well that the social virus with which we are dealing is resistant to most of the legal antibiotics thrown against it thus far.
It is one thing to rush through the Terrorism Bill in the wake of the appalling IRA carnage a few years ago. However—and without in any way belittling the offensiveness of the thrown plastic chairs and punches—of the 965 arrests in Holland and Belgium there were only four prosecutions. They occurred in Holland for ticket touting offences and in Belgium for assaulting a policeman.
1222
Those statistics were given by Jack Straw and they are a measure of the degree of disorder and violence the recent Euro 2000 events involved. I believe that had they involved serious violence rather than the more dramatic sights replayed on our television screens ad nauseam there would have been more prosecutions than two. As others have said, this could be another piece of mad dogs legislation and we must avoid that.
I turn to the issue of principle touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and others. I refer to the old, tried, bedrock standard of proof required for a criminal offence; that is, beyond reasonable doubt. The nature of the offence and the penalties attaching to a banning order are of a criminal kind. It will be of no solace to someone wrongly the subject of a banning order to be told, "Don't worry, old chap, it's a civil offence after all". It is fundamental that the Government, in seeking to find easier ways of dealing with a real social menace, are not encouraged to recategorise what is a criminal matter by calling it "civil". That would be profoundly dangerous.
The Government lull us with the assurance that there is nothing new here and they say that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was a good precedent. That Bill was fiercely opposed in this House by Members on these and other Benches and by Liberty, the Howard League for Penal Reform and other organisations. But apart from that, the analogy is false. Perhaps I may read what the then Solicitor-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said in a debate in this House on 17th March 1998 in response to the very concerns that have been expressed today. He said:
"The application for an [anti-social behaviour] order can be made only after consultation between the local authority and the police authority".
Under this Bill there is no consultation because local authorities have no role to play. The police act on their own volition.
The Solicitor-General went on to say that once the local authority and police have consulted and decided to make an anti-social behaviour order application,
"there is a discretion on the part of the magistrates' court as to whether or not it makes an order".
In this Bill there is no such discretion. Under new Section 14B(4), the court must make a binding order if the other factors are established.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, gave a third assurance on fundamentals by saying that there is a specific provision in the Bill which requires the magistrates, upon application for an order being made, to disregard any act of the defendant,
"which they regard as being reasonable in the circumstances".—[Official Report, 17/3/98; co1.583.]
No such defence is available in the Bill.
There is a fourth fundamental difference between the anti-social behaviour orders under the 1998 Act and this Bill; namely, under the 1998 Act the application for such an order must be in respect of recent specific, relevant anti-social conduct. The magistrates in those cases can make their judgments only on the basis of recent relevant, specific evidence.

1223
However, under this Bill not merely can the application for a banning order be based upon any conduct, related or not, which is claimed caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, but it can be in respect of events which took place long before the commencement of this new Bill. That is expressly prohibited under the 1998 Act.
My next objection is also one of principle. It is that the new law would involve a form of double jeopardy or, worse still, punishment inflicted in respect of past lawful conduct. As regards the double jeopardy point, under the existing Football (Offences and Disorder) Act, a banning order can be made only on the back of a football-related conviction and at the time the person concerned is convicted. The person concerned will be dealt with by the magistrates "at one go", so to speak. The magistrate will decide upon fine or imprisonment, taking into account the additional punishment to be suffered by the person as a result of the banning order.
Under this Bill that will not occur. The offence, if there be an offence, on the basis of which the police apply for an order, will be long ago resolved. This will be a new, completely separate punishment in circumstances in which there may have been absolutely no activity by way of unlawfulness, violence or disorder on the part of the person concerned. Nothing at all may have happened between the occasion on which the application is built and the time of the application itself.
I believe that the injustice speaks for itself in the second—and, I believe, the worst—case, where someone is given a banning order under new Section 14B for conduct in respect of which he or she has never been charged and which might not even have been unlawful. At least the Public Order Act 1986—the key piece of legislation in this country which governs offences of this kind, covering riot, affray, violent disorder, harassment, alarm and so on—offers two protections against injustice which this Bill does not.
The first protection is that if someone is charged under the Public Order Act, where, of course, there will be a criminal standard of proof, he or she can produce a defence of "reasonable conduct", which may be self-defence or a case of provocation. However, under this Bill the court must be satisfied only,
"that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder".
Of course, it must be remembered that violence can be against property and disorder can be of the most banal kind—a gesture, sign or word. As I have already said, in addition to that, the standard of proof under this Bill is civil rather than criminal. What is more, the accused—euphemistically, I note, in this Bill called "the respondent"—does not need to have any mens rea or intent. Again, that is an essential element of a conviction under the Public Order Act.
Other noble Lords have spoken of the particular offensiveness of new Section 21. I do not propose to enlarge upon that except to say that I agree entirely with that view. I note that, when in opposition, Labour
1224
launched a sustained and vehement assault on the old stop-and-search laws which were repealed, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, mentioned.
There might be a pragmatic justification if one felt that all this flimsy scaffolding of illibertarianism were likely to prove effective. But how can one seriously believe that? As the Home Secretary himself pointed out, huge resources were deployed before Euro 2000, particularly in the form of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Yet, of the 965 arrests, only 30 were among the 1,000 or so football hooligans previously identified by FCIS. I repeat: only 30; and only four prosecutions. That should tell us everything.
I believe that one way in which to deal with this dilemma would be to legislate for extraterritoriality of the existing laws under the Public Order Act. That would allow offences committed at football matches or in relation to football matches abroad to be tried in this country under our own laws, under our traditional protections and under our traditional requirements as to standards of proof. I believe that that would be an infinitely better, easier, cheaper and more successful way in which to contend with these awful problems.
I believe that obtaining the necessary evidence would not be as difficult as it sounds. We are already sending hundreds, if not thousands, of police to the Continent on these great occasions to try to help, in the case of Euro 2000, Belgian or Dutch police to do their work. One could produce video evidence or, if necessary, ask for the co-operation of Belgian and Dutch police in coming across to give evidence in our courts. I believe that that would be vastly better in all respects.
For those reasons, regretfully I believe that the Bill is a danger to the standards upon which the whole of our law—not only our criminal law—is built. I do not believe that the circumstances with which we are contending give any hope that what the Government assume will follow as a result of this complicated law will work. I think of the police and of the magistrates who will have to implement the new law; I think of the reservations of the Police Federation, whatever the chiefs of police may say; and I believe that, above all, and perhaps beneath all, the danger of false convictions arising from this Bill would be a greater destroyer of public confidence in the law and, ultimately therefore, of public order than anything else. For those reasons—there are others which time prevents me from enlarging upon—I am afraid that I would throw this measure to the wolves.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I have no present interest to declare, although for a few years in the 1960s I had the honour to be president of Lincoln City Football Club. Unfortunately, during my short period of office the club was relegated from the Second to the Third Division and then from the Third to the Fourth Division. That had nothing to do with me directly as I had no executive or even advisory powers. However, clearly I must have brought bad luck upon the club.

1225
It may interest your Lordships to learn that one of the chief complaints of directors at home fixtures, as we knocked back our double whiskys at half time, accompanied of course by plenty of unfiltered high-tar cigarettes, was the iniquity of having to pay the players fully £20 per week which in those days was considered an obscenely excessive sum for a football player.
I turn to more serious matters. Like many other noble Lords, although not of course the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, I agree wholeheartedly with the Law Society in deploring the rushing through of,
"a measure which rides roughshod over the rights of unconvicted people".
I shall gladly join other noble Lords at later stages of the Bill in attempting to restore the rights of unconvicted people.
I have reservations about some other aspects of the Bill. Incidentally, it is somewhat ironical that, had we subscribed to the Schengen agreement, as many Europhiles urged the Government to do, Clause 1(1)(c) which may require,
"persons subject to banning orders to surrender their passports",
would have been totally ineffectual since hooligans and potential hooligans could have travelled abroad using other identity documents which realistically could not be removed from them.
It is true that Germany, although within the Schengen area, recently stopped suspected troublemakers from crossing their borders at manned border crossings, but of course not all border crossings are manned. Apparently, Germany indignantly has demanded to know why the United Kingdom has not behaved likewise. Much as I genuinely admire a great many things about modern Germany, I do not believe that we need take lessons from the Germans in matters of law or individual freedom.
We should remind ourselves of two things. The first is that good news is no news. Most English fans are perfectly well behaved, even if sometimes they are unjustly lumped in with the aggressive minority. However, that good behaviour goes unreported. Moreover, the media—both domestic and foreign—often stir up trouble, not out of malice but because of desperation for a good story.
Secondly, football violence is by no means an exclusively English problem. Whether or not inspired by the English example, other countries are catching up fast, notably, but not exclusively, Germany, the Netherlands and, of course, Turkey. The growing reality of redundant but vigorous young males—redundant in many senses of the word; not only in terms of jobs—soon will be a Europe-wide problem. Crises that stem largely from long-term social trends cannot be cured by a quick fix, least of all one that tramples on British traditions of justice and fair play.
Although the legislation of the previous administration rarely extended as far as what is now proposed, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, more or less acknowledged that they did not set the best example with their many instances of tabloid-driven panic
1226
legislation. I do not mean only the Dangerous Dogs Act, which has perhaps been excessively pilloried, given the many other examples.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, said, it is incumbent on those who criticise the Government to say what they would do to solve the problem. I doubt that it can ever be solved, but I hope that it can be ameliorated. I have two modest suggestions. First, some municipalities in the Low Countries experimented earlier this year with banning the sale of strong alcohol before and during matches. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, only beer or lager containing under 4 per cent alcohol by volume was allowed. That seems to have been remarkably successful in curbing violence. Could not the United Kingdom Government, ideally in conjunction with other European governments, publicly and lavishly praise the cities in question, thereby encouraging the remainder to follow suit?
Secondly, one can well understand the reluctance of continental taxpayers to shell out for the board and lodging of convicted British hooligans. That explains the general reluctance of continental prosecuting authorities to prosecute. They would prefer to ship them home unconvicted after a night in the cells. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, both made that point. However, I believe that international agreements are already in place to permit prisoners to serve their sentences in their own country. Could not Her Majesty's Government publicly announce that they would automatically pay for the repatriation within one week of those fairly convicted of football-related offences on the continent? That should lead to more prosecutions and would be an enhanced deterrent, since those convicted would serve out their time in spartan English prisons rather than the comfortable ones to be found in Holland and elsewhere.
Even at this late hour, cannot the Government consider abandoning the more illiberal elements of the Bill in favour of less drastic alternatives?
7.22 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that he had experienced football hooliganism as long ago as 1953, when he had gone to a match between Hibs and Hearts. I congratulated myself privately that I knew which teams he was referring to. The research department of the Library in another place has established that legislative attempts to deal with the problem of football hooliganism go back at least to the time of Edward II. More recently, since 1985, Parliament has passed eight Acts on the subject.
The cumulative effect of all that legislative endeavour has not been sufficient. I am sure that we all hope that the Bill will prove more successful, but it is not necessarily unconstructive to express some doubts. The origins of what we have called football hooliganism are far more diverse and complex than a mere mischievous desire to exploit loopholes in the law that prohibit violence. They certainly extend to the cult

1227
in the entertainment media of exulting in and exalting physical violence and crudeness in any and every form of human behaviour. That is served up non-stop, night after night in entertainment programmes. I believe that that trend has played a large part in the creation of the cult of violence and crudity that affects and afflicts a significant proportion of young and not so young people in our country—though not all of them. If any right reverend prelate had been present to add to that analysis by referring to the doctrine of original sin, I would not have quarrelled. Unfortunately, notwithstanding their efforts the other day, there are no right reverend prelates assisting us in our deliberations this afternoon.
I am sufficiently tainted by the experience—perhaps even the scars—of office to believe that it was a practical political imperative for the Government to make some legislative response in the light of the hideous events in Charleroi and Brussels that many of us observed on our screens earlier this year. The problem for the Government is to find an idea that has not been tried already that is not so harsh in its application as to be counterproductive by catching too many people who are innocent in record and intent. If the Government go too far and legislate excessively harshly, they will build up resentment against the agencies of the law—the magistracy and the police—and even against the law itself, when maintaining confidence in those institutions is essential if we are to sustain the rule of law in this country. If significant numbers of innocent people are caught in the unduly fine mesh of the legislation, there will be resentment against the police, who will face obloquy and litigation. That is an unfair burden to put on them. Even more importantly, it is damaging.
I always listen with the greatest attention and respect to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, given his long experience in the police service, which culminated in senior office. I also read the letter that he wrote to The Times the other day. However, his comparison between the proposals in the Bill and the ancient jurisdiction to bind over on suspicion of a breach of the peace was devastatingly demolished by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
If anything extra needs to be said, it is enough to point out that if a court is satisfied that the tests set out in new Sections 14A and 14B are fulfilled, it will be mandatory to make a banning order, which will last for a minimum of three years and may last for five years. What is more, under the detention measures in new Sections 21A and 21B, if a police officer who has decided to serve a notice of complaint asking for a banning order thinks that the respondent—that is a polite term for the person whom one might call the victim, or the citizen, to use a neutral label—may not comply with the terms of the order, he is entitled to arrest him. So I think that we have here a very significant infringement of personal liberties indeed.
It may be that the problem is so great that this infringement is justified. I think that it really is incumbent upon Ministers to know what standard of
1228
proof is going to be imposed upon magistrates, who have a most important contribution to make. Indeed, we have had just such a contribution from my noble friend, who has sat for long as a magistrate. It is important to know, if this is to be put upon the statute book, what standard of proof is required. I trust that we are going to find in the government amendments that have been promised some specific legislation making that clear. With great respect, I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Alexander, who said that this jurisdiction is at least quasi-criminal in its character. I would go further and say that it is criminal in character because you have only to look at the sanctions and their punitive nature to see evidence of this. That calls for a very high standard of proof: I would say that it calls for a beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof.
So much has been said today with which I agree that, mercifully, it curtails any excuse that I may have for making a longer speech. I would just end by saying this. Funnily enough, it reflects on one of the concluding remarks of my noble friend Lord Tebbit. We have to recognise that we are fighting a war against the scourge of football hooliganism. I think it might be said that we are fighting a war, without indulging in hyperbole. But let us not forget a famous case in the last world war. It was a case in which one of the Law Lords said in his judgment that amid the clash of arms the laws are not silent. It is true that the majority of his colleagues were against him. It was a case under Regulation 18(B) of the Defence Regulations 1939, but the only speech that is recalled with admiration and cited with the greatest of respect today of the speeches that were made in that case is the speech of the learned Lord who said those words. We ought to bear that case and that principle very well in mind.
I also believe that in the context of what we are discussing today we can transpose for the laws the principles of liberty. Notwithstanding the difficulties that we face and notwithstanding that there is a "sunset" clause now to be inserted into the Bill, I believe that the preservation of the principles of liberty is just as important in this "war" as it was held to be by Lord Atkin in the famous case to which I have referred in 1943. Whether it be under Regulation 18(B) or the new Section 14B, those principles need to be applied just as scrupulously and resolutely. That is the standpoint from which I hope this House will view the remaining stages of this Bill, and look at it in great detail.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder if he might concede for the record, lest it should show an inaccuracy, that a right reverend Prelate is sitting directly opposite him.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, of course that is right, and it is the more unforgivable since the right reverend Prelate is a very old and admired friend of mine from another jurisdiction.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I am very happy to follow the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, particularly because I agree wholeheartedly with his last few remarks and his reference to Lord Atkin's speech in the course of the Second World War.
Some two weeks ago—it seems to me a short two weeks ago—the Government made a Statement which presaged the Bill which is before us today. On that occasion I ventured to express concern about what is still, though it has been amended, the fourth of the four elements that the Bill provides; that is, the summary measures available to the police.
I also expressed concern that Parliament was being rushed and would be unable, as I thought, to deal adequately with the detail, which detail is inevitable when a Bill is defining the borderline between a person's freedom of movement, for example, and the need to restrict that right so as to prevent violence and disorder.
Since that Government Statement two short weeks ago, and partly as a result of a number of points made at a meeting which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had with parliamentarians, a number of distinct improvements have been made. During the passage of the Bill through another place a number of amendments were made, particularly with regard to that fourth element in the Bill. The police must now have "reasonable grounds" for suspecting that a person has contributed to violence or disorder in the past and they must have "reasonable grounds" for believing that a banning order would prevent violence or disorder at football matches.
There was also an amendment reducing the period of immediate detention from 24 to four hours, or six hours if an inspector approves. It is extremely welcome that the Home Secretary has shown himself willing to consider at the very least any amendments which are suggested. Indeed, he has indicated his willingness to consider further amendments that may emerge during the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
In a way, the fact that we have had the Bill amended in key respects and that the Government intend to introduce other amendments here next week confirm my original concern about haste, because the normal gaps that there are in this House and in another place between the various stages of a Bill will not have occurred. The gaps are normally there for both Front Benchers and Back Benchers to give due consideration to the legislation, and we Back Benchers above all rely on a lot of people "out there"—interested organisations and so on—to help us by their briefings to improve Bills.
The Home Secretary said at Second Reading that he wanted to,
"combine speed with careful scrutiny".
That is almost an impossibility, I would have thought, if this Bill is anything to go by. The Government have pointed out in their defence that this is a subject on which there has already been a great deal of discussion in a number of ways. However, there is a world of
1230
difference between considering these matters in a broad way and the detailed word-by-word specification of a Bill, which is of course part of the vital scrutinising role of both Houses of Parliament.
This is the Second Reading of the Bill, and therefore I do not wish to go into detailed consideration of concerns at the moment, though several have been mentioned with which I agree. Perhaps I may select just two matters on which I would like to ask the Government for their responses, although not necessarily this evening. The first is: what exactly are the "reasonable grounds" for detention which a police constable must have when faced with, say, a number of young men, perhaps several dozen young men, whether in one group or several groups? What reasonable grounds must the police have to prevent persons departing for the Continent, suspecting that one or more of them may have contributed to or caused violence of some kind, somewhere, at some time in the past?
It was said in the other place that appearance, clothing and demeanour are not enough. So on what will the police rely? Since the Bill was first drafted, the word "behaviour" has disappeared—unless it is lost in a provision that I have not noticed—yet behaviour may be relevant to police suspicion.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, indicated, the police will mainly rely on intelligence. They will have vast amounts of information about violent or potentially violent persons. At the port or airport—even given the availability of mobile phones and other technology—the police will have to relate and connect that mass of intelligence to persons seeking to go abroad for a football match. There is now a requirement that the police will have to give their reasons for detention in writing. I have a feeling that the police will not rush into making detention orders unless they are on very sure ground.
When a magistrates' court considers a banning order, it must be satisfied that the respondent has in the past caused or contributed to violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere. That conduct does not have to relate to a football match. Nor does there have to be a conviction. The proposed Section 14C(4) states:
"The magistrates' court may take into account … any decision of a public authority … deportation or exclusion from a country … removal or exclusion from premises used for playing football matches, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere".
Even the football experts present would agree that the innocent are swept up with the guilty when they are removed from grounds and deported. Is it right for a magistrates' court to take account of that when deciding whether to impose a banning order?
The Bill's objective is to reduce significantly the disgraceful mayhem that British visitors tend to cause at international football matches. No matter how much the new law may be further improved in this House, it can be readily evaded by leaving for the Continent from Scotland or Ireland—which people living in the North of England might find easier in any case. The Government say that existing legislation and the non-controversial parts of the Bill are inadequate,

1231
so the controversial, summary measures are needed. However, the Bill has been so amended and hedged around with conditions that neither the police nor magistrates will in practice be able to apply its measures very much.
Government amendments that we have not yet seen provide for compensation. If the police or magistrates get it wrong, they may have to pay compensation. That will be a further deterrent to any robust use of the powers that the Government must want to result from the Bill, otherwise it will in practice be ineffective. I share the Government's objectives but am doubtful whether the Bill will do much to achieve them.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, last year or the year before, I threatened to behave like a football hooligan. I believe it was quite effective at the time, but that is not the kind of football hooliganism about which we are talking now.
At one moment, I thought there was an absolutely glorious thing in the Bill. We have a Minister who in his earlier life had gone squatting and attended courts with dongs on the end of his nose. He could have been told by Plod that he could not go to a football match in Zeebrugge. But now that he is older, wiser and more sensible, and has reached a great office of state, the Bill is being amended so that he cannot be done—unless of course the noble Lord was up to those antics less than 10 years ago. If that is the case, it is unfortunate that we must have the Bill at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that the Bill will be unusable and unenforceable. The Law Society says of the Bill:
"It is a clear erosion of the right of free movement within the European Union. It will be used arbitrarily and prejudicially. At its most serious the behaviour in question will be no more than semi-criminal. Like the old and discredited stop and sus laws, this is a superficial and potentially discriminatory method of pinpointing troublemakers. It is also contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantee the right to freedom of expression and free assembly. It will be simple to evade. It will lead to actions against the police. The Police Federation are well aware of this danger and have expressed their grave concern over this unworkable Bill".
I am an unashamed libertarian. A long time ago I went to an Anglo-French rugby match in Paris. We arrived without tickets, got quite tight and sang a lot of songs. The whole place was surrounded by the CRS. In 1968, the students used to chant "CRS—SS, CRS—SS" by way of making a comparison between the Compagne Republicaine de Securité, who are extraordinarily tough and fairly nasty, and the German SS. There was no trouble at that match. Why is it that things happen at football matches that do not happen at rugby matches? I do not know the answer.
I was told by a Belgian journalist that the events in Charleroi and Brussels were miles less serious than those reported and were caused by over-reaction on the part of the Belgian police. When the Home Secretary spoke to us the other day, he admitted that there was nothing wrong with at least 60 per cent of the people arrested. The Belgians had used an
1232
administrative arrest, which allows them to lock people up just for fun. Only four crimes were committed—as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said—yet we are rushing through legislation that is deeply offensive to human rights. I do not like the Human Rights Act; it is wretched. It is Parliament that should protect an Englishman's liberties, not somebody else.
But it appears that Parliament cannot do it. It is a perfect example of Parliament not protecting Englishmen's liberties. The liberty to protect is not mine or my noble friend Lord Astor's. That is dead easy. The liberty to protect is that of the fat-gutted, under-privileged, tattooed drunk who is not misbehaving. His liberty is the one that needs protecting because he is a minority and unpopular. Anyone can protect popular liberties.
We have gone through this Bill in quite some detail. There is provision in Clause 3, which, as far as I can make out, allows the Home Secretary to amend it at will in any way that he likes. Indeed, irrespective of what safeguards we put into the legislation, I assume that he can take them out again. It appears to be delegated legislation and we should perhaps look into that. The new Section 14B to the Football Spectators Act 1989, as set out under Schedule 1, allows a punishment to be imposed upon someone who the police think might have committed an offence.
A friend of mine was travelling home the other day with her husband. They got out of the car and were pounced on by three gentlemen wearing black hoods who mugged them. The police said to my friend, "We're pretty sure we know who those guys are, but we do not have the evidence to arrest them". But they will have in other respects. If those three men want to go to a football match, they may, under this legislation, be prevented from going to watch, say, Zeebrugge play Manchester United; but the police cannot arrest them for mugging Jan Morgan! This is a very odd way of making law.
Most of the other points that I had intended to make have been made with greater legal knowledge and expertise than I possess. However, I am completely convinced that this Bill is a combination of unworkability, illiberality and illegality. Surely the Government can do better than that. They now have a record of being an illiberal government. They want to hack about with the right of trial by jury; they took away the rights of people to shoot 22 pistols; they want to take away benefit from people who do not fulfil a probation order; and their recent Bill regarding the provision of information was attacked in The Times as being deeply illiberal.
This Government seem to want to pass nasty, illiberal Acts of Parliament, one after another. As long as I am in this Parliament, I shall do my level best to try to stop some of them. Of course, those on our side are not always perfect; indeed, they had dogs and pistol legislation in the last Parliament, so they are not as good as all that. However, as Back-Benchers we must stand up for the rights and liberties of Englishmen. That is what Parliament is for.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, as this is a Second Reading debate I shall attempt to confine my remarks to Second Reading issues, and leave much of the detail for later debates. We genuinely face a difficult problem in both Houses of Parliament. We know that the problem is not an issue of just what happened in Brussels or Charleroi and whether it was extremely serious or merely serious. I must confess that the scenes I saw could never bear excuse; and, indeed, could never hear prosecution if they happened in this country. However, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner said in his excellent contribution, this is not a one off: this is something that happens year after year after year.
It is absolutely right to say that we have attempted many times to resolve this issue, without success. During my remarks I shall express serious reservations about some aspects of the Bill's proposals that I shall certainly want to see overcome in the coming days. However, judging by the noble Earl's speech, what I had understood to be a general consensus between the two principal parties seems to have disappeared. When the Minister made the Statement on 19th June following the problems in Brussels and Charleroi, I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, acknowledged that it was his right honourable friend David Maclean who proposed an amendment to a previous Bill to allow passports to be confiscated from unconvicted hooligans. He also said that there was general agreement that that would be better carried out by legislation in a government Bill. The noble Lord went on to quote a statement from UEFA:
"The UK Government owes it to everyone concerned to take steps similar to those taken in other countries to stop these so-called fans from travelling abroad … Other governments have shown that it can be done and we call on the UK Government to take the steps necessary as a matter of urgency".
The noble Lord asked for the Minister's comment on that statement and whether it was proposed to follow it up. He then said:
"If that is the case, we shall continue to support proposals of that character".—[Official Report, 19/6/00; col. 43.]
I draw attention to the latter merely to make the point that there seems to be a consensus that there is a problem and that we need to address it. If we are concerned about some important principles in liberty that we must get right if we introduce new legislation, then such issues must be properly examined. However, if it is a matter of Second Reading principle that we should not be seeking to do so, I must confess that I cannot agree with the noble Earl.
After the events of Euro 2000, I was struck by the way in which leading figures from both major political parties dug themselves into a hole immediately—the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary. Within days they had committed themselves to a tough line and "tough-speak" and could not then get off the hook. In the calmness of this Chamber, we now remind ourselves that that is not the way to make legislation. For my part, I would have sooner seen no tickets sold to England fans for the Paris game and no fans going
1234
to European games for six or 12 months if that had given us time to consider legislation both carefully and properly. In my view, that option was pre-empted by the way in which all leading politicians from the two main parties spoke within hours of the events in Belgium taking place. What we must do now is to seek to make the best of that position.
For many years I was a director of Leeds United. It is a matter of irony to me that Leeds United caused eyebrows to be raised in recent days because it took the step of banning a large number of fans from its ground. That seems to me to be exactly what clubs should be doing. When I was on the board long ago, the existing chairman, Mr Peter Ridesdale, and the previous chairman, Mr Leslie Silver, took the decision to stamp this out: you cannot tolerate this on your doorstep. I hope and expect football clubs to do far more than they have done in this respect.
One of the many regrets that I have about the way in which events have gathered pace in the past few week is the fact that we have not created a sense of partnership with the football industry—the football clubs and the football supporters—so that there is agreement on what we are trying to do. This must be a wholehearted, multi-pronged attack on the problem. We shall not overcome it by repressive legislation alone; indeed, there is no doubt about that. Other action is also required. Such action can only be taken by football clubs and by supporters' associations. In the main, the people about whom we are talking are well known. They are not people who are coming out of the woodwork.
The problem in the past, which this legislation seeks to address, has been that although such people were known, the existing legislation did not enable the authorities to act and do anything about them. That is a problem. Let us imagine that we had done nothing or that, as a result of our deliberations in this Chamber, nothing were done and the legislation remained unchanged. People would then be able to follow their football clubs to Paris or Europe and do exactly the same things again. The police authorities would say, "We cannot do anything. We knew that these people would be troublemakers, but they have not been convicted of any offence". In my view, we would look extremely weak in the eyes of the public.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am fascinated by the experience he is able to bring to the debate. Can he explain to me and others why, of the 1,000 or so who were deported, only 35 were on the NCIS hooligan list—let us call it that. Only 35 of the lot who tipped up in Brussels and Charleroi were deported? How does the noble Lord account for that?
Lord Woohner of Leeds: My Lords, I have not yet had the time to go thoroughly into that matter. By the time we get to the very truncated Committee stage we can explore it in more detail. If we take decisions based upon information and a rational examination of the evidence, then an answer to that should be available to us. It seems highly likely that most of those who were

1235
deported were not truly troublemakers but were swept up in the Belgian system of administrative arrest. A lot of fairly experienced people who were causing trouble almost certainly got out of the way and avoided arrest.
If one were to put a figure on this, in my view—from some considerable experience in football—we are talking thousands but certainly not tens of thousands; I think we are talking between 2,000 and 10,000 people who have an inclination to get involved in this kind of activity. But within that figure there are probably a few dozen ringleaders—maybe 100 or 200.
Like most noble Lords, I have no problem with the first two of the Bill's objectives. The proposed slow lane and fast lane procedures are where issues arise—particularly in regard to the fast lane procedure, as it has been called in the other place. I have no doubt whatever that this legislation cannot and will not work unless what is described as the "slow lane" process is followed. We must identify the people who are genuinely thought to be troublemakers coolly and calmly, and away from the storms of football games. They must be identified, properly taken to court and properly appraised. Out of that will come not only the conviction of the individuals but often the unearthing of what is behind them. The fast lane must be seen only as a matter of last resort.
I gathered some comfort—I would gather even greater comfort if it was repeated in the House today—from the remarks of Jack Straw in the other place when he said,
"the summary power"—
which is the fast track process—
"needs to be seen as supplementary to the core power, which involves obtaining a banning order by a civil process. It is to be hoped—the police have this hope too—that, so far as possible, candidates for banning orders will be dealt with by the slower process of a normal complaint issued in the magistrates court, where, if a matter is adjourned for a week or so, it will not materially affect the risk the individual poses".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/00; commons. 125.].
The idea that a significant number of people can be identified, given proper and due process and proper and due representation on any scale in our ports and airports can be only a fantasy—it could not possibly happen.
It is exceptionally important that Ministers make clear the intent behind the fast lane process. It can and should only be used for hard core people who have for some reason not yet been identified and brought to book. As has been said, something in the region of 30 per cent of the relevant age group have had some kind of conviction that is not unassociated with what could be brought in evidence as suspicion.
There is an important safeguard in relation to actual conviction, as it were; that is, that there must be reasonable grounds for the suspicion. It is an important qualification, but if the fast lane process were to apply to one fan it would apply to tens of thousands. It would be arbitrary if it were used for anything other than the absolute exception. When my
1236
noble friend responds to the debate, I shall be extremely interested to hear how he approaches that issue.
Most noble Lords, I think, agree that there genuinely is a problem. But our politicians in the other place—whether wisely or not—have forced the hand of Parliament. Our job is to consider how we can ensure that we produce a fair and proper Act within the proper due process of justice. We must not raise the expectations of people or the press. The only way the problem will be overcome is through the patient, year in, year out, application of the proper legal processes; it will not be sorted out in the hurry and scurry of the ports and airports of this country. If the Government proceed in that way, I shall vote for the legislation; but if there is a hint or an expectation of the fast track making a substantial contribution to solving a deep problem, I shall have the gravest reservations.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is a treat to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer. The last time we debated a subject like this, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that every time I spoke he discovered something new. I apply those remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer. I perhaps should have known of his experience, but I did not. It is a tribute to your Lordships' House that in the middle of the debate we have heard the voice of experience; of someone who has been—and, for all I know, still is—at the sharp end of the football industry at a leading football club in England, and who has experience of the problems we are discussing today. I shall try to follow him in a constructive way.
First, I have to apologise that I was late coming into the debate. I found myself in the middle of—I must not call it round one—the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. He was insisting on the rights of Back-Benchers in your Lordships' House. I applaud him for that.
Secondly, I declare an interest—the Minister is always keen on football and I am sure that he will note this—as the honorary patron of Forfar Athletic, but that should not concern us necessarily today. I am also a shareholder and a keen supporter of another major club in the north-west of England—I am wearing its tie tonight. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, will adopt a hull-down position; he knows that, whenever he mentions anything in your Lordships' House, Everton supporters tend to comb each word of Hansard. No doubt they might threaten me—there may be others who might wish to threaten me—but they might find in the case of a Forfar man that they have picked the wrong man.
As a supporter, I go frequently to Forfar—perhaps 15 or 20 times a season. It is a big treat for me to go to my other club in England. I may go twice to a home game; I may go once or twice to an away game, but I tend to go quite frequently to its youth games. One of my friends at this club has taken personal charge of the formation of the entire youth sector of that team. It is an enormous treat to see what the club is trying to do. So those are my interests.

1237
I also declare some nostalgia. The last time we spoke on this issue when the Minister made a Statement—I think it was in mid June—I mentioned that I had been in London on, I think, 15th April 1967 when Scotland, in the words of the Observer newspaper, took on the world champions and beat them. The scenes in and around Piccadilly were equally described by that same journalist, a Scotsman, as being a weird amalgam of William Wallace—that is the Braveheart who has recently come to fame—Harry Lauder and an advertisement for Alcoholics Anonymous. I think he was plumb on the button there. That used to be the way in which Scots behaved.
But, as their behaviour got wilder and wilder—it was rather like the threat of Corporal Jones in Dad's Army, "They don't like it" and so on—it became more and more apparent to Scottish supporters and to the Scottish Football Association that such conduct would result in the ultimate sanction of the banning of the Scottish national team from events such as Euro 2000 and the World Cup. It was beginning to sink in. It began to sink in that Scots were not welcome at matches played at Wembley.
I go back also with nostalgia to 1988–89. I seem to remember we have been here before. I remember reading in the great tabloid newspapers that something must be done. There were the same problems then as now. I looked also at the figures for Euro 2000, as have been spelled out by the Minister and indeed his right honourable friend in another place. Indeed, they were like a wonderful pair of pairs ice skaters. They did not make one error-6.0 for perfect style. Everything was made out. They mentioned that 965 persons were removed—I shall not say deported—from Belgium. We heard that 391 had previous convictions. That leaves 574 innocent people. Of those innocent people—the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, may have had something on them—I wonder how many were known to the National Criminal Intelligence Service? It was the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who reminded us that of the 1,000 persons—I presume mostly men, there might be a girl among them, I do not know—on the list, only 30 were among the 965 removed from Belgium. We know about the 574.
Is it those 574 persons that this legislation covers? I have no problem with the first, the second and not much with the third element of the legislation; it is the fourth part of the legislation that gives me considerable cause for concern and indeed, many of your Lordships, as we have heard from excellent legal advice tonight. I looked also at the comments made on 4th July—alas I was absent from your Lordships' House in Edinburgh at another engagement I had to attend—when the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, told the Minister that a friend of his had been among the 965 removed from Belgium. The Minister indicated that he would look into that particular case. I am sure the Minister would be looking into that particular case, plus, I presume, quite a few others. I find it hard to believe that 574 persons who were removed from Belgium were all guilty, and those are the ones we are attempting to control with a scattergun approach.
1238
I turn to the Bill. The Minister has been wonderfully evangelistic, just as my noble friends were when in his position in 1988–89. The same speeches were made by my noble friends when the Conservatives were in power as are being made by the Minister, indeed with the same evangelistic tone. On 4th July, at column 1417 of Hansard, the Minister replied to my noble neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie, as to why the Scots tend to behave—perhaps not quite in a garden party way—better than the English at these matches. The Scottish supporters were singing, perhaps at the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I do not know, but he mentioned it to me and lit the touchpaper. They were singing, "Doh, a deer, a female deer". That is what he said. I do not go to these matches because my blood pressure goes up. I prefer to stay in a hull-down position and listen to the result at the end of the match, particularly when Scotland are playing.
My first thought was that this was perhaps a black verse about the nocturnal habits of some of the England players sung by the Scottish supporters. Whether that would be considered abuse, I do not know. Secondly, I wondered whether the words were as the Minister heard them; the melody might be the same, but his ear might not be precisely attuned to what they were singing. Thirdly, I wondered whether the Scottish supporters were indicating that Miss Julie Andrews was the manager of the England team, then and now, such is their performance. I was not too sure. I was reassured today when I rang a Scottish journalist. He told me that the Scottish fans have—I do not know why—adopted this melody, motto and song for the past 10 years or so. It shows how often I go to matches to watch Scotland. I went nine years ago in Switzerland, when they did not sing that song, although it would have been nice if they had.
I recall the dreadful events in 1967. I also went as a guest to the match in 1969–71 when Scotland were playing at Wembley. I did not go in 1977 when the Scottish supporters virtually sacked the stadium. They wrecked the goalposts, tore up the turf and removed it. I did not go in 1981 when the Football Association said that they would take action against these wicked creatures from north of the Border; they would ban any Scot from getting a ticket to the game. That is relevant to what the Government are trying to do, let alone—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, will take that on board—what the football authorities are trying to do.
The Football Association, in its wisdom, said that no Scot would get a ticket for the England versus Scotland match at Wembley. I do not know how many of my compatriots took elocution lessons and started chanting, "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain". I am sorry the noble Lord is not here as I was going to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, in that way. It is clear that quite a few did because when the teams came out on to the pitch at Wembley a forest of banners went up—I do not think they would be caught under this Bill or any other one. Many of them said, "You tried to ban us, Mr Croker", who in those days was the secretary of the Football Association. Sixty thousand Scots had

1239
somehow evaded those controls and were at Wembley. The vandalism and so on had calmed right down. In 1999, the Minister was there, singing, "Doh, a deer, a female deer". The wonderful point is that in 1967, 1977, 1981 and 1999 Scotland actually won. So four times they have won.
I followed Scotland abroad; once to Portugal and once to Switzerland. In Switzerland I was with the ambassador, a guest of the Swiss. I had not intended going, but the Swiss said that I must come and support my team. So I did and sat among members of the Swiss government. There were 4,500 Scottish supporters with two pipers leading them in and out. The Scots drank very heavily throughout the day. There was not one arrest; not one case of violence. I wonder why that is. I think there is a lesson to be learned by England supporters.
I turn to the Bill. I am happy with the first three clauses dealt with in the Explanatory Notes. I am not happy with Clause 5. In respect of Clause 5, we see in the Explanatory Notes that inquiries about involvement in violence or disorder will be pursued. I wonder what the NCIS is doing. In respect of banning orders and so on, where it has information is it able to act at the port or the airport? I wonder how that fits in with what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, the Minister, let alone his right honourable friend, said about 1,000 people or thereabouts being on the list of people who are under surveillance by the NCIS and the 30 who were picked up in Belgium.
When the noble Lord asked whether previous convictions count, I wonder how far back or what type of conviction he meant. I have a note here, "Who?". If we do apply these lists certainly I can think of at least four members of the professional English football team who would be on one. Certainly, one of them beat up a taxi driver 500 yards from my house. That was about three years ago. I think that the Minister might have to explain why the scattergun effect applies to someone who is under no suspicion at all and yet presumably players can carry on committing violence on the pitch. I am not too sure. Could the noble Lord at some stage give me advice about banning orders in Schedule 1?
I see that matches may be regulated. I checked my spectacles and looked at "regulating" further down, and I find that it reads "prescribed". Is a prescribed match in the original Act, or is it something that I have missed? Because the noble Lord is not—as I was in one case—the water carrier, he is the Minister in charge of the Bill, in charge of football hooliganism. He is, in football terms, the playmaker, so he ought to know what is a prescribed match. In that connection he and I were at that meeting. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has mentioned the very helpful meeting we had with his right honourable friend. His right honourable friend mentioned the case of Manchester United playing Galatasaray. Can the Minister tell me whether he or his department have contacted anyone? I rang Manchester United this morning. A charming lady on the switchboard told me what the team were doing. The team is playing in a tournament in Munich
1240
on 4th and 5th August. The noble Lord will have to decide whether that is a prescribed match. What will he do? Are young boys or young adults who turn up at an airport in Manchester United shirts to be under suspicion? They might be going to Munich or they might be causing trouble. That is the kind of problem we shall face if the Bill is undigested and unamended. I am a little worried about that.
I do not have any quibble with the first, second and third measures. I do have a quibble with the fourth measure. I find it inconceivable that the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, and his colleagues, with all their wisdom and experience, could not use the existing regulations.
I referred to Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to tabloid journalism and to the headline "Hun Nil" when England were playing our neighbours from Germany. I had a nasty shock last Saturday. I do not think that the Minister, let alone anyone from south of the Border, would have had the same shock. I went into a shop to get milk. I do not normally read the Scottish Sun—I do not think you read it; you assimilate it. I have the newspaper in my hand. It says in large print "15p". That is possibly for football referees or others who are a little short of sight. I flipped it over and what did I find:
"22 SOCCER GIRLS STRIP REF NAKED".
That is the problem we have north of the Border. I understand that it was something to do with a Highland League game. Yesterday I had a word with a senior figure in the Scottish Football Association, but quite what FIFA and the SFA will make of that I am not too sure. We can control hooliganism but I am not too sure whether the Bill applies to young ladies as well as to young men. We shall have some fun in Committee. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, and his friends stopping a bunch of curvaceous young ladies who are on their way abroad and saying, "We think you mean grievous bodily harm against a referee. We are banning you and sending you back". That will be fun.
This problem has clearly been resolved in Scotland, but it shows the danger of following tabloid journalism and chanting "Something must be done". I go along with three of the measures. I hope that the Minister will be able to give noble Lords—my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, the noble Lords, Lord Alexander of Weedon and Lord Phillips, and others who have spoken—an assurance on this point. I thank the Minister for his forbearance. I am delighted that when he went and was singing "Doh, a deer, a female deer", he was not in serious danger of breaching the provisions of his own Bill through abusive and foul language—certainly not this time.
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I shall try not to speak for too long, even if it is a liberation not to be limited to one minute, as often happens in the European Parliament—a useful discipline.
I am rather surprised to find myself the only woman listed to speak in the debate, although I am glad that there was a brief female intervention. I do not think

1241
that football should be left to men, even though I am not quite such a connoisseur of the game as my noble friend Lord McNally. My only claim is that my home borough is Islington, which means that my loyalties automatically and properly lie with Islington.
The Bill could be described as "tough on embarrassment and tough on the causes of embarrassment". The suspicion that this legislation was designed more to cover up international embarrassment for this country and this Government than to get to the root causes of violence was somewhat borne out by the Minister's opening remarks. This is hasty, knee-jerk legislation which, by cutting corners on proper evidence and safeguards for civil liberties, will undermine the fight against violence accompanying football matches. The summary justice and banning orders on the basis of suspicion are particularly open to criticism. As the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, said, we must go along the hard but better route of securing court convictions with proper evidence in conjunction with our European Union partners, a point to which I shall return later.
We have seen this week, in the case of Mark Forrester, the only Briton convicted in Belgium after Euro 2000, that this kind of short-cut justice does not stick. The Belgian court has accepted that he did not get a fair trial under Belgium's new fast-track legislation. He was released on bail and a retrial will take place. The court ruled that more time was needed to assess the evidence against him, including video evidence which was not produced at the original fast-track proceedings, and to allow his lawyers to put forward a proper defence. As the Belgian newspaper Le Soir said, the case will now be tried before une juridiction classique, non accéléree. The lesson of that case is that it will take much longer in the end to get a conviction, if such is the result, than if the normal procedure had been observed in the first place. There is not much point in the FA saying that it would ban for life anyone convicted at Euro 2000 when only one person was; and he was not properly tried. So you get back to square one when you have bad law.
Liberty is surely right in saying that we do not know whether the new proposals are being brought forward because existing powers are perceived to be working well or badly, since we have no analysis at all of the existing powers and their results. The Explanatory Notes just say:
"In the light of persistent episodes of disorder involving English football supporters during the European Championship Finals … this Bill proposes further measures to combat football hooliganism".
That is not a very well-founded justification. Banning orders and summary justice for suspected hooligans do indeed have unhappy echoes of anti-social behaviour orders, with their lack of criminal standard of proof, criminal disclosure regime and criminal procedures and rules of evidence. But they are even worse.
For instance, the test for the banning order is even lower than for an ASBO since it requires only reasonable grounds to believe that to grant the order would help to prevent violence in connection with football. Given the substantial consequences attached
1242
to a banning order and the penalties for breach, the court must be satisfied on a criminal standard that violence would be prevented by the order.
The government lawyers are no doubt being very modern and creative these days so that an order can be made on a civil justice standard but breach of it is a criminal offence. But I cannot help feeling that traditional distinctions I learnt in my Bar exams between civil and criminal law are to be preferred. So we need to concentrate, as the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, said, on the difficult, practical problem of increasing the rate of arrest and conviction through more and better policing—perhaps the rich clubs could chip in for that—and more CCTV and video evidence so that we get an increase in properly obtained convictions. I understand that the rate of arrests has fallen, proportionate to spectator numbers, by 75 per cent over the past 15 years since the Heysel stadium tragedy. If the authorities in other European countries just deport without prosecuting, we should be able to use their evidence in the prosecution process. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, made that point. But we should not recognise their deportation or administrative detention as convictions, which they are not. We should press, through increasing efforts, to approximate criminal law in the European Union and have mutual recognition of judgments and judicial orders for our EU partners to prosecute and not deport.
In debates on this subject in another place during proceedings on the Crime and Disorder Bill two years ago, Kate Hoey emphasised the Government's wish to see people taken to court in other European countries or to try to use the evidence in our courts. We heard nothing of that from the Minister today—perhaps because it is difficult and raises a good many practical problems. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that this is a speedy response to a pressing need. It has been a pressing need for 20 years, so why the unseemly haste?
There are considerable worries about the compatibility of the legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights as well as with the free movement provisions of the European Community—concerns which I do not believe the Minister covered. I apologise if I am wrong about that. It would be far preferable to avoid this knee-jerk response to past and potential international embarrassment. It would be much better to legislate only once the Home Office working party, led by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and including members of the FA, has reported—the kind of partnership to which the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, referred. I understand that the working party is looking at a range of measures to stamp out hooliganism, including smart cards for ticket holders with photographic ID, travel and stewarding arrangements, tackling racism in football and addressing the problem of black market tickets, of which apparently 17,000 were obtained by English fans in Charleroi.
Parliamentarians in Belgium warned their government that their fast-track procedure would breach the European Convention on Human Rights regarding evidence and the rights of the defence. The

1243
Belgian court's acceptance that Mark Forrester did not have a fair trial may be an indication of the kind of problems that our criminal justice can look forward to if this Bill goes through.
If convictions issued by courts in other EU countries are to be recognised as valid, something which in principle both I and, I believe, the Government would wholeheartedly support as helping to fight crime, then we need to ensure that high standards of justice are upheld across Europe rather than sloppy decisions which, in the end, will undermine the effort to stamp out violence by bringing the legislation into disrepute.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, when examining legislation of this kind, we should always bear in mind the equation: is the damage that we are doing to the liberty of the citizen justified by the good that it will do? Let us look at the best possible case for this legislation. Let us suppose that the police, through their intelligence work and the kind of mechanisms that we have been discussing at such length in our deliberations on the Registration of Investigatory Powers Bill, know the identity of a few hundred people who, it might be said with great certainty, were intent on causing mayhem of one kind or another at football matches. However, hitherto it has been impossible to take any action against them because no evidence has been gathered to convict them of an arrestable offence and therefore a football banning order could not be put in place.
The legislation before us would enable most of those people to be caught with a football banning order. It will enable that because the terms in which new Sections 14A and 14B are drawn are so wide that they could catch almost everyone. They would catch the almost 30 per cent of the population who have convictions. They would also catch anyone who has ever been rude to a traffic warden. Most of us would probably fall into that category at one time or another because of the sheer exasperation and irritation of such encounters. It certainly caught the Home Secretary in his younger days, something which clearly he now realises.
The way in which this legislation catches people whom we wish to see banned is also the way in which it would catch perhaps 70 or 80 per cent of the population and leave out only that 20 per cent who are sensible enough not to go to football matches and therefore are presumably crime free in all other respects. If we produce a law that is so wide in its catchment, but so narrow in its application, then what we are advocating is arbitrary law. We are saying, "We shall have a law which catches almost everyone, but we shall apply it to only a very few cases". It is dangerous to go down such a road.
The same kind of law could apply to so many other matters here in our own country. Why not apply the same principle to the people who rioted in the City? Why not apply the same principle to those who dug up trial plots of GM seeds? Why not apply it to anyone who has ever been convicted of mugging? After all, are
1244
they not likely to commit that crime again? Why not apply it to anyone caught drinking in a pub? After all, they are likely to end up face down in Leicester Square or drinking and driving. As soon as we impose on people such an arbitrary travel restriction, based only on the suspicion that they might be likely to do something, we are treading on extremely dangerous ground. It is truly dangerous to introduce a law which leaves decisions entirely to the good sense of the police based on the notion that they will only arrest the ones who really are, "guilty, aren't they, guv"?.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts put it accurately: we shall see a reduction in respect for the police. Furthermore, if the law is applied widely, we should anticipate a widespread reduction in respect for our police and for the application of the law.
We need also to consider the effectiveness of the measure. New Sections 14A and 14B will work if they are applied as the Government intend for them to work and if the police intelligence-gathering effort is good. However, I have enormous doubts about new Section 21. My noble friend Lord Cope pointed out that the authorities will be faced with several thousand football fans planning to go abroad on a series of ferries who have to be identified before they are checked in. As my noble friend Lord Cope pointed out, it will not be possible to wait until they have all shown their passports; identification must be made ahead of that stage. However, if the authorities can identify people that accurately, why not simply use new Sections 14A and 14B? Under what circumstances would new Section 21 be used? This section will be invoked so rarely and will apply to so few people that, from a legislative point of view, there is scarcely any point in putting it in place at all.
However, it poses such a threat to every football fan who has ever done anything wrong under the terms of the Bill—we know that that will include at least 30 per cent of those ordinary citizens, and probably 60 per cent if they admit to anything for which they have not been convicted. Almost every football fan travelling abroad will be at risk of being picked up by a police officer as he tries to pass through the port. That is an extraordinary challenge to ask citizens to face. Fans on their way out of the country will encounter a system of arbitrary arrest and will have no means of preventing it.
If we are to pursue a measure of this kind, then people must be given the opportunity to acquire prior clearance. They must be able to see their local chief of police and say, "Do you have any suspicions about me?". If the local chief of police has no suspicions, then those people should be given a passport, as it were, to wave at the authorities trying to stop them from travelling. They will be able to declare, "I have been cleared by my local chief of police. He knows me and you do not. Let me go". That would also force the local police service to go through the procedures laid down in this Bill. They will either need to obtain a banning order, or they will not need to do so. It is simply not good enough to subject so many tens of thousands of people to arbitrary arrest simply because they want to attend a football match abroad.

1245
As several noble Lords have already pointed out, we should not underestimate the effect of the banning order. It will be as near as makes no difference a criminal conviction. It will have to be declared for insurance purposes and will have to be made known to employers or prospective employers. We know full well what happened to several fans who were sent back from Belgium—they were summarily sacked from their jobs. Strikes have taken place over that. Indeed, I have suffered inconvenience as a result. My sympathies lie entirely with those who were returned from Belgium. The Belgian authorities appear to have acted with no particular regard for justice. Simply for the convenience of being able to clean the streets, they arrested all kinds of people who had done nothing wrong.
The legislation will place the stigma of a conviction on people who will have very little chance of escaping that stigma. As the Bill is drafted, there will be very little chance of escaping a banning order because the terms are drawn so wide while the discretion for magistrates is drawn so narrow. It is an extraordinary thing to impose on our fellow citizens even if they are, as my noble friend Lord Onslow said, fat, beer-gutted, unprepossessing and frequently drunk. That makes no difference. Those people are our fellow mortals and should be treated as our equals in legislation, as well as in life.
I shall turn now to the notion of "reasonable grounds". What will comprise those reasonable grounds? Again, if the police know something about a person for which they could have invoked new Section 14A or 14B, why would they not have done that already? New Section 21 would allow the police simply to pick people out of a crowd based solely on who those people are associating with or what they are doing. That would represent an interesting reversal of the general practice of "sus", in that the police will pick out the whites. Anyone of colour will be allowed to go free because they are known not to be guilty of this kind of crime. However, I believe that it is equally objectionable to apply "sus" to my race as it is to any other race. That kind of prejudice—it is no better than that—is no kind of basis on which people should be arrested.
However, there appear to be no other clear grounds on which to arrest people other than the kind of evidence that would have enabled the police to arrest those people under a new Section 14A or 14B order. If something has happened so that someone has come to the notice of the police only a week before a football match taking place abroad, it is hardly likely that that person will prove to be a major ringleader of a lot of people. If a person has been organising and has been involved in such acts for a period of years, that person would have come to the notice of the police at a much earlier stage.
There is not much opportunity to table amendments to the Bill. I urge noble Lords to do so tonight or tomorrow morning. With the noble Lord, Lord Bach, as the Minister, we shall not have the opportunity to stray off the subject of amendments. We shall be closely shepherded to the subjects that we have put
1246
down. I am sure I can count on the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to pursue his amendments. I hope that everybody else will table theirs so that we can at least debate these issues.
We need to discuss the word "must" which has crept in to reduce the discretion of the magistrates. Whatever has been said by the Home Secretary, there are pressures in the Bill on magistrates to make people subject to banning orders just because the Belgians have sent them back. That is in the Bill. It does not matter what was said by the Home Secretary obiter dicta. We must ensure that being sent back from Belgium cannot be the sole ground on which a banning order is made.
We must have a tighter definition of disorder. For disorder to be ever having insulted someone is far too wide. We must, at least, insert the word "serious". There are several other places in the Bill where that word belongs. When we talk about what qualifies a person for a banning order, we must ensure that they have done something notable, serious or in sonic other way out of the ordinary for them to be subject to the years of stigma which will result.
I hope that my own Front Bench will gather courage from this debate and from what will be said in Committee. I hope that they will overcome what I understand is their natural reluctance to be seen to be seriously amending a Bill which may place them at political risk of being blamed for future football violence.
As has been said by many noble Lords tonight, no previous legislation, however well thought out, has made much of a dent in this problem. There is no evidence from this Bill that it will do anything. As many noble Lords have pointed out, if the "unidentified serious" were caught before with 14A and 14B that is fine, you have them. But if they think they will escape, and go on the day, they will not go through Dover; they will go out through Scotland. If they have not been caught beforehand, why take the risk at Dover? The Bill will only catch the innocent. Section 21 will not do what the Government hope. It will merely cause damage to the liberty of the citizen and to the reputation of the police. That is not something that we should allow to happen. We should be happy to accept the political risk that goes with removing that part of the Bill.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am reminded that Harold Macmillan was once stopped and asked the cause of his present problems. He was asked, "What did you fear most?" He replied, "Events, dear boy". I can imagine that the last thing wished for by this Home Secretary or this Government were the events that took place during Euro 2000. However, they happened and that has to be dealt with.
I have heard most of the speeches tonight and have listened carefully to them. I was struck by the knowledge of this subject in this House. That is not a surprise. There are people here who know a considerable amount about the law but not so much

1247
about football. There are those like myself who know a considerable amount about football but not much about the law.
I have enjoyed the walk down memory lane, particularly the mention of Blackpool and Stanley Matthews. My knowledge of Stanley was that he patented "the Stanley Matthews football boot", made by the Co-op. Every time Stanley Matthews played away with Stoke, the local Co-op departmental store had a queue 500 yards long. They sold his football boots. It was quite a feat.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It's the way I tell them! The other memory I have is of a voice you would have heard tonight but sadly he is no longer with us. I refer to Joe Dean; Lord Dean of Beswick. In 1988 or 1989 an attempt was made to pass the Football Spectators Bill. That was borne out of the troubles of the Government of the day. It was felt that something must be done. They produced a Bill which Joe Dean and I handled from the Opposition Front Bench. Lord Hesketh spoke for the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was the then Minister in the other place.
The Government persisted with that Bill until the events at Hillsborough took place. The enormity, horror and terrible tragedy of Hillsborough caused the Government to abandon the Bill. No one will score marks politically about the right or wrong time to do things. There never is a right time.
I have been much taken by phrases used by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that we can legislate in haste but repent at leisure. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that when we legislate we produce a cat's-cradle and that we do not know the full effect and impact of what we are doing. That is a fact which I do not deny.
I have listened carefully to noble Lords who are knowledgeable in the law and able to read the Bill and pick it to pieces. I do not mean that in a destructive way. They are able to analyse it sensibly and make their criticisms intelligible to me. Noble Lords will have gathered that I was not born within the sound of Bow Bells. My team were the Magpies. During the passing of the Football Spectators Bill, up jumped George Wallace of Norwich who said, "I am proud to tell the House that I am the President of the Canaries". Everyone looked around. Of course, the Canaries is the name given to Norwich football team.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, mentioned Millwall or Millwall supporters. In the same debate, up jumped my dear departed Chief Whip, Bob Mellish. He had been the president of Millwall supporters club. Joe Dean and I had the privilege of visiting many football grounds. We were invited by the directors to see what was going on. Joe was passionate about Manchester. He was always proud to say that Manchester could boast the two best teams in the
1248
country: Manchester City and Manchester City reserves. If he had been here tonight he would have brought passion, knowledge and sincerity.
I suspect that, like myself, he would have felt uneasy at some of the consequences spelt out by the critics of the Bill. However, I detect that at the end of the day, even the critics are in a dilemma as regards the parliamentary timetable, the political imperative and the need to respond. The Government have to produce legislation. This legislation can and will be criticised.
I attended Newcastle United at St James's Park in the 1930s. I had what was called a "spuggies ticket". When I was interviewed once I was asked what that was. A spuggy, on Tyneside, is a sparrow. Together with a group of boys I went to the Leazes End. There was a tree right near the wall. One of the boys would go up the wall with a rope round his waist, get into the ground, tie the rope on to a stanchion, throw it down and we flew in. We were spuggies. That was in 1934 or 1935—over 60 years ago. From Newcastle, I "lived", as I do now, for 30 years at the Spurs. The football fan of 1999–2000 lives in a different world from the one that I remember. Today, 65,000 to 75,000 people are packed into the grounds.
Football is part of the cultural heritage, not just of the industrial towns but of other towns as well. Tonight, we are debating a very precious thing, which will interest and affect millions of people. I believe that, overwhelmingly, they will want this House, with another place, to produce a piece of legislation that will attempt to deal with some of the disgusting scenes that we have witnessed. I have heard speakers mention "wrongful arrests" and "unsure ground". All I can say is that I saw the same television coverage as they saw. Whether or not I saw unlawful arrests, I saw Englishmen behaving despicably. I do not know how many or who they were, but the public sees the image created by the hooligan and by cynical people of that kind.
The authoritative speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Borrie and Members on the opposite side of the House clearly indicate that we take this matter very seriously. The Minister and his senior colleague, Jack Straw, have demonstrated that they are not set precisely in their ways and that they are willing to move. I hope that by the time we begin the later stages of the Bill next week, they will have listened carefully to the criticisms made in this debate and can produce amendments that go some way towards answering them. At the end of the day, the Government have the responsibility.
I shall certainly support the Bill, hoping that it will be amended in such a way as to satisfy its critics. The Minister has taken a keen interest and has represented the government view on this issue very well over the past few months. He could do his department, himself, this House and Parliament a great favour by listening to what has been said and by bringing back amendments next week to improve the Bill. If that is done, it will receive more support than it has at present.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have a feeling that noble Lords in your Lordships' stadium are beginning to look at their watches and hope that the referee's final whistle will not be too long delayed. I shall try not to delay it any longer than is necessary.
I should perhaps start with a couple of declarations. One is that I am a supporter and occasional spectator of Queens Park Rangers. That team has never had much of a problem with hooliganism, partly perhaps because it has never been very successful—at least, it has had some good years in the past but not recently. But it has done rather better than Darlington. The other, more serious declaration of interest is that I am a vice-chairman of Justice, the organisation which gave instructions for the preparation of the full and thorough opinion by two distinguished members of the Bar referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon.
This has been a good debate. We have heard contributions from experts on football, from experts in the law and from those who are experts in neither but whose contributions have been based on their own experience, good sense and judgment.
I should like to refer to the distinguished maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. Perhaps I may also single out—I hope that other noble Lords who have spoken will not mind my doing so—not a maiden speech but a speech from someone whom I have not heard before in this House; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer. He spoke with outstanding good sense and good judgment.
Before turning to the substance of the Bill, perhaps I may clear away a few miscellaneous points. First, it is plain that the Bill—inevitably, as it is being rushed through—contains some bad drafting. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed that out. There are one or two errors, one trivial and one quite serious, which need correction. I shall not mention them now but will deal with them in Committee.
We are faced with serious problems over the timing of this debate. The time allowed for the Bill is far too short. We shall be in serious difficulties next week when we are having a Committee stage late on Monday and the Report stage and Third Reading early on Tuesday. That will not make it easy, and indeed it may even not be possible, to prepare our amendments properly and to deal with the important amendments that will be tabled by the Government and which we have not yet seen.
I should also be interested to know whether the Government are proposing to accept all the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee or merely the one to which the Minister spoke.
I turn to another issue which, I was surprised to find, was not raised in the debate. I refer to the Welsh dimension—frankly, I am not the correct person to raise it because I am not Welsh. The Welsh supporters are not a problem. That may be partly because in recent years Wales has tended not to get very far in international tournaments. But that may change;
1250
indeed we hope that it will. Welsh supporters still have, compared with some others, a reputation for good behaviour. I remember an occasion some years ago when a match between Wales and Scotland had to be played in Liverpool. The newspaper reports said that 100 fans had been arrested for drunkenness, 99 of them Scots and one Welsh. Surely the consent of the Welsh Assembly ought to be required to treating any match involving a Welsh club or Welsh national team as a regulated match.
It is important, as a number of speakers have said, in particular my noble friend Lady Ludford, for us to look at better ways of ensuring that hooligans who have committed acts of hooliganism abroad are sentenced. That could be done, as my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury suggested, by making football hooliganism an extra-territorial offence. Another—in the longer term, not in this Bill—would be the development of a Euro-bail system. One of the problems is that courts in countries such as Belgium are faced with a dilemma. They do not want to shut hooligans up in prison to await trial when that trial may be considerably delayed. It will be expensive to look after them, and at the end of the day they may merely receive a fine. On the other hand, if they are given bail, they will simply scarper off home and never be seen again in Belgium. What is needed is a Euro-bail system by which we in this country would agree that, if someone was given bail in Belgium and failed to answer to bail, the person would simply be arrested here and shipped back to Belgium without having to go through the extradition process; and that could apply vice versa.
I turn to the major issues. First, I am much concerned by the excessive restriction on travel. This has also been a concern of Justice and the Law Society. The restriction is very probably inconsistent with the laws of both the European Community and the European Convention on Human Rights. We need to look very closely at the surrender of passports. What will happen to people who live or work abroad or whose work takes them abroad? What about those who have, say, pre-booked a holiday in Florida, only to find that the Secretary of State makes an order which declares a match in Denmark to be a regulated one and they must surrender their passports? Surely, that is absolutely ridiculous.
Surrender should not be required if a person needs his passport at a time when it would otherwise be surrendered because he lives or works abroad, or needs to go abroad for family reasons, or has pre-booked a holiday to another part of the world. Surrender should not be required in any case where the subject of the banning order can satisfy a court that he is not travelling abroad with a view to attending a match or taking part in any violence associated with it. Frankly, I do not see why there is any need to surrender a passport. Banning orders can and do require the subject to report at a police station while the match is being played. If that can be done for matches in the United Kingdom, why do we need anything more for matches outside the United Kingdom? If a banning

1251
order is broken by the subject failing to turn up at the police station he will have committed an offence for which he can be punished.
Secondly, I believe that the summary procedure that is proposed in new Sections 21A, 21B and 21C to the 1989 Act are deeply and incurably flawed. If a policeman has, or thinks he has, or says he has, reasonable grounds to suspect that a passenger on his way through an airport has a history of violence, whether or not he has been convicted of it, and that the passenger may join in a punch-up outside the stadium if he finds one going on, the policeman can detain that passenger for four hours on his own responsibility. He can then require the individual to turn up at a magistrates' court within 24 hours and hand over his passport. That policeman can even, on his own decision, place the individual in detention. By the time the passenger gets back his passport he may have been detained, quite unjustifiably, for more than 24 hours and missed his flight. He may be too late to buy another ticket or catch another flight. That simply will not do.
As has been pointed out over and over again in this debate, serious hooligans do not turn up at airports wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the cross of St George and bottles of lager sticking out of any pocket that is within reach; they come dressed in respectable clothes and set off undetected.
I recall a film released some years ago called "Cat Ballou" in which Jane Fonda hired Lee Marvin, a famous but ageing gunslinger, to help her avenge the murder of her father. She went to meet the stagecoach on which Lee Marvin was to arrive. When it arrived a hulking great man dressed in black swaggered out of the stagecoach. Obviously, Jane Fonda's spirits lifted—until the man was smothered in a gang of small children screaming "Daddy", at which point Lee Marvin was kicked out of the stagecoach dead drunk. That is what will happen here: the serious hooligans will make certain that they do not turn up like that at airports. If there are real grounds for making a banning order, it should be imposed in good time, on proper evidence and not at the very last minute, possibly on very flimsy evidence.
Having said that, I should like to look at wider issues. In this Bill we are treating the symptoms and not the cause. I accept that we need to treat the symptoms, but we must also discover the causes. The causes are many, and I should like to point to two. One which has already been mentioned is the xenophobic attitude of parts of our press which constantly make reference to "Huns" and "Frogs". Much more importantly, in this country we have among young people in particular a culture dominated by booze. Drink is central to hooliganism. It has been suggested that the reason there were few, if any, problems with violence at the England game at Eindhoven was that the Dutch authorities watered down the beer and ensured that lots of cannabis was available, thereby ensuring that the fans were peacefully stoned instead of fighting drunk. I do not suggest that we should yet follow the same course of action, but the Government
1252
should do what they can to restrict and diminish the booze culture. The Government should bear that in mind when looking, for example, at the proposed reform of the licensing laws.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, that we face the consequences of a knee-jerk reaction by both the Labour and Conservative leaderships to the events in Charleroi and Brussels. What we have at the moment is a bad Bill which has been introduced with good intentions. Some of its provisions, such as combining domestic and international banning orders, make a great deal of sense. But the measure is being introduced much too quickly and in the absence of any proven need to move so fast. The Bill also contains potential infringements of the rights of innocent people, especially in the summary procedure in new Sections 21A and 21B to the Football Spectators Act. I believe that those provisions contravene provisions of the European Community and the European Convention on Human Rights. We need substantial amendments to the Bill before we can welcome it. The Government have gone some way in that direction but they need to go a good deal further. I hope that by next Tuesday they will have done just that.
9.7 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are now straying into extra time or injury time so I shall be brief.
My first task is to congratulate my noble friend Lord Hodgson on his excellent maiden speech. He was elected to another place in a famous by-election victory in 1976. It was a harbinger of our 1979 election victory. Therefore I am sure that his arrival in this House will be a similar harbinger for our party in the forthcoming election.
The Minister has a certain degree of sympathy from me. It has been said often today that legislation in haste is a bad thing. The Dangerous Dogs Act has been mentioned. I offer your Lordships an admission. Together with my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I took the Dangerous Dogs Bill through this House. Although it has been rightly criticised by dog owners, there is one defence to some aspect of it. For some reason I do not quite understand, the powers in the Act seem to have filtered down to the canine world. Thankfully, there have been fewer cases of dogs biting people and causing serious injury.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said that the Bill is on a superfast track. That is so. It is an emergency Bill to enact new measures to combat football hooliganism in the wake of the disturbances in Belgium. The Government want it enacted before the end of July so that the new powers will be available for England-away matches during the Recess. I want to make this absolutely clear. We shall not stand in the way of legislation being enacted before Parliament rises for the summer. However, there must be proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. It was published only last week and it has undergone significant recent revision. It needs further revision in this House. I assure my noble friend Lord Lucas that we shall have no reluctance in amending the Bill in this House.

1253
The Minister described the Bill's passage through another place as condensed but thorough. Presumably that is a new Labour spin word for the guillotine: it is called "condensing". Not all parts of the Bill were addressed in Committee in another place and it did not have the opportunity to debate the whole Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to the Football Spectators Act 1989. In the way that history proves strange things, I find that the current Home Secretary at that time voted against the Bill. The Government have missed opportunities to consider the problem in the recent past. My honourable friend Simon Burns took through the football offence and disorder measure, a private Bill introducing similar powers. The Government could have introduced those powers through that Bill had they so wished.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, and many others agree that existing measures do not work. I think that we all agree that we should not export hooliganism and that we should act to prevent the ugly scenes which have occurred from recurring. But the Bill needs revision. It is full of extraordinary loopholes. The most bizarre relates to Scotland. The Bill brings internal controls into this country. I cannot think of a single Act of Parliament since the Act of Union, about 300 years ago, whereby a Scot may be prevented from returning home. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, may be able to think of an Act, or of one prior to the Act of Union, whereby that was the case.
Earl Russell: My Lords, an attempt was made by King Charles I which was restrained by legislation in 1628.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as always we are grateful to the noble Earl. It explains the difficulty for Government in trying to bring forward proper legislation. The Government have not been helped by the Scottish Executive which has said that even if it had the time, and the Scottish Parliament were sitting, it has n o intention of bringing forward similar legislation in Scotland.
I shall comment briefly on some of the legal aspects of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is concerned about the drafting defect. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, ask why the powers apply only to football and find extraordinary single purpose legislation.
It is particularly odd when one looks at the European dimension. I find it extraordinary that if a European suspected hooligan arrives in this country we do not deport him or prevent him or her arriving, but only prosecute if an offence is committed. It is also interesting that this Bill does not apply to a non-British resident living in this country of which, I am told, there are two-and-a-half million such persons. I understand the Government considered this as a proposal but rejected it. It would be interesting to know from the Minister what other EU countries have similar legislation or have plans to introduce similar legislation. Many noble Lords have mentioned what
1254
has happened in Europe. It is extraordinary that in Europe where, by and large, the police have wider powers, they have been used so infrequently recently.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, mentioned the failure to prosecute—four prosecutions and 900 arrests constitute an extraordinarily low percentage. We know that some countries have been slow to implement alcohol bans. We know that alcohol is a main factor when it comes to hooliganism.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon was concerned at how this proposed legislation would fit in with the Human Rights Act, and he cited Justice. It seems that it may not be compatible with EU treaties and the European human rights law. I think that the Government will have to explain how that is going to work. The Minister is going to have to have help from his noble and learned friend the Attorney-General.
Will the Minister confirm that the Government are bringing forward an amendment to address the issue of compensation? The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is concerned that any amendment may make the Bill less effective.
I think that the most important thing on our side is the sunset clause. We believe that the sunset clause should apply for six months—with a review in a year—and no longer. It was supported in another place by Tony Banks, Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott who all said that legislation passed in a hurry always posed problems and that there should be a review. My noble friend Lord Tebbit was concerned about banning orders. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew described the Bill as a serious infringement of civil liberties. There are serious issues of liberty and standard of proof.
One of the main reasons why I believe that a sunset clause is crucial is that—and I hope that Ministers on the other side of the House know about this because it was something we discovered when in government—courts do not always act in the way that Ministers intend they should. That has been the experience of many Home Secretaries and the Secretary of State for Education experienced that recently over teachers' pay.
There seems to be confusion—and as I am not a lawyer I look forward to the Minister explaining this—as to how this Bill is "civil" in effect but "criminal" in character. The Government must clarify this matter. Is it a civil or criminal level of proof that is to be required?
There are other concerns, for example, out of the 965 arrests, only 30 persons were known to the NCIS. So, how are these persons to be spotted? There are concerns about procedures at airports and railway stations. How is the Bill going to work? Are we to have policemen interviewing lines of people waiting to check in, perhaps inadvertently causing congestion and travel delay? This Bill needs to be revised. We need to get it right. We may not get it exactly right, which is the reason why a sunset clause is so crucial.
The Minister is going to have a difficult task this evening in saying, "I shall write to the noble Lord". Unfortunately, with the timetable that the Minister faces, he will not be able to do that. We have

1255
Committee stage on Monday and Report and Third Reading on Tuesday, and we have to have time to put down amendments. The Minister will have to answer the detailed questions that have been put to him this evening. We all look forward to his answers. I reiterate that we want the Bill but we must have a Bill that is right and that works.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is some five hours since I sat down. During that time we have had an interesting, illuminating and on occasions helpful and valuable debate. I have greatly enjoyed the contributions made from all sides of the Chamber. I want to refer in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, whose contribution was witty, wise, informative and helpful. He raised two or three useful and interesting questions and I am sure that he will have a most distinguished future in this House.
We also heard a number of interesting confessions during our long debate. Some people confessed to being Darlington supporters, Newcastle fans and Forfar Athletic fanatics. Someone mentioned Lincoln City and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made a notable reference to Blackpool. Leeds received a very good showing from the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and there was reference to Queens Park Rangers, which I believe is a better team than the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, demonstrated. We also heard a confession from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who, sadly, has left us. He is now, apparently, a civil libertarian. That is indeed profound and important news and the nation needs to know it.
I also discovered other interesting facets to the debate. A degree of consensus emerged; the first two measures which we seek to introduce are broadly acceptable to Members of your Lordships' House. That is an important consensus. Furthermore, most Members accept that legislation is necessary. There was criticism from some speakers that the legislation was "knee-jerk". I reject that suggestion. I believe that it is—to use one of my favourite words—"proportionate" and right in the circumstances.
During the past 15 years, since 1985, there have been eight pieces of legislation which in one form or another have had an important bearing upon the problems associated with football; often described as "football hooliganism". The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act 1985 set us along that course. As an official I was responsible for preparing evidence for submission to Mr Justice Popplewell in his inquiry. The previous administration passed six pieces of legislation and the present Government have passed two in order to try to deal with aspects of football hooliganism. This Bill is a third attempt on our part.
Undoubtedly, each piece of legislation has contributed to improving the nature of the domestic football game. In 1984–85 attendances at league football matches were close to 18 million and there were 40 arrests per 100,000 attendances. Now there are
1256
13 arrests per 100,000 attendances and during the season crowds are in the region of 26 million. Those figures and the actions of the previous administration and the Government in supporting many of the measures demonstrate that legislation has an important part to play; that it can have an impact on human behaviour; and that it will set a framework within which people behave in and around football. That is an optimistic view but it is borne out by the history of successive legislation and the way in which it has been used by the industry, the police, governments and the courts. That is a cause for considerable optimism.
The new legislation follows on from events in Euro 2000 but debate on its principal purpose, which is to curtail the freedom of movement of some individuals—some individuals—who can reasonably be recognised as likely to cause problems abroad, has been taking place during the past year and a half to two years. It was certainly raised during the Home Office consultation which took place prior to the last piece of football-related legislation and was widely debated during the course of that legislation. However, as a government, we were urged to take action in that field prior to, during and after Euro 2000. We reflected carefully on the nature of the problems that were experienced and decided that it was right to act again now. I believe that we are right to do so because a new football season is approaching. Five or six top English clubs will be playing in major European competitions which will involve between 20 and 40 matches. I do not consider that to be a small number of matches, and many of them—at least 50 per cent, I suspect—will be played in Europe. There will also be a match against France and the beginning of the World Cup qualifying matches. Given the events in Charleroi, Copenhagen and Brussels, I believe that if we do not act, we shall be looked upon by our European counterparts as being rather strange. I consider that to be a position which is widely supported throughout the country.
Having listened carefully to the arguments during this long debate, I recognise that there is a need to balance the civil rights of individuals and to combat football hooliganism and salvage our national reputation. As a Minister and as a campaigner before I became a Minister, I have long argued for civil rights to be protected, and I believe that we have an important job to do in that regard. I pay tribute to Members of your Lordships' House who, rightly, have raised those concerns. During our debates on this legislation we need to focus on that important issue.
I believe that the Bill strikes a balance, although it is difficult to do so. Throughout, we have demonstrated that we are willing to listen to concerns and respond with amendments where appropriate. I believe that that says much for the quality of the approach that we have adopted; it says much for the Home Secretary's attitude; and I believe that it will be reflected well in your Lordships' House.
Many points have been raised during the debate, some more important and serious than others. I shall attempt to deal in turn with as many of them as I can, but I apologise in advance if I miss one. However, I

1257
shall attempt to put them on the public record and, no doubt, the correspondence section of the Home Office will respond as dutifully as it always does in these circumstances. We shall try to give an answer where I do not manage to do so during the course of my summary.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, rightly asked me to try to identify the number of individuals who may become subject to the orders under the legislation. I believe that it is probably not possible to be precise. However, our estimate of court and enforcement authority costs is based on an expectation that the numbers are more likely to be in the hundreds than in the thousands. I cannot be more exact than that and I do not believe that the noble Lord would expect me to be.
The noble Lord also asked about the Bill's compatibility with EC law, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act—a recurrent theme throughout the debate. I acknowledge that Justice has done a good job in obtaining an opinion in a short time. We have only just received that opinion and obviously we shall need to study it closely. We take the view that we can match the obligations placed upon us and I am very conscious of those obligations. We shall have to study Liberty's opinion very closely. However, I am satisfied that the Bill is fully compliant with the obligations. In our view, a banning order, for example, is a preventative measure and is not penal in nature. Therefore, we do not accept that issues will arise under either Articles 6(2) or 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
So far as concerns Article 5, we believe that the powers of arrest and detention set out in the Bill are within the terms of Articles 5.1(B) and 5.1(C) of the convention. The Bill requires the person concerned to appear before a court within 24 hours, and the requirements of Articles 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 in that respect are fully satisfied.
We are also satisfied that the Bill complies with Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That article secures the right to leave any country, but it is subject to exceptions for measures that are in the interests of public order and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. That is an important consideration for the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Goodhart, asked about our response to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I have had an opportunity to study the report and I am happy to confirm that we intend to amend the Bill to give effect to the committee's recommendations on Clause 2 and new Section 22A(2) to the Football Spectators Act—that is Recommendation 3. The Government's only reason for hesitating in accepting the second recommendation on Clause 3, that amendments to affirmative instruments should be by affirmative instrument, is that we need to be sure that we can make provision for legal advice and assistance to be available from commencement. If we are satisfied that we can make the necessary changes without amendments to affirmative instruments, we will bring
1258
forward an amendment implementing that Select Committee recommendation. We take that point seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, recognised in his supportive speech—I thought that it was supportive, although he might not agree—the importance of consulting supporters. That is why the Government fund the Football Supporters Embassy, which did a sterling job during Euro 2000, providing advice and information to football supporters from England, some of whom got very confused about their own travel arrangements. I am very impressed with that work and we will want to consult and work carefully with the Football Supporters Embassy and the other organisations that represent football supporters. I shall invite the Football Supporters Association to participate fully in the working group on football hooliganism that I am chairing, which is tasked to prepare a report by the autumn.
In his maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made a couple of important points. One was about police and public relations. He rightly asked about the effect of the powers in the Bill and whether they might damage the important relationship of trust between the police and the public. I am glad to reassure him that the police enjoy high levels of public confidence that would be the envy of most other professions, including politicians. I believe that the safeguards in the Bill and the general disciplinary code under which the police have to operate, together with the fact that compensation will be payable in appropriate cases, will ensure that the public will have confidence in the exercise of the powers. It is worth putting on record that the police have expressed strong support and desire for the powers. The National Criminal Intelligence Service in particular regards them as of immense value.
The noble Lord also referred to the loophole of individuals who would be stopped from leaving an English or Welsh port slipping through the net through Scotland, Northern Ireland or Dublin. If anyone tried to travel in breach of a banning order, the Scottish police would be able to arrest them and they would face criminal charges. There is no realistic prospect of hundreds or thousands of potential football hooligans migrating northwards at every opportunity to travel to the Continent. The pattern of movement to matches in Europe is from southern and south-eastern ports and from the three major airports that transport people to the Continent. We have to be realistic about that. No doubt the good co-operation between police forces in England and Wales and those in Scotland will serve us well. There is good intelligence between them, which was well used during the England-Scotland Euro 2000 play-off matches.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made a number of helpful detailed points about drafting, particularly on new Sections 21A and 21B. We are of course going to pay very close attention to his advice, and I should like to place on record our thanks to him for the advice and encouragement that he gave us during the open session with my right honourable

1259
friend Jack Straw. We took a wide range of the points made into consideration when publishing the draft Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked what could justify the suspicion that a person may have been involved in violence or disorder. There are a number of circumstances that could justify a check: disorderly conduct at a port or airport or being part of a group which contained known troublemakers might well constitute such grounds. To say that we are introducing that concept into English law is quite wrong. These things are well precedented, particularly in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I am sure that the noble Earl will be very familiar with that legislation.
The noble Earl also asked: why only football? It is the case that representations have been made to me in the past by representatives of other sports, but this Bill is limited to association football. The answer is partly that problems of this nature have so far been largely associated with that game. I think that is patently clear. I should point out to your Lordships that paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Bill adopts a provision which is currently in the Public Order Act 1986. That power allows the Secretary of State to apply the provisions of Part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989, with modifications in relation to other sporting events. I should say that the power is subject to the draft affirmative procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, raised an important point when he addressed the issue of those who were arrested in Belgium and the level of criminal convictions. We had an interesting exchange during the debate about those figures. NCIS analysis showed that 40 per cent of those arrested in Belgium had criminal convictions and 391 out of 965 were mostly for violence or disorder. Convictions for violence involved 133; disorder, 200; possession and use of offensive weapons, 38; and criminal damage, 122. Some have records in more than one category.
These are precisely the kinds of people who misbehave in town centres at weekends—just the sort, I think, the Bill is likely to target. The fact that that same group had not been connected with football offences in large measure indicates the size and scale of the problem we are trying to grapple with. The legislation will go a long way towards dealing with those problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, in an important speech, made some very helpful and constructive comments. He questioned the purpose of the proposed new Section 14G. The additional power in that section is not new. It was contained in the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 in relation to international banning orders. New Section 14G simply replicates that provision for the combined order. I trust that explains the reason for its presence in the Bill. The imposition of additional requirements would be a matter for the courts in a particular case. Obviously it must be a requirement relating to attendance at
1260
regulated football matches. If a court were to impose an unreasonable requirement there would of course be a right of appeal to the Crown Court.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, also asked whether the legislation was not a sort of reintroduction in another form related to football of the "sus" law. I do not see it as being similar to the old "sus": I really cannot see the similarity. That made a criminal offence of merely being suspected. The criminal offences in this Bill are clear cut and objective. That makes a very big difference. There is a significant difference between how "sus" operated and how we propose to operate this legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made what I thought was a rather heroic assumption when he said that offences committed by hooligans in Belgium would have been prosecuted if they had been serious. I am afraid experience tends to show that this is not the case. That is part of the problem. There are far too many examples of hooligans simply being deported and dumped back here in the United Kingdom without effective action being taken against them, even when we have undertakings given by the country concerned that prosecutions will take place where criminal offences have been committed.
The noble Lord referred to the possibility of extraterritorial jurisdiction, which was in effect his solution to the problem. That would be acting after the event. The legislation is partly designed as a preventative measure. However, I accept that there is a case for following through the notion of extra-territorial jurisdiction—complicated and difficult to operate though it may be, particularly in collecting evidence and securing the attendance of witnesses. As a strategy it has severe limitations but I thank the noble Lord for raising it.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that foreign jurisdictions could be encouraged to prosecute offenders with the promise of returning them to British prisons within one week. A large number of prisoners lodge appeals and those must be determined before they can return home. We shall, however, continue to urge governments overseas to prosecute British offenders wherever possible.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, made a good point about standards of proof in evidence, which will be an important element in our debates next week. The burden of proof under new Section 14B will—as with anti-social behaviour orders under Section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—be on the prosecution. As in those proceedings, the standard of proof will be the civil one. However, it is well established in case law that the burden of proof in civil proceedings is flexible. I quote Lord Scarman in Khawaja:
"The flexibility of the civil standard of proof suffices to ensure that the court will require the high degree of probability which is appropriate to what is at stake",
which is an important and telling point. I have every confidence in the courts' ability to judge the matter fairly. They will not make banning orders unless they are properly satisfied that the conditions in

1261
Section 14B are met—that it is proved that the person before the court has caused or contributed to violence and disorder, and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an order would help prevent violence or disorder in connection with football matches.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned in his important contribution that the police and courts might be deterred from applying the provisions of the Bill. The compensation amendment will make clear that compensation costs are to be met centrally and will deal with maximum amounts and possible appeals. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, believes that the British police would never fail to do their duty because of a fear of litigation. Given the noble Lord's reputation and knowledge, we must take that view on board.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, brought thoughtful reflection to our deliberations. He asked, at least by implication, whether any thought had been given to ensuring that English fans were denied tickets to overseas games. Serious thought needs to be given to ticketing arrangements, which will be examined by the working party and by myself in the next few months. Travelling football supporters believe that they can always buy tickets on the black market. Experience shows that they are probably right. A strategy based solely on the denial of tickets cannot be the entire answer.
I was also asked whether the power was a supplementary power. I am happy to confirm that I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Woolmer. The summary procedure, referred to as the "fast-track procedure", should be seen as a supplementary power. It is far better to use the power to lay a complaint in the magistrates' court where possible. The fast-track power is intended to be used only where new information or new considerations come to light during the control period and where the police believe swift action is necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, asked for a definition of "prescribed match". This is to be found in new Section 22A of the 1989 Act, under Schedule 2 to the Bill, where it is defined as a match,
"prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State".
As the noble Lord suggested, matches are also prescribed or designated under existing law. The power is likely to be used to prescribe the same types of matches. Prescription orders will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. At present, matches played outside England and Wales in which an English or Welsh national or club team participates are covered by the existing orders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked why people are not prosecuted abroad. That returns us to a range of issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I agree with the noble Baroness; indeed, her point is well made. It would be preferable if those British citizens who commit offences abroad were prosecuted rather than deported. As I said earlier, that is a point we shall continue to press and upon which we need to work very closely, and in co-operation, with our European partners.
1262
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about prior clearance. We shall be discussing with the police service how best to respond to people who ask in advance whether they are likely to be prevented from travelling abroad. It may not be possible to give a cast-iron guarantee. However, I am sure that the police will wish to be as helpful as possible, as they are in most circumstances.
I hope that I have covered most of the points raised. I said at the outset of my remarks that I did not expect to be able to cover each and every angle highlighted in this wide-ranging debate. This Bill is a proportionate and measured response to a problem that we believe requires determined and immediate action. Clearly, that view was shared by the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he made an important speech to the editors of Newsquest. He made the point then that he thought that known hooligans should be prevented from travelling abroad. He also said that it was a matter of political will that we should ensure that that sort of measure was introduced.
The Government are fully of that view. We believe that we need to take swift, effective and firm action. This legislation will enable us to do so; it will enable the police to do so; and, indeed, it will enable the courts to enforce it. We believe that it balances the liberties of the individual against the well-founded rights of decent people, both here and abroad, to go about their business without being subjected to drunken insults and racism as well as the sort of the xenophobia we saw on the streets of Charleroi and Brussels and the sort of mindless acts of violence and hooliganism that accompanied it. That is the spirit in which the Bill is put forward. That is the spirit in which I hope noble Lords will give the Bill a Second Reading tonight.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I have notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Act,

Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act.

Terrorism Act,

Limited Liability Partnerships Act,

Royal Parks (Trading) Act,

Care Standards Act,

Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Act,

Carers and Disabled Children Act,

London Local Authorities Act.

Manufacturing Industry
9.50 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their strategy for manufacturing industry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that this Unstarred Question had to be postponed because of the lateness of the hour on 18th July. It was proposed to me that we should have the debate today on the ground that we would be able to start much earlier. We are getting not quite as close but closer than I thought we would be to the hour on the previous occasion. I am therefore particularly grateful to noble Lords who will be taking part in the debate. We are not as numerous as we were on the previous occasion, but we have noble Lords speaking for the main parties and I am sure that with their expertise we shall very effectively cover the ground.
I have initiated debates on manufacturing many times since joining this House in 1983. I am afraid that on each occasion I noted a further fall in manufacturing capacity. This occasion is no exception. In total, manufacturing output has fallen steadily during the past half century. In 1950 it provided about 37 per cent of GDP; now it is less than 20 per cent and the trend is still downward. Up until the early 1980s, we achieved a surplus in our overseas trade in goods; since then it has been in deficit—and that deficit reached its highest level in 1999 at £29 billion. The deficit has unfortunately continued to rise into this year. The question to be asked therefore is whether this massive move away from making goods and depending increasingly on imports should be allowed to continue unchecked.
It is timely to be asking this question because of the recent publication of three trend surveys—from the CBI, from the British Chambers of Commerce and from the Engineering Employers Federation. Regrettably, they all report adversely on current prospects.
The CBI, in its June monthly trend survey, states:
"manufacturers expect output to fall over the next four months, confirming May's negative expectation".
The BCC, in its report published on 13th July, states:
"manufacturing activity slowed last quarter to its lowest level for a year, with export sales and orders contracting".
The EEF, in its second quarter 2000 business trend survey, states:
"the pressures facing the engineering sector have increased and are resulting in deteriorating trading conditions".
These are the worst estimated prospects since 1997.
In addition to the three trend surveys, two important studies have been issued on possible future policies. The first is a study by the TUC entitled Britain can make it—A Strategy for Modern Manufacturing; and the second is a study undertaken by Oxford Economic Forecasting on behalf of a group of organisations representing traded sectors; this is
1264
entitled Rebalancing the Economy. I shall draw on these two important documents during the remainder of my remarks.
The TUC document draws attention on page 6 to the long-standing weaknesses in the manufacturing sector. Compared to our competitors we have fallen seriously behind in investment. In 1995 the capital stock per worker in UK manufacturing was 50 per cent lower than in the US and France and 40 per cent lower than in Germany. The gap in productivity is similar—60 per cent lower than in the US, 40 per cent lower than in France, 20 per cent lower than in Germany.
A similar trend is also true in R&D, innovation and skills. Between 1985 and 1996, manufacturing R&D spending grew by an annual average of 2 per cent in the UK compared to 16 per cent in France and 17 per cent in Germany. We have been much more dependent on older products than our competitors and have a less skilled workforce.
These are the longer term deficiencies which need to be put right. They have been exacerbated by the high level of the currency, which has created a further obstacle for manufacturing.
Of course, all is not doom and gloom. There have been many successful individual enterprises and a number of successful sectors. Chemicals and pharmaceuticals have grown most strongly, while textiles and metals have suffered most. There has been a regional impact in that diversity of trend. Textiles and metals have most seriously affected the northern parts of the country, whereas the more technologically advanced products have tended to be concentrated in the south.
If the weaknesses identified by the TUC are to be effectively dealt with, the main effort must come from within industry itself. However, government have a major role to play in setting the broad framework and in stimulating the necessary responses. In my opinion, the Government can fairly claim that they have created a broad positive economic framework, with sustained growth over a long period, lower unemployment, stable prices and strong public finances.
The question is, what more should government do to restore and revive manufacturing industry? Let us look first at the currency. The overvalued exchange rate means that, in the words of the TUC report,
"even highly productive sectors are struggling either to sell goods at all or to sell them at a sustainable profit margin".
Can the Government intervene to put this right? In my opinion, the priority of monetary policy must be to maintain price stability. In the medium term the trend for the euro—against which we appear to be over-valued—is likely to be upward, with strong growth, low inflation and falling unemployment developing in the euro zone. The most that can be expected of government is to try to speed that trend up. That might be achieved by a firmer statement of the intention to join the euro.
Let us turn next to investment. For years the British economy has suffered from an excess of consumption and a deficiency of investment. That trend is still noticeable at the present time. With the economic

1265
framework in good shape this should be the right moment to seek to rebalance the economy as the study by Oxford Economic Forecasting proposes. It makes two specific recommendations. The first is that much more of the Government's expenditure in the public sector should go into capital projects rather than into current consumption; and that will need to be checked against the spending review which was announced on 18th July and on which the Minister will, I am sure, comment. Secondly, so far as concerns the private sector, the study proposes the introduction of 100 per cent first year allowances for investment in plant and machinery. I do not expect that the Minister will be able to tell us that he can accept that. That is more a matter for the Chancellor in the next Budget. But let us hope that he takes it seriously into consideration.
In relation to productivity and innovation, the other major weaknesses referred to by the TUC, the Government published an important report entitled UK Competitiveness Indicators 1999 last December which lists the problems which British manufacturing faces compared with its main competitors. That confirms that we lag behind in productivity, R&D, innovation and spin-offs from universities. It is at least satisfactory that the problems have been identified. What must now be done is for much closer cooperation between government and manufacturing to overcome them.
So what are the conclusions to be put to the Minister for his comment? The first is that, in spite of its fall over recent years, manufacturing still remains an important part of the economy, providing 4 million out of the total of 24 million jobs in Britain today. It also provides 62 per cent of our exports. It is therefore clearly worth stabilising and developing. Secondly, that can be done only by a frank recognition of the problems it faces. As I have shown, government and leading organisations have now done this. What is now required is a rebalancing towards more investment and a determined joint effort to improve productivity and innovation. Thirdly, the currency problem could be helped with a firmer statement by the Government in relation to the euro.
I look forward to the contribution of other noble Lords and to the Minister's response.
10 p.m.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in bringing manufacturing to the fore in this Chamber. It is a shame that, because of the lateness of the hour, so many noble Lords are not present to participate. We have had a long day on the Football (Disorder) Bill. I see the importance of that but I also see the great importance of manufacturing to our country.
I start by declaring an interest, as the former general secretary of a trade union—the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation—whose membership is widening, but it is still largely concentrated in the steel industry. It is now a community-based union. Noble Lords will know that there has been much unwelcome news about the industry in recent weeks. I believe that there will be
1266
more unwelcome news in the not too distant future. That unwelcome news has illustrated the difficulties which the steel industry is experiencing. I take the example of steel not only because it is the industry I know best but also because its experience points to features of the economic climate which are not friendly to manufacturing in Britain as a whole.
The first point I would make is a little contrary to the thrust of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The steel industry is a strategic industry crucial to manufacturing. It is a fact that working people in that industry deliver more added value than their counterparts in other manufacturing industries—£61,300 per head in 1998. That is about 20 per cent more than the car industry and twice the added value won from making computers in Britain.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the government report UK Competitiveness Indicators 1999. Productivity per employee in the steel industry is outstandingly high. The annual rate of productivity improvement over the past 20 years has been between 9.5 and 10 per cent on average. That represents nearly three times the national average for manufacturing. I suggest that that is quite remarkable.
Thirdly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that steel has made a significant and much-needed contribution to British exports, which have increased from just over one-third of all deliveries in 1990 to nearly one-half last year. That has been achieved despite the immense difficulties that have stemmed from the gross overvaluation of sterling in terms of the euro.
The steel industry workforce is stable, highly skilled and experienced. I am also pleased to say, as an ex-general secretary, that it is relatively well paid. However, the rate of pay increases has been pegged well below the average increase in earnings over the past two years. Corus—many noble Lords will know the new name for the former British Steel plc—reduced its labour costs by 6 per cent during the first six months of its operations. Noble Lords will see that the story of steel is one of outstanding progress. It should herald a bright future.
However, as we know, the reality is very different with the recent announcement of nearly 2,500 jobs lost in Corus alone. I also touched on the fact that further cuts will be on their way in the next few weeks or months. That will reduce employment by that company alone by more than 10 per cent. That is not good news for those who share the belief that manufacturing is vital to the future prosperity of our people.
I am and I remain a very strong supporter of the Government, as is my union, of which I was once the leader. That is why my union, the TUC and I all stress to the Government the fact that manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom is facing a major crisis. If noble Lords believe, as I do, that, manufacturing plays a pivotal role in the economy and reject the views of those who often state that manufacturing no longer matters because we live in a

1267
service economy, then noble Lords will join me in saying that those people are wrong; indeed, they are very wrong.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I strongly recommend that the Government should take action on the recommendations proposed by the TUC in its recent publication, Britain can make it—A Strategy for Modern Manufacturing, a well-prepared set of recommendations which the Government would be foolish to ignore. Perhaps I may pay a small tribute to my successor, Michael Leahy, and say that many of those proposals have been submitted by him directly to the Chancellor, Gordon Brown. I understand that he has received quite a positive response.
Michael Leahy is striving to overcome the difficulties faced both by the union and by the industry in a pragmatic way. He knows that without urgent government action the cost-cutting measures now being imposed by the steel industry in the United Kingdom betray a vulnerability to short-term market fluctuations and expectations which do not offer a sound basis for strategic planning. In my view, they create widening disparities in income, health and educational opportunities between those who live in communities dependent on steel and elsewhere. It creates problems for areas such as South Yorkshire, Teesside, the Midlands and, of course, South Wales, which is extremely dependent on the steel industry and manufacturing as a whole. The Government and noble Lords know that there are problems in those areas. Serious problems will be exacerbated if action is not taken to assist.
Finally, I would ask my noble friend the Minister to take the necessary and, I believe, important steps to ensure that British workers have the same rights to be involved, informed and heard as their European counterparts. As more mergers and globalisation take place, the current situation in the United Kingdom is unsatisfactory, and unsustainable. Action is needed.
I mentioned earlier those working in the steel industry. I refer to what was British Steel plc and is now Corus, a company that has come together by the joining of a Dutch company and our own British Steel. The job losses our people face are handled differently in Holland. When job reductions are announced, my colleagues would probably be advised 24 hours or, at best 48 hours, before the press are advised. In Holland, Germany and France, because of the systems of co-determination which operate, people would be made aware and, indeed, have an input into possibly avoiding the mass job reductions that occur.
Perhaps I may say to the Minister that that situation is unsustainable. British steelworkers, manufacturing workers and all British workers should be treated in a way which is common to our European counterparts so that there is a level playing field.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Ezra, who is far more distinguished in this field than many
1268
of us will ever be. Even at this time of night I support what he said and, indeed, most of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brookman.
My noble friend said that there had been a regional impact in the diversity of trend in manufacturing in this country. I should like to give a slightly different perspective from the area in which I live in east Lancashire. It is very much a manufacturing area and has suffered from the decline of manufacturing over most of the past century. I refer to the industrial areas and towns which form the core of such districts; that is, Blackburn, Burnley, Rossendale, Hyndburn (which people may know better as Accrington) and my own district of Pendle.
According to 1995 figures, 37 per cent of the workforce is employed in the manufacturing industry compared to the national average of around 18 per cent. My own district of Pendle comes second in the table of districts ranked by the number of people employed in the manufacturing industry, second only to Barrow-in-Furness.
We are a sub-region with a deep-seated industrial culture and a strong sense that making things matters. We have a larger manufacturing workforce than any other sub-region of comparable size in the United Kingdom—over ½ million people. This is the historic heartland of cotton weaving. As late as the 1950s, towns such as Nelson and Colne had well over half their workforce employed in cotton weaving.
The region suffered from the structural decline of the manufacturing base for most of the past century, with a fairly brief period during and after the last war when there was a false boom. There has been a steady decline in weaving since the early 1920s. Perhaps I may give the example of the town in which I live, Colne in east Lancashire. In 1918 the population of Colne was 28,500. It has remained steady at around 18,500 for the past 20 or 30 years. That is the extent to which the manufacturing core and the workforce have been eroded.
But in the past 30 or 40 years there has been an heroic transition. The weaving industry hardly exists. Twenty or 30 years ago it was replaced by other types of manufacturing such as textile—prelated industries—furniture; wall-furnishings; bandages and other surgical items, some of which are probably too rude to mention in this House; car interiors. Much of the industry has been engineering but old-fashioned, heavy engineering. The real success of the region is that much of the new industry has been aerospace. There are a few large companies, such as Rolls-Royce, with important factories in the region, and many small and medium-sized companies providing supplies and support for the larger companies.
On the face of it, the area has a highly diversified manufacturing base but it has very few new, wealth-creating industries. As my noble friend said, this debate illustrates the north-south divide or the divide between the older and newer industrial areas. We have electrical companies, but they produce electrical equipment; by and large, they are not in the new fields of electronics.

1269
The area has an annual growth, value-added, of some 20 per cent below the national average. The tragedy now is that the population of many of the core towns in the district is declining again. Between 1991 and 1995, three of the districts, Burnley, Hyndburn and Pendle, all lost population. But that hides the fact that most of the areas have a rural fringe with some attractive small towns where the population has increased. The core towns, such as Nelson and Accrington, are seeing a loss of population; they are declining towns. They are not yet dying towns, but if the trend continues, that is what will happen.
Yet despite the fact that this is a typical example of an old manufacturing area with more of a manufacturing base than most places nowadays in this country, investment per head in manufacturing in the sub-region is only two-thirds of the national average investment per head in manufacturing. That is a significant statistic; it indicates the basic problem.
There has been a large number of job losses, and they have tended to take place in larger firms. In my own town of Colne, the largest corporation closed its factory and moved its production to the Midlands, with the loss of 550 jobs. In nearby Nelson, a further several hundred jobs went when Coloroll closed a wallpaper factory there. These were staggering blows.
There has been a great deal of self-help over the years, as there is now. The local authorities are working together, both at district and county level. The East Lancashire Partnership is a model of how local authorities and others can work together in this way. Bodies such as Pendle Partnerships are put forward by government Ministers, civil servants and others as some of the best in the field. The consortium of Lancashire Aerospace, which is based in many ways in Pendle, does heroic work in promoting the aerospace industry in the area.
But the outside help which the sub-region is receiving has been declining. There is less now than there was five or 10 years ago. Assistance from the Government in regional grant aid and European Union grant aid is being cut back, it seems, almost by the year. Yet the region does not appear on lists of areas with particularly high unemployment. If we look at unemployment even within Lancashire, districts such as Lancaster and Blackpool will show higher unemployment than we do.
How is this? Ordinary hourly rates of pay are 14 per cent below the UK average. We have a low rate of business start-ups and survival. We also have a turbulent and casualised workforce. The casualisation of the workforce is half as high again as the national average. The answer may be the resilience of the people who live in this area of east Lancashire; or it may be a depressing one: the fact is that when people in such an area do not have jobs they move away to find them. If the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was here he might be pleased to hear it, although nowadays people do not go on their bikes. We suffer from a decline in population which has an hourglass shape. The population comprises a lot of old people and young people but those of working age move away to find jobs elsewhere.
1270
Today this area has a number of towns in decline because of the erosion of the manufacturing base. Those towns are in decline despite the efforts of 30 or 40 years ago to replace cotton weaving with a lot of other industry. The new industry which replaced the old is now suffering to a considerable extent, although not the catastrophic decline suffered by cotton weaving. The social and economic implications of allowing a large sub-region of ½ million people effectively to die are not ones that the Government or your Lordships should contemplate. This is not an unusual situation. There are many other parts of the north of England, Scotland and South Wales where this picture is a familiar one.
More positive government action is required. The greatest help that can be provided is regeneration of the national manufacturing base and belief in it as a crucial part of the economy, about which my noble friend spoke.
10.22 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I begin by offering apologies for the absence of my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. Her grand-daughter had an accident involving a pony this afternoon. I am sure that your Lordships join me in sending best wishes to my noble friend and wish the little girl a speedy recovery.
I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for initiating this debate. My noble friend shares his disappointment that the re-scheduling of this debate has resulted in fewer contributions. We are aware that the noble Lord has on many occasions brought these important matters to the attention of the House. In his speech the noble Lord quoted many authoritative sources which indicate yet a further fall in manufacturing capacity.
Unlike many of your Lordships who have run businesses, in the Government there is a dearth of those who sometimes have had the harrowing experience of trying to find the money to cover the weekly wage bill. When Labour came into office in May 1997 it inherited what we Conservatives rightly and proudly proclaimed as a golden economy. We left the country with reformed trade unions. We introduced the concept of discipline in modern employment relations that has earned the trade unions greater respect at the negotiating table. We also created an enterprise economy in which non-labour costs were among the lowest in Europe.
The United Kingdom attracted one-third of the European Union's inward investment which by itself created 850,000 real jobs. In 1995 the chairman of Philips described Britain as,
"the most competitive country in Europe today".
In October 1995 the chairman of BMW described Britain as,
"the most attractive economy in Europe for producing cars".
That would be a laugh if it was not so tragic. Three years of a Labour government and BMW could not wait to dump Rover with the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds.

1271
Since 1997 Britain has dropped from fourth to eighth in the world's competitiveness league. Why? We believe that it is because of the burden of regulations, red tape and crippling taxes that the Government have imposed on industry. The Employment Relations Act is to restore some of the unions' lost powers, although the regulations just published will be very difficult for small businesses to interpret. Increased fuel costs and vehicle taxes make every movement of goods by road less economic than our competition. The climate change tax affects companies which are already efficient in the use of fuel. The British plastics industry calculates that it will cost £60 million a year; and B&Q, Nissan and British Aerospace will have their energy bills increased by 10 per cent to 16 per cent.
Then there is the part-time workers directive which the Government have mercilessly gold-plated, as they so often do with other EC legislation, and the burden the Government have imposed on commercial employment agencies, hindering them in their business of getting more people into work rather than helping them. Then there is maternity leave, paternity leave and domestic crisis leave. Do not think that the Government have finished with us yet. There is the workplace parking tax. There is the lunacy of the IR35 tax dreamed up by the Inland Revenue because it conceived the idea that it should treat computer programmers like itinerant bricklayers. The result is that a government who proclaim their belief in the new technologies will be driving programmers abroad to work.
Then there is the massive act of confiscation, and the retrospective windfall tax of £5.2 billion. That was supposed to be used for job creation. So far the Government have spent about £611 million. What has happened to the remaining £4.6 billion? It is squirrelled away in the Chancellor's war chest ready to produce the mother of all bribes just before the next election. We heard more about that and the rest of the Comprehensive Spending Review only this Tuesday.
The Government claim that New Deal has put 170,000 people in work but when the figures are analysed we find that 25 per cent had jobs which lasted less than 13 weeks. The Select Committee of another place calculates that 60 per cent of the remainder would have found permanent unsubsidised jobs on their own. Among their claimed successes, the Government even include those who are going through the scheme a second time. The Chancellor has now said that New Deal will be extended to cover other unemployed groups.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, commented, the textile industry has been badly affected. Between May 1997 and December 1999, 82,000 jobs were lost in the textile and footwear industry. That is 600 jobs every week, all in little pockets, unnoticed except by those who found themselves out of work. And while that was going on, the Ministry of Defence ordered millions of pounds of protective clothing from Germany putting 100 jobs at risk in Cumbernauld. A total of 120,000 camouflage sets were ordered from Belgium, and boots ordered from Brazil caused the immediate loss
1272
of 65 jobs in Wales. That is because of the bizarre accounting which is conducted by the Treasury. It is happy to save a few pounds in one ledger, and never mind the extra cost in unemployment pay and loss of revenue in another. Is that supposed to be an example of joined-up government?
I have no doubt that we shall hear about the 1 million jobs the Government claim have been created since they took power. But only two weeks ago they were talking about 700,000 jobs. Miraculously the figure jumped to 1 million just in time for the Annual Report. Governments do not create jobs. They create the right environment for the creation of jobs. However, they have the power to destroy jobs by foolish economic and politically correct policies.
Any new jobs that have been created since 1997 have been due to the confidence felt by commerce as a result of the economic legacy of the last government. What are those jobs? Some, I am glad to say, are in finance and IT, but most are in the service trades, not industry. This country cannot prosper by our selling each other hamburgers or filling supermarket shelves.
Under the last Conservative government manufacturing jobs grew by 70,000 but since May 1997 over 200,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry; that is, 10 per hour. Five per cent of manufacturing jobs in the Midlands were lost last year. As the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, said, Corus—formerly British Steel—has announced 2,600 job losses in the past few weeks with another 1,400 to come, according to last Tuesday's newspaper.
Some hypocritical European governments who have complained about illegalities on Britain's part, even up until today, blatantly provide subsidies for their own industries, Italy, Belgium, France and Germany being foremost among them. On the contrary, here in the UK, in 1996 and 1997 government support to the regions was £12.5 million. Under the present Government that support has been cut by about two-thirds to £4.1 million. In his spending review on Tuesday, the Chancellor did announce some further help for the regions. We shall have to see what happens, but we need to ask why, if he had the money in his war chest, it was not spent earlier rather than letting further damage occur. The sum of £4.1 million is just a drop in the £5.2 billion ocean that the Government have snatched from business by their windfall tax that was supposed to help and finance employment. No doubt, the Minister, in his reply, will regale us with a lot of predictions, fine slogans, claims of the Government's alleged successes and, above all, statistics.
My question is: what have the Government done for manufacturing industries since coming to power? Answering myself, I can say not a lot and, on balance, a minus quantity.
10.31 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury): My Lords, this Government recognise the importance of manufacturing industry and the challenge it faces in the global economy.

1273
I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this debate. Manufacture is vital to our ability to compete in the future and a vital part of our wealth creation process. It accounts for about one-fifth of our GDP and employs about 4 million people directly with many service sector jobs depending upon it. It makes a major contribution to productivity, innovation and trade performance. We, as a Government, believe strongly in the importance to the economy of all manufacturing.
I share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for the manufacturing industry, but I think for different reasons. We have in this country many excellent manufacturing companies and many opportunities for them to exploit, through the use of technology, innovation and creativity. I believe that they can make a major contribution in the future to wealth creation and new jobs. However, I do not support the manufacturing industry because I believe it has to represent a particular percentage of GDP or because we have to have a trade surplus in manufacturing goods; I do not know of any economic argument which would support such views. Nor do I share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for distorting the spending plans of the Government in order to help manufacturing companies specifically. That, I believe, is a solution of the past.
Of course the Government fully acknowledge Britain's legacy of under-investment and have taken major steps to address it. Public investment is set to double to 1.75 per cent of GDP by 2003–04. Also, in the March 2000 Budget the Chancellor announced that the temporary 40 per cent first-year capital allowance for SMEs would be made permanent. This will give cash-flow help to small companies investing in plant and machinery and will cost the Exchequer around £200 million in 2001–02 and £300 million in 2002–03. It is not at all clear that increasing first year allowances to 100 per cent, which would be a significant medium cost to the Exchequer, would generate more investment for small and medium-sized companies.
As regards currency, it is not correct to say that we have an overvalued pound. When one looks at the pound against the yen and the dollar, one cannot claim that it is overvalued. The issue is overvaluation against the euro, a situation which is not justified by the underlying economic circumstances.
The financial markets have a clear view of the Government's policy and intentions. Trying to talk the pound up or down makes little difference unless there is a clear change of policy or intentions. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about the need for a determined joint effort to improve productivity and innovation. I shall say more about that in a moment.
We have heard about the problems of the manufacturing sector. While I recognise the pressure on some sectors of manufacturing, we have many excellent manufacturing companies. In industries such as aerospace, pharmaceuticals, electronics and telecoms we have world-class companies. In high technology sectors, such as electronics, we are
1274
Europe's second and the world's sixth largest. We also have the largest semi-conductor design industry in Europe.
Not all is doom and gloom for UK manufacturing. The UK is Europe's largest producer of PCs, televisions and mobile telephones. Information technology and electronic communications industries contribute some 7 per cent of UK GDP amounting to added value of around £50 billion, an output of well over £100 billion and are directly responsible for almost 1 million jobs and enjoy an average growth rate of 10 per cent.
Our electronic component industry has grown at a rate of 23 per cent a year and accounts for 35 per cent of European production. In aerospace, the UK has the second largest industry in the western world, with export sales of nearly £12 billion in 1998. BAE Systems is currently tripling its annual production of wings for Airbus, reflecting record orders for Airbus last year, worth 39 billion dollars. Rolls-Royce has just won a 1.4 billion dollar order to power the next generation of Gulfstream aircraft.
Furthermore, we must be careful about the figures that the noble Lord quoted in relation to surveys of business confidence. They have not always proved to be a robust indicator of latest movements and output. While trends in these often track official data closely, in the short term they can be as much an indicator of business sentiment as likely actual business activity.
As regards output, not only is it forecast to be sustained but the Government forecast growth of 1.75 to 2.25 per cent this year and next, while the average of independent forecasts indicates growth of 1.4 per cent in 2000. Manufacturing output was 1.8 per cent higher in the three months to May than in the same period last year and 0.3 per cent higher than in the previous three months. Productivity is rising and was up by more than 4 per cent in the past year.
There is good news on exports as well. In the most recent three-month period, export volumes have been extremely robust, growing by almost 12 per cent year on year in world markets and by 10 per cent in European markets which have been most affected by exchange rate movements.
Some pessimistically point to the decline in manufacturing share of output and employment, but we must constantly bear in mind that our experience matches that of most industrialised countries. Typically, in the seven major industrial economies manufacturing output has fallen from about 30 per cent of GDP in 1960 to about 20 per cent in the 1990s. According to the OECD, between 1987 and 1997 the percentage of people employed in manufacturing in the UK fell from 23 to 18.6 per cent. Over the same period, manufacturing employment in Germany fell from 32 to 24 per cent.
That underlying decline is the result of a number of factors. It is the result of rising living standards, with people spending a higher proportion of their increasing incomes on service; it is the result of increasing competition from newly industrialising countries which have very low wages and can therefore

1275
produce more basic manufactured goods cheaper than elsewhere; and it is the inevitable result of improvements in productivity and a consequence of automation and new technology.
Today our manufacturers face a major challenge. They now operate in a truly international market-place where there are competitive pressures from low-wage, developing countries. Changing consumer demands means more money spent on services and on higher quality products. Industry needs to respond to those challenges and prepare for the challenges ahead. We can compete through innovation, by being enterprising and by using the skills of our workforce. However, we cannot compete on low labour costs, capital and raw materials alone. In the global market-place it is too easy to go elsewhere for those.
Manufacturers in this country will succeed by using their knowledge to add value to products. Businesses that look continuously to improve and innovate can compete globally. As a result, and as manufacturers exploit new technologies and processes, we shall see a change in the quality of jobs being created in the manufacturing sector. That is the direction of manufacturing in this country. It does not mean that we shall lose our traditional industries. Investments by Peugeot, Audi and Vauxhall demonstrate that there are strengths in industries such as vehicle manufacture.
What are the Government doing to help? The Government recognise that they have a role in creating a climate which encourages investment and innovation. We have delivered record low levels of long-term interest rates and short-term rates at levels which are half those reached in the early 1990s. We have delivered stable and low inflation. We have delivered cuts in corporation tax, permanent 40 per cent capital allowances for smaller firms, the new R&D tax credit and 100 per cent allowances for introducing new technology. We are promoting innovation. In the UK the share of manufacturing output accounted for by innovative products is below the average across the European Union. We need to do better: we need not only innovative products but innovative processes, marketing and management as well.
We have boosted investment in the science base by £1 billion and increased DTI's innovation budget by 20 per cent. Earlier this month the Chancellor and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a £1 billion investment in buildings, laboratories and equipment for scientific research. The new two-year Science Research Investment Fund partnership between government and the Wellcome Trust will mean that scientists in the UK will have the facilities to be at the cutting edge of research world-wide. The spending review settlement announced earlier this week by my right honourable friend the Chancellor provides a substantial boost in investment in UK science.
This will boost 21st century research in areas such as taking forward our understanding of the functions of the newly decoded genetic blueprint, the next generation of e-science and other basic technologies. It
1276
will enhance knowledge transfer by providing funding to deepen university links with business. It will help to commercialise research and train the next generation of science entrepreneurs.
The spending review also provides funding in full over the spending review period for the £530 million launch investment in the Airbus A3XX, bringing major benefits to the manufacturing base, particularly in the South West and in Wales.
Through the Manufacturing 2020 Foresight project we are also working with industry to identify the key challenges for the success of UK manufacturing and the action that we should take now to secure it. Looking to the future in this way will lead to better products, processes and business practices, enabling companies to raise their competitiveness and improve the quality of life.
We are helping companies to turn research into new products and services for British industry as part of the Faraday partnerships initiative, which enables firms to access high-quality research and the expertise of industrial research organisations. I recently announced the Government's support for four new Faraday partnerships, which will cover aerospace and automotive materials, plastics, industrial mathematics and system engineering technical textiles. Those are key manufacturing areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Brookman, made an excellent speech. He was right to talk about the extraordinary performance of the steel industry, particularly the increasingly impressive performance of Corus in pushing up productivity. It is a great success story and I believe that the steel industry will benefit from our long-term investment in the public sector. None of the other solutions that are often suggested—including subsidies or weakening the pound, which would lead to increased inflation—would do much to help the steel industry.
The noble Lord also referred to consultation with employee representatives. The Government fully support the principle of information and consultation. It is obviously important to ensure effective consultation when an industry is in difficulty. Employers are already required to inform and consult employees' representatives in good time before collective redundancies. Those provisions were revised and improved last year and we are satisfied that they implement the collective redundancies directive. We have no current plans for further amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, described very well the problems faced in his area. Our task in such areas is to encourage the upgrading of the present industries and the growth of new ones. That is one of the key tasks of the new regional development agencies. The announcement in the recent spending review of an annual £50 million to the RDAs' innovation funds is a significant step in the Government's thinking. Regional venture funds and the changes to regional selective assistance to make it more attractive for high-tech businesses to come into such areas are other ways of helping to upgrade regional industries. That is the

1277
way we have to go. The old policies of trying to move jobs between regions have not worked. We have to give resources to regions to help them to upgrade.
I was surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, used this occasion to talk about the Labour Party not having people who had worked in industry. I have spent all my life in industry, including being the chairman of a small textile company with about 200 workers, and I have worked closely with even smaller businesses. I am well aware of the difficulties of such businesses.
Many of the other points that the noble Baroness made were also surprising. I shall give the facts on the previous administration's record of support for manufacturing industries. Between 1979 and 1997, manufacturing employment fell by more than 2.5 million jobs. More than 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the 1980s recession. In 1980, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in just one quarter. In the early 1990s, almost 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost, including 70,000 in the motor car industry. I could give many more facts that all point to the same thing. As the noble Baroness rightly said, governments cannot create jobs, but they can certainly destroy them. That is the record of the previous government.
The noble Baroness's other points covered a strange collection of issues, including IR35 and the windfall tax on banks, which has very little to do with the performance of manufacturing industry, regardless of whether one thinks that it is right.
These are issues which you can talk about but they are not the problems which manufacturing industry is facing today. Nor indeed do I think that it is really possible to claim that there has been a very significant change in the amount of regulation. We have taken a number of steps which clearly focus on trying to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses and the new small business initiatives will ensure that the interests of small firms are properly considered and provide practical help.
According to the OECD's Economic Outlook, published last December, the UK has less regulation than other OECD countries. I am the first to say that manufacturing industry in particular areas is today facing real problems; but they are problems caused by the exchange rate and particularly the low value of the euro. They are not caused by many of the other things which are very specific issues and which do not relate to this.
We understand as a government the challenges which manufacturing industry faces but we cannot wish those challenges away. The global economy implies a shift in the location of simple manufacturing production, usually relatively unskilled labour, from
1278
mature to developing economies. Our future prosperity depends on our ability to compete on quality and know-how rather than on cost alone. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the only way we can tackle these problems is by a determined partnership approach to increasing new products and productivity. This can only be done by government and manufacturing working in partnership. We are increasing our efforts to improve the UK skill base, promoting closer links between education and industry, and we are providing a supportive framework for technological advance.
We are continuing to play our part in fostering strong partnership supply-chain clusters and other business networks. We will continue to pursue policies which will ensure economic stability and low inflation, allowing industry to invest and plan ahead with confidence. I understand and sympathise with those manufacturing sectors where the weakness of the euro is a real problem, a weakness not justified by any serious analysis of the economic fundamentals.
However, it would be wrong, and counter-productive, to adopt the short-term measures proposed by some. That would be to repeat past mistakes. Instead, the role of government is to provide an environment and focused support which will help industry to upgrade, improve its products, increase its productivity and innovate faster that its competitors. In this way industry can achieve the value added to ensure success in the global economy.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he agrees, even after all he has said, that the substantial burdens of regulation and directives on small businesses may impede their growth into large world-beating businesses such as he has referred to? By "small" I mean up to 20 employees, not 200.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, of course regulation is a major issue but, as I think the noble Baroness's colleague, Mrs Angela Browning, acknowledged, the previous government had not made a success of reducing regulation. I do not think that we have done all the things that we might have done but we are determined to do more, because it does impinge on small businesses. It is a great problem for them, but of course there are many cases today of highly successful small businesses which have become the real success stories of our economy. Psion, ARM and Bookman were all small businesses which in the last two or three years have grown into world-beating giants. That is where we should focus our attention; that is where the opportunities are in a manufacturing country.
House adjourned at six minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: Professional Disciplinary Cases
  Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: Professional Disciplinary Cases
  Electronic Records Management
  Electronic Records Management
  Records Management under Freedom of Information Act
  Records Management under Freedom of Information Act
  Public Order Act: Incitement Prosecutions and Convictions
  Public Order Act: Incitement Prosecutions and Convictions
  SFO Annual Report
  SFO Annual Report
  National Savings Ordinary Accounts: Administration Costs
  National Savings Ordinary Accounts: Administration Costs
  Sterling Exchange Rate
  Sterling Exchange Rate
  Chemical Warfare Alerts during Gulf Conflict
  Chemical Warfare Alerts during Gulf Conflict
  Gulf Veterans: Mortality
  Gulf Veterans: Mortality
  Territorial Army: Restructuring
  Territorial Army: Restructuring
  Military Low Flying Activity
  Military Low Flying Activity
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  NHS: Cost of Employing Additional Staff
  NHS: Cost of Employing Additional Staff
  Allopurinol: Cost to NHS
  Allopurinol: Cost to NHS
  Children's Services
  Children's Services
  Medicines Commission Annual Report
  Medicines Commission Annual Report
  Medicines Control Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Medicines Control Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Medical Devices Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  Medical Devices Agency: Annual Report and Accounts
  French Motorway Tolls: Revenue
  French Motorway Tolls: Revenue
  Central Science Laboratory Annual Report
  Central Science Laboratory Annual Report
  Film and Television Working Conditions
  Film and Television Working Conditions
  Smoking: Depiction in Drama
  Smoking: Depiction in Drama
  Public Appointments by Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
  Public Appointments by Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport