---

Civil Servants (Relocation)

9. Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab): What progress is being made in the transfer of Government jobs out of London and the south-east following the Lyons review. [172719]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Lyons report gives details of Departments' relocation plans, which are being taken forward and refined as part of the spending review. The Government will come forward with detailed proposals for implementing and monitoring the dispersal plans in the review.

Paul Farrelly : I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and I thank the Chancellor for initiating the Lyons
 
13 May 2004 : Column 466
 
review. Years ago in north Staffordshire, pottery owners did not want new jobs or diversification, and they opposed the opening of a car factory because they did not want to pay car workers' wages. Does my right hon. Friend agree that moving Government jobs to the regions is not just about cost-cutting or taking advantage of what is already there, but about helping regeneration, diversification and assisting areas such as north Staffordshire to be ambitious for their future?

Mr. Boateng: I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend that Sir Michael Lyons's proposals and report contain real opportunities for the regeneration of his constituency, and, indeed, many others throughout the country. Sir Michael Lyons concluded that the concentration of national public sector activity in and around London was, in fact, not consistent with the objectives that my hon. Friend outlined. I am glad that he welcomes Sir Michael's report.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con): As the Chief Secretary makes clear, this important report by my constituent Sir Michael Lyons presents an unanswerable case for moving decision-makers and decisions out of London. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is an enormously strong geographical and cost case for moving them to Britain's second city, Birmingham?

Mr. Boateng: I am not getting into the business of selecting cities, although I might wish to assist the hon. Gentleman with his canvassing in that respect at least. However, I assure him that all Departments will put forward their proposals when making their spending review submissions. The criteria that Sir Michael Lyons's report provides will be borne in mind, and considered in the context of operational requirements. I can promise the hon. Gentleman, and all my hon. Friends, that, when we reflect on spending review submissions, we will look very hard for clear evidence that each Department has taken to heart the lessons that Sir Michael has taught us.

Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the relocation of jobs to Liverpool under the Lyons review will compensate for the threatened loss of current civil service jobs there, and that it will also address the north-south divide? How many new jobs will Liverpool receive under the plan by 2008, when it becomes European capital of culture?

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend knows that Liverpool is already receiving a number of new jobs, by way of foreign direct investment and, as she was kind enough to acknowledge, through the award to it of the status of European capital of culture, for which I know that she and other hon. Members with Liverpool constituencies fought very hard. My hon. Friend can therefore be sure that employment in Liverpool will continue to grow. Depending on departmental requirements, the city may also receive some additional extra jobs in this relocation.

Adam Price (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr) (PC): In his recommendations, Sir Michael says that Departments should implement their relocation plans
 
13 May 2004 : Column 467
 
alongside efforts to introduce locally flexible pay in the public sector, and that any failure to do so would limit efficiency gains accruing from the dispersal of jobs. Does the Chief Secretary agree with that recommendation? How far advanced are plans to introduce local pay in the public sector?

Mr. Boateng: No, I do not agree with that recommendation—far from it. The Government support fair systems of pay that are backed up by tax credits and—above all—the minimum wage. The latter is something that many Opposition Members opposed tooth and nail.

Mr. Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): The White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" contains a fascinating table that shows the regional distribution of civil servants around England during the first four years of this Government. In that period, 2,500 extra civil service jobs were created in London, but there was a decrease in such jobs in the north-west. I am not convinced that we needed the Lyons review: if it is possible to create extra jobs in London, it should be just as possible to move officials and civil servants out of the capital. We should do that as quickly as possible, as that would benefit the overheated economy in London and the structure of the economy in the regions. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that civil servants will be moved out of London, quickly and effectively, and that some of the jobs will go to Manchester?

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has done more than anyone to ensure that Manchester is a magnet for jobs, in both public and private sectors. I can certainly assure him that the Lyons review provides a sound evidence base on which Departments can make the decision that we will require of them—that is, to relocate a number of their workers outside London and the south-east. That is something to which individual Secretaries of State, and the Government, are committed. I urge my hon. Friend to accept that the great value of the Lyons review is that it provides a sound evidence base for that policy.

Waste Management

10. Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): When he expects to publish his analysis of use of economic instruments in relation to waste generation. [172720]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): The first stage of the review of environmental and health effects of waste management was published last week. The second stage will be published shortly. Together these reports will help inform the development of policy and the much wider debate on the future of waste management. Any decisions on tax, however, will be made by the Chancellor in the usual Budget cycle.

Norman Baker : I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. I endorse the Government's waste hierarchy, with minimisation at the top, followed by reuse and recycling, and incineration and landfill beneath. Does he accept, however, that the economic signals in place do not deliver that hierarchy? Does he accept in particular
 
13 May 2004 : Column 468
 
that he needs to incentivise minimisation, reuse and recycling, because if he does not we will end up with a chain of incinerators up and down the country?

John Healey: No, I do not accept that the policies are not in place. They range from public spending to regulation, instruments of taxation and trading allowances, which come on stream next month. The polices are encouraging the very waste hierarchy that the hon. Gentleman talks about, which is essentially reducing the production of waste and increasing rates of recycling and reuse. Surely he must welcome the fact that the rates of recycling and composting from household waste are on target—we met the targets we set in 2002 and are expected to meet the targets we set in 2003. I would have thought that he and the whole House would welcome the efforts that are being made, especially by local authorities, which play such an important part in waste management.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): My hon. Friend will know that his comments will be welcomed by hon. Members who care about the environment. He should also be aware, however, that most of us know that the landfill tax money is building up. The Government have a rather bureaucratic response to how they disburse those moneys. Is not it nonsense, when the Environment Agency is starved of funds and cannot fully carry out its functions as a regulator, that that money is locked up somewhere in the Treasury?

John Healey: I hesitate to reply because my hon. Friend is a recognised expert on the subject in the House and well connected outside with the industry, so he speaks with a great deal of authority. However, I do not accept his argument that the increasing resources that we are putting into waste management are locked up in bureaucracy. As he well knows, because we have discussed it, we altered the landfill tax credit scheme precisely so that the money from the increase in receipts from the landfill tax would be put to more strategic use in waste management. The evidence is that that is having an effect. I also remind him that the coffers from the landfill tax are not yet swelling in the way that he suggests, but it is true that we will raise the rate of landfill tax from April next year not by £1 a tonne, which we have done in the past, but by £3 a tonne. That will play an important part in helping us to meet our targets.

---