May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

MONDAY 17 JULY—Remaining stages of the Football (Disorder) Bill, which will be taken on a timetable motion unless it is clear from today's debate that there is from the Opposition the full co-operation that they claimed to be offering a few days ago.

TUESDAY 18 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

WEDNESDAY 19 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

THURSDAY 20 JULY—Debate on Public Expenditure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Motion on the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.

FRIDAY 21 JULY—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will include:

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.

FRIDAY 28 JULY—Motion on the Summer Recess Adjournment.

The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

I should also like to inform the House that the business for Westminster Hall for the remainder of July will be:

THURSDAY 20 JULY—Debate on the Fourth Report from the Agriculture Committee on Environmental Regulation and Farming.

THURSDAY 27 JULY—Debate on Crime Reduction Partnerships.

The House is grateful to the Leader of the House for next week's business and an indication of some of the business for the following week. Can she throw some light on statements that the Government will be making next week? Can she confirm that the Chancellor will be making an announcement about the comprehensive spending review on Tuesday? Will the Prime Minister be making a statement on the NHS on a later date? Will the Deputy Prime Minister be making a statement on transport next week? In the spirit of the debate that is to take place later today, might the Government share that information with the House?

There appear to be a few blank days in the week after next. The House is still owed a debate on procurement for the armed forces which would otherwise run into the traditional two-day debate in October. Could we have that debate before we rise?

The Leader of the House has announced consideration of Lords amendments. She may have noticed that in the other place—where neither party has an in-built majority—the Government are regularly defeated. Can she confirm that she welcomes this revising role of the second Chamber and that the Government will not automatically use their majority here to overturn sensible Lords amendments?

Finally, further to a question that I asked a fortnight ago, is the Leader of the House any clearer on the likely date of the state opening of Parliament?

I can confirm that I anticipate that the comprehensive spending review will be announced in a statement to the House on Tuesday. The issue of what other statements might follow that is under consideration and we will convey that information as matters become clearer.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the provisional business included what appeared to be some blank days and suggested a debate on defence procurement. He went on to discuss the fact that there are regular Government defeats in the House of Lords. As he will know, and as the figures make clear, these are far more regular than under previous Governments. This Government have been defeated 38 times in the House of Lords in this Parliament, whereas the previous Government were defeated only 19 times in 1992–93, only 17 times in 1987–88 and only 20 times in 1983–84. I know that Opposition Members nurture the illusion that that is evidence of the independence of their Lordships. We think that it is evidence of their bias. On the issue of the state opening, I fear that I have nothing to tell the right hon. Gentleman at the moment.

Could the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the steel industry in the light of the report published this week by the UK Steel Association and the Engineering Employers Federation, which called for a re-balancing of the economy to support manufacturing? Such a debate should make special reference to the job lay-offs being announced by Corns at a time when the pound is weakening against the dollar and the euro, the company is moving into the black and, according to all analysts, will make a profit of £750 million next year. This is not the time for Corus to cut a swathe through jobs in the industrial heartlands.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern which, I believe, is shared across the House. At a time when there is so much creation of new employment, jobs are still being lost in manufacturing. I share my hon. Friend's disappointment at that, whether those jobs are lost in the steel industry or elsewhere. My hon. Friend is right to use this opportunity to raise the issue of whether Corns should reconsider its plans in the light of recent economic developments, but I fear that I cannot offer time for a special debate.

Does the Leader of the House recall that, in last week's business questions, I drew her attention to the extremely unfortunate precedent of the speedy dispatch of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 and related that to the dangerous yobs Bill that is now before the House? Will the Leader of the House look at the timetable for Monday's debate? First, will she give an assurance that there will be adequate time for all the major issues which, as Members on both sides of the House recognise, raise important matters of principle? Secondly, will she look at the controversial parts of the Bill, which relate to the third proposition on banning orders and the fourth proposition on the revival of the sus laws that we got rid of some years ago—at least, we thought that we had?

Thirdly, and most importantly, will the Leader of the House examine the case for a proper interval between the Bill's Committee stage and its Report and Third Reading? Otherwise, there will be no opportunity for the House and for those outside who have an interest in the matter, such as the police, to take account of Committee debates before we come to Report and Third Reading, which could perfectly well be taken on Wednesday, after 10 pm, if necessary. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the imperative for this legislation appears to be a club fixture in August, and that there is no great urgency for the measure at all?

I am mindful of the matter. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that he reminded me at the last business questions of unfortunate precedents on the speedy dispatch of legislation. However, he will know that under none of those precedents did we have the degree of scrutiny and the unprecedented degree of consultation and co-operation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has demonstrated. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Bill's proposals are not all new, although I accept that some are more controversial than others. I accept, as I know that my right hon. Friend will, the hon. Gentleman's point about timetabling enough time to deal with the issues adequately. From what I have said, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government would be pleased if we could do that in a co-operative way. We are offering to do that, but only time will show whether that will turn out to be possible.

As for the notion that there are no relevant international matches, I understand that that is not the case. There is an important international match in early September, and there is some concern that, unless further measures are then in place, more problems could occur.

I urge my right hon. Friend to think seriously about the matter. Passing legislation because of a deadline set by a football match is not, on the whole, a sensible precedent. We are discussing a fundamental right, and I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to consider seriously giving more time to the period between the introduction of the Bill and its Report stage. It is a question not just of dealing with football hooligans, but of putting on the statute book a precedent that will affect all United Kingdom citizens. I seriously ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the timing.

The Government have given a good deal of thought to the timing and consulted on the matter very fully, as my hon. Friend will know. Of course I take her point about these being major issues, but she will know that not only did we have substantial discussion on an earlier private Member's Bill, but there has been some nine months debate of the issues. I hope that she is also aware that recent events highlighted loopholes in existing legislation whose importance had not previously been appreciated, in that the measures on the statute book deal specifically with football-related offences and convictions, and not with others that may be equally relevant. Of course I take my hon. Friend's observations on board, as I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will.

May I reinforce the point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? There has to be a great deal of concern that we are taking the Committee stage on the Floor of the House on Monday, which does not give us time to reflect on what has been said on Second Reading or to receive representations from outside. Moreover, the fact that the Committee stage will not be taken Upstairs precludes the holding of a Special Standing Committee, which in this case would be extremely important in considering whether, for example, there is a breach of articles 5(1) and 14 of the European convention on human rights. There is the further anxiety that there is likely to be no gap between the Committee stage and Report stage.

Finally, is the right hon. Lady aware that even now we have not been given the final copy of the Bill? I went to the Vote Office, and the Clerk said—no doubt perfectly properly—that I could not get a copy until the Bill had been formally laid. We still do not have the completed version of a Bill that we are to debate in five hours.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being a little disingenuous, if I may say so. He knows perfectly well that the Bill has been under continued revision as a result, quite properly, of discussions in and across the House, and that we expect to have the present text available very shortly. He has expressed concern about the interval between discussion today and on Monday. I remind him that his first concern, expressed a week or so ago, was that not all the stages should be taken in one day. The Government have heeded that concern, and I hope that he will recognise that. All that I can say to him is that the Government will do their best to reach agreement on a matter that, I remind him, was urged on us by Conservative Members, who offered full co-operation in dealing with any legislative proposals.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on employment? I ask that in light of yesterday's figures, which show that a million more people have found jobs since Labour was elected. That is despite a prediction by the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), when he was Secretary of State for Employment, that a Labour Government would lose a million jobs. He had the right figure, but I am pleased to say that he was clearly going in the wrong direction, so nothing much has changed there.

This is a most important topic for all our constituents, and it would be useful to focus on the fact that, between 1979 and 1997, under successive Conservative Governments, unemployment doubled, while three years into a Labour Government, we have a million more jobs. Can my right hon. Friend find time for that important debate?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and relevant point, and it is certainly noteworthy that, after three years of a Labour Government, we have managed to return employment to the level that it was at when we last left office, after which Conservative Governments so substantially increased unemployment. However, I fear that, although my hon. Friend makes an important point, I cannot find time for an extra debate on that at present.

As we are about to see a documentary on the out-of-control spin machine at No. 10 Downing street, will the right hon. Lady ensure that there is an early opportunity after its screening for us to cross-examine a Minister on the work of Mr. Alastair Campbell? It seems to us that the wages of spin are very high for him but a lousy deal for the rest of us.

I am so bored with hearing the Conservatives rattle on about spin, image and presentation. I cannot be the only Member who remembers photographs of Lady Thatcher sitting in a field, holding a calf. They should not lecture us about image.

The Edinburgh CJD surveillance unit has announced that, in a nation of 60 million people, there have been 74 confirmed and probable cases of human variant CJD, of which five have occurred in Leicestershire, which has a population of fewer than 1 million. Statistically, it is highly unlikely that that has occurred by chance. Will the Leader of the House press her colleagues to find time for a parliamentary debate on that very worrying occurrence or at least to use the research and information that may exist in Leicestershire to aid national understanding of this distressing disease?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I understand the concern that he expressed, but I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor in the near future. He might see whether there is an opportunity in Westminster Hall, and it may be tabling for Health questions today. I am confident that he will use other opportunities to raise the matter.

May I return to the Football (Disorder) Bill—a matter that has been raised from both sides of the House by hon. Members with considerable service in, and experience of, the House? Was I right to deduce from what the Leader of the House said that, following the debate today, a decision will be taken on whether the business of the House on Monday will he subject to a guillotine motion? If that is the case, is the right hon. Lady aware that hon. Members are getting a pretty heavy postbag on the Bill, some of it in favour and quite a lot of it against, particularly because of the rather draconian proposals contained in the Bill? Does she accept that, although the Committee stage is being taken on the Floor, the Report stage is often the only stage of a Bill when Back-Bench Members of Parliament have an opportunity of expressing the concerns of their constituents? If it is to be good legislation, is it not right that there should be a full and proper opportunity for all hon. Members who wish to participate to take part in such an important debate?

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, and I take it seriously. Although of course I understand the concerns and reservations of hon. Members when legislation is dealt with at speed—the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what I said is quite correct—the Government will, if it appears necessary, propose a timetable motion. When we began our exchanges—I do not mean the hon. Gentleman and I, but across the Dispatch Box—the Opposition offered co-operation for speedy legislative action. The Leader of the Opposition was quoted by The Northern Echo on 23 June as saying:

I hope the Government accepts our sincere offer of cooperation.

By 4 July, in this place, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said:

We cannot proceed on a rushed basis—[Official Report, 4 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 173.]

with the Bill. Since then, Opposition Members from the Front Bench and beyond have repeatedly said that, if we are to proceed with the Bill, they demand that the Government drop some other piece of legislation. That is not what we consider full co-operation.

I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the agreement reached this week between British Nuclear Fuels and the Kansai electric company in Japan relating to the return of defective nuclear fuel from Japan, and including significant compensation payments. Does she agree that that has major implications for the potential future development of the plutonium trade between Britain and Japan, which could have serious economic and environmental consequences? Does she find it remarkable that there has not been one form of parliamentary scrutiny of the development of that trade? Does she agree that the recent publication by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the future of BNFL provides a perfect opportunity for such parliamentary scrutiny?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point about the implications for the plutonium trade and also about the Select Committee report. He will know that it is open to the Liaison Committee to nominate Select Committee reports for debate, whether on the estimates days or in Westminster Hall. He makes a powerful case for one of those nominations to be the report.

Does the right hon. Lady realise that her failure to provide time to debate defence procurement is undermining the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General? Should not the House debate the National Audit Office major projects report on defence, which demonstrates that, far from undertaking smart procurement, the Ministry of Defence is overseeing a cost overrun of £2.75 billion on the 25 projects studied by the NAO, and furthermore, that 15 projects are more than three years late? Is it not the case that, far from smart procurement, the Government are conniving at the rip-off of the taxpayer?

The hon. Gentleman first makes a point about the defence procurement debate. I have repeatedly said that the Government will provide time for that debate, but we are not able to do so before the recess. It is not at all clear to me that there is any reason why that should hold up the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General. As for the notion that the National Audit Office major projects report in some way casts doubt on the Government's approach to smart procurement, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the report measures cumulative cost over-runs during the life of projects that, in some cases, extend for 20 years or more. It cannot have escaped his notice that that was not under this Government.

Has my right hon. Friend cast her eyes over the parliamentary ombudsman report, which came out last week, entitled, "Investigation into delays into making payments under the Arable Area Payments Scheme"—a riveting, good read? It refers to the previous Government's behaviour and their complete failure to reform the common agricultural policy, let alone manage it. Has that anything to do with why Conservatives dropped the debate on agriculture from today's Order Paper?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Indeed, he may well be right. I have struggled to identify the reason why Opposition Members, who so often—not least at this Question Time—make complaints and express concerns about the farming industry, agriculture and so on, chose to abandon the scheduled debate on the crisis in agriculture to discuss the riveting subject of the House of Commons itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Opposition Members make noises, but clearly the crisis in agriculture has disappeared, or perhaps my hon. Friend is right.

If the Leader of the House is determined to curtail debate on the Football (Disorder) Bill next week, will she give an assurance that the Government will not move any closure motion on this evening's debate so that everyone who wishes to speak is given full opportunity so to do? Can she confirm that her responsibilities should extend to protecting the interests of Back Benchers on both sides of the House who do not necessarily agree with their respective Front Benchers on such issues?

Of course I am aware that there are differences of view in the House, and I accept that it is important to have time. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been absolutely meticulous in offering opportunities for consultation and, indeed, making changes to the proposed legislation as a result of those consultations. That is exactly the kind of exchange that, in other circumstances, would have taken place on Second Reading or in Committee, so we have attempted to take account of different concerns. Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there will be different views in the House and that some hon. Members may disagree with those on their Front Bench. Equally, he must accept my point that, while recognising that legitimate right, the Government have to take account of that in deciding how and whether we can proceed.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that it is two years since agreement was reached in Rome on setting up the International Criminal Court. When does she intend to introduce legislation to ratify that treaty to fulfil the promise given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that we would be among the first 60 nations to do so?

My hon. Friend will know that that proposal did not find a place in this year's programme. He will also know that I cannot speculate about the contents of future Queen's Speeches. The Government recognise the importance of the issue, but there are many other important issues.

I have applied several times for Adjournment debates on tourism in the south-west. With the summer season upon us, tourists are fortunately flocking to the area, but there is a need to debate the Government's performance on tourism, given all the working parties and groups that they have set up and the recommendations that they have made, which have not yet been implemented. Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on tourism and its effects on the south-west economy?

While I wish the tourism industry in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world well, I fear that time is under a considerable premium at this time of year. I understand his concern in seeking time for such a debate. He will know that the Government have provided extra time for Adjournment debates. I fear that I cannot undertake to find specific time for such a debate at the moment.

Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time to debate the plight of my constituents in the village of Croston who have been besieged by 100 travellers? Not only has crime increased throughout the village, but private land is being destroyed and waste and disease may follow given the insanitary conditions there. The problem exists throughout the United Kingdom; there is no constituency that has not suffered because of such travellers.

I am sorry to learn of the concern and dismay expressed by my hon. Friend's constituents and sorry, too, to learn of the difficulties that have arisen in his locality. I am aware that consultation on whether new legislative proposals could be introduced is being undertaken, and he may want to contribute his experience to it.

Can we have an early debate on this country's relations with Iran? Would that not give us the opportunity to consider the circumstances in which the London-based charity Iran Aid was forced to close? The Iranian regime said that they would not let the Foreign Secretary into Iran until that had happened. Would we not also be given the opportunity to understand why the Iranian regime, when they found out who the Foreign Secretary is, said that they were too busy to see him anyway? Does the right hon. Lady accept that such a debate would allow us to understand how this country's interests are advanced by the sight of the Foreign Secretary grovelling to the torturers of Tehran?

I am afraid that I can only confess to the hon. Gentleman my entire ignorance of the circumstances of the Iran Aid case. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.]

Order. I see what has happened. While I was counting my worry beads, Opposition Members resumed their seats.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that the Prime Minister is due to make a statement. Can someone run along to his office and bring him to the Chamber?

The Prime Minister has arrived.

I was just counting my worry beads. I call the Prime Minister.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. With your permission, I would like to make a statement on the annual report published by the Government earlier today.

Our first and primary responsibility was to get the economic fundamentals right—the building blocks that will make Britain stronger and fairer. Inflation is at 2.2 per cent.—within our inflation target of 2.5 per cent.—and an inherited £28 billion deficit was turned into a £16 billion surplus by last year. Unemployment is down and 1 million jobs have been created since May 1997. Real take-home pay is up by about 8 per cent., and when spending on areas that we want to spend money on, such as children and pensions, is taken out, welfare spending is falling for the first time in decades. But none of that has come without serious, grown-up choices—Bank of England independence, taking the politics out of people's mortgages, and tough action to clear the deficit. I know that some of those decisions, such as the rises in fuel duty, were unpopular, but they were necessary.

Interest rates over the years of this Government have averaged 6 per cent. In the previous 18 years, they averaged 10 per cent. That change makes the average mortgage holder £160 a month better off. That stability has been fought for and is on course to being won. Now we must make the next choice: to invest in this country's future. I believe that the people of this country understand that Britain is a chronically underinvested nation. For 18 years, transport, health and education were starved of the funds that they needed. In education, for example, the real-terms increase during the 18 years of Conservative government was only 1.5 per cent. a year. If we want opportunity and security for all in a world of change, we now have to invest in our essential infrastructure and public services. This Government are committed to that investment.

There has been investment to repair and renovate 11,000 schools, with 6,000 more to come; more money for books; money for computers; money for paying teachers more; and thousands more schools linked to the internet. We have seen a dramatic rise in standards in primary schools, but the next challenge is to see the same big rises in standards in secondary education and universities. The priorities remain education, education, education, and our response will be investment, investment, investment. Guaranteed.

In the health service, we are meeting our target on in-patient waiting. We must now get sustained falls in out-patient waiting. By the end of this year, all accident and emergency departments that need to be rebuilt or refurbished will receive such treatment. The first new hospital has already opened in Carlisle, and 37 more infrastructure projects amounting to more than £25 million each are on their way in England alone. There are new services, such as NHS Direct and walk-in centres. As a result of the March Budget, the national health service is finally getting the funds that it needs. It has benefited from the biggest sustained increase in its history. Again, however, we know that there is much more to do.

The Jubilee line and the docklands light railway show what our transport system could be like. Moreover, there are additional train and bus services, and new rolling stock is starting to come into use. But, in many parts of Britain, our transport infrastructure urgently needs substantial extra investment. We admit that. The 10-year transport plan, which will be published shortly, will show how it can be done.

The Government are committed to a society of opportunity for all and responsibility from all. Crime is down since 1997, particularly car crime and burglary—in some areas, spectacularly so. [Interruption.]

Order. We have all had our fun; the House must now settle down.

Violent crime, however, is rising. We need more police; we will get them. We need new ways in which to tackle drugs; we will get those too. We need tougher action against drug dealers; we are legislating against them.

In all those areas, we should recognise the immense efforts of millions of public servants—school teachers, police, NHS staff and civil servants—because their work makes our country richer.

We are a Government committed to social justice. Thanks in part to the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the biggest-ever rise in child benefit—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to hear the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Here's John; come on, John."] Perhaps the Opposition will cheer this. By the end of the current Parliament, 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty. But there is still a long way to go before we can achieve our goal of ending child poverty altogether.

I am well aware of the focus on the 75p rise in the basic state pension. If that was all that the Government had done for pensioners, people would have every right to be angry; but it is not. We chose, deliberately, to get most help to the poorest, through the new minimum income guarantee. About 2 million pensioners have gained, some considerably, by around £15 to £18 per week. We have abolished eye test charges. We have introduced the winter allowance, which now stands at £150. We have given free television licences to pensioners aged 75 and over. In total, an extra £6.5 billion will be spent on pensioners during the current Parliament—£6.5 billion above what the last Government planned. Again, however, I am the first to say that there is more to be done, and step by step, as the country can afford it, we will do it.

This year also saw the best inward investment figures in our country's history. Around the world, people are seeing the strong economic fundamentals that exist in Britain. They see a good business environment, described recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit as the second best in the world.

This Government are committed to a positive and constructive role in Europe. At the Lisbon summit, we helped to set a new economic course for Europe. Most recently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned around the entire debate on tax in Europe. We are leading the debate in Europe on defence. We will maintain a policy on the euro that is designed in our national economic interest, and is good for British jobs, British industry and British investment.

There are many other areas in which we can chart progress. Hand guns are banned. Land mines are banned. Hereditary peers are at last on their way out. There are paid holidays for the first time. As for the arts, funding is increasing, quality is improving, and our international reputation is a credit to Britain. When they want it, employees have the right to be represented by a trade union. We are starting to cancel third-world debt. The strategic defence review is allowing Britain to count for more in the world.

The annual report shows that 104 of our 177 manifesto commitments have been met, that 71 are on course, and that two are not timetabled. Of course there is more to do. We have been in government for three years. There are 1 million more in work, true, but many thousands of jobs are still lost as a result of industrial change. We now have the best-ever results in our primary schools, true, but our secondary schools are still nowhere near the level of the best in the world. We have an extra 10,000 nurses in the health service, true, but we need many more, and we need cancer and heart surgeons too. The incidence of domestic burglary has fallen by 20 per cent. in three years, true, but violent crime is still increasing.

A lot has been done, but a lot more needs to be done, and this Government will do it. We will deliver the stability. We will deliver the investment that the country needs. We will deliver opportunity for all in a civic society founded on rights and responsibilities.

Our purpose is to build a Britain that is strong, modern and fair. Under this Government, at long last, economic prosperity and fairness are no longer seen as opponents; they are seen as partners in the process of building the Britain of the future.

I must begin by thanking the Prime Minister for delivering a statement of such excitement that at least two Cabinet Ministers were present for the start of it. Only this Prime Minister, when accused of being all talk and no delivery, would try to talk his way out of it. Only he, when accused of being all spin and no substance, would try to spin his way out of trouble. Only he, when accused of being all gloss and gimmicks, would attempt to rebut the charge by publishing a glossy brochure, which is yet another gimmick from his Government of gimmicks.

This is the third annual report. The first was entitled, "So what do you think?"; the second was called,"So, what are we doing?"; the third should accurately be called, "So what on earth are we going to do now?" We have all learned what to expect from the Prime Minister's annual reports.

I shall give hon. Members extracts from these reports, because the Prime Minister has not done so. First, there is the banal.

The UK is home to 59 million people.

Thanks very much for that staggering piece of information. Then there is the completely untrue. Page 46 of today's annual report states that, as part of the delivery of the Government's vision,

this year saw the opening of the UK Sports Institute, providing world-class facilities, coaching and support in Sheffield.

As everyone in Sheffield knows, not a brick has been laid. No such institute has been opened, and the whole thing is now to be sited in London. How are we to believe any of this rubbish? No wonder only 49,000 copies were sold last year, 41,000 of which were bought by the Government. It is not exactly Harry Potter, is it—although it requires as much imagination to believe it?

Then there is the ridiculous. Last year's report said:

The Dome at Greenwich will provide the focus for the country and the rest of the world.

This year's report says that

the dome remains controversial.

Then there are the missing items. There is room this year for a full-page picture of a man on a telephone, but there is no space to mention the Chancellor's £5 billion tax on pension funds, the thousands of criminals released from jail early by the Home Secretary, or the complete collapse of the Foreign Secretary's ethical foreign policy.

Then we have more of the blatantly untrue. In the previous two reports, but not in this year's, the Government provided a helpful list of their claims of progress on their manifesto pledges. Last year they made some interesting claims. For instance:

Develop an integrated transport policy. Done.

It is true that the Deputy Prime Minister integrated petrol price rises with traffic jams.

Hold referendum on any EMU decision. Kept.

Did we all miss something? Have we had a referendum?

• Referendum on voting systems. On course.
• …EU enlargement. Done.
• CAP reform. On course.
• Back the 2006 World Cup bid. On course.

That is last year.

This year, the helpful list has disappeared and in its place the interested reader has to visit 177 different web pages in order to add them up. We can see some of the changes. The integrated transport policy has now become:

Improving transport is a key priority for the Government.

What happened? Last year it was all done and integrated. Now it has disintegrated. Holding a referendum on voting systems has become:

The timing of a referendum has not yet been decided.

Last year it was all on course. The 2006 world cup bid now reads:

The final decision is 6 July 2000.

Is anyone updating the Government's website? Could that be a job for an out-of-work press secretary?

Is not today's report—this rubbish, this complete detachment from reality that we have been given—yet another signal that the Prime Minister lives in a fantasy world in which the dome is a great success, everyone wants to abolish section 28, everyone wants to adopt the euro and everyone believes figures produced by the Chancellor? Even when the report makes a claim that is true, it avoids the whole truth. It claims that 1 million jobs have been created in the past three years but does not mention that in the previous three years, under the previous Government, 1.1 million jobs were created. Does the Prime Minister think that we are all citizens in some Soviet village waiting to hear the glorious news about tractor production and willing to overlook the fact that no tractors have actually arrived?

Is not the truth that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have repeatedly announced £19 billion for this and £21 billion for that, and that they have little or nothing to show for it? The majority in the country have been asked to pay again and again for services that are getting worse. Now the Government expect everyone to throw their hats in the air as they announce more fantasy figures pretending to know what will happen to the economy in four years' time and throwing all prudence to the winds.

Yesterday, as the Prime Minister threw some ludicrous figures around, he announced his own estimation of increased taxes—if he is allowed to go on governing—of £16 billion. Cannot we now be certain of two things: with this Prime Minister, services will not get any better but taxes will keep going up? If he wants to fight an election on that, we are happy to do so.

Is there not a massive contrast between his ridiculous claims and the daily experience of the mainstream majority of people in this country? Is there not a massive contrast between this self-congratulatory nonsense and the annual report that would be written by the people of Britain? Would not an annual report produced by the people of Britain say that the Prime Minister promised to improve the NHS and cut waiting lists, but the waiting list for the waiting list has doubled? Would not an annual report by the people of Britain say that he promised to be tough on crime, but he has been weak on crime and it is going up? Would not an annual report by the people of Britain say that he promised to cut class sizes, but class sizes in secondary schools have gone up? Would it not say that he promised to keep taxes down, but he has piled billions of pounds of stealth taxes on to hard-working families? Would it not say that he has comprehensively failed to deliver on public services?

Instead of this report, should we not have a real report on the Government? No tax increases at all—abandoned. Twenty-four hours to save the NHS—abandoned. An ethical foreign policy—abandoned. Broken promises—done. Weak leadership—done. Split on the euro—done. The slow slide from admiration to fascination to disillusion to contempt—on course.

As ever with the right hon. Gentleman, the jokes were very good, but when he got to policy, he fell apart. When he told us what he wanted to do with the country, one word was rather curiously missing—"guarantee". Where was it? The situation is even better than I said yesterday. Let me read what he wrote in his "Common-sense Revolution" statement in October 1999 to his party conference:

Those guarantees will provide a concrete assurance for voters—and a necessary discipline on future Conservative Ministers when promises look difficult to keep.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot keep his promises as Leader of the Opposition, never mind in government. What would an annual report on him look like? The five guarantees that he put forward last October are now falling apart.

When the right hon. Gentleman finally got to policy, he started to talk about £16 billion. Let us return to that and explain to him what his shadow Chancellor has done. I do not think that he realises. Let us take him through it. On Thursday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I am answering the question. The right hon. Gentleman attacked me on—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Paterson, we shall have a little less noise.

Conservative Members will have to listen to me. They attack me for not investing enough in schools, hospitals, transport and the police. Right. We are going to be putting in investment in all these areas. The right hon. Gentleman says that we do not intend to do that. I shall read to him what the shadow Chancellor said last Thursday and explain it to him. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said:

Mr. Brown has set an unsustainable course for government spending.

So he is opposed to that. He then said:

Mr. Brown plans to raise spending by 3.3 per cent. every year while the economy is predicted to grow by just over 2 per cent.

Have we got those figures? They are 3.3 and 2 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman's shadow Chancellor added that his commitment for a future Conservative Government was to make sure that

overall public spending…would grow less quickly than the economy as a whole.

Are Conservative Members following this? There will be a 3.3 per cent. increase with us and 2 per cent. with them. That means one third off the comprehensive spending review figures next Tuesday. Cuts of one third would be £16 billion.

Of taxes.

No, £16 billion of extra investment. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand that his shadow Chancellor has agreed to cut that figure from his spending plans. I shall tell the House what that would mean if it happened. If spending was cut by that amount, there would be no extra investment in schools, hospitals, police or transport.

When the right hon. Gentleman finally got to policy, he mentioned two points. As for class sizes, our pledge was to cut them for five, six and seven-year-olds in primary schools. We have done that. It is correct that in secondary schools there is a 0.2 of a pupil per class rise since we took office. That follows 10 years of rises under Conservative Governments. However, our pledge was first to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds.

If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to act against crime, perhaps he will explain why last night the shadow Cabinet resiled from its promise to support us on legislation to deal with football hooligans and is not now going to back that legislation. If he is complaining about police numbers, the only way of increasing them is putting in investment. He is now pledged to cut the very investment that is necessary to do that.

As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman was fine when he was making his jokes, comments and one-liners. The trouble is that when we get back to policy, while he has been spending his time making the jokes, the shadow Chancellor has spent his time making the policy. As a result, from now until election day every Conservative Member will have to explain how he or she can cut £24 million from each constituency. They will be hounded until they do, and then the right hon. Gentleman will learn the difference between good jokes and good judgment.

Since we have the Prime Minister to thank for this scintillating parliamentary experience for us all, does he agree that, from the briefest scan of his statement, what is linguistically interesting is that "but" appears no less than 12 times? That perhaps tells us a little about the content. Now—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order—all of you!

The Prime Minister's opening statement was a good deal more factual than what we heard from the leader of the Tory party a few minutes ago, however. Does the Prime Minister agree that if any of us could write an annual report about ourselves, we would probably want to be reasonably self-congratulatory, but to acknowledge that things could get better—[Interruption.] After the Romsey by-election things can only get better for the Conservatives. If this is to be a meaningful exercise in future, would it not be better for the Government to produce an annual report, make an oral statement and take questions, but for the report to be based on an independent audit of what the Government of the day have done and delivered in the preceding year? As a result, would the House not take the exercise with a degree of seriousness that it frankly does not command at the moment?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that I stress the "buts"; I do so because they are important. What is clear is that there has been significant progress in many of the areas and towards the objectives that we have set ourselves. I am the first one to admit, however, that we have a lot more to do. What is important is that people understand that we have made significant in-roads—for example, halving long-term unemployment. That is a big gain, but thousands of people are still without jobs. It is important that people understand that in primary schools, class standards are going up and we are getting the investment into school buildings, but there is a lot more to do in our secondary schools and universities. I could take people to parts of the national health service where there are examples of excellent practice—GP surgeries and hospitals, where there are standards of excellence. However, it is also true to say that there are parts of the country where that is not the case. We need to tackle those problems. I am saying that we are setting out a vision and a direction for the Government, which is stability first, then getting people off benefit and into work, and getting the investment in our future that we need, while at the same time ensuring that we are providing that opportunity for all and responsibility from all which are the basis of a decent civic society. Yes, of course, there is a lot more that we can do, but we can be genuinely proud of what we have done in three years.

rose—

Before I call Back Benchers, may I say this? A number of Members on both sides of the House came in very late when the Prime Minister was halfway through his statement—indeed, I have a list of them all here. I regard this House as being full of honourable Members. Do me the honour of not standing to be called if you came in late. I know you came in late and you know you came in late.

Does the Prime Minister accept that the publication of this annual report underlines in simple language the key message that this Government, in just over three years, have delivered a tremendous amount to the people by making this country a better and a fairer place for the majority? Is not the key message that the Government also accept that there is more to do and that there is a commitment to do more? Should we not at the same time reflect on the fact that it is only just over three years since the previous Government, now the Opposition, went out of office after 18 years of abject failure during which they destroyed many things for the majority of people?

Briefly, I mentioned three things—the new deal for the unemployed, the minimum wage, and the working families tax credit and rises in child benefit. Those are all measure that are not merely right in themselves but that help to create a greater sense of social unity rather than the social division of the Conservative years.

We were delighted to read that the spinner was about to repent, but after that vacuous performance we know that the Government are all spin and no substance. Will the Prime Minister explain why he is ripping off the motorist at the petrol pump? Has he read in his own annual report that the Government now say that most journeys will continue to be made by road, not public transport? Will he now admit that he is not pricing the motorist off the road and that he should have voted with the Conservative Opposition against the last round of petrol tax increases?

May I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new position in the Conservative party? Nothing has made us more pleased in recent times than that. As for petrol prices, let us get one thing clear. Over the past year, I have accepted entirely our responsibility for the fuel duty rise in the first two years and have explained the reason: we needed to clear the deficit and to ensure that the economy was on a stable course. In the past year, the vast bulk of that has come through the rise in oil prices. I am still, however, waiting—even a nod of the head will do—to know whether the Conservatives are pledged to cut fuel duty or not. No. Frozen in immobility. Therefore, with the greatest of respect, I do not think that the public will take the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms very seriously.

May I remind my right hon. Friend of the state of the nation three years after the Tories were elected in 1979? We are talking about 1982. There were 3 million people out of work, factories were closing all over Britain and there was civil disobedience and fires in our major cities. Let us not forget what happened in Toxteth. It was going on all over the country. The Tories were at 27 per cent. in the opinion polls in that year: 1982. It was the lowest reported poll of any Government since polling began.

Of course, the Conservative record was not merely the 3 million unemployed, but the way they increased poverty in our society; the way they deprived many people of opportunity; the way that they meant that investment in our public services did not come on; the boom and bust, with two recessions—the deepest recessions that this country has had—and a doubling in crime. I am afraid that it is not merely the utterly shambolic state of the Conservative party today that is the problem for the Conservatives. It is also their record. That is something of which we shall also remind the country.

Can the Prime Minister give the House a preliminary explanation of the illustration on page 24?

No, I cannot, but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.

If the Leader of the Opposition would like some substance and reality behind the Government's annual report, perhaps I could provide him with some. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Royal Shrewsbury hospital is receiving £1 million-worth of new cancer care equipment, as well as a newly refurbished accident and emergency unit, both of which we were denied by the Tories?

Of course, that is absolutely right. What is fascinating is that the last thing that Conservative Members want to do is talk about policy. We had almost 10 minutes from the Leader of the Opposition and he barely mentioned a policy at all. Now they cannot even ask questions on any policy area. The moment that they are put on the spot on policy, they cannot answer a question at all, but what my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. That £1 million investment going into his hospital, but that is £1 million investment that, were the Conservative party elected, with its commitment to cut spending by £16 billion, could not go ahead.

rose—

Oh, no.

Labour Members should keep taking the tablets on page 24—or perhaps it is the latest Scottish opinion polls that they are worried about.

Does the Prime Minister recall the Deputy Prime Minister once telling the House that more people believed in Santa Claus than the claimant figures on unemployment? Why then is the document so complacent about unemployment figures? Is it not the case that, in Scotland, the International Labour Organisation figures, the ones that the Government used to believe in, have risen by 6,000 over the past year; that manufacturing employment is down 47,000 since the general election and now stands at its lowest level since the industrial revolution; and that the number of employees in full-time employment has declined since the last general election? Are any of those facts wrong? Why does none of them appear in the document? Do not the unemployed, instead of being offered soft soap, deserve an answer to those hard facts?

As for the point on the ILO figures, we published those figures for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given. As for unemployment, we accept entirely that there are still too many people unemployed. However, we are proud of the fact that so many people are back in work. We are proud, too, that because of policies such as the new deal—which the Scottish National party did not support—we have been able to give people who have been on benefits for years and years their first ever chance of a job.

In the end, politics is a choice. The very worst thing that could happen to the Scottish people would be to end up taking the road that the hon. Gentleman wants them to go down, wrenching Scotland out of the United Kingdom, and ending up with business and industry losing thousands of jobs as a result. We accept entirely—we do in the annual report, and I do now—that we have to do much more on jobs. However, certainly, it is this Government who are doing that, and it is the hon. Gentleman's party that would put all that at risk.

Is it not a fact that far too many people in our country—millions, in fact—are disadvantaged from birth onwards because of poverty and education limitations? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential for a Labour Government to continue to reverse what happened in the Tory years—the increase in inequalities and the deliberate widening of the gap between the social classes?

As for the national minimum wage—which, obviously, I would like to see increased—does my right hon. Friend recall that the Tories fought it at every possible opportunity? They made us sit up all night to debate that legislation, and they fought it as a matter of principle. Despite what they say now, we cannot trust them not to reverse it should they be re-elected to office.

Of course that is right. Conservative Members used to tell us that the moment we introduced the minimum wage, jobs would flood out of the country and there would be a massive rise in unemployment. Indeed, I think the Leader of the Opposition said that the minimum wage was the greatest job-destroying thing that any Government could possibly do. Now, in yet another somewhat humiliating policy U-turn, he has had to say that he wants the minimum wage to stay under the Conservatives. We shall examine very carefully the small print of that commitment.

My hon. Friend was right in another respect. As a result of the changes that we have made, there are 1 million fewer children in poverty at the end of this Parliament than there were when it began. That is a record of which we really can be proud.

May I tell the Prime Minister, with every respect, that his statement is about the Government's annual report? Although I would love the Conservative and Unionist party to be in government, it is his report with which the House should concern itself. Is it his view that depriving pension funds of £5 billion annually is a way of encouraging people to provide for their own retirement? By introducing that measure, is he not driving people ever more back on to the state and making them ever less dependent on their own savings?

No, I do not accept that. Since we came to office, stock market increases—which I think amount to 38 or 39 per cent—have substantially increased the value of those funds. We did make the change to dividend tax credits. However, we did that not only for reasons of public finance but because—from next year onwards, I think—there will be a significant flow back to companies in reduced corporation-tax receipts.

In the end, it is a matter of taking the decisions that are necessary to produce stability in the economy. When we produce that stability, we grow the economy. We have also avoided the recession that many Conservative Members predicted, and are now able to look ahead to years of steady growth. As I said, the stock market has been buoyant under this Government. Now, we are able—this is very important for pensioners and for everyone else—to get the investment into health care and the national health service that pensioners and others desperately need.

Will the Prime Minister take it from me that many figures have been bandied about today? The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the leader of the Scottish National party, told us that, since the general election, Scotland has lost 47,000 manufacturing jobs. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, between 1979 and 1997, in my constituency—in just one parliamentary constituency—we lost 30,000 manufacturing jobs? Those losses were delivered by a Government whom the SNP helped to deliver to this country. Since 1997, long-term unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 53 per cent. Will the Prime Minister give my constituents a guarantee that getting people back to work will remain a top priority?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the history of the SNP bringing about the previous Conservative Government. I can give her an assurance that we will certainly continue to tackle long-term unemployment. There has been a very substantial fall, but there is a lot more that we need to do.

Does the Prime Minister accept the estimate of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research that 80 per cent. of people coming off the new deal and into work would have found work without the new deal, or does he accept the Government's earlier estimate that only 60 per cent. would have found work without the new deal?

I think that I should correct the hon. Gentleman on what the national institute said. In fact, it said that 160,000 people had been helped off benefit and into work, that youth unemployment would have been double what it is today without the new deal and that, contrary to some reports, the new deal has been a success. I happen to know, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman visits some of the young people who have been on the new deal. Those young people had absolutely no chance at all of getting a job. They were virtually unemployable. They have been given proper training and proper skills and they are in work. That is one of the reasons, as the national institute points out, why long-term youth unemployment has fallen by 70 per cent. Some of us remember the Government whom the hon. Gentleman used to support, who put up unemployment in this country, who said that it was a price worth paying and who turned their back on thousands of British citizens who deserve the chance to get on.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he should not spend too much time worrying about what the Opposition have to say about spending surpluses because they were experts in building up very large deficits? As for the account from the front, the story is that the first Labour Government did not get a full second term because they finished up with more unemployment at the end than there was at the beginning. The second Labour Government fell foul of the same problem. The third Labour Government, in which I served, finished up with more unemployment at the end than at the beginning. There is a very high prospect that this Government will end up with around 1 million more jobs than when we started. That is good news, but it is not spread evenly around the country. We need to do more for the peripheral areas where the manufacturing base has been denuded. Finally, there are about 12 or 18 months to go before my right hon. Friend calls the next general election. This annual report shows a move in the right direction. My right hon. Friend should keep listening to the Labour and trade union movement and people like Jack Jones, the pensioners leader, and he will pull it off.

On my hon. Friend's first point about the deficit, he is absolutely right. The Conservatives doubled the national debt. Indeed, when we came to office we were paying more in interest payments on the debt than we were spending on the school system. One of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been able to announce today that we are able to increase spending within the overall Budget figures is precisely the diminution of interest payments on the debt. That is a significant step forward. It is also significant that today the Labour party—and the Labour Government—is the party of economic competence. That is a change from many years. As for jobs, it is important that we carry on with what we are doing. My hon. Friend is right to say that we must make sure that the message on jobs and the action on jobs gets spread to every single corner of the country. Some areas have suffered big industrial change affecting mining and other traditional industries and desperately need greater help. We will make sure that they get it.

The annual report says that it is

intended to set out what we have done…and what needs to be…done.

Let me remind the Prime Minister of one thing that he has done. He issued a new ministerial code in which he wrote:

I should like to reaffirm my strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their government… I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and the spirit of the Code.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not he agree that he needs to stand by his words and enforce the code? Is not his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister clearly in breach of paragraph 113, which refers to trade unions, by accepting the tenancy of a flat worth at least £1,000 a month to him?

First, the hon. Gentleman knows that that complaint has been dismissed. However, what is interesting and significant about the Opposition today is that they are making not a squeak on schools, hospitals or any other important matter. The House hears only pathetic little smears from a party that is not just unfit for government, but increasingly unfit for opposition.

When my right hon. Friend is considering where and how to make investments such as those reported in the annual report, does he take account of the effect on the 59 million people who receive the benefits of accident and emergency departments and cancer treatments, or of computers and books in schools? The list goes on and on. Or does he take account of acts of war and of God? What is it—people or pestilence?

I assure my hon. Friend that the investment that we have announced is the investment that we will carry out.

By happy coincidence, it is almost exactly a year since the Conservative party won the Eddisbury by-election, with an increased majority. I have spent my year travelling around the many schools in my constituency. Why does the annual report make no mention of the collapse of morale and enthusiasm among teachers as a result of initiative overload, interference and the imposition of centralisation? Is that not yet another example of spin over substance, and of the Government's contempt for the British people?

It is quite something when the Opposition have to congratulate themselves on holding seats that they managed to hold by a small margin. As for schools, nothing would harm teachers' morale more than cutting back on the extra investment that we are putting in. Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that schools in his constituency did not welcome the extra money that they got in the Budget? I bet they did welcome it. As a result of the commitments made by the shadow Chancellor, schools know that that investment would go if a Conservative Government were elected. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the additional investment that we are making—in schools, hospitals, transport and the police—is unsustainable. [Interruption.] They have just shouted out, "Not deliverable." There it is: it is not deliverable by them, but it is deliverable by us.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, when this Government came to power, there were 13.4 million people living in poverty, including 4 million children. Does he agree that those figures show the previous Conservative Government's total indifference to the neediest families in the country?

The figures do show that. Poverty and social division grew and, as a result, so did welfare spending. The previous Conservative Government increased welfare spending by an average of 4 per cent. in real terms, year on year on year. In fact, they increased welfare spending more than they increased spending on schools and hospitals. Because this Government are cutting unemployment, we are getting benefit payments down. If the extra money that we have deliberately made available for pensioners and child benefit is taken out, it is clear that welfare bills are falling. What the Tories did was not just unfair, it was inefficient and went against the basic requirement of a modern economy—that we use and develop the talents of all our people, and not just of the few.

I thought page 24 was some sort of opinion poll. Is there anything in this annual report for rural areas? It seems to me that there is not. Three and a half years into this Government, many rural areas are still saddled with a Conservative distribution formula that causes our schools and schoolchildren to lose out. When is something going to be done about that, and when will we have an annual report that says that resources are fairly distributed across the whole country?

Of course, there are things in the report for rural areas, noticeably the increased investment in transport. I was talking yesterday about the issue of rural post offices and how important that is as well. Rural areas, too, benefit from a strong economy. But I understand that we need to do more in areas such as the one that the hon. Gentleman represents. In particular, we need to do more investing in the essential infrastructure of the country. I believe that we now have the resources, through economic stability, the fall in debt repayments and the fall in unemployment benefit claimants, to put that investment in.

rose—

Order. We shall now move on.