What recent progress has been made to create a more normal security environment. [107673]

If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [107675]

The security strategy paper that was published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 22 December 1999 outlines the progress made and the further steps that the Government intend to take towards achieving normality, depending on the threat level. In assessing that threat level, we will act on the professional advice of the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland and our security advisers. I want to make it clear that we will not relax our guard. The safety of the public remains at all times paramount.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and particularly welcome the publication of the Government's strategy. Following the bomb attack in Irvinestown, will he ensure that, while working towards a more normal security environment, we redouble efforts to ensure that those who are working outside the peace process are swiftly brought to justice?

Obviously, the attack in Irvinestown should be and was rightly condemned by everyone associated with taking forward normalisation in Northern Ireland. It was condemned across the board by political parties and others. In taking forward the process, we must ensure that we do not drop our guard. Even with all the successes of the Garda Siochana in the Republic of Ireland and of the RUC, there are clearly people who are intent on carrying out such actions. We must ensure that they do not succeed in those acts.

The Minister says that the safety of the public remains paramount, but yesterday the Northern Ireland Human Rights Bureau told me that, since the agreement, there have been 13 murders, 147 shootings and 422 beatings, as well as nearly 1,000 armed bank robberies in which 3,000 members of the public were held up at gun point. Is it sensible to continue to plan the break-up of the RUC and to release murdering terrorists?

The hon. Gentleman would do better to rely on official statistics, rather than the source that he quoted. He has got it totally wrong.

Which one is wrong?

The hon. Gentleman could easily ask written questions to gain such information, but I personally undertake to ensure that he is provided with the accurate statistics. It is not the case that we intend to break up the RUC, as the hon. Gentleman says. I remind him that the future of policing in Northern Ireland was part of the Good Friday agreement. I assume that the hon. Gentleman supports that agreement. If so, he should give a fair wind to the difficult decisions that we have to take on the future of policing there.

May I refer the Minister to the Irvinestown bomb incident? I am aware that, in official circles, it is thought that the Real IRA, based around Dundalk, is more dangerous than Continuity IRA, which is based around the Fermanagh borders. This is the third bombing in Fermanagh by Continuity IRA. Consequently, there needs to be particular vigilance on the Fermanagh borders. Does the Minister agree that nothing could be more foolish than to decide now to demolish the patrol bases on the Fermanagh border? That incident shows the clear need to retain those patrol bases. The suggestion that the bases should be demolished as a political gesture, which has been made from time to time, should now be dropped entirely.

Any bombing incident or killing by any dissident group has to be condemned whatever happens in Northern Ireland. Of course, we had the tragic circumstances of Omagh and there have been other incidents during the peace since the Good Friday agreement was agreed by the various parties who signed up to it. We have always said that this is not a perfect peace. We have always highlighted the potential dangers contained within it. I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he will understand that Ministers and the Secretary of State will always act on any matter—either the specific matters that he raised or the wider agenda—on the basis of the best advice from the Chief Constable and our security advisers.

Would the Minister agree that the commencement of decommissioning would be a great asset in the pursuance of normal security? Does he also agree that that is the dear and earnest wish of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland and these isles in general? Does he agree that the default to decommissioning precipitated the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Can he explain whether, in his opinion, that default is a default in respect of the Good Friday agreement, the Mitchell review or the artificial deadline set by the Ulster Unionist party for its council meeting next Saturday?

We had a very thorough-going debate on that issue yesterday, following last week's statement by the Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend made a significant contribution to that debate. We have a situation that we now have to deal with. Although there is a very real lack of confidence in various aspects of the way forward under the Good Friday agreement, I know that, like me, my hon. Friend believes that decommissioning and normalisation should happen, and that, in many ways, the two will go hand in hand. The more normalised Northern Ireland becomes, the greater will become the pressure on those who want to use the bomb and the bullet not to do so. Their communities will put that pressure on them. I am sure that the issues raised by my hon. Friend will continue to be addressed in the coming days.

In the context of normalisation, will the Patten recommendations on police be implemented even if the Assembly is suspended?

We have made it clear that the Patten recommendations, which have now been analysed and proposed by the Secretary of State, are part of the Good Friday agreement. We have said that we want to continue with the Good Friday agreement. Therefore, the simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes.

Does the Minister accept that, after the bombing at Irvinestown on Sunday, there must be one absolutely clear message from both sides of the House to the men of violence—that they will never, ever succeed, and that what they are doing is totally counterproductive to achieving what they want?

I share that sentiment with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that every hon. Member wants decommissioning. The sentiment was also expressed in the Good Friday agreement. It is also what the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland want. They want a peaceful future and an end to the violence that they have known for the past 30 years.

Does the Minister accept that, after Irvinestown and other incidents, when there is very clearly still a terrorist threat, it would be quite wrong to implement recommendations in the Patten report that are security sensitive? Will he now give a guarantee to the House that those particular recommendations will not be implemented until there is no longer a terrorist threat in Northern Ireland?

I am not so sure that the right hon. Gentleman has heard the answers that have been given by Ministers before; if he has, he has not absorbed them. We have made it clear that the threat level always has to be taken into account. The Secretary of State made that clear in announcing the way forward on the recommendations flowing from the Patten report. Clearly, we have to take the threat level into account, and we do so on the best security advice available. We have to take that advice into account. We are also talking about a specific time scale—immediately, medium term or long term—and judgments will be made as we progress on the issue.

What discussions he has had with the Office of First and Deputy First Minister relating to victims of terrorist and paramilitary violence. [107674]

I had a constructive and positive meeting with the First and Deputy First Ministers on Monday 31 January to discuss how victims' issues can be best addressed. It was agreed that a co-ordinated approach is essential to ensure that victims are treated with the respect that they deserve.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, in the past 30 years, there have been too many victims and too many damaged people, both in Northern Ireland and on this side of the Irish sea? Will he assure those victims and their families that, through this very difficult time, both he and those with whom he is in discussions will redouble their efforts to ensure a lasting peace in Northern Ireland—which is what most of those victims and their families want?

I do not think that I could add very much to the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, who has articulated both past events and the problems associated with victims and survivors of the violence. The best way forward is to achieve a lasting peace, so that we have no more such victims or survivors.

While I condemn all acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland, may I ask the Minister to acknowledge that much of the money that was collected by the Noraid organisation, in North America, was to help the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland, but that, more often than not, that aid found its way into the IRA's hands to buy arms, thereby creating victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland? Would there be merit in considering an extra payment to the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland pro rata for the arms surrendered, thereby giving an incentive to both sides to do so?

We are always prepared to listen to new and innovative ideas, and that suggestion has not been put to me before. It would be hard to quantify that proposal, but, as the Minister with responsibility for this issue, I would be prepared to look at such ideas to see whether there is a practical way forward. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion.

Does the Minister agree that the best way to ensure real peace in Northern Ireland and to ensure that there are no more victims is to take the arms out of circulation and to have them decommissioned? In the absence of decommissioning, surely it would be wrong to hurl further insult upon the hurt of the victims of terrorist violence by continuing with the early release of terrorist prisoners, when those terrorist organisations are failing to deliver on their obligations under the agreement.

We have always made it clear that one of the most difficult aspects of the agreement was the early release of prisoners. We always hoped that more progress would be made on a parallel basis on all other aspects of the agreement. It is a vexed and difficult question and, as the Minister who has to deal regularly with victims and survivors of terrible acts, I well understand the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I suggest to him that he could serve the interests of those victims and survivors better by working alongside his right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to bring about a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, and by helping in the efforts that the right hon. Gentleman is making in support of the Good Friday agreement.

Has the Minister thought beyond decommissioning, as residual punishment beatings, exilings and intimidations will still take place? People will have difficulty in reporting these incidents to the RUC and the state because of fears of intimidation. Would not the setting up of an independent anti-intimidation unit with international support alert us to the problems of continuing gangsterism? Would that be helpful in terms of developing democracy in Northern Ireland?

When we talk about moving towards a normalised society, we do not mean that it will be a criminal-free society, as that is not the nature of any society now. We must ensure that the RUC and the other agencies of the Government with responsibility for tackling violent crime have all the means at their disposal, so that the victims of violence and those who may wish to give evidence against those carrying out such acts have the full protection and support of all the agencies of the state.

How can the Government's ethical policy towards Austria in relation to the inclusion of Mr. Haider's party in Government be equated with the policy pressurising democrats of all descriptions to serve in an Executive with representatives of a terrorist organisation that remains armed and has murdered 2,500 British citizens?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is not easily pressured. Usually, he takes great umbrage when he is pressured, so I would never seek to pressure him into doing anything. The establishment of the Executive was agreed by the parties that supported the Good Friday agreement, which itself was supported by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. I should have thought that he, as a democrat, would be prepared to bow to the wish of the majority.

What discussion he has held with the Ministers and officials of the Northern Ireland Assembly concerning Thanksgiving square. [107676]

Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have had any discussions with Ministers or officials of the Assembly regarding this matter.

I am sorry that that was not a more positive response, although I understand the reasons. Does the Minister accept that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had appointed a lead person to give the funding? That person claimed to be dealing with the Arts Council, and then—having held those involved spinning for a long time—finally said that there was no money. Was that because the Arts Council is more concerned about performing arts than other arts? Does the Minister accept that Thanksgiving square—proposed by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians and others—would be useful in finishing the waterfront?

While I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the project is undoubtedly very worth while and has the wide support that he describes, matters relating to charities and funding for such projects now fall under the auspices of the devolved Administration. However, I note what he says and I accept entirely that the development would be very desirable.

What progress has been made on the decommissioning of arms and explosives. [107677]

The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning made a further report to the British and Irish Governments on Monday 31 January. As I said to the House on 3 February, all the main paramilitary groups on ceasefire are now engaged with the commission, but there has not yet been decommissioning of arms by a major paramilitary group. We and the Irish Government continue to work intensively to secure the further progress on decommissioning that is essential to maintain the confidence required to sustain the devolved institutions.

Will the Secretary of State end the early release of terrorist prisoners if there is no decommissioning this week and the Assembly is suspended?

No, I will not, because the issue of prisoner releases is governed by other considerations and other legislation. I am obliged to keep under review permanently the issue of ceasefires, because it is by that that I judge the continuation of the prisoner release scheme. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members that I will keep those ceasefires under constant scrutiny.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to estimate when he is likely to receive a second report from General de Chastelain? Will my right hon. Friend say from the Dispatch Box that he will resist the demands made in some quarters that the shelving of the Patten report and its recommendations should be part of the discussions?

I certainly echo what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already said on that subject. The Patten commission's proposals and the decisions that we have taken about them stand on their own merits, and while I will consider the nature and speed of the implementation of Patten's recommendations in accordance with the security threat, as a matter of principle my view is that we should continue with implementation.

The Government keep talking about the voluntary act of giving up weapons, but should they not be talking about the mandatory act of giving up weapons? Surely talking about the process being voluntary weakens the Government's whole case. Furthermore, given the good relations that we are told now exist between the British and Irish Governments, what representations have the Government made to the Irish Government to find out what they know about the location of arms dumps in the Republic of Ireland? Have the British Government asked that question? If they have had any positive answers, what representations have they made to the Irish Government to raid those dumps and take out those arms?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I do not have any power to force anyone to do anything. Just as devolution and entering the Executive and institutions were voluntary acts by the political parties, so too is decommissioning. I would just say this to all the paramilitaries, and to the IRA in particular. Nobody is asking for surrender by the IRA; nobody is demanding that humiliation be heaped on the IRA. If politics is to work, and if we are to see the decommissioning that is an essential part of the peace process, there must be certainty and there must be definiteness, if confidence in all the institutions is to be rebuilt. I hope that the IRA will understand this need and, even at this eleventh hour, respond in a constructive way.

Will my right hon. Friend make a distinction between those of us who are very much in favour of the Good Friday agreement, who want decommissioning to take place and who understand the difficulties that the British and Irish Governments face, and the political dinosaurs who are totally opposed to the Government and use decommissioning only as a way of trying to destroy an agreement that they never wanted in the first place?

I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. Everyone realises that if the peace process is to operate properly, if politics in Northern Ireland is to work, that must involve everyone. Everyone has a stake, and everyone's commitment is equally essential. If we are to rebuild the trust and confidence that we need for the institutions to work, they must enjoy the confidence of both traditions in Northern Ireland. We cannot sustain these institutions with the confidence or the support of one tradition alone. That is why I say that it is very important indeed that the Good Friday agreement as a whole must be implemented if confidence in the institutions is to be rebuilt.

Will the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that if there is no actual decommissioning by the end of this week, he will suspend devolution on Friday?

I have already made it absolutely clear that if it needs to be done we will, with a very heavy heart, put on hold the operation of the Executive and the institutions. I think that the hon. Gentleman and other Members of the House would agree that most people in Northern Ireland would respond to that with a deep sense of despair. They like their Executive; they like the institutions. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that if we do not do that, the alternative would be worse. If we simply allow the Executive and the institutions to stagger on without the cross-community support that they need to survive, they are likely to shatter irreversibly. I simply will not stand by and allow that to happen. If it is necessary to do so, we will put these institutions on hold in order to preserve them, not to annul them.

When he plans to meet his policy objective of the Northern Ireland police having broad parity in terms of the religious affiliations of its officers. [107678]

The Government's aim is a police service that is representative of the community in Northern Ireland and enjoys widespread support from that community. The Patten report proposes measures designed to quadruple the proportion of Catholic officers in the police over a 10-year period. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 19 January, the Government have accepted these measures.

The Secretary of State said just a few moments ago that the Patten recommendations stand on their own merit. That is good, because yesterday the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) gave the impression—and here I paraphrase—that, with the suspension of the Assembly, the Patten report would be put into cold storage. Is it not the case that a situation in which 92 per cent. of police officers in Northern Ireland are Protestant and 8 per cent. are Catholic is not sustainable in the long term, and that we need to implement the Patten recommendations?

I made clear in an earlier answer, and my right hon. Friend has made clear in his answers, the way in which we intend to proceed with the recommendations of the Patten report.

Is the Minister aware that, as intimidation has declined—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order. The Minister cannot hear the question. Speak up, Mr. Ross.

Is the Minister aware that, as intimidation from terrorist organisations, principally the IRA, has declined, the number of Roman Catholics applying to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary has risen to more than 20 per cent? In the light of that welcome development, and assuming that the quality of applicants is equal, when might broad parity be reached without positive discrimination in favour of Roman Catholic applicants?

I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman wants a police force that represents the wider community. Reaching parity depends on several circumstances, one of which he alluded to. We want to sustain the important developments that have taken place in recent months and to increase the number of people from the minority community who are applying and successfully becoming police officers. That will help to better Northern Ireland society in future.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 February.

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

Does the Prime Minister recollect that many of the hundreds of public servants whom he met in Plymouth last week made it plain that they want more funding for public services? Would a binding policy on tax take for the whole of a Parliament lead to savage cuts in public services? Is that why at least one senior Tory Member has described that policy as mad?

Of course that tax guarantee would mean cuts in basic public services, health and schools—[Interruption.] There is nothing quite so ludicrous as the push-me-pull-you double act between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor over the past few days. This morning, the shadow Chief Secretary told us unequivocally that they would—

It has nothing to do with you.

The shadow Chief Secretary said that the tax guarantee stood. That does have something to do with the person sitting opposite me. When he gets up, will he tell us whether the tax guarantee stands? Yes, or no?

The tax guarantee stands, and it will continue to stand. As the Prime Minister has had a straight answer from me, can we have some straight answers from him? That would be a novelty.

No, I will not, for the reason I shall give in a moment. First, however, let me point out that the previous Government decided in 1994 guidance that section 28 did not apply to schools. The idea that has been put about in parts of the press that repeal is about gay sex lessons in schools and all the rest of it is nonsense.

We all believe in a tolerant society. Many of those organisations to which the Prime Minister referred have talked about bullying in schools. However, his own chief inspector of schools said:

"My own experience is that there is no evidence that section 28 has had a negative effect on teachers' ability to deal with bullying. No head teacher has raised it with me in all the school visits I have made."

It is nothing to do with teaching children in classrooms; it is to do with answering their questions. I heard what the chief inspector of schools said, but the evidence presented to us by organisations representing children and representing teachers is that, in some cases, the section did make a difference. We have, therefore, decided to replace it with proper guidance for schools.

In all the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman has come out with over the past three years, he has never beaten that. If he wants to listen to people, he would drop the idea. The debate has become more than a debate about a clause in a local government Bill; it is about tolerance being a two-way thing in this country. It is about whether millions of parents have the right to determine what their children are taught, and about whether the mainstream majority has the right to have its views and values respected, or whether taxpayers' money can be commandeered by a Government who have no respect for that. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the debate is, indeed, about tolerance? It is about the tolerance demanded by the mainstream majority that its views and values be respected.

The right hon. Gentleman may fool some of those sitting on the Opposition Benches with those remarks, but he will not fool many people. As I have just pointed out, since 1994—when he was a member of the then Conservative Government—section 28 does not apply to schools. In relation to sex education, parents are already perfectly entitled—and will remain entitled—to withdraw their children from any of those lessons. Furthermore, teachers and governors will decide what is taught in their individual schools.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the working families tax credit benefits 1.5 million families by an average of £24 a week? Does he agree that, when the Tories have mastered that simple arithmetic, he can tell Archie to tell Michael to tell William, and that we shall see another U-turn?

If anything indicated the extraordinary weakness of the Leader of the Opposition's position, it is that the shadow Chancellor announces their policies on such issues at Question Time. Let us hear some more answers from them. Are they against £100 for the pensioners? Are they against the new deal for the unemployed? Are they against child benefit increases, free eye tests for pensioners or extra money for rural bus services?

Has the Prime Minister had a chance to read the Liberal Democrat early-day motion? [Interruption.]

Order. Mr. Kennedy, please proceed.

The spontaneous reaction from those on the Labour Benches confirms that at least 85 Members in the parliamentary Labour party have read the motion—because they signed it. We are very grateful for their support. It describes the 75p uprating for pensioners as inadequate. Will the Prime Minister therefore take this opportunity to tell 85 of his right hon. and hon. Friends why they are wrong and why 75p is adequate?

It is not the case that all that pensioners are getting from the Government is a 73p increase. The £100 is an increase that pensioners are getting; the minimum income guarantee helps many of them; and pensioners over the age of 75 will get free television licences from autumn 2000. There are also, of course, free eye tests, the national concessionary bus fares scheme and the many other things that we have done for pensioners in this country.

On the issue of guarantees and of pensioners, will the Prime Minister acknowledge, as he did on his visit to the south-west last week, that many pensioners are concerned about the issue that I raised with him last week—the future of the rural post offices? He will recall that he said to me then that subsidy was no way forward for guaranteeing the future of threatened post offices. Yet, 24 hours later, he told the editor of the Western Daily Press:

"look, you may need a subsidy to allow this rural post office to function".

It is the same; I did not say that. I said that it would be wrong to stop the switch-over from paying benefits in cash to paying them into a bank account. It would be absolutely absurd to have the technology to do that, to have invested in it and then to waste that technology. In respect of the rural post offices, I also put forward a number of things that will help them to deal with the new situation. If the Liberal Democrats are really saying that even if we have the technology to pay money direct into people's bank accounts, we should not do so, I disagree with them.

While considering the future direction of Government health policy, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read a recent edition of the magazine Public Finance, in which an adviser to the Conservative's Front-Bench health team says that

"in the end we may have an NHS only for the poor, a service for the people who earn less than a certain amount."

We will not privatise the health service; we will rebuild it. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the remarks of the Conservatives' adviser. It all stems from the tax guarantee; they cannot make it work unless there are big cuts in health service provision. However, it is not just their adviser who has expressed such a view. Their health service spokesman, when describing their policy, said within the past few days:

"So people would look to the NHS to provide them with service when they had serious life-threatening conditions, and would look to their private insurance to help them with those things where the NHS had to ask them to wait".

As it was only the strong-arm tactics of the Prime Minister that delivered the job of the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly, will the Prime Minister now tell him and members of the Welsh Labour party to abide by the decision of the vote of no confidence, whatever the outcome might be?

There is a no confidence motion in the Welsh Assembly, but I believe that the Welsh First Secretary is doing an excellent job and so does the Labour party. Let us be clear what the issue is. What we have in the no confidence motion is the nationalists and the Tories joining together.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Carlsberg-Tetley proposes to close the Wrexham Lager Beer Company, which is just outside my constituency? The company was established in 1882 and is the oldest lager brewery in Britain, not much younger than Carlsberg itself. Given that Carlsberg makes great play of its history, does my right hon. Friend agree that if it goes ahead with the closure and does not enter into negotiations with the local council to continue brewing on the site, Carlsberg risks being considered by the people of Wrexham to be probably the worst lager in the world?

Of course I am aware of the distress that those job losses may cause, but I know that my hon. Friend is working with others to try to put together a package for his constituents, and I very much hope that it is successful.

Is the Prime Minister personally aware of the depth of the crisis in the defence medical services caused by the closure of the only military hospital, at Haslar in my constituency? Is he aware that, following a massive, vigorous local campaign, the hospital is now to be kept open by the national health service? Will he take the advice of almost all those who have specialist knowledge and retain Haslar as a centre for defence medicine?

I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would congratulate us on the work that we have done on the matter. We are now considering how to make the appropriate provision of critical care services, and we are spending an extra £140 million over the next five years to help to rebuild the defence medical services. Again, it all comes back to money. People in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have been asking us to spend more money on the health service; we are, but we cannot do that and have a tax guarantee at the same time.

Last Friday, somebody whom I was at school with, who is currently a nurse, was savagely attacked at a Bristol hospital. She is currently critical and unconscious. The day before, a Kent GP was stabbed in the back at his surgery. Other professions—particularly social workers, but also teachers and those who drive buses and taxis—also face dangers in working with the public. What role do the Government have to play in promoting information, training, safeguards and guidelines on how people who work with the public can best ensure their own safety, especially if by the very nature of their job they have to work face to face with the public?

That is indeed a serious problem, which is why last October the Government launched a series of initiatives called the NHS zero tolerance zone. We are investing money in accident and emergency departments and modernisation work specifically for improvements to security and safety for hospital staff and patients. We hope that the additional investment will make a difference. We are also establishing a task force to take forward a programme of work designed to reduce violence against social care workers. This is a serious problem, and our sympathy and our hearts go out to the individual who was attacked last week.

The Prime Minister was quick to remove the Whip from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), when he was the subject of a police investigation. Why has he not acted with the same speed and decisiveness in the case of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson)?

Let us wait and see what the investigation reveals. As with many of the investigations into my right hon. Friend, it was instigated on the basis of allegations made by Conservative Members of Parliament.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend saw the Low Pay Commission report this weekend, which demonstrates that there has been no loss of jobs with the introduction of the minimum wage. Will my right hon. Friend welcome the conversion of the Conservative party to support for the minimum wage? Will he also congratulate my constituent, Erica Ledbetter, from Leyland, who won a tribunal case on the minimum wage without being represented by a lawyer or a trade union? Does my right hon. Friend recognise, however, that many of the people who are most vulnerable in respect of the minimum wage need better advice to enable them to take their case to an industrial tribunal?

Of course, the Conservatives detest the minimum wage, but they lack the courage of their conviction to get rid of it. A few months ago, the shadow Chancellor called it "an immoral policy", but now they have had to accept it. It is an important reform which we have introduced, and it symbolises a different approach to people in the workplace. We believe that employers can treat their workers fairly and get the best out of them by doing so. That is Labour's way, which the Conservatives now have to accept.

Will the Prime Minister comment on the fact that within moments of his expressing full confidence in the First Secretary in Wales five or 10 minutes ago, news came through to the House that the First Secretary had resigned, before the vote of confidence had taken place? [Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister confirm that that has happened, and if it has, will he confirm also that the next big test of devolution will be the choice of a new First Secretary without any interference whatever from the Prime Minister?

The one thing of which we can be sure—[Interruption.]—is that that will not be a Tory.

Order. I have had enough of hon. Members calling out from sedentary positions.

The no confidence motion was not just accepted by the nationalists, but backed by the Conservatives. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain why his leader in Wales is saying that he has a commitment from the Conservative party to fund £180 million above the Treasury block grant. If that is true, how does he intend funding it?

All I want to know is whether the First Secretary in Wales has resigned and, if so, why he did so before the vote of confidence, and whether the Prime Minister will undertake not to interfere in any way in the choice of a new First Secretary.

The decision is for people in Wales. [Interruption.] What we need to know is why the nationalists and the Tories are in bed with one another—the two wreckers of devolution—one group that wants to separate Wales from the United Kingdom, and the other that supports centralisation. After all the fun and games down at the Assembly are over, the right hon. Gentleman must explain why the Tories are supporting the nationalists' demand for an extra £200 million of public spending.

It is no good the Prime Minister dismissing as fun and games serious proceedings in an Assembly which he created and which he campaigned for, about a First Secretary whom he imposed on the Welsh Labour party in the Welsh Assembly. Not only has the Prime Minister forgotten why he imposed the First Secretary—he does not even know whether the First Secretary is in office at this moment. Is the First Secretary still in office? If he is not, will the Prime Minister undertake not to interfere in the election of a successor?

The decision is for people in Wales. The fun and games to which I refer is the fact that the Tories and the nationalists are in an alliance together. [Interruption.] Yes, they are in alliance together. Once the fun and games have ended, the right hon. Gentleman will have to explain—

Order. Some hon. Members seem to be having apoplexy. The House must come to order. I want to hear what is being said.

The nationalists and the Tories are now joined together in a demand for extra public spending. That is the truth, which Opposition Members want to shout down. The Conservative party demands that we spend an extra £200 million in Wales. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman explain how he can demand £200 million more, while maintaining a tax guarantee?

Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 336 tabled by Tory Members, who want the Government to extend private health insurance? Given that two thirds of day beds are taken by people who are over 65, and that the cost of a hip operation can be as much as £7,800, does he agree that anyone who believes that private health insurance can fund the national health service in this country is simply not living in the real world?

The Conservative policy, accurately described as a Trojan horse, will mean that people who are over 60 will have to take out private medical insurance at a cost to many of them of £60 to £80 a week. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can shout as much as they like, but many people will not be able to afford that sort of private medical insurance. It is wrong to expect them to do so. Furthermore, the Conservative policy of giving tax breaks on private medical insurance will mean a deadweight cost that would wipe out the entire nurses' pay claim for next year just for those who already have private medical insurance. People know that that will happen if they vote Tory at the next election.

A year or so ago, I invited the Prime Minister to visit my constituency to explain the soaring waiting lists in hospitals, but he refused. He solved that problem by having a waiting list for a waiting list. I again invite him to my constituency to visit the governors of some successful former grant-maintained schools, whose budgets are being cut. Can he advise them whether they should sack teachers, or put a levy on parents? After all, I remind the Prime Minister of the importance of education, education, education.

That is why we are putting the largest investment ever in education this year and in the next two years. Again, Conservative Members are asking for more money. It is time that they made up their minds about what they want. They ask for more public spending in Wales, on the health service and on schools. In the past week, their defence spokesman asked for more defence money; their agriculture spokesman asked for more agriculture money; and the local government spokesman wants more for local government. The Leader of the Opposition and all Conservative Members will have to decide whether their policy is for a tax guarantee, or a cuts in public services guarantee.

Given the rather childlike behaviour we have witnessed in the Chamber, I ask my right hon. Friend about his commitment to halve child poverty in 10 years and to eliminate it in two decades. Given that 4 million of our children were in poverty when he took over, he has set quite a challenge. Is he confident that the Government can fulfil that commitment?

I believe that we can fulfil it, partly because of the measures on child benefit, the new deal, which puts young people back in work, and the working families tax credit, which will lift approximately 800,000 children out of poverty. We can already be proud of our record in our first term. The country will be reminded time and again that our measures, such as child benefit, the £100 for pensioners, the new deal and the working families tax credit are opposed and would be taken away by the Conservative party.

I want to ask a simple question. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that neither he nor Millbank will interfere with the selection of the new Labour leader of the National Assembly for Wales?

Given the state of the Conservative party, they can leave my party to me. Whatever happens in Wales, questions about public spending have to be answered. The entire case of the nationalists, supported by the Tories, that they cannot afford objective 1 spending is false. Everybody knows that it is false, and that Conservatives and nationalists cannot possibly afford the extra £200 million that they demand. Whatever happens in the next few days, people in Wales would do better to stick to a Labour party that can deliver extra spending rather than a Tory party that would cut it.

How does the Prime Minister intend to increase and publicise the Government's considerable successes in regeneration and employment in inner-city areas such as Liverpool?

Long-term youth unemployment has halved under this Government and some 200,000 young people are back in work. Those young people had no hope and opportunity of a job before. They now have a job. Everyone should remember that these policies are fair, but they also improve the state of the economy. As a result of the changes that have been made, we are cutting the costs of economic and social failure from the level we inherited from the Conservatives by £3 billion a year. That is then money we can spend on schools and hospitals. That is the Labour way, not the Tory way of cuts and social exclusion.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance—not on the subject of lying, on which you have made the position abundantly clear, but on the subject of Ministers who, no doubt entirely inadvertently, give credence to untruths?

Order. I will not enter into a political argument with the hon. Gentleman. What is the point of order for me?

The point of order, Madam Speaker, is simply this. Given that the information that the Prime Minister inadvertently gave inaccurately was nevertheless inaccurate, and given that the effect of that inaccuracy is unhelpful to millions of people who were watching on television at home, is there any means whereby you can instruct the Prime Minister to come to the House and apologise to the British people?

These are political arguments. I fear that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to prolong Prime Minister's Question Time. If he wishes to pursue the matter, he must do so politically. He must do so through the Order Paper, rather than through the Chair.