---

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the anti-street crime initiative takes many forms. We are attacking the problem through schools, by having police officers attached to schools with particular problems. There will be more resources to deal with drug treatment and to tackle the increased use of courts. The police are receiving more resources to ensure that they can do their job with greater perception and accuracy. The whole strategy is linked, comprehensive and coherent, and it has the support of the police service.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, in the list of measures that the noble Lord read out, he said nothing about closed-circuit television cameras. Has the Metropolitan Police presented a budget for extra CCTV cameras in the areas worst affected by street crime? If so, how much of that money has been provided?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have those figures to hand. As the noble Lord will know, the Government—and the previous government—have invested considerable resources in enhancing CCTV nationally. Budgets have been specifically set aside for that and the impact of CCTV is widely acknowledged as being most beneficial in driving down crime.

Public Expenditure: Health and Education

3.30 p.m.

Lord Chadlington asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they propose to increase budget allocations in health and education to compensate for the increase in national insurance contributions announced in the Budget.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor announced in the Budget that spending on health would increase by over £40 billion over the next five years. Decisions on education spending and all other public services will be announced in this summer's spending review. Under existing plans, UK education spending will rise by £4.4 billion next year.

Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House what percentage of the NHS budget and the schools budget will go towards paying national insurance in 2005-07?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have immediately to hand the figures for the percentages to be spent on national insurance. I have a figure for the increase caused by the increase in national insurance contributions. That is more relevant to the original Question. For the whole economy, the increase in national insurance contributions will cost 0.7 per cent of payroll costs. That puts the issue in perspective.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the figure for education is over £80 million? Does he agree with me that, if that sum is not

2 May 2002 : Column 799

compensated for pound for pound, the money can come only from within the services—health and education?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figure is considerably greater than £80 million; it is £180 million for schools in England. I think that, in the interests of accuracy, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, should not underestimate the figures. It is more difficult to get figures for the whole of education, because universities are, strictly speaking, in the private sector, and we do not keep the information centrally.

With regard to the second question asked by the noble Baroness, I have said that, under existing plans, UK education spending will rise by £4.4 billion next year. We must look, as we did last week, at the contrast between the huge increase in expenditure on public services and the increase in costs for the public sector caused by the increase in national insurance contributions. Are the Opposition in favour of having the increases in national insurance contributions apply only to the private sector? Are they against improvements to public services?

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, as a result of the changes announced in the Budget, the average primary school will have to pay £4,000 extra in national insurance and the average secondary school £20,000 extra? In the same Budget, it was announced that the Standards Fund receipts would amount to £5,500 per primary school and £16,000 per secondary school. Does the Minister agree that that is a classic example of the maxim, "What the Chancellor giveth the Chancellor also taketh away"?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, somebody must pay for public services, as my noble friend Lord Peston reminded the House last week. The figures that I have given for total expenditure on education are, of course, the current figures. It is not for me to anticipate the position in any sector—except health, for which decisions have already been taken—after the 2002 spending review, the results of which will be announced this summer.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, can we get to the core of the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Chadlington? What will the National Health Service have to pay because of the increase in contributions? Would it not be more candid to deduct that figure from the gross figure for how much more is being spent on the National Health Service? That would be a more accurate definition of what is actually being spent. At the moment, we have the ceaseless recirculation of money being paid in taxes which is then, allegedly, put back into the same service.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly give the figures. I gave them last week and gladly do so again. The increase in national insurance contributions will cost the health service £300 million out of an increase of £6.7 billion. The House should

2 May 2002 : Column 800

concentrate on that relationship rather than thinking about the complications that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, would wish us to indulge in.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware how welcome is the additional £66 million made available to schools on 25th April for, for example, extra behavioural support in classes to reduce truancy and exclusion? This morning, I spoke to the head teacher of a primary school in King's Cross who is desperate to obtain more support for one of her children. The child, whose mother and sister are heroin addicts, has a brain tumour. Additional resources will make all the difference to people such as that teacher, who has made a success of her school, which was once deemed by the Evening Standard to be one of the 10 worst schools in London.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said brings realism and a breath of fresh air to the debate.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees

3.35 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Burnham, the Baroness Fookes, the Baroness Gould of Potternewton, the Lord Haskel and the Baroness Thomas of Walliswood be added to the Panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Chairman of Committees confirm that the nominations made by the Committee of Selection are based on the criteria relating to standards in public life? In particular, I am thinking of objectivity, fairness and transparency. Is the objective basis for the evaluation of possible Deputy Chairmen of Committees transparently available to Members or do we still have a rather unclear system, operated through the usual channels?

The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I suspect that it is the latter.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Communications

The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Commons message of yesterday be now considered, and that a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by

2 May 2002 : Column 801

the Commons to consider and report on any draft Communications Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:

B. Cohen of Pimlico, L. Crickhowell, L. Hussey of North Bradley, L. McNally, L. Pilkington of Oxenford, L. Puttnam;

That the Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

That the reports of the Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

That the Committee do report no later than three months after the presentation of any such draft Bill;

And that the Committee do meet with the Committee appointed by the Commons on Thursday 9th May at 3 o'clock in Room 134 Millbank House; and that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker, I beg to introduce a Bill to create offences in respect of unique electronic equipment identifiers of mobile wireless communications devices. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

---