| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one department that should not be underspending is the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions where the Minister has problems of staffing and of communicating with the media? He may well be in need of more resources, not less.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I explained in my original Answer, the reforms that we have introduced ensure that if there is an underspend, the money can be spent in succeeding years. We therefore do not have the frantic expenditure during February and March, often on stupid things, which I remember from my time as a member of a local authority. The system is much better for all departments. Of course, there is bound to be slippage on large capital programmes with long lead times. This is expenditure by arm's-length agencies with responsibility for their own finances. I have made it clear that the underspend across government as a whole is very small—only 1 per cent over the past three years.
Lord Newby: My Lords, the Minister has already said that a large proportion of the underspend is capital expenditure. Does he accept that one reason for that is that there has been a serious erosion of the
capacity in national and local government to manage projects because of many years of underfunding under the previous administration and during the first two years of this administration? Finally, does he mean that underspend can be carried from one year to the next or, as he said in his second answer, that it can be carried over several years? Could we find ourselves in the ridiculous position of some EU programmes, with bits of budget carried over year after year? When will that end?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not bits of budget that are carried forward. The end of year flexibility provides that last year's underspending can be spent this year. If there is still an underspending at the end of this year, it will not be identifiable as last year's underspending, it will simply be part of an underspending that is carried forward. That ridiculous situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, does not exist here. I do not agree with the noble Lord on his first point. I think that the resources are available in this country and the capacity for the capital expenditure that is necessary for our public services, which is made possible financially by our Budget, helped, of course, by our resource accounting procedures.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, may I underline the seriousness of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and that asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell—neither of which the Minister seemed to take very seriously? Am I right in saying that, last year, the Secretary of State for Transport underspent by £350 million? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that there will be no underspending on capital investment in the transport department this year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And I, my Lords, underline the seriousness of the answers that I have given to the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Campbell. In point of fact, the most recent figure for underspending by the Department of Transport is not £350 million but £530 million. I say that simply in the interests of accuracy, as always. I shall not, however, give an assurance that every penny of that will be spent in this year because, as I said, the Department of Transport is responsible for very large capital projects with very long lead times. However, if it is claimed that the Government have a problem with underspending either on resourcing or on capital, then that claim is just plain wrong.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I appreciate the figures that my noble friend has given. Is he aware, however, that 1 per cent of public expenditure is approximately £4 billion and that 1.5 per cent is approximately £6 billion? He has not answered my specific question about departments such as the Department of Transport. If they have an underspend for more than one year, will that underspend be transferred to other departments to spend?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no. Departmental expenditure limits are as described. In
other words, underspending can be carried forward, but it cannot be carried forward to other departments other than by agreement between the two departments concerned and the Treasury.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, what happens at the end of three years? Can the underspend be carried forward at the end of three years or can it mount up forever?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the spending reviews are a rolling programme covering three years' expenditure. One of the improvements which I hope the House will agree is helpful is that departments have their budgets for three years rather than just for one year. Therefore, they can plan properly ahead. Then, every two years, we have an expenditure review, as we shall have this summer, at which the three-year rolling programme is updated. That is a much more sensible way of managing these matters than existed in the past.
European Arrest Warrant
2.52 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What help they intend to give to the 12 British plane spotters convicted by a Greek court of espionage; and whether this case in any way changes their attitude towards the European arrest warrant as set out by the Lord Rooker in this House on 23rd April (Official Report, cols. 229–235).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Government are continuing to provide full consular support. Additionally, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be meeting the group and the families on 23rd May. As for the second part of the noble Lord's Question, the answer is no. As everyone knows, in the summer we shall publish a draft extradition Bill which will deal with the European arrest warrant.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has said that the Government will give all the help they can to the plane spotters; that the Foreign Secretary has called the sentences disproportionate; and that both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have said that they have spoken to their opposite numbers several times about the case. Is it not plain from the lengths to which the Government are going that, whatever Ministers say, the Government do consider it a travesty of justice that a woman sitting in a van completing a crossword puzzle should receive a sentence for espionage? As the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have to go to these extraordinary lengths to give whatever limited help they can to protect people from the vagaries of Greek justice, is it not clear that there is infinitely greater scope for capriciousness from the European
arrest warrant? Will the Government therefore either build in safeguards to the proposals or, better still, drop the matter completely?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I would like to comment on those points, but I cannot because the case is subject to appeal. However, extradition was not an issue in this case—
Lord Rooker: The arrest took place in Greece, not the United Kingdom, so the issue of the European arrest warrant does not arise and one cannot connect the two matters. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for various reasons, may want to use the case as an argument against the European arrest warrant, and I have no doubt that he will do so eventually, but I do not think that the argument holds water. The case is subject to appeal and I think that we should leave it there. When we have the extradition Bill in front of us, there will be plenty of opportunities in this House and in the other place to express all our feelings about other countries' judicial systems.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a trustee of Fair Trials Abroad, an organisation which has been assisting the defendants in this case. Does the Minister agree that there are serious concerns about the procedure in this case, including for example the fact that the hearing lasted for a more or less continuous period of 14 hours? Does he agree that it is of the highest importance that member states of the European Union should be prepared to adopt and observe common minimum standards of procedure in parallel with the European arrest warrant?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords; I agree entirely with the latter remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We have to do that. I believe that such steps in any reasonable judicial system would obviate the need for the type of hearings that took place in this case.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, surely the Minister will agree that a project such as the European arrest warrant can work only if the countries concerned have complete confidence in the other countries' judicial systems. How can it be said that we have really reached the stage at which the various countries involved in this project have such confidence?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, if and when the European arrest warrant is part of the process, anyone in this country subject to the warrant because of an allegation in another country will be entitled to a hearing before a British judge and to full rights of appeal to higher British courts. It is therefore not a question of people being lifted from this country by foreign police as suggested in the fanciful remarks of some noble Lords. The full legal process will be available in this country.
We have already made it clear that, if the alleged crime is not a crime in this country, thank you very much, it will not apply.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |