To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review legislation relating to planning and development in Wales.

The need for changes to planning legislation is kept under constant review. The Planning and Compensation Bill now before the House will introduce various alterations to make the planning system in England and Wales fairer and more efficient.

What does the Minister plan to do to stop the flagrant abuse of planning laws that has allowed the Vale of Glamorgan borough council to do a deal with local developers, which has resulted in the developers becoming millionaires overnight and in the people of Barry losing one of the last remaining open spaces in the town? Will the Minister consider calling in the plans for College fields in Barry? Will he introduce legislation to prevent councils from giving themselves planning permission when they either own land or have an unhealthy financial interest in it, to prevent that sort of thing from happening again?

I do not want to comment on the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman. The request for a call-in is being considered and I hope to give a decision shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in his farewell speech to Delyn borough council planning committee, the highly respected chief planning officer Mr. Mike Smith warned the committee that increasingly it was acting against officers' recommendations, contrary to its own clearly laid down planning policies and contrary to the principles of equity and fairness? Does my hon. Friend share my concern about those serious allegiations and will he take them into consideration in his constant reviewing?

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear me say that I have not come across the speech to which he referred. Local authorities, in response to the needs of local people, must consider carefully the way in which they deal with planning applications. I am sure that when the local electorate decides how to vote in this week's elections it will consider the council's record in the past four years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairmen of health authorities in Wales to discuss the level of expenditure provision for the health service in Wales.

I met health authority chairmen on 31 January and I hope to do so again in the near future.

The Secretary of State is aware that both my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and I have been pressing him hard in recent years about the construction of the new East Glamorgan hospital. Can he confirm that he is going ahead with it and that we will have those new resources for the Rhondda and Taff-Ely area?

I am happy to confirm that today I approved plans for two new district general hospitals to be built for the national health service in Wales at a cost of more than £130 million. I have approved proposals by the Mid Glamorgan health authority to build a new hospital on land at Ynys-Y-Plwm near Llantrisant and by West Glamorgan health authority to build one at Baglan moors, Port Talbot.

When the right hon. Gentleman sees what an almighty botch his fellow Ministers are making of the national health service in England, will he work on the simple principle "Go thou and do otherwise"?

Not at all. As Ministers responsible for health, we work closely together throughout the United Kingdom. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have done a small calculation. If the national health service in Wales was now spending the amount that it was spending when the Labour party was last in government, at 1992 prices, the total amount spent in Wales would be £1,104 million. That appears to be a reasonable sum, until it is compared with the amount that the Government are spending in the coming year, which is £1,719 million. I have to ask the Opposition where the £615 million cuts would have been imposed. How many hospitals would have been closed if the Opposition were still in office?

At last Wednesday's meeting of the Welsh Select Committee, we took evidence from medical academics. The chief witness, a statistician, told us that it is not possible to construct a mathematical formula to use waiting lists meaningfully and that the only worthwhile statistic is the number of patients being treated in Wales each year. If we were to move to the spending levels practised by the Opposition would that not mean a cut in the 700,000 patients being treated each year in Wales?

That is right. It is about time that the Labour party, instead of throwing accusations at the Government, answered these clear questions. The number of people treated by the national health service in Wales is at an all-time record. In the year to June 1990, 472,000 in-patients and 2,300,000 out-patients received treatment and diagnosis. Since 1979, the number of in-patients treated is up by 36·6 per cent., the number of out-patients by 29·8 per cent. and the number of day cases by a staggering 246 per cent.

I welcome the building of two new hospitals in Wales. My hon. Friends have worked hard to persuade the Secretary of State and his predecessors to build those hospitals.

The hon. Gentleman has scored another spectacular own goal in attacking the Government's record on the health service in Wales, and he has not answered the question that I posed to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). If we still had a Labour Government, that Government would be spending £650 million less. I am proud of my record and that of my right hon. Friends in Wales, where we are now spending £602 for every man, woman and child.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest figures for unemployment in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales.

There were 12,364 and 108,049.

I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Those figures are horrendous.

I had the opportunity to meet Commissioner Millan last week. I reinforced the case, which I believe is strong, for Wales to continue to receive grants at the record level that it has been receiving them from the Community under this Government. As for the future of Wales, I wish that the doom and gloom merchants on the Opposition Benches would stop trying to talk down Wales, and would join the rest of us in talking up our prospects.

The Secretary of State will be aware that, in recent months, the town of Holyhead has suffered considerably as a result of the loss of jobs in its port. Some money has been made available to improve the environment of the town, but little has been done in recent years to ensure that money is given for job creation. What plans has he or the Minister of State to improve the situation in Holyhead?

I greatly regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman has chosen not to take this opportunity to welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I believe that that appointment has been widely welcomed in Holyhead. During my visit there, when the hon. Gentleman was present, I received the message that there needed to be greater co-ordination of all the programmes affecting Ynys Môn and Holyhead. That is what my hon. Friend the Minister is now so competently doing.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that inward investment continues apace, and that real new jobs are being created?

Yes, inward investment is reaching new record levels in Wales. I am delighted to be able to announce today six new projects involving £5 million in industrial investment. The six projects are backed by financial assistance from the Government, and range from telecommunications to climbing equipment. They include investment from German and Portuguese companies.

Will the Secretary of State admit that unemployment in Wales is escalating right out of control, resulting in misery, heartache, degradation and domestic upheaval? Is he aware that the training and enterprise councils in Wales have created considerable unemployment in the past couple of months? Is he aware that my early-day motion 546 called for a parliamentary inquiry into Mid Glamorgan TECs where finances and appointments have gone astray? A thorough investigation is needed, because thousands of trainers and trainees have been put on the dole as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's action. Will he set up that necessary public inquiry? If not, is it because this matter is too hot for him to handle?

One day, the hon. Gentleman will recognise what most people in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom already recognize—that Wales has a marvellous system of training and enterprise councils. Wales was the first part of the United Kingdom where they were put into operation and they are doing a marvellous job. I congratulate everyone connected with the TEC movement on the work that they are doing. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics, I hope that he will observe one in which I take great pride: that in the past four years, long-term unemployment has gone down by 69 per cent.—from 78,014 in January 1986 to 24,020 in January 1991.

The right hon. Gentleman may wish to congratulate the six Welsh companies that have been given the Queen's award for industry, but, with unemployment rising at its fastest since the last Conservative recession, will he end his hesitant approach and bring forward a package of measures to help the Welsh unemployed? Does the Secretary of State back the Treasury or the Department of Employment in their dispute over special employment measures? It is far too glib of him to say that Wales is bucking the trend. There are far too many redundancies for that.

I have already announced this year 1,600 new jobs involving £80 million of new investment, to which I am pleased that the Government are contributing £13·5 million. Today, Iansing Linde, the Voice Processing Company Ltd. in Abergavenny, Lucas Meyer, Riverside Plastics, Honkley Engineering and Marine Company and HB Climbing Equipment are all announcing new investment projects. It is about time that the Opposition paid tribute to that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the performance of the new health authorities in Wales.

The annual review of district health authorities in the autumn will provide a major opportunity to assess authorities' performance in their new role as purchasers of health care. This will be backed up by rigorous monthly monitoring of in-year performance against the targets set in district health authorities' purchasing plans.

I am sure that the Minister is in favour of setting up the trust fund scheme in the national health service. Is he in a position to say how many hospitals in Wales have been consulted and how many he believes will opt for the new scheme? If he is, can he give an assurance to all Welsh hospital employees and to the people of Wales that it will not result in redundancies at the same rate as was announced last week for Guy's hospital and other hospitals in England?

So far, the Pembrokeshire district health authority has expressed interest in becoming a national health service hospital trust. That authority is balloting its staff on the application. As for the hon. Gentleman's wider remarks, no Government can ever give a guarantee about the future and no party can ever say that the same financial disciplines as operate in the rest of the world will not operate in the national health service. That means that the NHS has to operate within the budget that is set for it at the beginning of each year.

The Under-Secretary will recollect that over 18 months ago, his Department and the health authority set up an inquiry into the future of the casualty unit in Swansea. At a very constructive meeting, the hon. Gentleman told me that he intended to make an announcement before the end of the last financial year. As 30,000 signatures appear on a petition that was presented to his Department, will he bear in mind that there will be great bitterness if eventually it emerges that the reason for the delay—a delay that he had not anticipated—is that the announcement might harm his party in next Thursday's local elections?

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is a matter of great concern to the people of Swansea and that is why we are considering the points that have been made most seriously. The right hon. Gentleman presented me with a petition of 30,000 signatures. I visited the unit myself and during that visit I received a deputation. We are now considering further representations. It is taking longer because we are consulting so widely. I hope to reach a decision shortly, but the plans were put forward by the West Glamorgan health authority.

I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that a new hospital will be built for Neath and Port Talbot. It is long overdue and I congratulate the health unions, the community health council and local people for the way in which they have campaigned for many years to persuade the Welsh Office to support that new project. However, I remind the Secretary of State that there remains a deep health crisis in the area. For example, a constituent of mine who has been waiting 19 months for a cataract operation in Gwaun-cae-gurwen has been told that he will have to wait a further three months. The 1,400 patients on that waiting list are still waiting and the health authority has been told that it does not have the funding to meet that desperate need. When will the Government provide the necessary resources?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I am grateful to him for his support for the new hospital. We greatly regret the increase in the waiting lists, but it is part of the success of the national health service that, because new technologies and treatments are becoming available and people are living longer, more people are being treated. That is an important fact to remember. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about his constituent, I shall write to him about the matter, but we have set up three sub-regional treatment centres, one of which is for cataract operations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much energy has been saved by the Welsh Office in each of the last five years; and what measures are being taken to make further savings for the future.

Energy consumption information is not available in a form that enables us to identify specific savings made in the years before 1990–91. Measures include the acquisition of a computer database to monitor performance, high efficiency lighting, water control and separate metering in the main headquarters buildings in Cathays park, and we aim to reduce energy expenditure by 15 per cent. over five years.

I thank the Minister for that reply and for the measures being taken. However, the Government still reveal complacency when estimates using current technology and getting a return on investment show potential savings of at least 20 per cent. Therefore, the Minister's targets are well below those accepted elsewhere. Will the Minister review his programme with a view to making further savings in the Welsh Office and in other authorities in Wales where the Welsh Office has some influence?

It is a bit tough to be accused of complacency when the Government have set up a special ministerial working party which constantly examines ways to save money in the Government's estate and when the Welsh Office is top of the league. We are No. 1 and we are working very hard to make sure that we have energy efficiency. That message is getting across not only in Government buildings but in schools and hospitals. The health service in Wales has already saved a considerable amount of money on energy efficiency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants from his Department to voluntary organisations in each of the past three years.

The latest available figures, at outturn prices, are £8·96 million in 1987–88, £9·35 million in 1988–89 and £11·66 million in 1989–90, a real terms increase of some 14 per cent. over the period.

By how much have grants increased in Wales since 1979 and how many organisations are in receipt of grants?

I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that since 1979–80 Welsh Office support has trebled in real terms, and some 320 voluntary bodies now benefit. It is the Government's policy to have a healthy and vigorous voluntary sector.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has decided what proportion of the new local government charge in Wales will be levied on property tax; and what proportion will be poll tax.

The question does not arise, because I have already announced that I propose to abolish the community charge in Wales.

In his statement last week on the new council tax, the Secretary of State said that there will be transitional relief for people facing excessive increases under the new structure. Will the beneficiaries be the people who live in large houses, who benefited so unfairly from the poll tax? Does it make sense to continue to subsidise the better-off? Does the Minister accept that the poll tax punished the poor, whereas under the new structure banding and transitional relief will protect the rich?

No. Transitional relief should be available under any new system, and we have made that absolutely clear. People in Wales would lose only if we returned to the old rating system. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the figures that I have published, which show that in 1989–90—when Welsh people last paid rates—people paid on average £327. For this year, it would have had to increase to £385. In the coming year, the average bill per household for the new council tax will be £152. That is much fairer and better for the people of Wales.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the figures are available in the Vote Office, as I have experienced some difficulty in obtaining them? English Members may be upset to see that people on the highest rate in England are paying £668, but those in Wales are paying only £272. The bottom rate in Wales is £109, but is £267 in England. Is there any justification for Welsh people, who have lower costs of living, being subsidised by English taxpayers?

I understand that there has been rather a run on these exemplifications. According to my hon. Friend, the Vote Office has run out of copies, but as soon as I leave the Chamber, I shall ensure that further copies are made available. Under the Government, and only under the Government, Wales has had the best possible deal. Under a Labour Government, not only would we return to the unfair old rating system, with 1973 values and a complete revaluation, but average bills would leap up because we would be returning to the old Labour way of funding local services.

Will the Secretary of State confirm the view expressed last week by the Secretary of State for the Environment that we shall be stuck with the poll tax for the next three years because the council tax in Wales cannot be introduced until the financial year 1994–95

That is not true. I had a positive and constructive meeting with the Assembly of Welsh County Councils and the Association of Welsh Districts. Consultation is well on course to introduce the council tax in Wales the year after next.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we have achieved the Wandsworth effect in parts of Wales only because of the intervention of my right hon. Friend and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? No one in Wales will be worse off this year under the new council tax, compared with the community charges that were to be imposed by Liberal and Labour councils in Wales.

That is true. The message on Thursday is simple for the people of Wales. If they vote Conservative, their councils will cost them less and they will get better services.

As the Welsh people will have to put up with the poll tax for at least another two or three years, and as the Conservative party is squabbling about the nature of the new tax and its banding arrangements, does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that, despite being surrounded by English colleagues, he should accept a uniquely Welsh solution to the poll tax by listening to the people of Wales, who overwhelmingly believe in a fair rates system and immediate abolition of the poll tax?

I said that we are used to spectacular own goals by the Labour party, but we have just heard the best. The hon. Gentleman admitted that there is no prospect of a Labour Government when he said that the poll tax will remain in Wales for three years. In any event, that is untrue. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer that I gave a few moments ago, he would know that we are well on course to introduce the new council tax the year after next.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the amount of Welsh Office funding made available to Clwyd health authority over the last five years to reduce waiting lists.

Since the inception of the waiting times initiative in 1986, Clwyd health authority has received funding of over £330,000 to assist its own efforts in tackling waiting lists.

Why has Clwyd health authority received only that amount out of a total of £5·35 million for reducing waiting lists in Wales? Is my hon. Friend aware that that constitutes a little over 5 per cent. of the total amount, whereas Clwyd health authority covers 14 per cent. of the population in Wales, its in-patient waiting list has increased by 9·2 per cent. on last year and its out-patient waiting list has increased by 10·6 per cent. on last year?

My hon. Friend forgets that out of the sum for the waiting times initiative comes the funding for the three treatment centres, which take up the largest proportion of the available money. Since 1979 in Clwyd, the number of in-patients treated, including day cases, has risen by 45 per cent. and the number of out-patients treated by 21 per cent. This year, we increased Clwyd health authority's budget by 9·8 per cent. Since 1979, the health authority's total increase has been 50 per cent. in real terms.

Will the Minister assure us that any increase in the funding available to Clwyd health authority will not be swallowed up by additional administrative costs? That is happening in Gwynedd, where, over the next two months, no fewer than 56 additional posts will be created—for example, for contract officers and business managers—at a cost of £800,000 a year. That finance needs to be at the sharp end to provide services for the people on waiting lists.

It is important that health authorities operate within a properly managed system. That is why we have introduced reforms. They mean that people must keep track of how money is spent, so that we do not have health authorities running out of money two thirds of the way through the year because they have not been managed properly. Sixty-three per cent. of our staff are front-line staff, compared with 57 per cent. in 1979.

Is not it true that in Clwyd health authority, as in all health authorities in Wales, the health service is grossly underfunded compared with virtually every other western European country? Is not it time that the Minister gave a commitment that not a single health authority in Wales will run out of money by the end of this financial year and that a general practitioner can continue to refer his or her patients to any hospital in the country? Will the hon. Gentleman give a commitment that all the health authorities and GPs will be funded and will not run out of money?

I cannot give that commitment—any more than the Leader of the Opposition could on the "Walden" programme yesterday when challenged on this matter. If we were to run the health service at the last Labour Government's expenditure level, £650 million less would be spent. Under the Conservative Government, spending on the health service has increased by 56 per cent. in real terms.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the assistance he will provide to Swansea city council to enable it to deal with the problem of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses.

I have today announced an extra £4·29 million to 10 Welsh housing authorities to assist them in dealing with prefabricated reinforced concrete houses. I am pleased to say that the bid from Swansea city council for the reinstatement of private sector PRCs in the city will be met in full.

That welcome reply covers only part of the matter. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the assistance covers post-April 1984 houses? Do the Government accept Swansea city council's strategy for dealing with PRC houses—on the basis of the consultant's report, which advises covering the 1,301 houses over five years? Will the hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider Swansea city council's proposals—I confess that they have not yet been submitted to the Welsh Office—for additional funding to deal with PRC houses to ensure that money is available not just for those houses but for other sectors of housing in the city? Will he ensure that grants are available for refurbishment and site clearance? That is clearly the responsibility of the city council, not the housing associations.

I welcome the fact that Swansea city council's strategy involves working with housing associations and I shall certainly give sympathetic consideration to any further bids made by the city council. Clearly, however, I cannot make a pre-judgment on that and we shall consider resources when bids are made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the state of the rail network in Wales, including aspects of safety.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to improve safety of rail travel in Wales.

My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail at regular intervals to discuss a range of issues. They last met on 8 February and expect to do so again later this year. British Rail's plans for maintaining and improving its safety record are set out in its safety plan, which was published in February.

The Minister of State may be aware that recently a young constituent of mine, who was coming home on leave from the Navy, fell to his death from a train between Newport and Cardiff. I do not wish to comment on the details of that case, but does the Minister agree that there is a considerable impression—based on observation—that British Rail staff are unable to ensure that train doors are shut tight before a train leaves a station? Does he further agree that if someone falls from a train when a door is not defective and has not been opened from the inside, the only reasonable conclusion is that the door was not shut tight at the preceding station?

I know of the specific case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers and we extend our sympathy to the young man's family. I cannot comment on that particular case, but the provisional figures for passenger fatalities caused by falls from trains in 1990 was 19, the same as it was for the previous two years. We have received coroners' reports on 11 of those 19 cases and none of the 11 deaths was caused by faulty door locks. From 1985 to 1989 there was no evidence of faulty doors resulting in one such death.

Does the Minister agree that it is a sad state of affairs that a leading newspaper, for example, can point out that there may have been more than 100 deaths during the past six years, which were not explained, by people falling out of trains? If doors can be opened during a journey, does he agree that we should be well advised to consider other systems of ensuring that doors remain locked and that passengers cannot open them? Will he ask British Rail what proposals it has for incorporating such a design feature into new rolling stock and whether it will modify existing rolling stock to ensure that doors do not open during journeys?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that independent consultants were appointed by British Rail and they concluded that train doors are safe. Their report has been considered by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, which will decide whether further action is necessary. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman that British Rail investigates fully every fall from a train and its report and that from the coroner's inquest are made available to Her Majesty's railway inspectorate. Even if a door is not closed properly, there is a safety catch device which prevents it from opening.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the draft Labour Budget produced by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) there was not one extra penny for investment in the railway system and that the best way to get more money invested in the railway is to privatise it so that, like other privatised industries, it can go into the marketplace and obtain other capital investment?

Although that is technically a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, I assure my hon. Friend that there have been no financial constraints on safety expenditure. The Government endorsed in full expenditure of £70 million on additional safety measures in 1990–91 and British Rail plans to spend more than £300 million over the next three years. Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that the privatisation of British Rail is much to be desired.

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received (a) in favour and (b) in opposition to the Welsh community charge rebate scheme for the coming year.

There were 126, expressing a variety of views.

I am not very grateful for that evasion. May I point out to the Secretary of State that since he has been so generous in confessing that the presented demented system of reliefs in Wales is his brainchild, the system has become known as the "David Hunt levy". Will he give a guarantee that in the unlikely event that he is still in office in a year's time, my constituents in Bassaleg, Rhiwderin, Rogerstone, Allt-yr-yn and Caerleon, who now pay £50 more on the David Hunt levy than do their neighbours in other parts of Newport, will be compensated and that the crazy system will be ended?

This is another own goal by the hon. Gentleman. We are talking about a system that brought an additional £62 million to Wales. That means—I have to whisper this because of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset (Mr. Bruce)—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here."] What a relief. The average community charge paid in Wales this year will be £92 and that is before rebate. The hon. Gentleman should ask the Leader of the Opposition to confess that as well as the national health service not having a high priority in Labour party plans, local government does not have a high priority either. We may go back to the system of support that existed when there was last a Labour Government, which is very bad news for the people of Wales.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Unless something has arisen during Question Time which requires my immediate attention, I take points of order later.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I know that I did not call the hon. Gentleman, but that is not a matter for a point of order. I will take the point of order later.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, whether they will be officially represented at the service at St. Mungo's cathedral, Glasgow, on 4 May in relation to the Gulf war.

No, Sir, although each Church of England diocesan bishop attending is a Church Commissioner.

Whereas it is quite proper that service men and their families should want to give thanks for their safe return, is it really in good taste that politicians should be present, given that the Kurds are in the mountains, the Shias are in the marshes, the war is clearly not over, Karbala and Najaf are in ruins and the United Nations has disowned the whole project?

The old Church of England litany—I know that we are talking about the Church of Scotland—prays for divine deliverance from lightning and tempest, from plague, pestilence and famine and from battle, murder and sudden death. Many hundreds of young men in our forces in the Gulf will have echoed that prayer for deliverance, as will many thousands of their loved ones and hon. Members of all parties. Most people will feel that it is no bad thing that the survivors and their families and the hon. Members responsible for sending them to the Gulf should express their thanksgiving for their safe return in a religious service that will also remember the fallen.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that those of us who lost young men from our constituencies during the war recognise the importance of the service for their families? We welcome especially the fact that it will be an ecumenical service. That does not mean that any of us who attends will forget the problems that confront the Kurds and the Shi'ites in Iraq.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments which, perhaps not proportionately to the strength of her party in the House, represent the overwhelming view of most Scotsmen, Englishmen, Welshmen and Irishmen of the merits of the service.

Are not we an extraordinary nation in that when we are to have a service such as this, at which church and state are to be fully represented, some seek to run it down in this House, which is supposed to represent most people in the country? Surely we should be thankful that the service is to be held and thankful to God that our men came back safely.

I thoroughly endorse my hon. Friend's view, although I should pay the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) the credit that I am sure is his due. He will have been invited, he has a military past and I very much hope that he will take the opportunity to attend the service.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many Church Commissioners are women.

Six, Sir.

That is a disgracefully small number given that, by my calculations, there are about 95 commissioners. Should not the right hon. Gentleman put pressure on the Church Commissioners to ensure that women are more adequately represented on the body? The Church is talking about having women priests. I support that principle and see no reason why we should not have women bishops or, indeed, a woman Pope—although I realise that the right hon. Gentleman does not answer for the Catholic religion. In the circumstances, would not it look much better for the Church if it had more women commissioners to start with?

The hon. Gentleman has launched into a typical diatribe—as usual without having done adequate research. Of the total of 95 commissioners, 43 are diocesan bishops and it is no fault of the Church of England that there are no women bishops at present. Of the remainder of the commissioners, more than half are elected by the general assembly of the general synod of the Church of England. That electoral process produces as few women as the Labour party's electoral process produces women in the Labour party.

To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, whether he proposes any changes to the procedures for setting pay and conditions for House of Commons staff; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. There is a statutory responsibility imposed on the Commission by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 to keep the pay and grading of staff in the House broadly in line with those in the home civil service.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on average, the staff in the canteen work for 47 hours a week and receive take-home pay of about £134? We should compare that with the bosses, who have recently managed to secure an extra 22·7 per cent. Tesco's boss is to get another £1 million a year, for example. Yet here in the House of Commons, the young people in the canteen are expected to work during the parliamentary recess, when Members of Parliament are on holiday, and this year they will have to work an extra five hours every week during the recess for no extra pay. Is not it time that the hon. Gentleman—this Liberal Democrat—did something about that?

The arrangements that I have described were set up when a Labour Government were in power. The House of Commons Commission seeks to represent all parties in the House. We have no responsibility for pay outside the House and our responsibility inside it is to ensure the link with civil service pay to which I referred. However, the Establishments Office is currently consulting the relevant unions as part of the process of conducting a review of the pay and grading of industrial and non-industrial grades employed by Departments of the House.

To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the House of Commons telephone bill for the last 12 months.

The estimated cost of telecommunications services for the House in the last financial year is £2,169,982.

I am sure that we get great benefit from that expenditure, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a considerable number of complaints about the telephone services that we receive. This is not a criticism of the staff, but those outside—our constituents and others who try to contact us—are always complaining about the time that it takes for the telephones to be answered. That is British Telecom's responsibility because BT sends in the people to staff the switchboard. Clearly, it is not doing the job properly. I am not in favour of Mercury and I was certainly not in favour of the privatisation of BT. However, now that BT has been privatised, cannot we consider the alternatives? For example, Mercury says that it can produce a saving of £50,000 a year and provide a better service. The hon. Gentleman should get off his behind and do something, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggested.

The running of telecommunications services is a matter for the Services Committee. I understand that, some time ago, the Committee considered a request to allow Mercury to provide a share of the outgoing lines, but recommended no change. However, the matter is still under consideration. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are Mercury call-boxes within the precincts of the House.

To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what latest consideration he has given for the provision of crèche facilities for staff.

At its meeting on 13 February the Services Committee approved in principle the provision of child care facilities for Members, their staff and staff of the House. The House of Commons Commission has agreed that an examination should now take place to identify what accommodation could be allocated for that purpose and has instructed that further steps should be set in train to determine the likely costs and other financial implications. Once these are known, a survey of potential demand will be undertaken and a final decision taken on whether to proceed.

I welcome the very belated decision of the Services Committee to agree in principle to the provision of child-care facilities. The hon. Gentleman will recall a feasibility study which indicated that there was not the necessary political will to provide a crèche. Can we be assured that that is no longer the case and that all existing accommodation will be scrutinised? The matter should not be left for the phase 2 programme some time in the next century. Staff members and their trade unions are asking whether the hon. Gentleman is serious about the provision of a crèche, or whether he is just toying with the idea.

I am certainly in favour of the House proceeding quickly to the establishment of these facilities. However, the Services Committee is responsible for seeing whether, in our very crowded building, suitable accommodation can be found in advance of phase 2. Obviously that is important if rapid progress is to be made.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to allow greater involvement in the House and its Committees by British Members of the European Parliament.

Active consideration is currently being given to ways in which British Members of the European Parliament can have improved access to the House. The relevant Sub-Committees of the Services Committee have been instructed to consider what refreshment facilities can be extended to them, and to what degree they may be given formal access to the Chamber and to Committees of the House. I hope to receive some recommendations shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those of us who support the democratic role of the House and recognise its importance would regard it as being of great value if members of the European Parliament were able to speak, but not vote, in our Committees—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—so that we might have much earlier warning of what happens in the European Parliament? Would not that be in the interests of this House? [Interruption.] What do we have to be afraid of?

My hon. Friend will be aware that his suggestion has turned out to be somewhat controversial, at least among hon. Members in the Chamber at the moment. However, I agree that it is right to explore ways in which closer exchanges might take place. In the context of the intergovernmental conference on political union, it is important to remember that this House is one of the most active legislative bodies when it comes to scrutinising European Community legislation. We want to see a similar situation elsewhere and that will involve some degree of co-operation.

Is the Leader of the House aware of the standards that Members of the European Parliament enjoy? If he is thinking about inviting them to share our dining facilities, he will have to ensure that the standard of the food in this place is greatly improved. I have been a Member of Parliament for 20 years and the menu in the Harcourt Room has not changed once in that time.

I think that the menu has changed. The question of access to our refreshment facilities, particularly some of those that are available to hon. Members, is currently being considered by the Sub-Committee. I do not think that relative standards are being taken into account; the question under consideration is access.

Can my right hon. Friend say why legislators in this House should be expected to pool their facilities with an advisory body?

I do not think that there is any question of pooling facilities. Given that Members of the British Parliament have access to facilities of the European Parliament, the question is whether some facilities here may be made available to Members of the European Parliament with a view to widening the exchange of views.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what percentage of parliamentary lime has been spent on debating the problem of the national and global environment in each of the Sessions of the current Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

It is not possible to estimate the amount of time spent on environmental matters in the House because of the variety of opportunities for debate. The House is already clear about the priority which the Government are giving to such matters.

That is a very convenient cop-out of an answer, if I may say so. The reality is that the Department of the Environment spent most of its time ensuring that the House debated poll tax, son of poll tax or grandchild of poll tax. As a result, little Government time was spent on environmental issues. Will the Leader of the House accept that as a fact? Will he consider seriously allowing the House to establish the precedent of an annual debate, as part of the routine of the House, on the state of the global, continental and national environment?

Attention to local government finance has not been confined to the Government side of the Chamber. Both sides of the House have focused their attention on it and the issue has been raised outside Government time. I accept, however, that the matter has been raised rather more extensively than others. I hope that we shall now see a greater concentration on other issues. The Government's proposals on local government finance have received a warm welcome from many quarters.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Select Committee on the Environment has been extremely busy over some years trying to bring to the attention of the House, and to a wider audience, the problems that will be generated by global warming? Some months ago the Committee placed before the House a good report on the problems that will arise from the decline of the jungles, but the House has not had an opportunity to debate it and does not seem likely to have one, unless someone gets a move on. The greatest threat that faces mankind is its destruction of its natural environment and the House should have an opportunity to debate it.

Let me assure my hon. Friend that we take all international environmental matters extremely seriously, as can be seen from the many initiatives that the Government have taken. Many matters have had to be dealt with during the Session, not least the Gulf war. It is not possible to have general debates on every subject, but many opportunities are available to hon. Members to raise matters of concern.

Will the Leader of the House reflect on what was an unsatisfactory answer? Surely he cannot claim any longer that there is a shortage of parliamentary time. It is crystal clear to us all that the Government are having enormous difficulty filling up the time that is available during the run-in to the general election. If, as increasingly seems likely, there will be an extremely long run-in, with the Government running away, would not it be a good idea to have some set-piece televised debates on the environment, on unemployment, on the poll tax, on hospital trusts and on other issues that will confront the nation during the next general election?

Once again, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We are carrying through a larger legislative programme this Session than last, with more Bills coming before the House. As he will have seen from the timetable in recent weeks—he will certainly see it in weeks to come—there is a great deal to do on the legislative front and that work will take a great deal of parliamentary time.

To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received calling for procedural changes to ensure that motions and amendments agreed by European Standing Committees are placed before the House for consideration: and if he will make a statement.

I have received no such representations other than those from my hon. Friend.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the Government made it clear that the views of the Committees would not necessarily be reported to the House unless the Government found them acceptable, hardly anyone is bothering to attend the sittings of these rather irrelevant Committees? On Wednesday last week, only four Members were present at the end of the sitting. Is he aware also that a further crisis has arisen because Ministers are not reporting on the proposed legislation as it is? Instead, they are reporting on what they think it might be by the time that Committee considers it. On Wednesday, with a huge crisis looming for British potato crisps manufacture, which could lose 600 jobs in this country, there was not one word about the issue in the papers before the Committee or in the Government motion. Would not it be better to scrap the Committees rather than have a democratic front?

No, I do not think that it would be right to scrap the Committees. As I said at the outset, I believe that they are an effective way in which the House can carry out scrutiny. I have said that I am prepared to review those Committees, but I do not think that it would be right to scrap them.

Does the Leader of the House accept that all members of those European Committees believe that it is absolute nonsense that a motion agreed unanimously and as amended is reported to the House in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, but is then not the motion moved by the Government at a subsequent stage? The Committee then has the right to table an amendment, but not to speak to it or explain reasons. That is totally unsatisfactory and if no changes are made to the procedure, Members will refuse to attend those Committees.

I make it clear that that happened on only one occasion. The change was made because, as the Minister explained to all members of the Committee, the actual terms of the motion were, in the Government's view, inaccurate and did not represent the position. Therefore, on that occasion, the Government tabled a motion and it would have been possible for any member of the Committee to table an amendment. However, as I said, I constantly review the way in which those Committees work and I am now considering whether this can be done differently if a similar situation arises in future.

To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a further statement on the extension of official telephone and postal facilities to hon. Members for contacts with the institutions of the European Community in Brussels and elsewhere, pursuant to his answer of 25 March, Official Report, column 607.

I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the House of Commons Commission has now approved arrangements to enable hon. Members to make free official telephone calls to institutions of the European Community and to certain other European organisations. A notice setting out the short direct dialling codes of the respective exchanges has already been sent to Members. Arrangements have also been approved to enable Members to send official mail free of charge to countries of the European Community. It is hoped that the service will be brought into use immediately after the spring recess.

May I thank my right hon. Friend most warmly for his speed in handling those matters once he assumed his present office? At present, hon. Members can telphone Europe from their own offices. Will he ensure that we can use specific dial handsets in other parts of the Palace of Westminster as quickly as possible?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The initial list of the extensions that may be dialled direct reflects the present capacity of the telephone exchange to accept such calls. However, the system will be upgraded within the next 12 months and that will provide increased capacity for further direct dialling to Europe. I am not sure whether that will make my hon. Friend's suggestion irrelevant, but I shall consider his suggestion. It is probably preferable to stick to the arrangements that we have already made.