What plans he is making to hold regular meetings with the First Secretary of the National Assembly; and how frequent he expects those meetings to be. [66268]

Regular meetings will be held to ensure that the Secretary of State for Wales is fully aware of the views of the National Assembly for Wales on relevant issues. For the first few weeks following the establishment of the Assembly, I shall have to talk to myself quite a lot. I have made it clear that that period will be brief, essentially to smooth the process of transition—in weeks rather than months. Thereafter, I shall certainly work hard to achieve a partnership for Wales with the new Secretary of State.

It will be very convenient for the Secretary of State to be able to talk to himself in the mirror when he is shaving in the mornings, but does he agree that, in the long run, there will be a considerable inconsistency between the First Secretary and the Welsh Secretary if the posts are filled by the same individual? The Welsh Secretary would be bound by collective responsibility, unlike the First Secretary, which would make a mockery of devolution.

It is clear that the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in devolution is new and welcome, did not listen to my answer. Precisely for that reason, I have made it clear that I intend to step down as Secretary of State for Wales, after a brief transitional period, to concentrate on my work as First Secretary. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is the right thing to do.

I accept the theoretical point that meetings arranged with oneself are terribly easy to set up—it can be done in a nanosecond—but does my right hon. Friend accept that meetings between two people might be of greater value? Does he also accept that the most significant point behind that question is how Welsh Office civil servants—the Westminster and Whitehall hook-up civil servants, who will serve the on-going functions of the Secretary of State; those who will serve the democratic Assembly; and those who will serve the First Secretary and the Cabinet of the Assembly—will be retrained, or given a new culture, according to which of those functions they will carry out?

I find that, when listening to one's first thoughts, it is sometimes wise to ponder a little rather than to think for only a nanosecond before acting or speaking. I have made it clear that, as soon as the functions are in place, it would be sensible, and right, that the First Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales should be different people, so that they can fulfil those different functions. That is my intention.

I am pleased with the positive response of civil servants to the challenge posed by the Assembly. They understand the new nature of the relationship between them and Members of the Assembly, as compared with the current arm's-length relationship with Members of Parliament. The civil service will be doing things in a new way that will be exciting for Members of the new Assembly and for the officials who work for it. The distinction between the new responsibilities and responsibilities to the Secretary of State and this Parliament is well understood.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the long-drawn-out leadership battle between him and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), which is now coming to the Floor of the House, is destroying the opportunity for proper debate on the real issues affecting people in Wales? When will that leadership battle end, so that we can get on to important policies such as health, education and economic development?

I regret the synthetic way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased his question. He well knows that it is the battle for leadership within the Labour party that is interesting. He also knows that the Labour party is delivering on promises made at the general election, and that it is the only party that is able to do that for the people of Wales. In the run-up to the arrival of the Assembly we will concentrate on building a strong economy in Wales, providing jobs for our young people, improving health, improving standards of education and creating safer communities. That is what our people want to hear from us.

When my right hon. Friend engages in those very important and regular meetings with himself, will he remind himself of the valuable role played by Sully hospital, which is in my constituency and which serves my constituents and his very well, and has for many years? When the future of that hospital is considered by himself, will my right hon. Friend remember the important role that it plays?

I could hardly overlook the importance of Sully hospital, given that my hon. Friend is a consistent and long-standing advocate of it. Over the years, he and I have looked at the interests of both Sully hospital and Llandough hospital, which received a charter mark yesterday. I am sure that my hon. Friend will share my pleasure at the recognition of the work of the hospital staff. Certainly, I understand the high priority that he gives the future of Sully hospital.

Leaving aside the presumptuousness, both personal and party, of the Secretary of State's initial answer, may I ask why—in the same Government—it is considered unacceptable for the two jobs to overlap in Scotland, but acceptable for them to do so in Wales? What is the essential difference between the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly that makes that so?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know the answer to that. I believe that he has many jobs. I believe that, in the Opposition, he is supposed to be Mr. Scotland as well as Mr. Wales, Mr. Northern Ireland and goodness knows what else.

He should know full well that the nature of devolution in Scotland is different from that in Wales, and that the transition period—which will be short—needs to be managed carefully.

When I first went into local government in 1973, there was an 11-month shadow period before responsibilities were taken over. The Assembly will take over its responsibilities very soon after the election. It will be important to manage that transition, in order to ensure that the Assembly starts off effectively and on a sound footing.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will be grateful for his right hon. Friend's confused boost to his own campaign.

Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is entirely right: it is not possible for someone both to be the independently minded leader of a Welsh Assembly and to subscribe to collective responsibility in Cabinet. Those roles are mutually exclusive, and should be separated from the outset, as they have been in Scotland. Would not the Secretary of State do a great service to the whole concept of devolution in Wales by making that clear from the start?

The only confusion is in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I have made it clear that it is for precisely those reasons that I intend to stand down from my Cabinet role once the Assembly is in place, in a short rather than a long time. I have been saying that for two and a half months; the hon. Gentleman is obviously deaf.

The role of Secretary of State for Wales needs careful consideration. It changed dramatically in May 1979—[HON. MEMBERS: "1979?"]—when a Labour Government began to breathe life and vigour into it. That contrasts with the activities of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who sent moneys and resources back from Wales to the Treasury.

If he will make a statement on the provision for urban and rural bus services in Wales for 1999–2000. [66270]

If he will make a statement on the provision for urban and rural bus services in Wales for 1999–2000. [66275]

In future, that will become the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has increased the budget for bus subsidy grants by over 120 per cent. to £5 million in 1999–2000. That is on top of the support provided by local authorities out of their own budgets, and represents a massive boost for bus services throughout Wales.

Does my hon. Friend agree that £5 million investment—I use the word "investment" rather than the word "subsidy" advisedly—will have an economic as well as an environmental impact? The west ward of Rhyl, in my constituency, has the lowest car ownership in Wales. In 14 months' time, 600 jobs will be created six miles away. If we do not have efficient, reliable, affordable public transport to convey my constituents to the business park, they will be denied jobs.

My hon. Friend has made his point effectively. Our new strategy to support public transport will have not just an environmental but a considerable economic advantage, not only to companies but to employees. That is in contrast to the shambles that we inherited from the Conservative Government, whose bus policy reminded me of the present shadow Cabinet: always behind the times, and consisting of a lot of old bangers falling apart.

Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly all the 1,800 companies that currently receive bus fuel duty rebate use standard diesel fuel? In the interests of the environment in Wales and of oil refinery jobs in Milford Haven in my constituency, will he impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance of providing incentives for those companies to use ultra-low sulphur diesel?

I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's question to the attention of the Chancellor. She always makes her case effectively on behalf of her constituents. I particularly commend Elf Oil in her constituency for the effective way in which it has promoted ultra-low sulphur diesel because that will help to green motoring throughout Wales and, indeed, Britain.

The Minister and the Secretary of State have of late been trumpeting throughout Wales the fact that there will be free bus travel for pensioners if and when Labour takes control of the National Assembly for Wales. When I asked the Minister how much that would cost, he told me, in a written answer, that he did not know, but that it would come from local authorities' present budget. That is downright dishonest campaigning.

The hon. Gentleman is usually courteous and I find him almost always well informed on policies before the House. On that policy, he is completely misinformed. We are negotiating with the bus operators and with local authorities to achieve the best possible deal for pensioners in Wales, for the public purse and for bus services throughout Wales.

It is a radical and exciting policy. From this year, all pensioners in Wales will be able to travel for half fares throughout Wales; that is an achievement of the Labour Government. In the following two years, a Labour-controlled National Assembly for Wales will be able to move towards free fares for pensioners on buses throughout Wales. That will be welcomed by pensioners, many of whom are trapped at home and unable to get out because they do not have access to a car. The policy will be an enormous boost to their opportunities.

Does the Minister accept the continuing importance of ensuring an integrated system for bus, rail and other public transport? I acknowledge that the money will make a difference, but does he accept that it is still less than 1p per day per resident in Wales? In that context, will he accept representations from those involved in the bus and rail industries to talk about how they would like the Welsh Office to help them to integrate their transport systems?

I chair the Wales transport advisory group, on which bus operators and others, including local authorities, are represented. Through that channel, which is unique to Wales, we have made much progress in achieving effective and coherent public transport policies for Wales. We have introduced many changes already, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

For the first time, we have put £11 million into integrated transport packages throughout Wales. That was never done by the last Conservative Government, who turned their back on public transport in favour of a manic support for the private motor car. The policy will enable the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others to have real choice: to use the car if they wish, but to have available a high-quality choice of other transport if they want to use it.

What percentage of rights of way in Wales he estimates will be free from obstruction on 1 January 2000; and what further steps he plans to take to ensure that 100 per cent. are free of obstructions. [66271]

Of the public rights of way that were surveyed between 1992 and 1997, 53 per cent. were free of obstruction at the end of 1997 and a further 24 per cent. were considered usable. The Countryside Council for Wales is funding programmes that are improving that by a further 1,500 km, or 4 per cent of the total, each year. In future, that matter will become the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, as more than 18 million people in the United Kingdom enjoy walking, and many of them do that in Wales, it is important that the target set for the millennium of having all rights of way free of obstructions is met? What will be done in Wales to increase access to the countryside, which is important for tourism?

I agree that we should have an ambitious target, but I do not agree that it is worth keeping a target if it is not possible to meet it. The target of making rights of way free of all obstructions by 2000 is clearly not likely to be met. What is more, it is good policy not to have that as a target that we must meet, but rather as a continuing task. There will always be a need to invest in access to the countryside. The Countryside Council for Wales is investing almost £1 million in grant in aid to local authorities to improve access to the countryside. In addition to that, we are investing £300,000 over the next three years to develop national trails. I expect to be able to approve a proposal for Ffordd Glyndwr in the next few months, which will be a national trail running right through the heart of Wales.

What is his Department's budget for promoting the elections for the National Assembly for Wales. [66272]

Some £2 million will be spent on the information campaign for the National Assembly elections. I am sure that members of all parties will agree that it is important for people to be fully informed on the powers and responsibilities of the Assembly and to be encouraged to vote.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he submit the budgets for the approval of the Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life? If he does not agree to do so, does he not risk falling foul of that committee in precisely the same way as he did over the misuse of public funds spent on behalf of the Labour party during the referendum campaign?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the requirements will be met to the letter. I know that he simply means to cast a slur, but it is not justified. We will take advice whenever it is necessary and make sure that it is fully observed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the far-reaching nature of the powers of the National Assembly and the difficulties that we face in Wales because of the absence of a national printed press and difficulties with television reception, it is entirely right and proper that public money should be spent to promote knowledge of this important institution? It will change the nature of this place and the civil service.

My hon. Friend is right. Objective information will be provided highlighting the date of the elections; for example, there will be a telephone helpline, which I launched on Monday.

Will the Secretary of State agree to investigate information that is coming through about promotion of the National Assembly by the BBC and other media whereby the conventions under the Representation of the People Act may not be adhered to regarding equal time for all political parties? If that is so, would not that be unfair and not in the interests of democracy in Wales?

Although it is not a matter for me, I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the requirement for fairness in broadcasting during the pre-election period is crucial. If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns, I shall be happy to look at them and to ensure that they are raised in the appropriate quarters. It is for the broadcasters to ensure—I hope that they will do so—that they observe the rules to the letter and are fair in all their coverage.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in promoting the Welsh Assembly, there is a golden opportunity to promote a modern institution that takes into account family-friendly working practices and child care for all those who work and represent within the Assembly?

Yes, that is a very good point and it is our intention to do that. However, an Assembly being family friendly suffers, to some extent, the same problems as this House. Those who live a long distance away in north or west Wales have an interest in concentrated periods of longer hours whereas those who live nearer have more of an interest in limitations on the length of the day. I know that, once elected, the Assembly Members will want to engage in discussions on that. Being family friendly in the way suggested by my hon. Friend is part of our thinking in the discussions that I am having with civil servants in preparing the way for the arrival of the Assembly.

The permanent secretary has estimated the full cost of the Assembly in the first year as being £121 million, including, £10 million for the cost of the Assembly building, £20 million for new staff and offices, £28 million for the official opening ceremony and staging the elections and now £2 million to sell this piece of flagship legislation to the public. We were told that we were being fanciful when we said that the Assembly would cost £100 million over five years. That figure has now been exceeded and expenditure is above the White Paper estimate on which people voted. When will the Secretary of State get a grip on this expenditure, which is running away with itself, and ensure that the money is spent in a far better way, on the people of Wales, instead of on politicians and bureaucrats? [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order. The conversations are far too noisy. It is churlish of the House not to listen to what hon. Members are saying.

Hon. Members were probably asking themselves what on earth the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was on about. He has picked up on figures that were reported inaccurately. In fairness to The Western Mail, it carried a letter, signed by the permanent secretary to the Welsh Office, correcting the figures that he has just used. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads that letter before allowing his anger to become even more synthetic.

What response he has made to the recommendations of the working party, set up by his Department, on improving links between Wales and the EU; and if he will make a statement. [66273]

In December, I published the report of the informal working party. I warmly welcomed it as contributing to the on-going debate on improving links with Europe and sent a copy to each Welsh Member of Parliament. I have taken a number of initiatives to promote Wales in Europe since I became Secretary of State and I shall continue to do so. I have made it clear in everything that I have said that our relations with Europe and Wales's profile in Europe are central to everything that the Welsh Office does before the Assembly comes into being and will be central to the work of the Assembly.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will accept and implement the almost 50 recommendations in the report? Will he address in particular the suggestion in paragraph 8.5, which says that Welsh Office officials have not been adequately involved in committees and meetings in Europe and asks for greater emphasis to be put on that? What proposals does he have to strengthen the Welsh Office presence in the United Kingdom permanent representation office in Brussels—UKREP—which was also recommended in the report?

I have already taken steps along those lines. I was in Brussels 10 days ago when I discussed with UKREP and with commissioners how to improve Wales's profile in Europe. UKREP is positive about the points that we discussed and we shall be co-operating with our permanent representatives. The report has already been before several bodies. The task force on Europe had a two-day session at the beginning of last week to look again at the onset of objective 1 and other issues concerning our relationship with Europe. I intend to take those points forward during the next month.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the functions that the Secretary of State currently exercises in Whitehall and in Europe will be transferred to the Assembly once it is established and will be exercised by the First Secretary of the Assembly, not by the Secretary of State for Wales?

The vast majority of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales will transfer to the Assembly. Some functions will remain with the Secretary of State for Wales. All those issues will be dealt with in the transfer of powers Order that I shall bring forward shortly. That will make clear the details. I understand the point that my right hon. Friend is making.

Why did the Government refuse to give the Welsh Assembly the right to question the Secretary of State for Wales after a meeting of the Council of Ministers?

I am not sure what sort of abstruse point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. The vast majority of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales transfer to the Assembly, to which the First Secretary and the Assembly Secretaries will be fully accountable. They will answer questions and will deal with the issues in much more detail than I and my two ministerial colleagues can.

When he expects changes to be agreed to the assisted area map of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [66274]

The Commission has asked member states to propose new assisted areas by 31 March 1999. The proposals will be subject to the agreement of the Commission and the new map will come into force on 1 January 2000.

I fear that bureaucrats in Brussels are plotting to take assisted area status away from Deeside. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his Department will work hard to prevent that. Flintshire county council has submitted a detailed memorandum, which I support, and I hope that he will read it. He might like to accompany me at half-past 3 to Room W1, where I have a lobby of Raytheon workers.

There is no danger whatever of Deeside being overlooked as long as it is represented with the vigour that my hon. Friend brings to bear. I have been made aware, both by him and by Councillor Tom Middlehurst, of the evidence that Flintshire has submitted, and it will certainly be treated seriously. Having recently visited Raytheon, I can tell my hon. Friend how impressed I am by both the workers and management there, and the co-operation that they demonstrate in their bid to bring new jobs and continued success to the company and the area.

Given the disastrous state of farming in Wales and the totally anaemic Government response to the Welsh Affairs Committee report, what account has the Secretary of State taken of the rural crisis in assisted areas?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would keep quiet on such a point, considering the disastrous nature of the previous Government's work on agriculture and farming. He should be ashamed of himself and keep silent in the Chamber, especially on the subject of the damage that was caused to Welsh farmers. Assisted area status, and indeed area 1 status, will be of particular relevance to farming areas throughout Wales, as are the policies that I have introduced and that were promoted by my immediate predecessor, to concentrate on the needs of mid and west Wales, to bring alternative employment to the areas that have had the most difficulty, and to help farmers to expand their ability to increase their incomes and experience success in the future.

If he will make a statement on the impact on Wales of the Agenda 2000 proposals. [66276]

The Agenda 2000 discussions are a vital component of reform of the European Union that will make an enlarged Union workable and provide for simpler and more easily accessible European programmes for people in all parts of the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union. The Department is fully involved in discussions on the Agenda 2000 programme, both here and in Brussels, to ensure that Wales's needs are met. In future, agriculture in Wales will be the responsibility of the Assembly, which will work closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as lead Minister on European agricultural matters.

Does the Minister agree that the Agenda 2000 proposals will have a damaging impact on farm incomes, at a time when Welsh farmers are suffering considerable financial strain under the Government's policies? Cannot a strong case be made for the introduction of an early retirement scheme?

I do not agree that the proposals should be regarded as a threat to our industry. Many benefits will flow from them to United Kingdom consumers and to farmers and rural Wales. They will remove uncertainty, allow farmers to plan future investment and move the industry towards a more market-driven and therefore more sustainable future. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would support the Government's efforts to create a sustainable industry in rural Wales and the rural United Kingdom.

What are the current employment levels in tourism in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales. [66278]

Figures for the former county of Clwyd are no longer available. About 100,000 people are directly or indirectly employed in tourism in Wales. In future, the matter will be the Assembly's responsibility.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the poor year that several sectors of the tourist industry in Wales have experienced. Will he provide any extra funding for the Wales tourist board, in particular for marketing, as we will be hosting the rugby world cup this year?

We have increased the budget of the Wales tourist board by £1 million this year, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced recently—the biggest-ever increase for tourism in Wales. In addition, we are looking closely at promoting extra funding for the marketing of tourism in Wales, because the Wales tourist board's campaign "Wales—Two Hours and A Million Miles Away" has been extremely successful in encouraging people to come to Wales and enjoy themselves.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 January.

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

No Member of this House could fail to have been moved by the tragic events in Colombia over the past few days. Although the general increase in the Government's aid programme over the past two years has been widely welcomed, may I ask the Prime Minister what immediate action the Government are taking to support the disaster relief effort in Colombia?

This is the worst earthquake in Colombia this century. The numbers of casualties are difficult to confirm, but at least 2,000 are reported to have died. Obviously, the immediate need is for rescue efforts to save people who are still trapped in the rubble, to help people injured or made homeless by the earthquake and then to try to help in the task of providing for those who have been displaced by it. We have made significant sums of money available through the British embassy and the Pan-American Health Organisation as part of our initial response to the immediate needs in Colombia. We also stand ready to make a contribution to a European Union effort. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure that the international community responds to this humanitarian crisis in an effective and co-ordinated way.

May I associate the Opposition with the remarks that the Prime Minister has made on Colombia?

Last week, I asked the Prime Minister about terrorist mutilations and beatings in Northern Ireland. Following that, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland held meetings on Monday to ask for an end to those horrific acts—an initiative that we welcomed. A few hours after those meetings, a 24-year-old man was seized in east Belfast and shot twice. The same thing happened last night. In the past few hours, Eamon Collins—who turned informer against the IRA—has apparently been found dead. There is mounting concern in all parts of the House—as I know the Prime Minister will acknowledge—about this matter. Will he confirm that the Government have the legal power, if they wish, to halt the early release of terrorist prisoners if this barbaric activity does not stop?

Yes, that is right—we have the power to bring to an end the early prisoner releases. We would do so in circumstances where we could no longer say that a ceasefire was in place. That, therefore, is the issue—whether the right judgment now is that, as a result of the punishment beatings, the ceasefire is at an end.

I asked for research to be done following Question Time last week, and it might be helpful if I gave the House the figures for punishment beatings over the last few years. In 1994, there were 192; in 1995, 220; in 1996, 326; in 1997, 228; in 1998, 209. During one part of that period—[Interruption.] None of those is tolerable or right. We should do everything we can to stop these incidents and to bring to justice those responsible. However, the point that I am making is that there was a ceasefire before, under the previous Government, during which punishment beatings were being carried out; indeed, to a rather greater degree than now. The previous Government's judgment at the time, which we supported, was that it was not right to bring the whole process to an end. That is the judgment that we continue to make, for the reasons that I have given.

May I ask the Prime Minister to acknowledge several things? First, I am grateful for his clarification that the Government have the legal power about which I inquired, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on the radio this morning that she was not sure about that power.

Secondly, does the Prime Minister agree that the word "beatings", which many of us have used about the punishments being meted out, does not do justice to what is happening in Northern Ireland? Thirdly, will he acknowledge that, although in recent years there have always been such beatings and mutilations, we did not have an agreement in the earlier period? Now we have the Good Friday agreement, which people are meant to be implementing. According to figures from the organisation Families Against Intimidation and Terror, representatives of which I met this morning, the number of such incidents increased from 388 in 1997 to more than 500 in 1998. That number is continuing to rise, even after the agreement.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that legislation requires that the Secretary of State must take into account whether these organisations are

"committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means",

that they have

"ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence",

and that they are

"co-operating fully with"

the Commission on Decommissioning—which presumably means giving up or preparing to give up their guns or bombs? If none of those things is happening, the Government have not only the power, but the justification at least to put on hold the terrorist releases that are taking place.

I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was referring to the fact that we cannot slow down the process. However, slowing down is anyway what is happening, as releases are running at about a third of their previous rate. [Interruption.] Yes they are. It is true, however, that we can stop them altogether. In those circumstances, we would then declare that the ceasefire no longer exists.

If that were to happen, the consequences would be immense for the whole of the process in Northern Ireland. I am not saying that it would never be right to come to that judgment, just that I do not believe that such a judgment would be right now. The figures for attacks and assaults on people given by the right hon. Gentleman are not the same as those that I have. However, I pointed out a moment ago that, under the previous Government, there was a ceasefire and punishment beatings went on in exactly the same way. An early release scheme was also going on under that Government. If the right hon. Gentleman wants the figures, I can tell him that there have been 238 releases under this Government's proposals, compared with 325 under the previous Government's scheme. It is correct to say that no lifers were involved under that scheme, but none the less the prisoners involved had been convicted of offences such as conspiracy to murder and to cause explosions, and of armed offences of one sort or another.

I read out that list simply to convey to the right hon. Gentleman that I accept that this is—and has to be—an imperfect process and an imperfect peace. However, it is better than no process and no peace at all.

We very much agree that it is an imperfect process and an imperfect peace. The Prime Minister knows that we have supported the Good Friday agreement, that we will continue to do so and that we have backed up the Government on very many of these matters—[Interruption.]

Order. This is very time-consuming. I am watching the clock and I want Back-Bench Members to ask questions, as well as the two Front-Bench Members.

If this is not the place to raise the question of violent acts of intimidation carried out against people in our own country, then what is the House of Commons for? We have a bipartisan policy, but we have a disagreement over this matter, as do some Labour Members. It is right for the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) to raise the matter in this House, and it is right for the Opposition to do so as well.

The Secretary of State says that she is prepared to act if there is evidence that particular parties affiliated to paramilitary groups are returning to violence. Much of the necessary evidence seems to exist. The Chief Constable has said that

"there is no doubt whatever that all of these organisations, including those who purport to be in cessation of military operations, are engaged in this … activity."

The evidence comes from victims' families and many other sources. Will the Prime Minister, therefore, also accept that the evidence exists in abundance and that there can be little doubt that the paramilitary organisations are responsible for what is happening?

As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman last week, it is also the case that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary believes that the ceasefire is still in place. However, let me make one thing clear. I do not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's right to raise matters. He is correct; this is the right place to raise them. What I dispute is this. The previous Government had to make difficult judgments. For example, for months they engaged in secret negotiations with the IRA and denied that they were doing so. When they had to admit it to the House, not one member of the Official Opposition or one Liberal Democrat criticised them for it because we knew the difficulties of the process.

When I point out to the Conservatives that there were punishment beatings and appalling things going on under the previous ceasefire, but that there were prisoner releases, I do so not to criticise the previous Government, but to point out that true bipartisanship is not about talking about it, but about delivering it.

The shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can chatter away as much as he likes, but I do not doubt that the Leader of the Opposition is well intentioned. I believe that he is being dragged along by some people who do not wish the agreement well. When the Conservatives were in government, we gave them that support through the difficult as well as the easy times, so I do not dispute their right to raise the matter, but I question the motives of some of them in doing so.

Of course, the Prime Minister is right to say that the Labour party often supported the previous Conservative Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Always."] But Labour Members also voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Prime Minister did not make speeches of that sort then. I raise those points not because I am being dragged along by anyone, but because the representatives of Families Against Intimidation and Terror came to see me this morning and said, "You're right to raise this issue. Please go on doing so." We are raising it on their behalf.

The nature of the disagreement is clear. It comes down to one thing and the Prime Minister is being straightforward about it. We say that he has the power to act and the justification to do so, and so forth. He says that, despite all that, the wider interests of peace require the early releases of terrorists to continue. That is a matter of judgment. Is not the logical conclusion of that approach that every terrorist could be released from prison without a single gun or bomb being given up, and without an end to the mutilations? Will he guarantee that that situation will not come about?

I take the judgment that I do because I believe that the Good Friday agreement still provides the best chance of peace in Northern Ireland. I have made clear our total condemnation of those attacks and our desire to do all that we can to prevent them, but the right hon. Gentleman also has to face up to the consequences of what he demands me to do. If we ended up exercising our power and declaring the ceasefire at an end, the consequences for the agreement would be huge. We make a judgment the whole time, as I said last week, but I believe that that judgment is essentially still correct. We keep it under review the entire time—[Interruption.] I ask the right hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members who are shouting, "Disgraceful!" and "Shame!", at me to recognise the difficulties faced by any Government in this situation and the enormous consequences of bringing the whole process to an end.

We recognise the difficulties, but the great danger is—it is a danger that the Prime Minister must acknowledge—that before long, all the terrorists will be freed without meeting their part of the agreement. For that reason and that reason alone, we are saying that it is right to put on hold the early release of terrorists.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, even at the end of the two-year period, there will still be people in prison for the offences that they committed. In the end, we have to make a judgment and my judgment is that the wider interests—not of prisoner releases, but of peace in Northern Ireland—require us to continue to do all that we can to make the process work. I raised what happened under the previous Government not to criticise—[Interruption.] No, I am not criticising them. On the contrary, we supported them. We did so precisely because we realised the difficulties that they faced.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He well knows what the problem was under the previous Government and what we could have done. At the time, their majority depended on the support of the Ulster Unionists. At any point through all the difficulties of those years, we could have brought down the Government on this matter, had we wished to do so. We did not because we believed that the broader public interest demanded that we acted responsibly. I still believe that the broader public interest is secured by making the agreement work.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the huge burdens that are shouldered by carers such as Lucy? She cares for a man, doing all the cooking and cleaning. She gets him up in the morning, helps to put him to bed at night and assists with his personal needs. Lucy is 10 years old and looks after her father. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such children need practical help urgently? Will he assure the House that young carers will receive that practical help under the new strategy for carers?

I pay tribute to the contribution made by carers young and old. There are literally millions of them of every age and in every set of circumstances, and they do a marvellous job caring for relatives. Of course, the rise in child benefit will provide enormous help to all children. As for older people, our proposed pension reforms will ensure that long-term carers get up to £1,500 per year in pension as a result of the flat-rate credits that we shall award them under our new proposals. In addition, from April, we shall introduce a £2.5 billion package for the poorest pensioners. Children such as Lucy will be helped and so will older people.

I call Mr. Ashdown—[Interruption.] Order.

They will miss me when I am gone.

The Secretary of State for Social Security recently claimed that the average pensioner in Britain—which does not yet include me—was £140 a year better off under Labour, but as every pensioner knows, that is nonsense. Will the Prime Minister confirm that those figures are based on not one year but two, on a family not an individual, apply to only 30 per cent. of pensioners and take no account of raised taxes or lost tax reliefs under the Government? Taking all that into account, is it not the case that the average pensioner in Britain, far from being £140 a year better off, is actually £2 a year worse off under Labour?

No. The right hon. Gentleman is not right about that. Indeed, as a result of the cut in VAT on domestic fuel, the special bonuses for fuel of £50 for those on income support and £20 for others, and the package of measures that come into effect in April—the £2.5 billion package that will help the poorest pensioners in particular—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right.

I hope that the Prime Minister will look further at those figures, because he will find that they are contested by almost every group that has any credibility in the matter. May I put a simple and concrete proposition to him? It is nearly always the oldest pensioners who are the poorest pensioners. The age supplement for pensioners over 80 has remained at 25p a week for more than a quarter of a century. If the Government were to raise that from 2.5p a week to £5 a week, it would cost relatively little and would reach twice as many pensioners as the minimum income guarantee proposed by the Government. Why not do that?

Because we believe that, by raising the minimum pension guarantee by £5 for a single person and £7 for a couple, we shall provide more help to more people. In addition to the things that we are doing for pensioners, which I mentioned a moment ago, from April this year, there will be free eye tests and concessionary travel. We are getting help to many pensioners in the country who would otherwise not get that help. That is all being achieved through measures introduced by the Labour Government to improve the living standards of pensioners of every description throughout the country. Although there is far more that we want to do, that is not a bad start for our first two years in government.

Does my right hon. Friend share my pride in my constituents from Blackpool Victoria hospital, who came to London yesterday to receive their charter mark award? Does he accept the views of many Labour Members that his comments on that occasion were entirely right, entirely appropriate and in striking contrast to the Conservative Government's frequent denigration of public services?

We value those who work in our public services and we are getting more resources into the front line of those services. We shall not cease to say that the extra £40 billion that is going into schools and hospitals from this April—despite the opposition of the Conservative party, whose members said that ours were reckless and irresponsible plans—will not only help to reward better those who work for our public services, but raise the standards of the services themselves.

If he will visit Kingswear in order to take a trip to sea in a crabber.

I regret to say that I have no immediate plans to do so.

Either the Prime Minister enjoys the seas around the Seychelles more than the icy steel waters of the English channel, or the reason why he does not want to accept the second invitation that I have extended to him to go to sea in a British fishing boat is that he does not want to see the wanton destruction of the sea beds and the marine environment, which is largely caused by Belgian and Dutch beam trawlers and scallopers with outsize 1,500 horsepower engines and 40 dredges—20 on either side—which do immense damage to the sea bed and to shellfish. How does he square that with the Labour party's conservation policy?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the holiday advice. We have no information about Dutch or Belgian vessels infringing their access rights, and if the hon. Gentleman has any such information, we should be grateful if he would bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities. However, the proposition apparently being advanced by the Conservative party, which is to withdraw from the common fisheries policy altogether, would not be a sensible way to proceed. There are huge problems, but we are committed to trying to ensure that the CFP is a more effective instrument for the conservation of fish stocks.

To ensure a more healthy marine environment and a sustainable fishing industry, we are putting in extra investment; and we have managed to tighten European Union rules on the breach of the fishing quotas. To withdraw from the CFP, which is the alternative put forward by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, would lead to a worse situation, not a better one.

My right hon. Friend took a keen interest in the miners compensation scheme for vibration white finger, which is now in place to the tune of about £500,000. May I ask him to take a keener interest in the other case that the miners are currently fighting, which relates to emphysema and bronchitis, which is a slow, agonisingly painful disease suffered not only by miners, but by their families and, sadly, their widows?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's campaigning on these issues. He was a miner for 30 years or more. We were obviously pleased that we managed to achieve a successful conclusion on the vibration white finger issue. That settlement will mean that many people are compensated who should have been compensated. As for the respiratory disease litigation, I can tell my hon. Friend that we are close to finalising the handling arrangements to deal with the 65,000 claims that we have received to date. We believe, and are hopeful that, full final settlement offers will start to flow in as soon as possible. Before long, we hope to be able to proclaim another agreement to deal with these issues. I hope that that will provide security for many thousands of ex-miners suffering from work-related illnesses. After years and years in which compensation claims were not properly dealt with, it will be a pleasure for the Government to deliver to former miners.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will be aware that the Liberal Democrats support the objectives of the Tax Credits Bill and welcome the £1.5 billion of new money to help poorer working families. Does he, however, recognise the strong concerns felt not just by the Liberal Democrats, but by the Trades Union Congress, the Low Pay Unit and the Confederation of British Industry about the detail of the Bill? Will he give the House an assurance that small firms will be exempt from the burden of administering the scheme and that all employees will have the right to claim their tax credits directly from the Inland Revenue in order to maintain confidentiality?

We are addressing the concerns that have been put to us by business. The Inland Revenue will be doing all the administration and calculation of what is due if the employer pays the tax credit through the pay roll, but we are also transferring the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue. So there will be a big simplification of the way in which many businesses handle payments to their staff.

We are making provision at least for single-earner couples to choose to be paid through their order book or bank account. We want to make sure that the scheme works properly and has the minimum potential for abuse within it. We are trying to address all the concerns that have been put to us, but it would be disastrous if we put the scheme at risk. Of course we will listen to any concerns put to us, but literally 1.5 million people will receive a benefit of about £17 a week. All couples or single parents earning even the lowest income will have a minimum income of £10,000 a year.

The shadow Social Security Secretary has pledged that the Conservatives will abolish the scheme. They should know that they will be going into the next election pledging a tax rise of £17 a week for 1.5 million people. Given the state of the Conservative party, it does not surprise me, that that is its proposal.

May I welcome the long overdue separation of those responsible for producing Britain's food and those responsible for policing its safety? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had we had a Food Standards Agency a few years ago, we might have avoided the fiasco of salmonella in eggs and the scandal of BSE? Can he confirm that the funding mechanism for the FSA is still a matter for public consultation, but that the modest cost proposed is a small price to pay for consumer confidence in the safety and quality of Britain's food?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I gather that the Conservative party is now opposed to the proposal. I think that it is making another big mistake. Most people, who remember salmonella, E. coli and BSE, and see that there were 93,000 cases of food poisoning in the past year, believe that the FSA is a long overdue reform. The charge works out at £1.73 a week, which is less than the price of a Big Mac. That is not a great deal to pay for clean and safe food in Britain.

Does the Prime Minister intend to visit the trade union rally being held in the House this afternoon? If so, how will he reply to the remarks of John Edmonds, who leads the GMB, who, on the radio this week, described the economy as being as flat as a pancake? How will he reply to Bill Morris, who leads the GTWU—[Laughter.] Mr. Moms leads one of our major unions. He described the Government's industrial policies as "sterile" and said in the New Statesman that it would be extremely difficult to motivate any of his workers to do any more work for the Labour party.

I am delighted that the hon. Lady has decided to support the trade union movement and read the New Statesman after all these years. I say to her exactly what I say to them—the fact that we are entering an economic downturn with interest rates falling, the lowest long-term interest rates for over 30 years, the Budget deficit cured, 400,000 extra jobs created in the economy and youth unemployment halved since we came to power demonstrates that we have a pretty good record. If the hon. Lady wants to quote the Transport and General and the GMB at me, she should hear what they say about the previous Tory Government.