To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses and flats owned by local authorities have been sold to their former tenants since May 1979; and what proposals he has to extend the opportunities for home ownership within the Principality.

Over 79,000 dwellings have been sold to sitting tenants by local authorities and new towns in Wales. We are encouraging local authorities and housing associations to undertake a range of low-cost home ownership schemes. The most important initiative is the introduction by the Development Board for Rural Wales of the experimental flexi-ownership scheme, which allows tenants to buy their homes at a weekly outlay broadly the same as their rent payments.

Is not the opportunity for the extension of home ownership at the heart of the Government's policy? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us hope that his new initiative in Wales will be followed elsewhere in the kingdom?

There is no doubt that the initial reaction to the flexi-ownership scheme launched only a couple of months ago has been one of enthusiasm by the tenants. The principle certainly needs to be examined and I hope that one day it will be applied to the whole country.

What advice would the Secretary of State give to those who followed his earlier advice to buy their home and who now find themselves caught in a Government-created trap, at their wits' end trying to meet higher mortgage payments and dreading the arrival of the first poll tax demand, yet knowing that they will have lost their right to be rehoused if their house is repossessed?

I have no doubt that, if that is the case, the Labour party will revert to its policy of trying to stop the sale of council houses, as the right hon. Gentleman did when he was a Minister at the Welsh Office. However, I believe that all 79,000 are delighted with their purchase.

Does the Secretary of State realise that many people who have bought their council house—we all want maximum home ownership—find it next to impossible to keep up their mortgage payments and that many are back on waiting lists for council houses? Those waiting lists have almost doubled in some parts of Wales. What will the Secretary of State do about it?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that many people who bought their council house at an enormous discount are back on the waiting lists. The majority of the 79,000 are delighted. I hope that the numbers will extend considerably in the coming years.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the proposals of Housing in Wales, Tai Cymru and housing associations in Wales are wholly inadequate to deal with the problems of housing for at least 70,000 people who are on waiting lists in the Principality? What about the 6,000 or 7,000 homeless people? Cannot the Secretary of State see that the people of Wales are looking to him for some way out of this misery?

No, Sir. I am proud that in the lifetime of this Government there has been an enormous improvement in the housing stock of Wales, which dwarfs anything achieved by our predecessors.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the specific reasons for the standard spending assessment per capita in the county of Clwyd being the lowest in Wales.

Standard spending assessments for 1990–91 have been calculated to reflect as accurately as possible the relative position of every local authority in Wales.

Is the Secretary of State aware that although the consultations might have involved the county councils, no one in Clwyd, particularly on Clwyd county council, can see why the standard spending assessment should be so low? It is plain daft. This is a serious matter. Members of Clwyd county council want to see the Secretary of State and one of his Ministers about it. Will he agree to meet them?

It was not just a matter of discussions with the county councils; the standard spending assessments for 1990–91 were fully discussed and agreed by Welsh local authority associations. Clwyd might be dissatisfied with some factors, but, as a proportion of its relevant population, it has fewer pupils to teach and the second lowest unemployment rate in the counties. Clwyd county council should see how it can save by efficiency, instead of making extraordinary estimates, such as it is making now.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be general acceptance of his view that there is scope for increased efficiency, but that nevertheless Clwyd finds itself a victim of the change in formula? Is he further aware that within Clwyd, the district of Rhuddlan is simultaneously being hit in exactly the same way by the change in the method of calculating the formula? I hope that he will pay careful attention to that.

My hon. Friend will agree that, if the Government sit down with local authority associations to try to agree a formula to assess needs and those associations agree to that formula, the Government cannot do much more.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value of grants which Wales has received from the European regional development fund in each of the last three years.

Figures for European regional development fund assistance committed in Wales in each of the past three years are as follows: 1987, £57·8 million, 1988, £63·3 million and 1989, £28·8 million. The decline in 1989 was due to delays in Commission approvals. That will result in a rise in commitments in 1990.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those grants play an important part in helping to create more jobs in Wales? Is he satisified that the source of those grants is sufficiently well publicised?

Yes. The fund has played an important part and the Welsh Office has done a great deal in endeavouring to negotiate a range of grants for the benefit of Wales.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that whatever EC grants are available are used to help to remove the Albion colliery tip above the village of Cilfynydd, which is just a few miles down the valley from Aberfan? That village is threatened by the old Albion tip, which is causing grave discomfort to many of my constituents, who are also worried about their property.

Irrespective of European grants, it is obviously important that all those concerned take the action that is required. I understand the hon. Gentleman's deep concern. As he knows, that matter is a basic responsibility of Mid Glamorgan county council. It has applied for grants to take certain action and the Welsh Development Agency has speedily agreed to give those grants—I believe that it approved them today or last week. I shall certainly keep a close watch to see that all the assistance needed by that county council is given.

On the RDF, what will the Secretary of State do about the integrated operations initiative put forward by Powys, Gwynedd and Dyfed? That initiative has been accepted as worthwhile by the Welsh Office and by the EC, but, apparently, it is now being blocked by central Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to ensure that that initiative stays at the front of the queue instead of being pushed back?

It is not a case of pushing back the initiative. Important negotiations and a change of emphasis are taking place in the Community. We certainly do our best for all the applications.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial assistance has been provided since 1979 to Dyfed county council in respect of the capital costs of the Cleddau bridge, Pembrokeshire.

The Government made a £4 milion interest-free loan to Dyfed county council in 1979. No assistance has been provided since then.

Although I welcome the £4 milllion loan provided by the Government, is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable annoyance felt in Pembrokeshire because my constituents must pay 50p every time they cross the bridge when the rest of the road system is free? Why have my constituents been singled out for such an imposition when the rest of the road system is provided from taxation?

I assure my hon. Friend that his constituents have not been singled out, but Cleddau bridge is owned and operated by Dyfed county council. The policy on tolling operated by the present Government is the same as that operated by successive Governments—that users who enjoy the exceptional savings in time and money made possible by estuarial crossings should contribute directly to the costs involved through the payment of tolls.

Would the Minister care to tell the House how long the missing link in the county of Pembrokeshire on the M4 has been delayed because of the expenditure on roads by the former Secretary of State for Wales?

Will the M4 go over that bridge?

Yes.

I am happy to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the section of road to which the hon. Gentleman referred is far from Cleddau bridge. The hon. Gentleman should know, however, that we have eased congestion along the Baglan to Lonlas section by improving the Baglan roundabout. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not travelled that way recently. We have plans to improve all three sections between Baglan and Lonlas.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

On 11 January 1990, the numbers of unemployment claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 4,754, 14,051 and 90,349 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison.

There have been at least 23 changes in the method of compiling unemployment statistics, all of which have reduced the overall total. Is poll tax yet another secret weapon in the Government's armoury to reduce the figures? The cost of collecting rates in Wales was £9 million, whereas poll tax will cost more than £25 million to collect, the cost of which will have to be borne by the charge payers. Is not it sheer hypocrisy by the Government to lecture our local authorities on financial prudence when they behave in this way?

The income for the local authority in Newport must greatly benefit from the fact that unemployment there was 92 per cent. higher at the time of the general election than it is now.

Is not the Secretary of State aware that there are 120,000 fewer industrial employees—involved in manufacturing, production and making things—in Wales now than there were in 1979? Is it any wonder that income per head in Wales is lower than in 1979 and that we are the poorest region in Britain?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because the figures that he has just mentioned were given in a reply by me, the main drop involves those employed in the coal industry. I am glad that in the past three years there has been a big increase in the number of jobs in manufacturing. I am also pleased—obviously the right hon. Gentleman is not—that there has been an enormous increase in the number of jobs in the service industries. Many people in Wales delight in the fact that there is an enormous increase in both industries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed in Wales in (a) 1979 and (b) in December 1989.

In September 1989, the latest date for which information is available, there was a civilian work force in employment in Wales of 1,158,000. In September 1979, the figure was 1,160,000.

My right hon. Friend's interesting answer reflects some of the problems with which he has had to cope in the restructuring of the Welsh economy. Can he be more specific and tell the House some of the initiatives that he has taken to boost employment in manufacturing and service industries? What programmes will he be pursuing in the next 12 months towards those objectives?

If one takes into consideration the increased numbers in higher education in Wales compared with 1979, the figures for 1989 were higher than the 1979 ones. I am delighted that a range of initiatives have brought the financial services to Wales and a great deal of overseas investment. During the past three years Wales, with 5 per cent. of the population, has had 20 per cent. of all the inward investment into Britain.

Does the figure that the Secretary of State gave mean that the Government have just got back to the employment figure for Wales that existed in 1979 when he, along with his associates, ran an election campaign to say, "Labour isn't working"? Will he respond to the invitation that I have given him many times, to make in Wales the speech that he occasionally makes in England, and give the figures of how much has been poured down the drain through the huge numbers of unemployed that have existed throughout the past 10 years? Those figures are still very high and much higher than in many parts of England.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone else, pits closed on a large scale under Labour Governments, as well as Conservative Governments. In the past 10 years there has been an enormous drop in the numbers employed in both the coal and steel industries, yet, in spite of that, this year there are as many people in employment as there were in 1979. I am glad that there is a great diversity of jobs, mainly in the private sector.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difference between the time of the Labour Government and today is that those in work are working for companies making profits, so their jobs are much more secure than they were under the Labour Administration?

Perhaps the most important fact for Wales is that it now has a diversity of job opportunities that it never had before.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent in total by his Department to advertise and provide information on the poll tax in Wales.

I expect the total expenditure on information relating to the community charge to be around £400,000 in 1989–90.

Now that we know that the average poll tax for Wales will be at least £47 higher than the Government's estimate, and that the Government's only response is the ridiculous idea of rate-capping Welsh local authorities that have never been accused of overspending by any Government, why do not the Government accept that all their plans for propaganda for the poll tax to persuade the people of Walls that it is a wonderful tax have been an abject failure? Should not the Secretary of State join his colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, and, rather than rate-cap Welsh local authorities, go cap in hand to the Treasury to get more money for them this year, to save hard-pressed Welsh ratepayers from this ridiculous tax?

The hon. Gentleman has knowledge that I do not have—we do not know what the individual community charges will be; all we know is what we read in the press.

As for capping, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made the position absolutely clear. Of course, we do not like the tremendous increases in spending that are proposed—we were talking about Clwyd county council a few moments ago. It is proposing to spend about 14 per cent. more in the coming year than it did this year—and this year it spent 9 per cent. more than the previous year.

As for the information that we have given, we have published guides for households and for students about the community charge rebate, and four more leaflets are on the way, all of them in two languages.

In that information, will my hon. Friend continue to make it clear that those who benefit most from the community charge are the least well off in Wales—despite the attacks mounted on the people of Wales by local councils that set the community charge at unnecessary and ridiculously high levels?

We all know that single pensioners and single parents will certainly benefit from the community charge. There is an excellent rebate scheme, and we have published a guide to the community charge rebate.

The Minister has admitted that he is ignorant of what is going on in Welsh local authorities. It is now mid-February; will he tell us whether there is any possibility or probability that the Government intend to rate-cap any Welsh local authority?

The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that we enjoy a particularly favourable position in Wales, in that the average community charge that we anticipated was about £100 less than the average anticipated in England. He also knows that the percentage of grant that the Government give local authorities in Wales is considerably higher than it is in England.

Have not the Government underprovided our excellent local authorities in Wales by about 4 per cent? If the Government resort to charge capping, will they not be attacking, in effect, the Conservative-controlled Vale of Glamorgan district council and independent-controlled Montgomery council? If charge capping takes place, the consequences will be cuts in schooling, housing and social services.

The Secretary of State is seeking an alibi. He is passing the buck to our councils, but he is to blame for introducing a poll tax that the people of Wales do not want.

The hon. Gentleman really cannot have it all ways. He is afraid that we want to restrain local authorities from overcharging their community charge payers. He would far rather allow the tremendous increases that we read about in the press to be imposed by local authorities. If he has any care for the electors and community charge payers, he should join the Government in urging local authorities to reduce their spending and their community charge. We all know the truth: local authorities are raising community charges as much as they possibly can and hoping to blame the Government for the outcome.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest information on the level of poll tax to be levied by (a) Carmarthen district council and (b) Dinefwr borough council; and what is the average for all the local authorities so far notified in Wales.

I have received no such information.

Is the Secretary of State aware that Dyfed has the lowest average male earnings of any county in Britain? What has he to say to the 20,000 or 30,000 people in my constituency who are on low pay, live in very ordinary homes, are not eligible for any rebates and who will lose heavily when the poll tax bills arrive?

Expenditure was based on a 7·1 per cent. increase on last year's budget, and only 15 per cent. of all local government expenditure in Wales will come from the poll tax. The hon. Gentleman should explain to his constituents how lucky they are.

I am amazed that the Secretary of State is ignorant about what is happening in local government in Wales. I am sure that he realises that many local authorities, including my own county council of Mid Glamorgan, have already set the level of poll tax. Those councils will now have to struggle for the resources to rebuild and reopen the Rhigos mountain road at the top end of the Rhondda valley, which has collapsed as a result of recent bad weather. Under the previous rating system, a Welsh Office scheme gave 75 per cent. over and above a penny rate to cope with emergencies. Will the Secretary of State assure me that such money will be immediately forthcoming under the new system to open this vital road, which is the Rhondda's only access to west Wales, the heads of the valley and even into the midlands?

That is a separate question and I shall look into the details.

Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on the howls of outrage that will be uttered by people all over Wales if Labour's proposals for a roof tax are introduced? Under that tax, people would be charged not only on the basis of the capital value of their home, but on the basis of their income. Much unfairness would arise, because after a national Labour Chancellor had fleeced the taxpayers, 400 local chancellors would do the same at the town halls.

One notices the total confusion and muddle in the Labour party on this matter. It is certain that if a Labour Government handled a new roof tax in the same rather ruthless way as they handled the rate support system, the people of Wales would have a bad time. When people throughout the Principality discover that they will have to pay a tax based on the capital value of their house, they will be very distressed.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative Cabinet invented the wretched poll tax. Did not he undertake in Cabinet to impose that unjust tax on the people of Wales? His name was on the poll tax Bill as it was dragooned through the House. These fairy tales from the right hon. Gentleman will lead to electoral disaster for his party. He will be remembered in Wales as the man who brought an unjust tax, the poll tax, upon our people. The poll tax and the right hon. Gentleman's endeavours to promote it are a stain on his ministerial reputation.

In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, he has no ministerial reputation. We have introduced one poll tax. The shadow Cabinet of which the hon. Gentleman is a member has had three different types of roof taxes. We all look forward to seeing the detail of the one that he supports so that people throughout Wales can examine it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the hourly pay of supply teachers and home tutors in (a) West Glamorgan, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

Local education authorities have considerable flexibility on the pay of supply teachers and home tutors. They are not required to notify the Welsh Office of their local arrangements.

Does my hon. Friend accept the recommendations of the interim advisory committee which, if implemented, would eradicate the discrimination against supply teachers in counties in Wales as outside?

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we accept the recommendations of the interim advisory committee—including those related to teachers on short-notice contracts. As a result of those recommendations, the pay of supply and other teachers on such contracts would be calculated on the same basis as that of full-time or regular part-time teachers.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with recruitment to teacher training courses in Wales?

On the whole, yes, and I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that initial recruitment to the public sector training institutions in Wales exceeded the target by more than 17 per cent. That augurs well for the future and implies that teaching is still viewed as an attractive career.

The Minister's statement will be very welcome to all part-time or supply teachers. Is he satisfied that sufficient resources are available to Welsh local education authorities to employ the part-time and supply teachers required to ensure that the national curriculum is fully implemented?

A survey of teaching in Wales showed that the vacancy rate is about 1 per cent., which is similar to the rate for England and Wales combined. We are keeping a careful eye on the position and are doing our utmost to ensure an adequate supply of teachers. Other matters, including the employment of part-time and supply teachers, are for local authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the chairman of the Welsh health authorities; and what matters will be discussed.

The date and agenda for the next meeting have not yet been determined.

The Minister is aware of my concern that Dr. Joan Williams and Mr. David Else, who are employees of Mid Glamorgan health authority and shareholders and company directors of Medical Diagnostics Limited, and Dr. Stephanie Matthews and Dr. Keith Davies, who are employees of South Glamorgan health authority and shareholders and directors of Lifecare Advanced Medical Limited, have serious direct conflicts of interest between the income-generating work in the Health Service and their involvement in private companies. Will the Minister issue guidelines for the chairmen of Welsh health authorities making it clear that such activities fall well beyond the scope of acceptable private practice and will not be allowed in future?

Health authorities, as employers, are responsible for ensuring that their employees' private interests do not conflict with those of the authorities. We are considering whether further guidance is needed to guard against the risk of conflict.

Will the Minister meet representatives of local authorities in mid-Wales, as many of them are keen to establish a Mid Wales health authority based on Bronglais hospital, Aberystwyth?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern for his local hospital, but I believe that he has been taken in by people who have raised unnecessary scares about it. East Dyfed health authority does a first-rate job.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities in Wales of implementing the community care proposals contained in the recent White Paper on community care.

As we have made clear in the White Paper "Caring for People", the resources to be made available to local authorities in Wales to implement the new framework for community care will be determined in this year's public expenditure survey, following consultations with the local authorities which have begun.

The Minister did not answer my question. Does he accept that in coming years, the increasing number of elderly people will require extra resources? Does he further agree that care in the community will cost money and must not be implemented on the cheap? Will he guarantee that the Government will make available enough money to enable local authorities in Wales to bear the burden that is being transferred to them by the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which is currently in Committee? Will he also ensure that such finance is ring-fenced, so that there will be no doubt about the resources available to look after our old people?

As the hon. Gentleman is, with me, a member of the Standing Committee, he must be aware that the Government have every intention of ensuring that their policy works to the benefit of the old and dependent in society. We do not believe that resources should be ring-fenced because we put our trust in local authorities. Of course, we shall take into consideration any action that might have to be taken in the future, but at this stage we have faith in local authorities.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to comment on the shortfall in respite care allowances? My constituents are unable to take advantage of hostels for the mentally and physically handicapped because the abolition of the board and lodging allowance has penalised dependants. People do not receive the same amount of benefit if, to have a break, they put their dependants into respite hospitals.

The hon. Gentleman will know that this is a subject for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security rather than for me. He will be aware of the increased funding by the Welsh Office for the mentally handicapped and the mental illness strategies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what response has been received to the publication of "The A55—The Road of Opportunity"; and what further sections of the road will begin to be improved in the next financial year.

The response to the publication of the document "The A55—The Road of Opportunity" has been very favourable. We will be announcing details of major trunk road schemes planned to start in 1990–91 in the Welsh Office commentary on the 1990 public expenditure White Paper due to be published in March.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that everyone concerned—the private developers and Clwyd county council—is taking full advantage of the glittering opportunities presented by the Government's tremendous success in driving ahead with that new road? Will he make a statement about when work is likely to begin on the badly needed Rhuallt hill improvement?

On my hon. Friend's second question, tenders for the scheme were invited on 19 January and are due for return at the end of March, and construction is expected to take about two years. We shall get going with the scheme as soon as possible.

On the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question, I believe that the actions of the local authorities in connection with the enormous Government investment in the new road, and the proposals that are coming forward, are to be welcomed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority to discuss health services.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the chairman of South Glamorgan health authority.

Does the Minister agree that such a meeting is urgently required? At a meeting on Wednesday this week, South Glamorgan health authority will consider an emergency proposal to close six hospitals. Three of them are in my constituency—St. David's and Glan Ely hospitals and Ely ear nose and throat hospital. The shortfall for next year's budget is £7·5 million, and as a result the authority is reduced to planning in a panic, and having to sell capital resources to fund a revenue shortfall. I should have thought that the Minister would regard that with the utmost seriousness.

The hon. Gentleman will know that those proposals are the responsibility of the health authority. As they may eventually come before my right hon. Friend for a decision, it is impossible for me to talk about them. He will also know that the health authority that he and I share is the best resourced in Wales. In the forthcoming year its capital allocation will be increased by 122 per cent. which I think the hon. Gentleman will agree is fairly generous.

How much extra will it cost the authority when it has to pay for its patients to be treated in England, and how much extra will it cost when the authority has to pay value added tax?

The health authorities will be funded for value added tax and for contracts taken out elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman must understand that South Glamorgan health authority is as likely to attract inward patients as anywhere else, as it is a regional centre and a highly regarded university hospital-based authority.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the results of the recent tests carried out under the auspices of his Department into the level of polychlorinated biphenyls in Llanelli.

Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has taken two further samples, one from the playing field and one nearby, to validate the results of its original survey. The results of the samples will be available towards the end of March.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern in my constituency that this matter should be dealt with urgently? We know that one sample provided earlier showed high levels of PCBs in the field adjacent to an infants' school. So that pollution may be removed, will the Government, and the Welsh Office in particular, view sympathetically requests for financial help from the local authorities which are under considerable strain in this matter?

Unless the right hon. Gentleman can produce proof of that strain, the work to which he referred will fall within the local authorities' ordinary duties. We want the results of the tests to be available as quickly as possible. Apparently a problem arises because the samples have to be dried before they can be examined; it is more a scientific problem than anything else.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the provision of affordable housing in rural Wales.

We are taking a wide range of measures to stimulate the provision of additional affordable housing in rural Wales, including substantial spending by housing associations and consultations about planning guidance on the provision of land for low-cost housing.

Is the Minister really aware of the housing crisis in rural Wales? Many youngsters are having to sleep outside and even in cars, and it is estimated that there are 100 such youngsters in Newtown. Does the Minister agree that the Welsh Office should change its planning rules so that rented housing and starter homes can remain in the local housing market for local people?

That is precisely why Housing in Wales has launched its rural initiative, with 31 on-site schemes in preparation at the moment. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have out for consultation proposals that would make the planning laws a little more amenable to the sort of proposals that he suggests.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

I frequently discuss matters of departmental interest with the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I last met him for that purpose on 14 February.

Is the Attorney-General aware of the reports of the remarks of Sir Peter Leng, Army land commander in Northern Ireland from 1973 to 1975, to the effect that he was aware of the dirty tricks being performed by MI6 in Northern Ireland and the smearing of hon. Members of all parties? Is he aware that Sir Frank King, General Officer Commanding, said that he has "no quarrel" with Sir Peter's remarks? Will the Attorney-General now ask the DPP to consider whether criminal offences took place and to bring charges against those who deliberately sought to undermine democratically elected people in the House and elsewhere?

Although the question relates to the DPP and the supplementary question to Northern Ireland, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that, as with all assertions of criminal conduct—I have read a report in the newspaper today—any relevant information that is brought to the attention of the police or the prosecuting authorities will be duly considered.

Has the Attorney-General seen the report published by the district auditor on the sale of cemeteries by Westminster council for 15p? Has he noted that the auditor said that the sale was unauthorised, unlawful and detrimental to ratepayers? When will the members of Tory-controlled Westminster city council be called to account? Why has the ball been kicked from one end of the field to the other for years without anyone being charged? Is it because Lady Porter is a friend of the Prime Minister and a member of the Tory party? Finally, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that if a Labour authority had done this, it would have been hung, drawn and quartered?

I am responsible for the enforcement of the criminal law in England and Wales, where hanging, drawing and quartering went out some time ago. I have not seen the auditor's report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but, if there is a question of liability, it sounds like a civil matter, not a criminal one.

In view of the verdict of unlawful killing at the inquest on my former constituent, Petty Officer John Black, and the decision to seek a fresh inquest, can my right hon. and learned Friend say today, or discuss with the DPP, when a fresh inquest will take place? The man in question died in December 1983.

Again, the question does not arise as part of the responsibilities of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I can help my hon. Friend by saying that, unless I am badly mistaken, the application for a fresh inquest will be heard soon in the Divisional court, where it is already listed.

When assertions are made of attempts to overthrow a democratic Government by unlawful means, on what criteria does the Director of Public Prosecutions go into overdrive and put the accelerator down and when does he put on the handbrake? For example, does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that when similar allegations were made—admittedly from a different angle—by Mr. Peter Wright, the entire Law Officers' Department rushed round the world spending £3 million of taxpayers' money on hyper-legal activity? Why is no action taken when those assertions are made from a different angle?

My hon. Friend does not do justice to his recollection of the "Spycatcher" case. The litigation, here and overseas, ended in the House of Lords in complete vindication of the Government's contentions. The action was undertaken to enforce the Government's right to lifelong confidentiality from those who have been members of the security services, and that contention was wholly upheld by the House of Lords. It had nothing to do with the Director of Public Prosecutions. When he is confronted with evidence that a criminal offence has been committed, there is neither accelerator nor handbrake but one measured pace.

Will the Attorney-General confirm that forgery with a view to disseminating defamatory information is a criminal offence and that no one in this country has the power to authorise the commission of crimes? Will he give an undertaking not to leave this serious matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but to report these exchanges to the DPP and then report back to the House of Commons on whether the DPI' will investigate it?

No, Sir. It would be wrong to answer the hypothetical questions with which the hon. Gentleman prefaced his question. It is unnecessary to depart from the well-tried and well-proven practice whereby matters suggesting that criminal offences may have been committed are considered first by the police and then by the prosecuting authorities.

To ask the Attorney-General whether he has any proposals to change the present law and practice relating to extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for United Kingdom law in this area, has no proposals for change. As to practice, we shall continue to seek the extradition of offenders from the Republic of Ireland whenever an appropriate case arises.

Is not it the duty of the Government of the Irish Republic, with or without the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to do all in their power to ensure that those who are suspected of criminal offences, notably terrorist offences, are brought to justice? Is my right hon. and learned Friend continuing to make representations to secure the extradition to this country of Mr. Ryan?

I believe that the Irish Government would accept the duty that my hon. Friend formulates. Mr. Ryan's case must be regarded as concluded in view of the decision of the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions, who is an independent official, as is the Director of Public Prosecutions in this country. I have the highest regard for the Attorney-General in Dublin. Mr. Murray. Each country has its own statute law with which it has to comply. Each country has independent judges and independent Directors of Public Prosecutions. Each of us desires that those who should be charged with serious criminal offences are brought to justice.

To ask the Attorney-General what is the best estimate available to Law Officers of the cost per annum, at 1990 prices, of extending legal aid, on similar criteria to those applicable elsewhere in the legal system, to those representing the interests of the deceased at inquests.

The latest estimate of the annual cost of extending full legal aid to representation at inquests was made in 1980. At 1990 prices the sum involved is £5·96 million. Advice and assistance under the green form scheme is currently available for such proceedings.

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for that answer. Will he undertake to review the cost and the decision that it would not be justified to extend legal aid? He will be aware that verdicts at inquests vary between those producing a liability and open verdicts and that those verdicts may determine whether other prosecutions take place. Legal aid is important. Will there be a review of the right to legal aid at inquests?

Matters must be considered as a question of priority, and competing claims are continually examined. The latest claim to be granted by the Lord Chancellor, at a net cost of about £5 million—roughly the same figure as I mentioned earlier—provided assistance to about 5 million child potential claimants and 1·5 million elderly potential claimants in personal injury cases. The matter must be judged against such priorities.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what was discussed.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I have just given to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

Following his undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), will the Attorney-General reflect on the penultimate paragraph of the letter from Colin Wallace to the Prime Minister of 19 February asking how it came about that the director of Army legal services, Major-General Whiteley, became involved in preparing a summary for the Appeal Court? Will he find out from colleagues such as Sue Marsh how that happened?

I have many responsibilities, but they do not extend to the hon. Gentleman's question. There is nothing that I can usefully add to what I said to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on recent representations received on his plan to speed up the judicial process.

Implementation of the main recommendations in the report of the civil justice review is being taken forward in the Courts and Legal Services Bill and in a programme of associated changes to the rules of court and administrative reforms.

As a fellow lawyer, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a lawyer's time is money, that the system often leads to far too long being spent on court procedures, and that the speeding up of that process would be most welcome?

I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the proposed administrative reforms will require litigants to put their cards on the table at a much earlier stage in a case. That should speed up the administration of justice and facilitate a reduction in costs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had expressing concern in the Third world that aid to eastern Europe will adversely affect the amount of aid available to it; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that total Overseas Development Administration expenditure for 1990–91 will be increased so that aid funds for eastern Europe do not reduce the amount available for developing countries.

The Government are aware of concerns, here and overseas, that economic assistance to eastern Europe might adversely affect the amount of aid going to developing countries. I assure the House that the provision of United Kingdom assistance to eastern Europe is separate from and additional to our regular aid programme. which is growing in real terms. OECD member Governments affirmed in December that their support for economic reform in central and eastern Europe will not diminish their determination to give high priority to their development co-operation with the Third world.

Does the Minister accept that there is widespread concern among aid agencies in Britain that relief to eastern Europe is at the expense of relief to the Third world? Will she give a further assurance that over the next few years at least the poorest of the Third world will not be asked to subsidise the poor of eastern Europe?

I have repeated many times that aid to eastern Europe is additional to and separate from aid to the developing world. That is exactly what we have decided and that is exactly what we have done.

I very much welcome that assurance. In view of the highly volatile and rapidly changing position in eastern Europe, may we have an assurance that the Minister and the Government will be flexible in interpreting the need for assistance to eastern Europe and will be willing, if necessary, to draw upon the contingency fund?

If that occurs, of course the Government will consider what is needed. However, we have been flexible and provided $100 million to the Polish stabilisation fund which was not envisaged when we began talking about the know-how fund. When we saw the need for humanitarian assistance in Romania before Christmas, we immediately dispatched 1·8 tonnes of medical supplies. Last week my hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced that we would be providing disposable syringes for Romania. We have also arranged for five injured young people from Romania to be treated here and we are considering at the moment another way of helping Romania. None of those things was even considered when we started down the path of the know-how funds of £50 million for Poland and £25 million for Hungary. We are being flexible and we shall continue to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the momentous changes in eastern Europe provide some spectacular opportunities for private investment rather than more taxpayers' aid? Should not we differentiate between the much-needed infrastructural and basic support aid that we provide to the poorest countries and the probably greater case for more technology transfers and trade credits to eastern Europe?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the 29 projects that were announced for Poland in December and the six further projects that we announced last month, it is interesting to see how much private organisations are adding to the incentive that the Government provided for the know-how funds. There will be joint ventures and many contributions from the private sector because the eastern European countries have a greater ability to attract private capital than some of the really underdeveloped countries.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us have a genuine and deep-seated feeling for the Third world? However, only a limited amount of money is available, and with Germany wanting to go headlong towards creating another surrogate state of East Germany, the amount of money required may stretch into billions of pounds. Whatever the world may want, Germany is likely to benefit. Who is going to pay for it? If anyone is to pay, why should it not be Germany? Why should not we help the Third world instead of helping the fourth reich?

My hon. Friend takes his claim a little too far. We have spent more than £3,500 million in Africa over the past eight years and we shall continue to help the developing world. However, the Federal Republic of Germany has also been helping the developing world and it is helping eastern Europe greatly. We will do our bit, and I have no doubt that all Members of the European Community will continue to help adequately in the Third world and look to the need for democracies to be encouraged in eastern Europe.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures he is taking to improve child health care in Africa.

Almost everything that we finance in Africa, bilaterally and through multilateral organisations, benefits children by encouraging sustainable economic and social development. Our health sector aid concentrates on preventive communuity-based systems in which mother and child health programmes have a central place. Child health also benefits from our support for family planning, provision of clean water and sanitation, education, especially women's education, and progammes to improve the status of women.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that her response is a welcome statement of the Government's programme? Does she further agree that with a more effective oral rehydration therapy programme we could save more children's lives than the total number of lives that were lost in the first and second world wars? Will my right hon. Friend also consider the fact that half the world's children are currently not protected by the diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus programme of immunisation? Will she lead a children's crusade to improve the health of the world's children?

We are already helping with immunisation through our contributions to UNICEF's major programme. With regard to oral rehydration therapy, we have been a major contributor to the World Health Organisation's diarrhoeal disease control programme which is responsible for promoting the use of ORT.

As the Minister knows, I have just returned from Ethiopia. Does she agree that in that country children are suffering most because of famine and war? Does she agree that the Foreign Ministers meeting in Dublin tomorrow should be asked to bring every effort to bear on the protagonists to end that bloody and increasingly vicious civil war and to bring the warring factions round the negotiating table?

I am glad to see the hon. Lady back safe and sound from Ethiopia. I have already asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary whether he will consider raising in the Foreign Affairs Council in Dublin tomorrow the urgent need for a peace settlement in Ethiopia. Of course, the children suffer—probably rather more than the hon. Lady and I know. I hope that we shall use all international forums to bring about peace swiftly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what environmental protection measures Her Majesty's Government propose to take in respect of Tibet.

The Government have no plans at present to finance environmental protection measures in Tibet.

Will the Minister acknowledge the concern caused by the Chinese Government's attitude to Tibet, in terms of forcing changes to unsuitable crops, which has led to starvation, the stripping of rain forests and the area being used as an environmental dump? In those circumstances is not it appropriate that the British Government should apply some pressure to the Chinese Government to stop those practices and protect the interests of the native population of Tibet?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the environment throughout the world is central to our agenda. I fully acknowledge that developing countries will need additional resources to tackle problems, whether they be crop substitution or deforestation. As yet, we have had no request to help with environmental problems in Tibet. I sincerely hope that it will become possible, throughout that area, to take all such measures internationally as will prevent deforestation and the flow into the gulf of Bangladesh, which I have just visited, of much of the soils from those high regions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that China's record in Tibet is disgraceful by any standards?

Successive British Governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous, although recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities. That continues to be the Government's view, but we sincerely hope that China will give the people of Tibet their rightful stance.

We now come to the debate on the dispute in the ambulance service in the name of the Scottish Nationalist party. I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Before I start, I want to make one technical correction. We are not the Scottish Nationalist party but the Scottish National party, and there is more than just a semantic difference.

I apologise.

I was not looking for an apology.

I beg to move,

That this House recognises public concern about the prolongation of the ambulance dispute; acknowledges strong public support for the ambulance staff; is aware of the Government's role in prolonging the dispute; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Health to renew negotiations with representatives of ambulance staff in order to seek an end to the dispute on the basis of a just award and a pay review mechanism that will recognise the place of ambulance staff in our emergency services.

The motion is tabled in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), myself and others in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. I acknowledge and recognise the co-operation of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on behalf of the Labour party in ensuring that a single motion has been tabled by the Opposition today. Whatever political differences we may have in other areas, there are absolutely none in respect of this dispute.

I notice that the name of the organ grinder, the Secretary of State for Health, is missing from the Government amendment. It also appears that he is missing from this debate. I am sure that many members of the public, as well as ambulance staff, will think it an absolute disgrace that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not reckon that this subject is important enough to present himself to the House to state his case.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall not give way, even for a kiltie.

I shall refer to the Secretary of State for Health all afternoon because, with due respect to the other hon. Gentlemen, the organ grinder is far more important than the monkeys.

On page 2 of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's letter of 16 February, which was sent to hon. Members, he refers to the trade unions and says:

"They are still claiming 11·4 per cent. and are still insisting on a pay mechanism for ambulancemen"—

I do not know why he fails to understand that women are also involved—

"which would link them to firemen or other staff".

That statement from the Secretary of State was untrue. The position of the trade unions was made perfectly plain in a statement issued on 16 January. Paragraph 2 of that statement reads:

"The pay rate aspect of our claim is the other major demand. In April 1989 our claim was 11·14 per cent. on the hourly rate. However, the unions are prepared to negotiate on this and, if necessary, lower our sights."

Paragraph 4 states:

"In November 1989, to facilitate negotiations, the ambulance unions dropped several key parts of the April 1989 claim.

The parts of the claim dropped were:

1. An increase in standby allowances

2. An increase in annual leave

3. The introduction of long service holidays

4. A reduction in the working week

5. The introduction of long service pay, after 5, 10 and 15 years' service."

Any of those five objectives is perfectly legitimate for a trade union involved in negotiations—the 11·14 per cent. pay claim is perfectly legitimate. It says a great deal for the flexibility of the trade unions that they were prepared to make that type of offer to the Government. They were prepared to lower their sights on a major part of their claim and to drop a series of important aspects of it. The Secretary of State's letter, which was sent to all hon. Members, is wholly inaccurate. Perhaps that is why he finds it extremely difficult to come here this afternoon to try to justify his unjustifiable position.

We have two reasons for tabling the motion. First, the ambulance staff have been in dispute for six months, and it is extremely important that the people that they elected, along with other concerned members of the public, appreciate that and do not forget those staff. In the past five weeks, momentous events have taken place in the Soviet Union, East Germany, other parts of eastern Europe and in South Africa with the freeing of Nelson Mandela. Various things have happened that have tended to push the ambulance dispute off the front pages and out of the media.

I have been involved in industrial disputes, and I appreciate that people can believe that they have been forgotten. As a result of this debate, an important signal will be sent to the ambulance staff and to the public to say that the dispute is at the top of the parliamentary agenda and of the public agenda. From my experience as a trade union official, I stress to ambulance staff that the combination of public support for them and their commitment to the public is unbeatable. If they maintain their commitment to the public, they will achieve their objectives as redefined by the trade unions.

The second reason for the motion is to produce a further critical examination of the issues, particularly against the changed political circumstances of the electoral prospects of the Tory party. That should make many Opposition Members consider their future carefully.

I have looked at all that has been said in the debates, and there seem to be six main pillars supporting the Government's case. I shall examine them in turn. First, the Government say that it is wrong for management to engage in arbitration, and therefore that solution is rejected. Secondly, they say that no more money is available because each penny spent comes off patient care funds. The third pillar is combined with the fourth: the Government reject a pay review mechanism, similar in its objectives to that applied to the fire service, to avoid further disputes. The Government justify that through their assertion that no true comparison can be drawn between the ambulance service and the police and fire service.

The fifth pillar of the Government's case is that it is immoral to take industrial action in an essential service. The sixth pillar is that the organ grinder—the Secretary of State—claims that he has no personal responsibility for direct intervention.

Does not the hon. Gentleman contrast the statements that the Secretary of State actually makes with the number of times that he goes on radio and television to argue the case, while trying to be Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate and wash his hands of the affair?

Judas Iscariot at least got something. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall refer to the television stardom role that has been adopted by the Secretary of State.

The first pillar in the Government's case is arbitration. The Secretary of State's position is set out in Hansard, on 24 October last year. He said:

"Management cannot hand over the control of pay of large groups of people to third parties when it also has a responsibility to spend its money on the provision of patient service."—[Official Report, 24 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 666.]

I hope that everyone grasped the phrase.

"cannot hand over the control … of large groups".

The ambulance men and women number about 22,000 out of 1 million people in the National Health Service—just over 2 per cent. of the total staff involved. They could not be defined, even by an idiot, as a very large group.

There are large groups, including the 100,000 doctors and the 490,000 nurses. Those are, by any definiton, very large groups. Their pay is not worked out by arbitration, but it is something near it, because there are pay review mechanisms that remove any possibility of industrial dispute.

I say to the Secretary of State, who is not here, that the job of management is to consider all the elements that make up an organisation's activity. They must consider its revenue, materials, equipment, fixed capital formation in hospitals, human capital and, last but by no means least, staff motivation, commitment and morale. Those are the elements that go to make a challenge to management.

There is now a distinct failure of management. For six months, they have failed to resolve a dispute that could easily be resolved by recourse to arbitration. To listen to the Secretary of State, one would think that arbitration was a completely new invention that had never been tried before and might lead to chaos and disaster.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman may care to reflect on the Secretary of State's previous role as an Under-Secretary of State for Transport. Every time the railway unions sought an increase, he constantly said, "Go to the Railway Staff National Tribunal"—the arbitration organisation.

Yes, that is the point I am making: there is nothing new about arbitration. It is a well-tried system employed to break down conflict and disputes or to resolve a dispute when that would be extremely difficult under normal circumstances.

I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can he give some examples of arbitration used anywhere else in the Health Service instead of the Whitley council arrangements?

I have heard and read this argument before, and it is not relevant. Once upon a time, in every industry and undertaking, there must have been a first time when arbitration was invoked—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is a logical proposition that no one could confound.

I have personal experience of arbitration; I have served as a member of an arbitration panel which tried to solve a dispute between teachers and management in local government in the mid-1970s. Arbitration is not the handing over of management control to the arbiters. Arbitration does not take place in a vacuum. No one ignores the realities facing the management and the trade unions.

An arbitration panel is a tripartite body. The chairman is neutral; there is a nominee from the employers' side and another from the trade union side. They assess the award against the realities.

I was the trade union nominee on an arbitration panel, and it sat in private. No one on it could get away with loose intellectual or economic arguments, or with stupid social arguments, no matter which side he represented. There was genuine concern on the part of the whole tribunal, and that applied to every arbitration that I have ever experienced—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No.

These panels tried to reach certain objectives. One was to resolve the dispute fairly; the second was to leave the structure of management-trade union relations intact; the third was to injure neither party. Arbitration is a civilised way of resolving disputes. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was right: it is ironic that the Government urge arbitration on a group of workers whose claim they do not like, but deny arbitration to another group whose claims they like in no circumstances—

rose—

I shall not give way. I do not want to upset the hon. Gentleman; he will get in later, but he has to wait his turn.

The Select Committee examined arbitration. As I said before, somewhere along the line there must be a first time for arbitration. In the debate on 11 January this year, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said:

"Last March, the Select Committee recommended that `the Government take the initiative in getting discussions started between the Management and Staff sides with the purpose of developing a mutually agreed arbitration procedure. We suggest that arbitration should be a last resort and that a strict timetable should be established and adhered to for issues referred to arbitration'."—[Official Report, 11 January 1990; Vol. 164, c. 1133.]

The Select Committee foresaw difficulties of this kind, and put the idea forward. What a pity it was not accepted.

The hon. Gentleman has some knowledge of arbitration, but he is not the only Member with knowledge of it. These are complex and intricate matters. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House from experience how Whitley works, and what impact arbitration for one group of workers would have on the standing of Whitley and on the Health Service?