When he last met the First Secretary to discuss the impact of the 2000 spending review on local government. [130876]

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 spending review on local government in Wales. [130886].

Madam Speaker, as this is the last occasion on which you will preside over Welsh questions, may I, on behalf of all Welsh Members of Parliament, wish you well in your retirement?

Given that the National Assembly has that flexibility in allocating spending in Wales, will my right hon. Friend confirm that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent statement on spending has the direct consequence that an extra £338 million could be available for local government in Wales over three years, and that additional sums could also be available for education, housing and social services? Will he also confirm that those welcome additional resources will be badly needed by local government as it takes up new duties and challenges in the provision of services, especially for children and elderly people?

I can confirm that, if the National Assembly were to spend the consequential amounts on the services to which my hon. Friend referred, the figure that he gave would be correct. As I said earlier, it is entirely for the National Assembly to decide how to spend its money. However, I am sure that the Assembly and the House will agree that the settlement that Wales received last week from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which amounts to £2,000 million over and above the normal increases over the past three years, is the best settlement that Wales has received for many years.

Will my right hon. Friend get the message across to all the people in Wales that this is the best settlement that local government has ever had? Should not local government be satisfied with what it has got and begin to ensure the proper provision of housing, education and other services? Should not the £101 million that has been given for housing in Wales be used to tackle the backlog of repairs and shortages that the Tories left in Wales when they left government?

My ministerial colleagues and I will do everything that we can to get that message across. My hon. Friend is right to say that, after nearly two decades of neglect, there is much to be done in Wales, especially in the valley communities that he and I represent. That is why objective 1 status was given to west Wales and the valleys, and why we are extremely pleased at today's news that the European Commission has finally given its approval to the plan for objective 1 status.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) quoted figures for local government and education, and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) quoted a figure for housing. However, would not the total be £80 million a year higher if that same amount did not have to be taken out of the Welsh block to provide match funding for the European projects? We welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of the decision in Brussels, but local government in Wales is very worried at the news from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that it expects an increase in council tax of as much as 10 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that enough money will be provided to prevent that?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that last week's settlement with regard to structural funds means that £421 million extra is going to Wales, over and above the Barnett formula. We have never had that money—nearly £0.5 billion extra—in the past. It releases money in the block for match funding, and is therefore excellent news for Wales. I believe that local government will be very glad to receive the settlement, and I only wish that Plaid Cymru was glad too.

The question asks when the Secretary of State last met the First Secretary. We have the honour of having the First Secretary with us today. May I take the opportunity of congratulating him on his recent appointment as a Privy Councillor?

First, the National Assembly is looking very carefully at the way in which it distributes its grant. There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a consultation process taking place which will be completed in September, to which he and others can make representations.

Although I think that most people would accept that this settlement is the best that Wales has had, at any time and from any Government, my local authority is concerned that the formula for the distribution of local authority moneys by the National Assembly still does not take deprivation into account. As the poorest authority in Wales, we expect that formula to reflect poverty and to begin to rectify some of the injustices of many a long year.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. He has raised the matter with me on a number of occasions. Again, I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). The National Assembly is reviewing the way in which the grant is distributed in Wales, and there is a consultation period that ends in September. I hope that both my hon. Friend and his local authority of Blaenau Gwent will be making representations to the Assembly. I hope that that review will take into account the deprivation to which he quite rightly refers.

if he will make a statement on trends in farm incomes in Wales. [130877]

The Government and the National Assembly for Wales have taken all appropriate steps to assist Welsh farmers to achieve a sustainable agricultural industry. I am hopeful that the Agenda 2000 common agricultural policy reforms, coupled with the rural development plan for Wales and the industry's own resilience and coherent approach to rural development in Wales, will result in an improved level of farm incomes in Wales.

We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly is present today, for which we are very grateful. Will the Minister give his view on why the Welsh Agriculture and Rural Development Secretary, Christine Gwyther, has been dismissed? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that is important, because the farming crisis in Wales is particularly acute? Average hill farming incomes have fallen this year to just over £2,700. What will the hon. Gentleman do about this crisis, which affects much of rural wales?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that decisions on the Assembly Cabinet are rightly and properly a matter for the First Secretary, and that it is not for me to comment. However, jointly, the Assembly—with Christine Gwyther in position—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I secured at the No. 10 Downing street summit an extra £14.7 million in Wales for less favoured areas, an extra £10.6 million agrimonetary compensation in Wales and an additional £2 million to be spent on business advice to farmers. That is in stark contrast to the BSE party.

Thank you for calling me, Madam Speaker. We send our very best wishes for your retirement from these Benches.

There is certainly a partnership between the National Assembly and the British Government to help to support and develop farm incomes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the Royal Welsh show yesterday; my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is there today; and I am going tomorrow. We shall listen to farmers and work in conjunction with the devolved administration to ensure that we support farmers and help them to develop and improve their incomes. The Government have given more than £19,000 of direct subsidy, on average, to each farm in Wales. That is a positive step by the Government. We shall do what we can to help to support farmers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Welsh farmers will benefit from the Government's success in securing objective 1 funding, that Wales is benefiting from the success in agrimonetary compensation that has been achieved following the Downing street summit and that, under the previous Government, not a penny of objective 1 funding or agrimonetary compensation was secured from Europe?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: objective 1 was secured by the Labour Government, and it will benefit rural areas. The nationalists said that they could not do that; the Tories would not do it; but Labour did it.

What recent discussions he has had regarding the matching of European regional funds. [130878]

The excellent spending review settlement for Wales announced last week included an additional £421 million for the structural funds programmes in Wales. That settlement unlocks funding within the block to meet match funding requirements.

In the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman has had with the First Secretary, did the First Secretary query whether all the funding is additional and fully matches the European funds? After all, the previous First Secretary had to resign because he could not get that from the Government. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all the match funding represents additional funds over and above the Barnett formula and all the normal streams of funds that go to Wales?

As I explained moments ago, the £421 million, which amounts to £1.2 billion or £1.3 billion over nine years, that will come from Brussels is wholly additional to the block and to Barnett. The hon. Gentleman should remind himself that, for the 21 years that structural funding came to this country, not one penny was extra to the block, and it has taken a Labour Government to change that. It comes very rich from the Conservative party to tell us in Wales how to deal with public finances, given that the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor would put public services in peril because they intend to cut public finances.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to give the Conservatives some credit for achieving objective 1 for Wales because, in 1979, the economy of Wales was mid-table of the 13 regions of the United Kingdom but, in 1997, when the Conservatives left office, we were bottom of the table?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As he has said in the past couple of days about objective 1, we must get on with the schemes and projects with the people of Wales. The more we squabble, and the more people whinge about the excellent settlement, the less easy it will be to begin those schemes and projects. It is an excellent settlement for Wales, and we all know it.

It is clear from the statements made last week that the European Commission's share of funds for objective 1 will be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. It is also clear that the social fund will be taken from the Department for Education and Employment and given to the National Assembly. As the Secretary of State has said, that provides £421 million over three years, and we do not dispute that figure.

I explained to the hon. Gentleman at some length in the Welsh Grand Committee how we would deal with the funds needed for programme match. They need not necessarily come from the block, but might come, for example, from lottery money, from money from the Department for Education and Employment or from the private sector. Where the match funds come from can vary. The hon. Gentleman seems not to understand—or does not want to understand—that this is a huge and significant breakthrough in how we deal with public finances in Wales. The overall settlement of an extra £2 billion is an enormous improvement on anything that Conservative Governments dreamt of, let alone gave us.

My constituency would like access to the funds under discussion, but, in their absence, would be happy to accept a regional grant of £25 million for 1,400 aerospace jobs. Does my right hon. Friend know that a far-away, secretive quango is proving an obstacle to our getting those jobs? How can he help'? Will he talk to the First Secretary and deliver the £25 million grant?

My right hon. Friend has rightly raised that matter several times, as he represents Broughton. He is aware that the Government are committed to ensuring the success of the project and have given a loan of more than £500 million. Discussions are still under way in the National Assembly, and my right hon. Friend can rest assured that I shall take the matter up with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the new deal for young people. [130880]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales regularly meets the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues. I also hold regular meetings with the Assembly Secretary for Education and Training. One of the Government's chief aims is to get young people into work so that they can play a full and productive part in society. At the end of April, almost 14,900 young people in Wales had entered employment through the new deal programme.

Given the facts that only 13 per cent. of new deal participants in Wales leave the scheme for unsubsidised employment, that only 10 per cent. of those on the training and education option end up with a qualification when they finish it, and that those participants are twice as likely not to get a job as they are to get one, why does the Minister not give up the unequal struggle, admit that his scheme is an expensive flop and offer an unqualified apology to the people of Wales?

At almost every Welsh questions since I was appointed a Minister, the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. At almost every Welsh question, we have proved that he is wrong. Some 14,900 people are in work in Wales because of the new deal. The Chancellor has extended the programme and made it permanent. One thing is clear: the Conservative party would scrap it. Perhaps on your retirement, Madam Speaker, given the hon. Gentleman's persistence, you might take him with you.

Will my hon. Friend ignore the sneering nonsense of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and recognise, as many of us do, the tremendous importance of the new deal in giving hope to young people in our communities? Will he ensure that new deal money and the programme's success are linked to objective 1 to multiply the benefits of both schemes?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The new deal is a Labour initiative, which has created great employment prospects in the valleys and throughout Wales, and will be maximised when it is linked to objective 1. A key fact is that the Conservative party opposed the new deal and would not support additional funds for objective 1.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the subject of the comprehensive spending review in relation to Home Office matters in Wales. [130881]

I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues.

Has the Secretary of State seen the report in today's Western Mail that, of almost £7 million allocated by the Home Office to deal with domestic violence in England and Wales, this month Wales was allocated only £31,000, even though there were 15,000 reported incidents of domestic violence in Wales last year? Has the Secretary of State taken that up with the Home Secretary, and are those figures correct? If they are, and if the Secretary of State has not made representations, will he talk to the Home Secretary urgently so that resources that the community clearly feels are needed can be provided to deal with domestic violence in Wales?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and the importance of these matters, especially given the news in the past few days about the terrible events in Barry. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I shall, of course, raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

May I welcome the extra money that was given to Wales last week for rural policing, especially the £1.3 million that is being given to Dyfed-Powys police in my area? Does the Secretary of State welcome, as I do, the fact that that will enable the new chief constable, Terry Grange, to carry out plans to increase police numbers and open new police stations in the Dyfed-Powys area? Does that not contrast clearly with the position of the previous Government, who flatly refused to allow Dyfed police to take on a further 72 officers?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Dyfed-Powys received a considerable increase, as did north Wales, which received £770,000 extra, and my own county of Gwent, which received £103,000, which effectively means that there will be an extra 5,000 recruits in addition to the usual 11,000. Wales will get extra 223 police officers, distributed throughout Dyfed-Powys, Gwent, north Wales and south Wales. On top of that, last week's announcement means that we shall have even more police recruits.

Does the Secretary of State predict a rise or fall in crime in Wales next year?

It is not for me to predict anything. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the latest statistics show that recorded crime in Wales fell by 2.5 per cent last year, against a 3.8 per cent. rise in England and Wales as a whole. The largest fall in crime was in south Wales, where there was a reduction of 5.8 per cent.

What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 spending review on health and social services in Wales. [130882]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the First Secretary on a regular basis in the run-up to the 2000 spending review. The excellent settlement secured for Wales includes amounts consequential on allocations to the Department of Health which can be allocated by the National Assembly to improve health care throughout Wales.

When my hon. Friend next meets the Assembly's Health and Social Services Secretary, will he encourage her to use the unique opportunity of £750 million over the next three years to rise above vested interests and parochial concerns, and to invest and build a health service in Wales fit for the 21st century? Will he encourage her to find a fair funding formula based on people's health needs, and establish that throughout Wales?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that additional resources are now available to the National Assembly to secure support and improve investment in the national health service in Wales. This year, the Budget gave £1,300 million extra to the NHS in Wales, and consequentials from the Department of Health will allow Assembly Secretary Jane Hutt an opportunity to ensure greater development of health services in Wales. It is clear that the Conservative party would not be able to meet those commitments, and health care would be poorer in Wales as a result.

Is it not true that people in Wales are being kept off the in-patient waiting list by being kept on the out-patient waiting list longer than ever before? When the Government came to power, the number of people waiting over three months for a first outpatient appointment was 28,401; today, that figure is 84,684. If anybody feels unwell in Wales, they should look not for an ambulance, but for a train so that they can get better health treatment outside Wales. When will the Minister ensure that the people of Wales get a better health service—indeed, the health service that they were promised at the last general election?

Where would the Conservative party find the £1.3 billion extra this year if their tax guarantee were in place? Waiting lists and waiting times are important to the Welsh Assembly and to this Government. We have put the money in place to deal with them, and the hon. Gentleman's party would cut it.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 July.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

I am sure that the whole House endorses the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister.

I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in this matter as chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky group. I accept entirely that the problem of smuggling exists, which is why we are taking action on it, but this is not a matter of small change. We need to maintain the real value of Government revenue, and the cost simply of freezing all alcohol duties on an indexed basis this year would be £165 million. I am afraid that that is money that we desperately need for the very public service changes that I know my hon. Friend wants.

May I join the Prime Minister in expressing our sadness at yesterday's terrible air crash in Paris, with the loss of 113 lives? We join him in passing on our deepest condolences to the families in Germany and France—and now, we understand, one in Britain—who have lost their loved ones. As one of the partners in the Concorde enterprise, and given that our own air accidents investigation branch has unrivalled expertise, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be involved in the inquiry into the crash and will he assure the French Government that we stand ready to help in any way that we can?

I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that we stand ready to help in any way that we can. I understand that our people are co-operating with the French authorities.

I am grateful for that reply. May I now turn to a domestic political issue?

No, I believe that clause 28 is a piece of prejudice. It is right to remove it and I remain committed to removing it. The objection to its repeal—that somehow we would allow schools to have homosexual sex education lessons—and all the rest of the propaganda that was put forward during the course of the campaign has now been comprehensively put down and rubbished by the amendments that we have put forward, so, no I do not agree with him. It is the right thing to do and I believe that we should do it.

If the Prime Minister does not recognise that the Lords are more in touch with the country on this issue, it shows how out of touch he has become. He could at least listen to his own supporters in his own party on the issue: the Labour peer Lord Stoddart who said

there has been an outcry…throughout the country

misunderstand the mood of our people.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 February 2000; Vol. 609, c. 444–76.]

A lot of the public concern on this was based on the belief that somehow, as a result of repealing clause 28, schools would be forced or allowed to teach gay sex education in schools. That is simply not true. As a result of the amendments tabled to the Learning and Skills Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows now, it is made absolutely clear that sex education is for schools, parents and teachers, and, what is more, that any parent has the right absolutely to withdraw their children from sex education.

That was a nice lecture from Mr. Eye-catching Initiative himself, wasn't it? Has not the right hon. Gentleman's crusade for political correctness gone far enough? He has been told by Church leaders to scrap his campaign; he has been told by Parliament to scrap it; he has been told by the public at every opportunity to scrap it; he has packed the other House full of his cronies and he still cannot get it through the other House. Will he now scrap the repeal of section 28 from the next Session and from his next election manifesto?

I repeat that the reason I believe it is right to repeal the clause is that, having taken account of the one serious objection put forward by people—their worry about sex education in schools—it is now a piece of prejudice pure and simple. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, I know that and so do Members of the House.

Is it not a hallmark of recent months that the Prime Minister is more and more adrift from the people of this country? He presses on today with section 28; he has let out thousands of violent criminals ahead of their parole date; he is spending millions of pounds on preparing to join a currency opposed by the British people; he has raised taxes on the poorest households in the country; and then he sends round a pathetic memo asking if anyone knows why he is out of touch. Does he agree that the Government—and this even applies to him—are out of touch with "gut British instincts"?

I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is not raising today the economy or public services. Why is he not doing so? It is because he has nothing to say about the real issues. I will tell him what concerns the British people: jobs—a million extra of them; the lowest inflation in Europe; interest rates at half the level that they were under the Tories; and extra spending on schools, hospitals, law and order and transport. The right hon. Gentleman's jokes are all very well, but he should get to the Dispatch Box now and debate the real policies.

We shall debate the real policies. There are 2,500 fewer police than there were three years ago; 150,000 more people are waiting to see a hospital consultant now than three years ago; and 98,000 more violent crimes were committed in this country last year than in the previous year. That has happened under the Prime Minister's stewardship. It is a pity that he cannot agree that the Government are out of touch with "gut British instincts" because he wrote that. He is out of touch not only with the people but with himself.

We finally got the right hon. Gentleman down to policy. He wants more police on the beat; that means more spending. He wants fewer people on waiting lists; that means more spending. He wants extra money for schools; that means more spending. We are committed to spending more money on such programmes. However, the right hon. Gentleman has a policy of £16 billion worth of cuts. Perhaps when he next gets to his feet, he can explain last week's Conservative party research department note. It is very interesting, and tells us where the spending cuts will be made.

We will match the spending on health that Labour announced in the Budget.

We will match what we can afford.

We will match what we can afford.

We will match what we can afford.

We will match what we can afford.

I call Mr. Eddie O'Hara.

Where is the last question from the Leader of the Opposition?

Order. I can count. I call Mr. O'Hara.

As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, may I take the opportunity to thank you publicly, Madam Speaker, for your distinguished service to the House, and wish you all you wish for yourself in your retirement?

Of course, my hon. Friend is right about the Conservatives' record. They scrapped the earnings link, they put 1.5 million pensioners in poverty and they increased VAT on fuel. It was right for us to make pensioner poverty a priority. Consequently, 1 million pensioners are up to £20 a week better off through the minimum income guarantee, and 3 million pensioners will benefit from free television licences for the over-75s. On top of that, the winter fuel allowance is now £150. We know for certain that the Tories would take every one of those benefits from pensioners.

May I entirely associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the perfectly correct condolences expressed by the Prime Minister and the Conservative party leader following yesterday's tragedy? Moving back to the domestic political agenda and, indeed, the earlier exchanges, may I ask the Prime Minister when the Government propose to repeal section 28?

We have said that we will declare our position at some later time. We are obviously considering the best way to do so, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we remain committed to repealing clause 28 because that is the right thing to do

Does the Prime Minister agree, however, that even though the pose that the leader of the Tory party is yet again adopting on this matter is an affront, an equal but different constitutional affront is the fact that if a deal had not been done with Lord Cranborne, the hereditary peers still in the House of Lords would not have been in a position to thwart the clear, overwhelming view of the democratically elected House of Commons? I encourage him to continue and to stick to his convictions over the repeal of section 28, but will he go further and commit himself to establishing—sooner rather than later—a completely and thoroughly democratically elected House of Lords?

I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks, but on his opening comment it is important that we repeal section 28 for the reasons that I gave earlier. We have dealt with the one justifiable objection that people had. We have even made sure that the very objection made to one particular piece of propaganda, which is the only piece that could ever be pointed to by opponents of the repeal—namely, something issued by Avon health authority—can be made no longer. There is absolute protection for parents and teachers and children in school.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent settlement for Wales in last week's comprehensive spending review? He will know that during the past year the Welsh nationalists have mounted a virulent and corrosive campaign over match funding. However, the settlement gives a 5.4 per cent. real-terms increase across all public spending and an extra £421 million for objective 1 funding. Does he agree that the priority is to develop imaginative schemes that will provide long-term jobs and growth in the gross domestic product, and help to repair the 18 years of damage under Conservative government?

Of course the objective 1 additional funding that has been made available for the next three years—some £420 million over and above the Barnett formula—will do a great deal for regeneration in Wales. Also, as a result of the new deal and, indeed, the strength of the economy, unemployment in Wales has fallen considerably. Once again, my hon. Friend will note that the additional objective 1 money in Wales is precisely what would fall under the cosh of the Tories' £16 billion spending cuts

What would the Prime Minister say to my constituent Mr. Alistair Scott of Wanlockhead whose 30-year-old haulage business has just closed, largely because he cannot compete and return loads from England because he is up against hauliers who have many vehicles based in France, where they can buy DERV at 54p a litre as against 84p a litre in this country? What would he tell Mr. Scott—that things can only get better?

First, the hon. Gentleman's political party has not merely made no commitment whatever on petrol duty, but is committed to putting taxes up for business in Scotland. Secondly, it is of course correct to say that petrol prices have been higher here. I have explained on many occasions the reasons for that. It was important that we removed the deficit that we inherited when we came to office. The very best thing for business as a whole in Scotland and the rest of the UK is a strong, well-run economy. Under this Government, it has got that.

My constituency has some of the worst health statistics in the country, which is why the extra money for the NHS is most welcome. However, do we not have to ensure that those resources are targeted where they are most needed, and efficiently delivered? That is why the NHS national plan is most important. We do not need what the Leader of the Opposition talked about in his speech yesterday—the privatisation of the NHS.

The Opposition are committed to taking £1 billion for their private medical insurance plans, and that money will come straight out of the national health service. The benefit of the spending review is that it allows us to make an investment in our hospitals and in our primary care facilities, and to increase the number of nurses and doctors in the NHS. Taken together with the other spending—investment in education, skills and transport infrastructure—it offers the genuine chance of opportunity and security for all in our society.

:The Prime Minister will be aware of a recent report commissioned by Britain's top universities, which recommended charging students top-up fees of up to £4,500 a year. Will he give the House a categorical assurance that the Government will not introduce top-up fees for students, and would not introduce them if they were re-elected?

We have no plans to introduce top-up fees. It is important that we get additional funds into our universities. Therefore, under the spending review we are putting extra money into the university system, which is vastly in excess of anything that he, as a Liberal Democrat, promised his electorate at the last election.

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that politics is essentially about choices? People gloat at memo leaks while the Government get on with the job of repairing leaking school roofs that have disfigured our education system for too long; they concentrate on spin doctors while the Government get on with the job of recruiting new doctors to rebuild our national health service; and they launch bogus campaigns to save the pound while the Government deliver an economy of 1 million new jobs. My right hon. Friend's initials may be "TB", but "not to be" is the destiny of the Conservative party.

I certainly agree that there are clear choices. There is the choice between stability and boom and bust, and between lower unemployment under this Government and higher unemployment under the Conservative party. It is difficult to know exactly what choice to make when one reads interviews such as that with the shadow Chancellor in The Spectator a day or two ago. He was asked by the interviewer whether his plans meant that he would announce lower spending. He replied:

We reject the language of cuts.

You mean you won't be cutting?

We may or may not be spending less.

Does the Prime Minister believe that focus groups are the stuff of leadership?

No. That is why, when we announce our additional expenditure plans or even when we take positions that are put to me by the leader of his party as unpopular, we do what is right.

As this is the last Prime Minister's questions that you will preside over, Madam Speaker, may I congratulate you on controlling this near riot every week? If the Prime Minister offers you a law and order job, please accept it.

To be fair, Ofsted has indeed replied. It points out that the findings rely on analysis of only about 30 reports out of a total of more than 30,000. It also says, however, that the CRE report contains criticisms that it will take on board, which I think is the right and responsible thing for it to do.

Millions of people take their main holiday abroad nowadays, but many also take a second holiday in a United Kingdom seaside resort. Will the Prime Minister give a lead to his hon. Friends and the country, and take a second holiday in one of those UK seaside resorts which have so much to offer the holiday visitor?

I will certainly consider that carefully, but at present I am concentrating on my first holiday.

Is the Prime Minister aware that extra education spending in my constituency has halved the number of infants in classes of more than 30 and financed 48 projects under the new deal for schools, many in the most deprived areas? Which of those investments in our young people does he think could be described as "reckless"—the extra teachers, the new classrooms, or the newly announced sure start programme for Warrington? Will he tell my constituents how many of those projects he thinks could survive £24 million worth of Tory cuts?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that many of the things that have been done in schools in her constituency, and constituencies up and down the country, are a result of the new deal. The Conservative party is opposed to the new deal, and committed to scrapping it.

Can the Prime Minister explain why, if state-owned British Nuclear Fuels can find £40 million from public funds to compensate the Japanese for nuclear fuel problems, we cannot find some public funds to compensate Britain's former Japanese prisoners of war?

As I have said before, we will make our decision on the issue of Japanese prisoners of war in due course; but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other Conservative Member can come to the House and start asking us to increase public spending. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that he wants more spending when his party is committed to cutting spending.

The economies we have to find, I admit, will not be easy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we head for the recess, the overwhelming majority of the British people are satisfied that we have focused not just on the needs of the moment, but on the needs of the next three years? We are not spending money on diversions, but are focusing on health, education and dealing with crime, as people want us to. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that our direction is the direction of the British people?

That money is going directly into the services that people need. As the Chancellor pointed out last week, the big difference is that whereas under the last Government 42p in every pound of additional spending went on social security and interest payments on debt, under this Government 83p in the pound goes to the very public services that the country wants. Not only will we create a more just society through our spending, but we will create the economic prosperity of the future.

Just three weeks ago, the Prime Minister gave three reasons for refusing to drop his Bill to take away the right of every individual citizen to choose trial by jury. Is he aware that every one of those reasons has been demonstrated to be incorrect? First, he said that the Bill was supported by the Lord Chief Justice, but we now know that the Lord Chief Justice had written to the Home Secretary expressing strong misgivings. Secondly, he said that it was supported by the Runciman royal commission. [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order and hear the question.

Secondly, the Prime Minister said that it was supported by the Runciman royal commission, but Professor Zander of that commission has expressly disavowed the Bill. Thirdly, he said that it would save money, and we now know that two thirds of that money comes from the fact that it is supposed that old lags with many previous convictions who now get 11 months' imprisonment will get just three and a half months from the magistrates. Does the Prime Minister accept that all his reasons were wrong?

No, I do not accept that any of them are wrong. I will send the right hon. and learned Gentleman the comments of the Lord Chief Justice supporting what we are doing. I will send him the comments of the royal commission supporting such a change. I will also send him the evidence from Scotland, where they have had such a change for many years without any of the problems that he claims for it here. As for the spending gains, yes the Bill will free up extra resources for the criminal justice system, although I have to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, as a result of his shadow Chancellor, even if it were the right thing to do, he could not afford to do it.

Thank you. Time's up.

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, after "religion", insert—

'or for giving a false answer to that question'.

Amend the Census Act 1920 to enable particulars to be required in respect of religion.

Not doing something which statute requires you to do is unlawful.

I note what my hon. Friend says about the answer "None", but if an individual answered "Not applicable", how would that be interpreted?

I must answer that on my feet, as it were, but I think that that would constitute a refusal to answer the question, and would therefore not attract a penalty. If, however, a Sikh wrote "Church of England", that would attract a penalty.

The Bill in its present form is in my view unconstitutional. Parliament cannot, without flouting constitutional principle, adopt the Bill in its present form.

But if it does, and if the Courts…have to recognise it as an Act of Parliament, that will not be the end of the matter. Apart from any possible effect of the Human Rights Act from October onwards, the draft Census Order, when available (prescribing the Census questions, including the religious questions) will be challengeable by judicial review—preferably by challenge to the decision to prescribe the questions, and preferably before any approving resolution of either House of Parliament.

I have some sympathy with the amendment. The description that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has given, and the opinion that he has quoted, seem to reveal a fairly fatal flaw in the Bill. What we will have under the proposed statute is an event for which no penalty applies, but which in itself remains unlawful. That does not seem at first sight to be good legislation. I should be grateful if the Minister reassured us that that is not the interpretation that should be made of clause 1(2), because it seems unsatisfactory.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that amendment No. 1 does not fully cure the Bill's inadequacies. An amendment that I tabled in Committee, which was rejected by the Government, would have made the question genuinely voluntary. Unfortunately, however, hon. Members cannot table the same amendment twice. In amendment No. 1, therefore, we are trying as best we can to highlight the Bill's flaws, while acknowledging that it is the second-best route to remedying weaknesses that will be put on the statute book if the Bill is passed.

The House will be indebted to my hon. Friend not only for the information that he has just supplied but for his efforts to improve the Bill's drafting in Committee. I am only sorry that I myself was not selected to share in that work.

The census procedure must be accurate, and it must be wrong to provide inaccurate answers to the questions asked. I see no inconsistency in providing for a question that is wholly voluntary, giving the form-filler the option of answering it, and imposing no penalty on those who do not answer it. A person in that category is entirely distinguishable from one who provides bizarre or inaccurate information whose effect would be to defeat the object of the census itself, which is to provide accurate information that can be used for planning and other purposes.

Religion is a very personal matter, and it is quite possible for people to be unsure whether they are one thing or the other. Some people may be in the midst of a conversion, for example, perhaps thinking that they are religious when they are not. Such people may be worried about providing inaccurate information, particularly if the information that they provide is to be checked. I think that that issue goes to the heart of the problems with the Bill.

I am not entirely sure that most people are confused about their religious convictions. However, even if they were, the census is only a snapshot, recording the particular religion that people profess when completing the form. I believe that no one is likely to be prosecuted if he or she has a change of view after completing the form.

I listened intently and with interest to the intervention of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). In relation to the scenario that he described, in reflecting on the percentage of those who may fall into that category, may I ask the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) how many noughts he thinks there would be after the decimal point before a figure appeared?

I suspect that the percentage would be very small indeed, and that very few people change their religion. Although I do not think that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was asking an irrelevant question, I think that the number of such people would not be important statistically. What is important is that the information given is accurate to the best of the form-filler's ability. I believe that the Bill provides for that, and I believe that it will happen. What is most important is accuracy, and the Government's ability to analyse the information.

The hon. Gentleman has laid great stress on the need for accurate responses. The Government spokesman in the Lords pointed out that if the question were voluntary, the information collected, not only on that question but on others, would be rendered valueless. He said:

it has been shown that making a question voluntary seriously affects the response not only to the question itself where response bias could devalue the information obtained, but also as regards other questions because people are confused about some questions being voluntary and others being compulsory.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1717.]

I do not believe that that is so. All that the proposal will do is affect the sample. Obviously, the larger the sample, the more accurate the outcome. The only thing that will have an effect on its level of inaccuracy is people giving inaccurate responses. As in any opinion poll or survey there is wide variance, and the more people complete it, the more accurate it is. If fewer people choose not to complete the census because of its voluntary nature, it will not be as accurate.

This is all becoming ludicrously confusing. What started as a fairly straightforward, if unacceptable, proposition that the state should pry into some of the most private aspects of people's lives through the vehicle of the census—I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not want us to debate that at this stage, although I hope that we shall have an opportunity to do so at some length on Third Reading—has become a matter of important detail.

Will the right hon. Gentleman speculate on how the Government might want to check the accuracy of answers that people give to the question?

The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted something that I wanted to come to later. He will not want to deflect me from my introductory remarks—will he? He will recognise that we are at the throat-clearing stage, and that we shall come to the substance in due course. I am sure that, with his generosity of spirit, he would not want to hurry me through that process.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are many things one can learn about people that will make the job of Government easier. How people vote would be an extremely useful thing for Governments to know, but putting such a question on a form, even if answering it were voluntary, and saying that people will have committed an offence if the question is answered inaccurately, would make us pause for serious thought. Those who oppose the amendment have to answer the question: where will it all end?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing up that theme—I might want to pick it up later, albeit not in the current debate—because it does indeed give rise to serious thoughts. If we can start by probing people's religious beliefs, where will we finish? However, as I said, that is a matter for another debate, probably on Third Reading.

My right hon. Friend should not be surprised—the current Government might well want to count up the number of people who have lost faith.

I suspect that they would not want to count the membership of a group that is growing so alarmingly, as other sources of information have told us.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that his argument in respect of such practices applies to differential weighting not only between people of different religious faiths, but between people of religious faith and those of no religious faith?

I shall not be tempted by my hon. Friend's question, because I think that the matter is one for Third Reading. However, it is an issue to which I shall return, because we have not yet heard a satisfactory explanation of what the Government think will be the effects on their policy determination of the answers that they believe will flow from the exercise. To be blunt—I do not want to be delayed on this point now—what policies will be directed at people who have no religious faith as a result of the exercise? I shall return to that question. I flag it up and move on rapidly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to lead me astray.

I would not dream of it.

That must be the danger. I hope that the Minister will spend a little time to see whether she can satisfy the doubts in the hon. Gentleman's mind and in mine about the multilayering of inaccuracy that is starting to enter the process.

I agree that it is difficult to fathom why individuals should want to vouchsafe false information. However, does my right hon. Friend agree with me—I think that it is relevant in terms of the purport of the amendment—that personal advantage is unlikely to be a motivating factor, given the many people who are expected to respond to the census and among whom any increased resources would over a period be spread?

I am not sure whether that is so. There may be no individual personal advantage to be gained, but there could be group or community advantage. That is one of the more worrying aspects of the measure. We must try to flush out from the Government whether it is conceivable that a group of people could seek not only to identify themselves through the process, but to magnify—perhaps it would be more accurate to say maximise—their numbers in order to gain the policy advantages that we must assume underlie the entire exercise.

Is it not more likely that those seeking to maximise their numbers may be the smaller religions that sought to pass some threshold requirement for a particular policy or for a programme of national expenditure?

That disturbing possibility exists, and it brings me to my next point. How on earth will the accuracy of the information be verified or verifiable, making it useful as data? One can self-evidently verify whether someone has answered a question. The response is either there on the form or it is not. However, when we come to my hon. Friend's amendment and his introduction of the concept of false information, matters become much more complicated.

In case hon. Members consider the case to be purely theoretical, may I give a personal example? I was born Jewish, of a Jewish mother, and there are many people born of Jewish fathers who may be considered Jewish or may consider themselves Jewish. I consider myself Jewish culturally, but I do not have religious belief. I would be worried, as would others, about giving an inaccurate answer whichever way I filled in the form, especially if an inaccurate answer would leave me liable to some sort of penalty.

That, of course, is true. Perhaps the Minister will be able to help us as she takes us through the process—in some detail, I hope—and tells us how she envisages the mechanism will work, how the policing or verification of it will be carried out and how, in the absence of penalties, any of it will be at all meaningful.

The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made a good and challenging point. I do not want to be too introspective, but I too am Jewish, although my parentage is different from that of the hon. Gentleman. I identify passionately with the Jewish people and the state of Israel, but I confess that these days I go to synagogue only for funerals.

I hope that this does not get out of hand, but the Jewish faith is losing adherents at an alarming rate even in this brief debate. Perhaps I should sit down before the process goes much further.

Yet again, I follow the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It is becoming a habit. Last Friday, the right hon. Gentleman blocked the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill. He was within his rights to do so, but the Bill was extremely important to the Jewish community in my constituency. This Bill is important to them also, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not repeat his efforts to delay or block this Bill. That would inflict a double whammy on the Jewish community throughout the country.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I do not want to block the Bill. I want to make progress.

rose—

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to people wanting to boost the Church of England somehow. They could either put "Church of England" or tick the Christian box, which embraces all the various denominations of the Christian Church.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not give way.

I shall have to begin my speech by addressing some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). [Interruption.] The Government Whip has suggested, from a sedentary position, that I stick to the amendment, which the hon. Member for Hendon was certainly not doing.

Order. Perhaps I can help the House. I allowed the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) considerable leeway in putting his arguments, many of which appeared to me to be more appropriate to a Third Reading debate than to this amendment. I fear that other right hon. and hon. Members may have been led astray by the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he would not want that to happen, and I certainly do not.

I just wanted to clarify that I shall not be dealing with the principle of a voluntary Bill which, as I said, I would be prepared to support, or the usefulness of the information when it has been collected, although I have my doubts about that. Nor shall I be discussing the cost-effectiveness of the measure, even though there are good arguments that survey data might provide such information more effectively and cheaply.

Underneath the question will appear the statement "This question is voluntary".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 July 2000; c. 13.]

these matters have been checked.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 July 2000; c. 16.]

It would not be lawful to state on the form that the question was voluntary as the Minister proposes (in Standing Committee). As there is no power under the Act, as amended by the Bill in its present form, to include voluntary questions, to provide for such a statement in regulations would be ultra vires, the statement itself on the form would be unlawful and both would therefore be open to challenge by way of judicial review.

Were the Government to persist in describing the questions as voluntary, which we are confident would be ultra vires, it would be laying itself open to an adverse judicial review decision at any time before the census.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray into arguments that he might wish to put on Third Reading if he were to catch the eye of the Chair. He must speak to the amendment, to which I thought he had finally returned a moment ago.

The amendment is intended to show the weakness of the Bill. I shall draw my remarks to a close by saying that it seems incomprehensible to me that the Government are not prepared either to accept the amendment or to table an alternative. The only reason that I can provide as to why they are not prepared to do so is that they have a huge legislative logjam in the Lords. If the amendment were accepted, the Bill would have to return to the Lords and that logjam would become significantly worse.

I associate myself with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), although I would have made similar points on Third Reading if I had caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also associate myself with the dilemma faced by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) because the amendment is difficult to support if one believes that accurate information should be given in censuses. However, the Bill is so flawed that I am minded to support it at the moment because it removes what would be a great injustice.

I have enjoyed some of the tortuous argument that I have heard so far. The purpose of the Bill is actually simple and clear. It seeks only to change the Census Act 1920 to permit a voluntary question on religion to be included in the census of England and Wales. Subject to secondary legislation, that question could be included in the next census in 2001. That would bring census legislation in England and Wales in line with that of Scotland and Northern Ireland, where legislation already permits a voluntary question on religion.

I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that anything is desirable simply because it happens in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Surely the point of devolution—and of English devolution, should we ever have it—is that if we think that something in Scotland and Northern Ireland is daft, we will not do it.

I quite agree. I am not suggesting that we should have this provision in England and Wales simply because it exists in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I would point out, however, that this has been the law in Northern Ireland since 1969, and it has worked very well.

My hon. Friend is enlightening the House as to the reasoning behind the clause. Is he saying, therefore, that to supply inaccurate information when answering the question is still unlawful?

I am saying what it says on the form—on past and, I presume, future forms. The form must be completed to the best of a person's knowledge and belief. A person may make a genuine mistake, but it would be foolish and unnecessary deliberately to permit falsified information.

Will my hon. Friend explain how one could make a mistake about one's religion?

I think that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) demonstrated how a person might be confused. I cannot say whether he would be confused when completing the form.

Therefore, it is my hon. Friend's proposition that giving any inaccurate information deliberately must remain unlawful.

The simple answer is yes.

It is important that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is a difference between being confused and being in a dilemma. I am not confused about either my cultural background, my birth background or my religious beliefs. It is merely that, because of my birth I was considered Jewish by my school and offered exemption from Christian religious education, but if I were asked whether I was a Jew by religion and followed those tenets, the answer would be no. Either way, knowing exactly what I am doing and making a conscious decision, I am liable to give the wrong information. It depends on the basis of the question—whether it refers to my birth religion or my religious faith.

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has it wrong. All that he has to do is not answer that question, which the Bill at present permits.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the Chair.

If the person completing the form has a strong religious belief but leaves the answer to that question blank, would that be unlawful?

No. The Bill specifically permits someone not to complete that part of the form.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he expects the Government to check whether people have filled in the form honestly and accurately? Is he expecting a Government agency to ask people their religion anonymously, face to face?

I was about to deal with some of the other comments made on Report. My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) have disputed the use of "require" and prefer "request". The demand is not new; it was made in Committee. Professor Zellick expressed a similar view.

The Institute for Jewish Policy Research, in a recent paper on the issue, recommends that Britain should adopt the practice, as in the few other countries where such a question is asked, of making it voluntary. That would certainly remove the main objection to the Bill.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No, I will make a little progress first, but then I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Does that not mean, therefore, that the 1920 Act was voluntary because that was the word used in the long title to require people to fill in census forms?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question because I was about to deal with it. The use of the word "required" in the schedule to the 1920 Act makes the census compulsory. It is the removal of that sanction specifically in respect of religion that makes the question voluntary.

I think that the House is perturbed by what the hon. Gentleman said about the advice of the Treasury. Subsections 3(b)(c)(d) and (e) of the Census Act 1920 use the word "requiring". Indeed, that is the way that people are required to give information. Therefore, the advice from the Treasury would seem completely to go against what is in the Act.

As I have already said, the use of the word "required" relates to the schedule of the 1920 Act. It is not relevant to the Act's provisions because it removes the penalty.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I want to make progress.

I have seldom listened to a debate in which so much of what several contributors said amounted to so little. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) that something that may perhaps happen rapidly can become a flood of something that definitely will happen. That is exactly what we have witnessed this afternoon in several Members' discussions of the amendment.