To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many water pollution incidents were the subject of prosecutions in each of the last three years; and what was the total amount levied in fines in each year.

With permission, Mr. Speaker. I shall circulate the full information in the Official Report. The number of successful prosecutions in the National Rivers Authority's Welsh region was 65 in the year to 31 August 1990, 85 in the year to 31 August 1991 and 20 in the three months from 31 August 1991 to 30 November 1991.

Is the Minister aware of what the National Rivers Authority calls the mysteriously high levels of copper, zinc and lead pollution in the lower Ogmore estuary in my constituency? In two successive years, the Government imposed budget cuts on the NRA yet Welsh Water was fined only just over £18,000 for 17 pollution incidents, although it is making profits that average £120 million a year. Does not the Minister believe that it is about time that the Government took stiff action, so that the potential to fight pollution is not wasted as it is at the moment, due to the Government's lackadaisical attitude?

Apart from the fact that the hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong, the NRA's budget is £431 million. The NRA was established by the Government to tackle water pollution—something that the last Labour Government did not do. We have increased the amount of money being spent on purifying water and the results are clear. Welsh water is cleaner than English water and is some of the best in Europe. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is for ever denigrating the water of Wales.

As I had severe doubts about the privatisation of water, can my hon. Friend tell me whether investment in water in Wales has increased or decreased since privatisation?

My hon. Friend will know from the figures that, under the last Labour Government, investment in the water industry was severely cut by the Treasury. Since the industry was privatised under the Government, Welsh Water alone is investing £500,000 a day, or £1·8 billion over the next 10 years, to improve our water.

Does the Minister acknowledge the enormous increase in water charges in Wales since privatisation? Given that the increase is hitting hard the water rate payers in Wales, should not all the money that is raised by Welsh Water be used to increase water standards, instead of being spread around as profits among private individuals, who are benefiting from a monopoly?

The hon. Gentleman asked me that question before, and he still does not appear to understand the answer. All the money, and more, raised from charges to Welsh water consumers is used for investment. For every £100 raised by charges, £108 is spent on investment. The shareholders of Welsh Water—a separate company —get dividends from the investments that Welsh Water makes in other interests. Nothing is done with Welsh Water charge payers' money other than to invest it in water. The hon. Gentleman ought to understand that point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the consideration he gives expressions of public opinion in assessing whether an application for NHS hospital trust status should beapproved.

I take full account of all relevant representations.

Does the Minister accept that every opinion poll on the subject shows that the overwhelming majority of the public oppose NHS trusts and see them as a stepping stone to privatisation? If the Government—who privatised the gas, electricity and water industries—are returned at the next general election, they will privatise the NHS. Why do not the Government abandon that creeping privatisation and listen to the public, who want the NHS to be modernised, not privatised?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is, for instance, referring to the Wales Trades Union Congress opinion poll, but I shall quote from one of the instructions to those who conducted it:

"Street ballots are to be held as a means of offering the public the opportunity to show their opposition to optingout.

I hardly think that that was a fair poll.

In 1979, Labour said that the Conservative Government would privatise the health service. Nothing has been further from the truth, and the position is still the same. We have no plans to privatise the health service. The latest opinion poll on the health service in Wales showed that nine out of 10 of the people who received hospital treatment in the past two years were very or fairly satisfied with it. Approval of the Government's conduct of the health service is at record levels.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success that national health service trusts in England are enjoying should reassure anybody in Wales about any application that might come before him?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Approval has been widespread and distinct improvements have been made. I remind the House of the figures and statistics. When we took office in 1979, an average of £170 per man, woman and child was spent on the health service in Wales. My recent announcement took the figure to £651. There is no question of underfunding—rather, there has been a generous allocation of resources.

Parents are allowed a vote when schools opt for grant-maintained status, yet no such vote is allowed when an NHS hospital applies to become a trust. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that is very unfair?

The two examples are not comparable. There is no question of any national health service trust leaving the NHS. Parents have a vote on the governorship of schools, but health service trusts must show the Secretary of State for Wales that the quality of service will improve and that they will remain within the national health service.

I put it to my right hon. Friend that trust status is the finest form of devolution within the national health service, taking decision making down to the most local level. By increasing NHS spending by approximately 60 per cent. in real terms, the Government are showing the finest and best commitment to the NHS in Wales.

I agree with my hon. Friend. National health service trusts mean local management of locally based health services to meet local need. The previous Labour Government took all their time in office to reach a 9 per cent. increase in real terms. Under this Government, NHS resources have increased in real terms by more than 60 per cent.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that opt-out hospitals and the Tory commercialised internal market in patients are yet further examples of the Conservatives imposing policies from Whitehall that ignore the special needs and culture of Wales and have no support among our people? There is no support in Wales for those proposals, but there is anger that the Secretary of State will tamper with the national health service in the way that he proposes. When the election is held, his party will pay a heavy price.

We have had expressions of interest from parts of the national health service that would mean that trusts would be responsible for more than 65 per cent. of all acute services in Wales. The hon. Gentleman was a Welsh Office Minister in the previous Labour Government, when resources for the national health service increased by 9 per cent. Under this Government, resources have increased by more than 60 per cent. in real terms.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of Taff Ely borough council to discuss the future of the Glyntaff Farm estate.

Neither I nor my right hon. Friend has done so, but our officials are regularly in touch with the local authority.

By any index, the Glyntaff Farm estate is one of the most deprived and run down in Wales, and there are many like it in the Principality. Its young population, including many young children, live in houses which are falling apart and which it is estimated will cost £22 million to repair. When will the Minister do something about the administrative constipation that prevents the Welsh Office from acting, and ensure that my constituents have a better life than they have had until now?

The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend, that we are anxious to facilitate the transfer of properties to the new tenants housing association as soon as possible, but, clearly, there are matters of finance which have to be sorted out. I can assure him that I share his concerns. I want to see it happen and we shall continue to maintain close contact with the local authority to ensure that it does.

With many estates in Wales such as Glyntaff in need of serious attention, with nearly 80,000 people on council house waiting lists in Wales, with mortgage repossessions at a record high and with nearly 20,000 homeless people in the Principality, does the Minister still insist that there is no Welsh housing crisis?

It is interesting to consider the reality of the situation, as opposed to what the hon. Gentleman says. Under Housing for Wales, we are this year giving £170 million towards the construction of new houses. The hon. Gentleman talks about waiting lists, but he should consider an article in the Daily Post on 7 February this year which states that Anglesey—Ynys Mon borough council said that it has been able to slash the waiting list from 1,522 people to only 147 by considering what people want, the number of people on the list and whether they have a valid demand. That is the reality.

I am pleased to be able to announce today that I am making available a further £1 million to five local authorities to help them to tackle homelessness pressures in their areas. A lot has been done by this Government —we do not merely sit and talk as the Opposition do. Action is what counts and that is what we are providing for Wales.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79 at constant prices.

In 1989–90 current expenditure per pupil in primary schools in Wales was £1,292. The equivalent constant price figure for 1978–79 was £974.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that current and capital expenditure on education in Wales have risen in real terms since 1979?

I have just given my hon. Friend the figures for primary schools. He will, I am sure, be interested to know the figures for secondary school pupils which show an even more remarkable increase of about 46–4 per cent., from £1,346 per head in 1978–79 to £1.971 in 1989–90.

Does the Minister accept that it is fundamentally dishonest to represent those figures as an increase in real terms when they reflect only the fact that there has been a falling roll? Will he now turn his attention to the state of primary schools in Wales? Does not he recognise that primary schools throughout the Principality are suffering from a decaying fabric, from a lack of support from local education authorities as a result of the Government's cuts in real terms and as a result of the demoralisation of the teaching profession? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the crisis that is building in primary schools and, in the last couple of weeks of this Government. start to do something about that?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts, which is a record even for him. On overall current expenditure on education, there has been a 24 per cent. increase in a period when pupil numbers have indeed fallen, by nearly 15 per cent. On capital expenditure, during the past three years about 6 per cent. less has been spent than we allocated to local education authorities for capital spending, so the blame for crumbling schools must be placed at their door. It is they that have failed to spend the allocations that we have given to them. With regard to teachers' morale, I know that teachers are extremely pleased with the 7·8 per cent. increase which the review body awarded them with the Government's agreement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had about the standard of rail services in north Wales.

Twenty representations have been received since the introduction of the latest timetable in September. Most of those concerned the level of inter-city services between Holyhead and London.

The Minister may agree with me that, at the next general election, it is technically possible for the representatives of the non-Tory-voting people of Wales to be swamped in the House by a south-east-dominated Tory Government who are hell bent on privatising British Rail. As the Minister's constituency is on the main line to Holyhead, I ask him to give a pledge to the House that in such an eventuality there will continue to be a proper, direct inter-city service between Euston and Holyhead.

The hon. Gentleman bases what he says on some bogus statements about the privatisation of British Rail, which we would heartily welcome, and the inter-city services. For the first time, we have the high-speed 125 trains running between London and Holyhead. They accomplish that journey in the fastest ever time—four hours, which is 30 minutes less than it previously took.

The Minister has not answered the question. Will he tell the House specifically that there will be a guarantee that, whoever wins the next election, inter-city services will run between Holyhead and Euston —yes or no?

I welcome privatisation of British Rail. I have heard many complaints from the Opposition about the services of British Rail. I am sure that there will be a considerable improvement under a privatisation regime, including an improvement of the services between London and Holyhead.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of inward investment in (a) 1979 to 1983, (b) 1983 to 1987 and (c) since 1987; and what estimate he has made of future inward investment trends.

Between 1979 and 1983, 102 projects were recorded. Between 1984 and 1987, 202 were recorded and, since 1987, 271 have been recorded. The recorded value of inward investment in Wales since 1984 is £4 billion and the number of new and safeguarded jobs now exceeds 100,000. We intend to build on those excellent results in future years.

I welcome the successful figures which my right hon. Friend announced. Does he agree that all that would be put at risk if we were to return to the bad old days of excessive strikes and secondary picketing, not to mention the TUC's campaign of hostility towards inward investment in which it has described those companies as alien culture—a comment still not denounced by the Opposition, who have given a nod and wink of tacit approval?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The favourable tax regime for companies and individuals is a great attraction, as are the work force and the industrial relations harmony which exists in Wales. When the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was a Minister in the second half of the 1970s, the number of working days lost per thousand employees was 1,183 a year. Between 1986 and 1990, the figure fell to 174. I now announce that we have the best figures for the past 100 years since records began. In Wales only 17 working days were lost per thousand employees. That would be placed in jeopardy if we were to go back to the bad old days of industrial strife and of the winter of discontent under the previous Labour Government.

Will the Secretary of State advise the Welsh Development Agency, in its efforts to attract new investment, to be a bit more circumspect about whom it assists? Mady Gerrard, formerly of New York, when trading as GG International Ltd., left behind a trail of debts and then went into liquidation. With the full backing of the WDA, she is now back in business. Is that fair to all the small companies, especially in south Wales, to which she owes a lot of money?

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not cite one example in trying to prove his case. He referred to small companies. I am pleased to be able to announce this afternoon a package of 41 projects by small companies throughout Wales, involving the investment of more than £11.7 million, leading to the creation of more than 400 new jobs. That shows that it is not just major inward investment projects that deserve and receive help. The WDA and the Welsh Office also give outstanding support to small businesses.

If the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) would take off their rose-coloured spectacles for just a moment, they would see that a wave of bankruptcies is passing through Wales—like Sherman marching through Georgia. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the recession is now going so deep and cutting so far into the heart of Welsh industry and employment that it will take us several years and a change of Government to recover?

Not at all, and the hon. Gentleman should not talk down the Principality. Wales is weathering the worldwide recession far better than many other parts of the United Kingdom and the world. I am especially pleased to be able to announce today a £5 million investment by Smiths Crisps in Swansea. That is just another example that shows how well Wales is doing in terms of inward investment.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the disappointment felt in my constituency at his Department's decision to refer the Hamilton oil project to a public inquiry? Does he accept that many of my constituents—shipyard workers, in particular—feel that the Government have caved in to pressure from one or two well-heeled environmentalists, putting their demands above the needs of the long-term unemployed in Birkenhead and the surrounding area? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he might be able to counter some of those fears if he expedited the public inquiry? Is he in a position to tell the House how quickly the public inquiry is expected to report?

I cannot comment on the merits of the proposal, which is formally before me for decision under planning law. I recognise, however, that the proposal raises issues whose significance is not merely local, and there have been a considerable number of representations both for and against it. In those circumstances, the holding of a public inquiry offers the fairest, speediest and surest way of dealing with the decision. I am happy to announce that arrangements are now in hand to hold an inquiry commencing on 12 May. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the final decision on the application will be issued as soon as possible after the inspector's report has been received and considered.

I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).

Is not my right hon. Friend's forceful presence in the Cabinet the main reason for inward investment in Wales? Does he agree that, if devolution has the consequences that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) predicts, there will be no voice in the British Cabinet arguing for the kind of conditions that have produced massive inward investment in Wales?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that Wales gains considerably through the office of Secretary of State and from having a seat in the Cabinet. I know that the Liberal Democrats have conceded that their proposals for a Welsh assembly would mean the abolition of that post. It is about time that the Labour party came clean and explained why the Leader of the Opposition, having once been so implacably opposed to devolution for Wales, is now in favour of it. The position of Secretary of State is a great asset in securing inward investment, and it is about time that the Labour party came to terms with the results of their devolution proposals.

We all celebrate the success of inward investment, which is crucial for Wales. We also remember that it was a Labour Government who first created the Welsh Office and then the Welsh Development Agency.

Will the Secretary of State concede that the recession is one of the deadliest—and of the utmost seriousness—in respect of the Welsh economy? Whether on the M4 or the north Wales expressway, there appears to be a march to the dole with a loss of more than 2,500 jobs already this year. I hope that the Secretary of State is aware of the redundancies announced by employers in Wales, including British Steel. British Aerospace, Allied Steel, Ford, BP, Ferranti, Marconi, Ferrodo, National Power, Trecwn and Brawdy in Pembroke, Royal Worcester, Christie Tyler and South Wales Electricity. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he has no policy or strategy or, in Government, the will to deal with those pressing problems? He will lose parliamentary seats in Wales because he has no policies to tackle unemployment.

As the hon. Gentleman points at me and says that I will lose, I must inquire gently why the Labour party has not yet been able to put up a candidate against me in my constituency. As for the hon. Gentleman's doom and gloom, he is rapidly becoming well known as the agony aunt for Wales. He is an amateur merchant of doom and his comments were a forecast of the kind of problems that Wales would have if ever the Labour party were to win the general election.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the percentage increase in real terms on expenditure on the Welsh language since 1978–79.

Direct Government grant support for the Welsh language has risen from £0.35 million i n 1978 to £7·6 million in 1992–93. That represents an increase in real terms of 669 per cent.

Do not those figures show a dramatic increase in support for the Welsh language since the last Labour Government? What level of indirect support is there for the Welsh language?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Those figures cover assistance provided through part of the education system and to voluntary organisations. My hon. Friend is quite right, however—more support is given to the language through the education system than those direct grant amounts would indicate. For example, there is £3 million by way of grant under the GEST—grants for education support and training—programme. There is also the Government's very extensive support through their arrangements for the Welsh television channel S4C.

Will the Minister be a little more gracious than his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) and acknowledge the tremendous efforts of Labour-controlled authorities in south Wales and the valleys in respect of the Welsh language over many years? Will he remind his hon. Friend that making the Welsh language a political football does a disservice to that language? How can a county like Mid-Glamorgan, which provides enormous support for the Welsh language through primary, secondary and other areas, pay its teachers the new pay award, which will cost the county £1·7 million, when the amount of Government grant will be only £700,000 and a shortfall of £1 million will thus have to be found from the poll tax payers of Mid-Glamorgan, which will mean £3 per head on the poll tax and the county will be capped for introducing that? Can the Minister advise the local authority how to get out of that dilemma created by the Government?

I am, of course, grateful to the local authorities for their assistance and support for the Welsh language, and I do not think for a moment that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) or anyone in this House is seeking to make a political football out of the Welsh language.

With regard to teachers' pay, I am sure that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is as delighted as I am that the teachers have been given an increase of 7·8 per cent. He will also be delighted that the local authorities' standard spending assessments were increased by 8·1 per cent. by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government have given £3·5 million additional money to local authorities in Wales so that they can meet the necessary increase and give the teachers their well-deserved rise.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce during the next three months a Welsh language Bill to give the same status to Welsh and English in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

The wide-ranging legislative proposals presented by the Welsh Language Board have called for very careful consideration. To this end, the Welsh Office has been consulting other Government Departments which would be affected. My right hon. Friend is weighing carefully the views which have been expressed, with the intention of announcing a decision on this matter as soon as possible.

First, I should like to put the record straight, as the Secretary of State misled the House in saying that it was our party's policy to do away with the Secretary of State's office if our devolution proposals are accepted. That is not true.

Secondly, I am very disappointed with the Minister of State's reply, as I am sure that the majority of people in Wales will be, too. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the people of Wales today that he will introduce such legislation before the next general election and that the same status will be given to the Welsh language as that given to the English language in Wales?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not treating the question as seriously as he should. It is all very well for any party, such as the Labour party, to pledge that it will legislate for a Welsh Language Act, without actually spelling out what is to be in that Act. I for one, and my right hon. and hon. Friends, will not commit ourselves to saying that there will be such legislation without knowing precisely what will be put into that legislation. I have said that we are considering the matter most carefully and the proposals that were put before us, and we shall announce our decision in due course.

The Minister of State is already practising for opposition. The only choice in the election will be a Labour Government, because the Labour party has firm commitments. We have said that in our first year we shall bring legislation before the House, and we have said what we shall put in it. The right hon. Gentleman's continued suggestions that we have not described the contents are untrue.

Why has the Minister of State advised three Secretaries of State not to proceed with a Welsh language Bill when for a year there has been a consensus as a result of the publication of the measure by the Welsh Language Board? Why have the Government wasted a year, when a Welsh language Act could have been on the statute book by now? The Conservative party has revealed itself to be bereft of ideas and has failed to do the service to the Welsh language that could have been done by publishing a Bill a year ago and bringing it through Parliament this year.

The so-called supplementary question that we have just heard, which was really a statement, is typical of the slapdash, inconsiderate attitude of the Labour party toward a very serious issue which concerns not only Welsh speakers but non-Welsh speakers in Wales. The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to the proposals put forward by the Welsh Language Board. We are giving those proposals very serious consideration indeed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to collect statistics on the number of jobs lost to Wales by outward divestment.

None, Sir.

Have not the three Welsh Office Ministers become the three unwise monkeys of Wales, who neither see, hear nor talk of unemployment, but hide from it, ignoring the jobs lost through outward divestment? Hundreds of those are in Newport and Llanelli. The Government distort the figures by counting 50,000 people twice, but through all the fiddles comes the truth—that in Gwent 20,000 people are out of work, which is 10 per cent. of the work force. Do we have three monkeys or three cheetahs?

I imagine that that is spelt "ahs".

That is a very silly question about a very serious problem. Of course there are difficulties being faced by firms throughout the Principality wemake no secret of that—but according to the statistics, Wales is doing considerably better than many other parts of the United Kingdom and the world in weathering this worldwide recession. The hon. Gentleman should pay attention to the facts.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give figures for (a) the percentage of people on retirement pensions as a proportion of the total adult population in Wales, (b) the number of families in Wales entitled to child benefit and (c) the percentage of employees in Wales earning under £20,280 annually.

The answer is (a) about 23 per cent., (b) about 350,000, and (c) about 90 per cent. Before the hon. Gentleman asks his usual supplementary question—no, the people of Wales would not be better off under a Labour Government.

Is the Minister now aware that the recent figures provided by the House of Commons Library showed that only 2·5 per cent. of the population in Wales would be detrimentally affected by Labour's tax and national insurance policies, whereas 52 per cent.—including pensioners and mothers in receipt of child benefit—would benefit, in some cases substantially? Why do the Government not come clean and admit that, whereas Labour's tax policy would benefit the vast mass of people in Wales, the Government's policies would benefit and protect only a tiny privileged minority?

The hon. Gentleman clearly has not looked at the record of the last Labour Government. Between 1974 and 1979, Labour increased income tax by 3p in the pound. Income tax is now 8p in the pound less than it was then. A man on average income with two children would pay £1,000 per year more under Labour. That is £20 a week. The people of Wales have not forgotten that. Nor have pensioners forgotten that under the Labour Government pensions rose by an average of 0·6 per cent. per year in terms of average total incomes. Pensions have risen by 3·3 per cent. per year under the Conservatives. That is more than the total of the last five years of the Labour Government.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what additional payments by the Church Commissioners are made to clergymen and women bearing the title of prebendary or canon; and if he will make a statement.

The Commissiones pay the stipends of two residentiary canons at each mainland English cathedral except Oxford, at a rate some 20 per cent. higher than the national average for a rector or vicar. There are other clergy bearing the titles of canon and prebendary who do so in an honorary capacity and do not thereby receive additional payments from the Commissioners.

Do my right hon. Friend and the Church Commissioners have any part in the payment of the salary of stipend of the small number of lady canons whom I understand to exist? Are there any plans to create canons out of people in holy orders of either sex who are only deacons?

Yes, there is a proposal before the General Synod which will enable women deacons to be appointed canons and they would therefore come within the ambit of the possible payment by the Church Commissioners, but the measure enabling such deacons to be appointed as women canons would have to pass through this House before it becomes law.

Will the Commissioner confirm to the House that when that measure came before the ecclesiastical committee there was overwhelming support for it and that the committee's view was that, whatever the fate of the women priests measure, the measure to allow women deacons to become canons would give a career structure to women deacons within the Church?

I am happy to confirm that. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the General Synod representatives reassured colleagues who were uneasy about the notion of appointing women canons that, unless the ordination of women was accepted by the General Synod, women canons would not be able to preside over or administer the sacraments in the cathedrals.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is sufficient differentiation between the payment to a canon and that to a curate, bearing in mind the substantial additional responsibilities that a canon bears?

I will certainly consider the figures that my hon. Friend mentioned. The differential between the top and the bottom of the clergy and episcopal salary is a sensitive question which is considered regularly and frequently. My hon. Friend may well have a point that should be considered. I will certainly see that her unease is conveyed to the appropriate quarters.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is his current estimate of the total of agricultural property held by the Church Commissioners.

As at 31 December 1991, the commissioners' agricultural portfolio consisted of about 154,000 acres, mostly let farmland.

Does the commissioner accept that following the vote on Friday it is likely that within a short time there will be a total ban on fox hunting, stag hunting and hare coursing in Britain? Does he believe that the commissioners should lead by example in banning such barbarous activities on their land?

No. It has always been the practice in the Church Commissioners' holding of agricultural property to reserve the right of hunting not to the landlord but to the tenant so that the tenant, on the basis of his own conscience or attitude to hunting, can decide whether to let the hunt across the land.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will be welcomed in many rural communities, who feel that the campaign against hunting has been wildly misrepresentative and that fox hunting is the most humane way to control the fox population in the country?

I voted in the same Lobby as my hon. Friend—I think that he was there on Friday—so I have some sympathy with what he says, but I repeat that the decision whether a hunt can cross a let farm of which the Church Commissioners are the landlord is entirely at the discretion of the tenant.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the total number of women ordained as deacons in the Church of England as at 1 January.

On 1 January 1991, there were 674 ordained women deacons in the full-time stipendiary ministry.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he ask the Church Commissioners whether they would be willing to assess—and then publish the results of the assessment—what would be the benefit to the Church in terms of personnel availability if women were able to proceed beyond the diaconate to become priests? As a matter of full-time ministry personnel provision for the Church, has that been considered and if not could it be so?

It is a slightly hypothetical speculative variant on which to give a clear answer off the cuff, and while awaiting the progress of the measure, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that although the number of male clergy continues to fall, and has fallen each year for some years, the total of men and women taken together has risen from 10,641 ordained clergy in 1986 to 11,052 last year, so the impact of women deacons is tending the make the total number of clergy go up, whereas the total number would fall if there were a single-sex ministry.

To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps are being taken by the Commission in preparation for the transfer of responsibility from the Property Services Agency for buildings and works.

A Director of Works—Mr. Henry Webber —was appointed in July 1991 to head a new Directorate of Works within the Serjeant at Arms Department to undertake the responsibilities formerly exercised by the Department of the Environment. A memorandum of understanding was agreed with the authorities of the other place in November 1991 to regulate the share of the costs of the works directorate between the two Houses. Appropriate estimates for parliamentary works for the next financial year were recently presented by the House of Commons Commission and on behalf of the other place. The Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill, which provides for the transfer of property and other legal rights and responsibilities to the two Houses, was presented on 7 February. Subject to the satisfactory progress of this 13ill, the transfer of responsibility for all works services to the two Houses is expected to be achieved at the beginning of April.

I ask the hon. Gentleman a question of which I gave him notice a fortnight ago. Can Mr. Webber do anything about the intractable problem, probably 50 years old since the bombings, of the difficult but nevertheless shame-making stone rot in the Crypt, which is extremely embarrassing for anyone who shows visitors with any knowledge at all around the Palace of Westminster?

I went to have a look at the problem myself, mainly in the Baptistry area, and I know that the Public Works Office has been busy with it for some time and that the hon. Gentleman has brought the matter regularly to its attention. It is not within the province of the Commission and the authorities of the House until the beginning of April, but the authorities looking after it in the Department of the Environment are well aware of the concern and we intend to make sure that the matter is properly considered.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for an advisory council for Wales.

I am continuing to discuss the idea of establishing an economic forum with interested parties.

Will my right hon. Friend say a word about the consultations in which he has engaged with the other political parties in Wales and with Welsh local authorities, including those under Labour control?

The proposal was put to me by the Council of Welsh Districts at a time when the Council was under Labour control. Its position has been maintained since the change of control, and I am considering the proposal very seriously.

Let me just say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) that if my earlier assumption that the Liberal Democrats would abolish the Secretary of State for Wales was incorrect, I apologise and am happy to accept what he says. The question of the economic forum, however, does not relate in any way to proposals for devolution.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he now has to stimulate business investment and attract quality jobs for the Monmouth travel-to-work area.

The Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and other Government agencies operate a wide range of measures to stimulate business investment and to attract quality jobs in all parts of Wales.

Perhaps one of the measures that the Secretary of State could introduce would be the granting of assisted area status to the Monmouth travel-to-work area. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a delegation was preparing to meet him with a document, which has involved a considerable amount of work, to present the case for such status? The people of Monmouth, and the members of Gwent county council, Monmouth borough council, Monmouth town council and Monmouth chamber of commerce, are especially disappointed that the Secretary of State has refused even to meet the delegation. What other proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have?

I am aware of the case that has been prepared by Monmouth borough council and 1 was very interested to read the report that it produced to support its case.

We announced in 1988 that no change would be made in the current composition of the assisted area map during the lifetime of this Parliament. Since I received the council's submission, however, a number of additional points have been made to me and I am happy to announce that I have agreed to meet a deputation to discuss business investment in the area. The subjects discussed will include assisted area status.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent discussions he has had to improve security for Members' property when left in their offices.

I have frequent discussions on security matters with the relevant authorities. It is most important that Members report any theft to the Serjeant-at-Arms as soon as these incidents occur.

I am glad to be able to inform the House that, since Christmas, there has been a considerable reduction in the number of reported thefts. As I have often said before, the amount of property stolen would be considerably reduced if valuables were secured and desks and filing cabinets locked when offices are left unattended.

Has the Lord President had any discussions with the security services? If so, is he satisfied that they are not once again trying to smear Opposition Members, as they have done in the recent past? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the matter seriously? We all know from "Spycatcher", and the amount that the Government spent trying to suppress it, that what I have described took place.

I have not had discussions with the security services specifically about theft, but I have had such discussions with the relevant authorities. Let me say very clearly that I have found no evidence whatever to support any of the allegations of which I have read. I believe that they are entirely unfounded.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one has stolen into my room to remove the secrets held by my computer about the forthcoming election in my constituency? Is that because the people concerned know something that I do not?

I doubt it, since, so far as I am aware, no one has stolen anything from me either. I am sure that such people would be fascinated to read of the wide range of constituency cases on my computer.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his practice that all parties represented in the House by hon. Members who have taken their seats are included in consultations by him as to the business of the House.

No. The present arrangements are of long standing, they work well, and I see no need for change.

The right hon. Gentleman has undermined his growing reputation as a fair-minded and modernising Lord President. Will he consider his answer again, and grasp the old nettle? Given that only two parties the Government and the Labour party—are now formally involved in consultations, and given that in electoral terms all parties in the House are minorities—

No, they are not.

All the parties are electoral minorities. In the light of that, is not the only fair-minded and democratic way of conducting our business to allow it to involve all properly represented parties in the House of Commons throughout the United Kingdom?

The discussions take place between parties which represent the vast majority of the hon. Members in the House. Setting the business of the House is a complex process and final decisions are often taken at a late stage. I do not believe that it is practicable to consult all eight minority parties represented in the House and I do not know what we should do with another minority party in the guise the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will know that the minority parties are given a chance to make representations about business of the House and are informed of it. I think that that is the only sensible and practical way to deal with the matter.

As virtually everyone seems to have been informed that the general election date will be 9 April, could not the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make an official statement this week confirming that date?

I can only say that the hon. Gentleman knows something that I do not.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman being so coy? We all know that the Government have a timetable for an election on 9 April. Even the Financial Times has told us that the Prime Minister has booked his aeroplane for that date. Since we now have almost weekly guillotine motions and the Government are intent on railroading legislation through the House, why can the Government not make an announcement so that we all know where we are? The country would then know what the Government's intentions are, much of the business which does not have widespread support in the country could simply be junked, and we could get on with the election.

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There is widespread support for Government legislation and for those matters on which we have had timetable motions. I have been under pressure to get on with the legislation because many people want to see it in place.

On the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, all that is being done represents good contingency planning for the election date, whenever that might be.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the replacement of the Commons annunciator system.

The existing annunciator system is obsolete and is extremely expensive to maintain. Modern receivers have been installed in No. 1 Parliament street and No. I Derby Gate, which provide Members with access both to the annunciator system and to a range of public service television channels. Similar facilities will be made available in the new Members' offices in Speaker's Court. The House of Commons Commission has recently approved expenditure on further work to develop new data and video networks, which would replace the existing annunciator system with a wider television system by early 1994 at the latest.

I am sure that the House will welcome the Lord President's implicit recognition that the present annunciator system represents outworn and outdated technology which will soon have to go. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is entirely desirable that hon. Members should be able to watch the proceedings of the Chambers in their offices at any time, the better to be able to follow what is happening? At present, that is not possible. Is it not ironic that the rest of the country can obtain cable television to watch our proceedings while we can still not do so in our offices?

As my hon. Friend will know, part of the problem lies in the difficulties of putting in a cabling system in the older parts of our complex, particularly in the Palace. That is something on which we are receiving advice from consultants. Fitting cables is relatively easy in the new offices, but the clean feed to which my hon. Friend refers is a matter for the House. The Select Committee on Broadcasting, &c. is currently considering whether to make its own recommendations to the House.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to nominate the Scottish Affairs Committee.

No. The hon. Member will appreciate that there has been no change in the circumstances preventing action in the current Parliament.

Is it not deeply unsatisfactory that there is no Select Committee to consider the views of the Scottish police on Lockerbie, which are deeply different from the stated views of the Foreign Secretary and of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)? Furthermore, is it not deeply unsatisfactory that there is no way of interrogating the Lord Advocate on the evidence that he says he has in relation to Libya? With the trial of the two men taking place this very day in Tripoli, will the right hon. Gentleman as a senior member of the Government undertake that before any sanctions or military action are pursued by Her Majesty's Government there will be a proper report to Parliament?

The second part of the question is outside the scope of the original question relating to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. On the first part of the question, both those matters could be considered by other Select Committees. For reasons that the House knows, we have been unable, throughout the earlier part of this Parliament, to reach an agreement about separate consideration by a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. This Parliament has, at most, only a few months to run and it is therefore not appropriate to set up such a Committee now.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we would have had a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, if that Committee had not attempted to produce a report which did not reflect accurately the evidence received by the Committee? That is why some hon. Members like me refused to serve on it. We did not want to be party to those activities.

My hon. Friend refers to one of the difficulties that we had earlier.

Does the Leader of the House accept that as the Scottish Office is not under scrutiny by a Select Committee, it is the only Department of state to be unscrutinised? Because of its multiple responsibilities, is not the Scottish Office already less answerable to the House than are English Departments of state? In view of that, will the Leader of the House give some support to the debate next Monday in the Scottish Grand Committee, where the Constitutional Commission's proposals will be before the Committee?

It was my right hon. Friend who recommended not only the debate next Monday but that two others should take place on devolution and other issues. Clearly, I am keen for that debate to take place. It will enable the country to have a better view of all the issues involved in the proposals currently under discussion.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the future use of Westminster Hall.

The control of Westminster Hall is vested jointly in the Lord Great Chamberlain and the two Speakers on behalf of the two Houses. The principles governing the exercise of their discretion to grant the use of the hall for non-parliamentary functions are that such events should be either a royal occasion, a ceremony in honour of a head of state or one having clear connections with Parliament or the hall itself.

In the Lord President's reply to me about tea facilities for visitors, he said that provision could be made in St. Stephen's tavern. Surely Westminister Hall would provide an ideal arena for that. It would be a people's hall instead of a cold, draughty cavern, and visitors could have tea and cakes without having to go in and out of security when they visit us. That would be an appropriate use for the hall. Will he put that to the relevant authorities for consideration?

That is outwith the principle that the relevant authorities have laid down. The Catering Committee is considering two consultants' reports on the architectural feasibility and management implications of converting the premises of the former St. Stephen's tavern into a refreshments facility for Members' visitors. If that goes ahead, it will provide an extra facility.