asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made, following discussions with his French counterpart, to encourage the further liberalisation of European air services.

I met M. Douffiagues on 4 February and exchanged ideas for significantly more liberal bilateral air service arrangements. At last week's informal Council of Ministers further progress was made. We made it clear again that we would only be party to an agreement which provided for proper competition between airlines.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the robust action that he is taking, particularly in view of the substantial vested interest. Has progress been made on the introduction of cheaper off-peak fares?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Yes, most of our European partners now seem to accept the principle that airlines should be able to introduce low off-peak fares. The British Government are determined that such fares should not be strangled by absurdly restrictive restraints such as the Saturday night or six-day concession.

Will the Minister take it from me that we wish him well in his endeavours, but that he needs an awful lot of luck to be successful?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words of encouragement.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulties concerning the city of Strasbourg, which is the centre for the Council of Europe and the European Parliament, and, in particular, the apparent attempt by the French to maintain a near monopoly there? Will he press for an improvement in communications with Strasbourg and more allowance for genuine competition?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in stressing the role of competition in providing better services to Strasbourg, and indeed, elsewhere in Europe. In view of what my hon. Friend said, my right hon Friend will certainly press even stronger for more competition in air services with France and, indeed, with other European countries.

What has the Minister actually done, which was the point of the question? Whatever he has done, why were we deprived of knowing about it? He failed to hold a press conference at the end of his six-month presidency, which is surely unprecedented with Aviation Ministers.

The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. Of course we held a press conference. The reason was to stress that we have almost total unanimity on access and capacity. The only matter on which we shall have further discussions is fares, and we are getting somewhere on that as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has been given on the levels of employment in Scotland and the north of England which will result from the construction of the Channel tunnel.

Eurotunnel's contractors, Trans-Manche Link, have already placed orders worth £6·4 million for the first two tunnel-boring machines with James Howden & Co. in Glasgow, and £1·2 million for locomotives with Hunslett Engineering Co. in Yorkshire. Letters of intent placed with these two companies total a further £8·5 million. In all, orders for equipment and materials for Eurotunnel are likely to account for some 7,000 to 8,000 jobs, and orders for British Rail another 2,000 to 2,500 jobs, outside the south-east during the construction period.

Undoubtedly that is good news for the north, but what will be the effect on jobs in the north and in Scotland after the tunnel is opened?

I thank my hon. Friend for his first remark. Of course the effect will depend on the degree to which British manufacturing and commercial industry utilise the tremendous freight advantages in being able to move goods from the United Kingdom into Europe, where about 62 per cent. of our export trade goes. Clearly, for the first time, they will have that unique freight advantage, and I trust that they will benefit from it.

I also welcome the Minister's announcement, but will he bear in mind the reservations that have been expressed by many borough councils, for example in the north-west, including my own in Oldham, and their concern that the rail network should be strengthened sufficiently to make it economic to situate industry in that area and thus gain the advantage that will be forthcoming from the rail tunnel?

Of course, I shall take note of the hon. Gentleman's point. He rightly draws attention to the opportunities for companies connected with our goods railway system. However, I know from the hon. Gentleman's point that he will be conscious of the enormous importance to British Rail, and to the northwest and other areas north of Birmingham, of the Channel tunnel development.

Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us who are in favour of the tunnel on social and political grounds nevertheless have the same reservations about the problems for the north if the development is concentrated on the south-east? Does the right hon. Gentleman further accept that it is important for through running from the north on railway lines across London to be introduced at the same time as the tunnel is opened, rather than for the tunnel to commence operations without through-running trains?

I recognise the great importance of through trains. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point. I am delighted that he reaffirms his party's support for the Channel tunnel. I hope that he will remember what I said in answer to the question, that the jobs in relation to equipment and materials— all the jobs to which I referred—will be outside the south-east. They will be in the north, where our heavy manufacturing and industrial base is.

With regard to Scotland's involvement, the Scottish Office is to assist financially with the study of the concept of the EuroWest Port. Is it the Secretary of State's intention also to provide some financial assistance for the idea of a EuroWest Port based on the Clyde?

I shall talk to my hon. Friends in the Scottish Office about that point, but we have made it clear time after time that, other than the commercial decisions by British Rail in regard to additional ancillary railway facilities as a consequence of the Channel tunnel, no Government money will be put up for the Channel tunnel. However, I shall certainly look at the hon. Gentleman's specific point about the Clyde.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the total value of British Airways shares sold in foreign markets.

About £148 million worth of shares were sold in foreign markets, out of a total capitalisation of £900 million.

As the Secretary of State obviously does not have a clue about the answer to the question that was asked, and in view of massive share trading as a result of the issue being considerably underpriced, how can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that control of British Airways will not pass to foreigners or even to a predatory competitor foreign airline?

The hon. Gentleman's first statement was total and complete nonsense. The articles require all foreign interests in BA shares to be disclosed to the company. Obviously, a system is already in place. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I wonder whether he remembers what The Sunday Times said on the day before we priced the issue. The writer said that

"at 125p, I would be luke-warm",

and in fact, BA would be worth buying only under 125p.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many potential foreign investors were disappointed because of the tremendous interest of small investors in this country in British Airways, and that that is a tremendous vote of confidence in Lord King, his directors and all the people who work for British Airways, including many of my constituents, who have made it the most attractive airline investment opportunity anywhere in the world?

I am delighted at my hon. Friend's welcome. He is right. He may not recall the only Labour privatisation, if it can be called that, when in 1977 the Labour Government sold British Petroleum shares to the nation, but they did not offer them to the wider public—20 per cent. of them were placed in the United States and the rest went to United Kingdom institutions. My hon. Friends will all be looking forward to a debate on Labour's transport policy document, "Fresh Directions", to see whether the Labour party will confirm— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted. Clearly, one of Labour's Supply days will be used to debate that lovely document. We shall look forward to that occasion.

Is not the truth that the Secretary of State swithered and dithered over the British Airways flotation, that he could not make up his mind whether he wanted to encourage or discourage the small shareholder and that in the end he panicked and set the price too low, so that he gave away £300 million of public money? If he is relying on The Sunday Times for advice on how to run his Department, no wonder he gets it so abysmally wrong.

I do not think for one moment that the enormous success of the Government's privatisation programme would at any stage be regarded by the public—no matter how it is regarded by the Labour party—as the result of panic. I believe that the reverse is the case. British Airways was one of the more successful privatisations. The 1·1 million shareholders will be very interested to know the Labour party's "Fresh Directions" attitude towards their share ownership. We look forward to hearing the Opposition's debate on that subject.

Would it not be more to the point to concentrate on those shares that were not sold abroad because the demand in this country, especially from British Airways employees and the small shareholder, was at such a high level that shares were brought back from foreign markets into the British market?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to draw attention to the working of the clawback and the fact that 47 per cent. of shares were placed with the employees in the United Kingdom and in the wider individual share-owning market place. I know that my hon. Friend would be happy to remind British Airways employees of Labour's commitment in its new transport document to take back the shares at the issue price. When and how the Opposition do that will be of interest to the employees.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress on the consultations about fitting of speed governors to coaches.

The Department has been actively involved in the preparation of a British Standard for speed limiters. We expect to be able to consult interested parties on regulations based on a draft British Standard within the next two months.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the tachograph record is used on the continent as a way of making on-the-spot speed checks, which is simple and quick and avoids the need for additional equipment? Would that not be a better way of enforcing speed limits for buses and coaches than requiring operators to fit these expensive new fangled speed governors?

My hon. Friend will accept that if a speed limiter is in operation there cannot be an offence. It is also worth noting that speed limiters are also required in France. I am advised that by themselves tachographs are not sufficient evidence for a prosecution for speeding.

I recognise the importance of a limit being placed on the speeds of coaches and buses, but do not many of the worst accidents happen at fairly low speeds, well below those speeds which would be achieved through the fitting of governors? Is the Minister aware that in my constituency a child was killed about 10 days ago on a road used by buses, coaches and cars, but where there was an insufficient layby area for coaches to pull in to collect and deliver children? Will he consider all aspects of that matter, including those points highlighted by the Anstey lane disaster?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very important point, that 80 per cent. of injuries and deaths on the roads occur in built-up areas where the maximum speed limits applicable in countryside areas do not apply. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State publishes the new "Highway Code", he will draw attention to the simple rules that will eliminate virtually all injuries and deaths on our roads. I hope that those responsible for children will ensure that children are under control, and that when they reach the age of discretion they are properly trained. I know that bus and coach drivers will do all that they can to ensure that they do not kill or injure children.

In contradistinction to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. HeathcoatAmory), will my hon. Friend press ahead on that matter as fast as he can? Will he confirm the Government's commitment? Does he share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) that the driving of some coaches on our motorways is little less than intimidation? Will he confirm that, in addition to governors, seat belts, flammability, and other design features are receiving the Department's attention?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State For Transport if he will convene and attend a meeting of representatives of cycling organisations to discuss safety and related matters; and if he will make a statement.

I am looking forward to opening the Conference on International Innovations for Safer Cycling, organised by Southampton city council and the Southampton Cycling Campaign on 23 May as one of the main events of National Bike Week 1987. The Department will be playing a full part in this event.

I welcome that announcement from the Minister who I know has a genuine interest in cycling. However, as 350 cyclists are killed and more than 6,000 seriously injured every year, is there not now an urgent need to reconsider what must be done in such a serious situation? I am not blaming any particular section of road traffic, but will the Minister consider three aspects of the problem? First, will he attempt to increase the awareness of motorists about cycling? Secondly, will he improve facilites for cyclists at turning places and crossing points? Finally, and this is important, will he institute a major campaign among school children about cycling and safety?

I pay tribute to the work done for cycling by the hon. Gentleman, not only among Members of Parliament, but throughout the country. He rightly emphasises three aspects. I will do what I can on training, but will require much help from schools, local authorities and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the advisory leaflets produced by the Department, which have been well received in cycling circles. As for awareness, I hope that when the new "Highway Code" is issued on 4 March the hon. Gentleman will welcome many of the changes, most of which are addressed not to cyclists but to others road users who cause so much danger to cyclists.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the headquarters of the Cyclists Touring Club is in my constituency—[Interruption.]

Order. I want to hear about the Cyclists Touring Club.

Before attending any meeting, will my hon. Friend read the club's 1987 manifesto, which was prepared for this European Year of the Environment? What has he done during the past year to publicise the fact that motorists and cyclists are fellow and responsible road users?

I recall an Adjournment debate introduced by my hon. Friend, which was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the former Minister of State, Department of Transport, following which we made 18 changes to the "Highway Code" which provide greater protection for cyclists. I shall consider the CTC '87 manifesto. During the past year, I thought that I earned one brownie point by visiting CTC headquarters with my hon. Friend on a tandem, and I thought that I deserved a second brownie point for not telling the press.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the cost to the shipping and ports industries as a consequence of the 14 per cent. increase in light dues he announced on 5 February.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received following the announcement of an increase in light dues.

Well over 80 per cent. of light dues are paid by foreign registered ships. The proposed increase will result in an additional charge to United Kingdom registered shipping of about £500,000 a year. Light dues impose no direct costs on the port industry. I have received several representations for and against the new charges.

The Minister's reply was extremely complacent. Are he and the Secretary of State aware of the immense damage that the measure is likely to cause to United Kingdom ports and shipping? The British Ports Association estimates that light dues could increase container costs by 50 per cent., add £20,000 to the costs of each ship entering United Kingdom ports, and cost one ship owner £1 million per annum.

The Minister must be aware that Britain alone in Europe charges shipowners this levy for entering and embarking from United Kingdom ports. The levy is directed at the industry and is one that the industry can ill afford to bear. The Minister should consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him, if he has money to give away in this year's Budget, to give it to ports and shipping— an important part of British industry— instead of levying this 14 per cent. increase on them, which will cause great damage.

The increases are necessary to cover costs. Before the hon. Gentleman gets completely carried away, he should remember that since 1981–82 light dues have decreased by 18 per cent. in real terms, even taking into account the new rates. He should further remind himself and some of his hon. Friends that light dues were at their peak in real terms in 1975, after Labour had increased them three times in 19 months by 10 per cent., 12 per cent. and 41 per cent. respectively.

What types of fishing vessels are likely to pay dues in the future? Would it not make much more sense to rescind than to extend light dues to fishing vessels?

We are considering proposals to extend light dues to some fishing vessels. It follows the inclusion earlier this year of the cost of operating the United Kingdom navigator transmitters in the general lighthouse fund. I cannot discuss the details, because they have not been finalised.

Although I do not endorse the hyperbole of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), will my hon. Friend recognise that there is genuine anxiety in the shipping industry about the effect of light dues? Will he undertake to listen most carefully and sympathetically to any representations that that industry makes to him?

Of course there are anxieties about increases, even if the charges are coming down in real terms. We shall see whether any restructuring between different types of vessels and what they pay should be undertaken.

What steps has the Department of Transport taken to set up user consultative committees to extend consultation to people who do not necessarily pay light dues? Will the Minister confirm that light dues are not charged by any of our EEC partners, with the exception of Greece and the Republic of Ireland? Does he agree that if a vessel has a choice between Rotterdam and a British port, Rotterdam is likely to be more attractive because increased light dues will now have to be paid in the United Kingdom?

We consult all elements of the industry. The cost differential between average ports on the Continent and in Britain is explained by light dues only to the tune of one seventh.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of London Regional Transport, he will raise with him the level of services on the London Underground; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. While I am not complacent, I congratulate him on increasing by 3 per cent. in 1986–87 alone the mileage of trains run on the Underground, and on his plans for further increases this year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for the interest that he and the chairman are taking in the suffering of my constituents on the Central line? Will sympathetic consideration be given to constructive suggestions which may be made by the Central line users action group and myself?

Following a lengthy discussion with my hon. Friend, who raised several matters on behalf of his constituents, I have written to the chairman of London Underground Ltd. about them and I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend. As for the line users' association, of course I shall be happy to convey its views as well.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of London Regional Transport, will he bear in mind the thousands of south-east London commuters who would love to have an Underground service about which to complain? How long will south-east London remain the forgotten corner of the city when it comes to the development of the Underground system?

London Underground Ltd. is concentrating on improving its existing network and services. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the number of passengers has gone up by 50 per cent. since 1982 to an all-time record and that some £260 million of investment— the highest ever level— will be carried through this year. We should see those improvements through before we undertake a further extension of the system.

Will my hon. Friend have a word with the management of LRT about the irritating failures of electronic time and destination warning signs, especially on the Northern line? They mostly show flashing correction messages rather than times and destinations.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that matter and I shall pass it on to the chairman and managing director.

Is the Minister satisfied with the level of service provided by LRT, bearing in mind the number of ticket machines that are switched off or are out of order and the lack of staff issuing or collecting tickets, especially late at night? If there is £20 million to spare in this newly nationalised industry, would it not be better to spend it on providing much needed improvements for passengers who travel on the system than to hand it back to the Government?

Ratepayers are well satisfied at finding less than half the sum which the GLC would have required in subsidy to mop up the industry. Neither I nor the management are complacent. There are plans for automatic ticketing to be introduced.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the projected date for commencement of construction work on the M65 link to the M6-M61.

Time will be needed for design work and the normal statutory procedures, including a public inquiry. Construction could then start in the early 1990s.

Does the Minister accept that his answer is not acceptable to the people of north-east Lancashire? This motorway has the overwhelming support of the people in that part of Lancashire, and we have been arguing the case for it for more than 20 years. We want the motorway to be started by 1990, and we want it to be up to motorway standards.

We will do the best that we can. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a 20-year delay. Part of that delay was due to the Labour party halving the money for new national roads between 1974 and 1979. Perhaps in the long-promised Supply day debate on "Fresh Directions" we may hear the Labour party's plans for road spending.

There may be problems in Burnley, but a lot of good work is going on in the north-west. However, what about the A6M? There will be overheating not just of engines but of a lot of people in Stockport if something is not done about that soon. When can we expect the public inquiry?

I hope soon to be able to announce the date of the public inquiry. We are considering a large number of representations received since the inquiry into the Denton to Middleton section of the Manchester outer ring road ended in January last year.

Does the Minister not understand that the reason for the inordinate delay in the construction of this link is that the Government cancelled the link altogether in April 1980 and did not restore it until three years later? Is he aware that the result has been to produce major congestion, especially on the northern roads around my constituency and on the road between Blackburn and Preston? Bearing in mind the delays so far, can the Minister give any promise that the work to put this link on to the M61 will be speeded up?

We shall do what we can, but I cannot promise to speed things up. The hon. Gentleman referred to what happened in 1980. The reason why a number of schemes were suspended or shelved in 1980 was that the previous Government cut the money but did not cut the number of schemes. We must recognise the need for bet ter roads without covering the countryside with concrete. We want the roads that are necessary for industrial employment and we look forward to Labour party support as we continue to provide such roads. If the Opposition want to offer an alternative agenda, they should put a few sums to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what facilities exist for business aviation in the south-east area, particularly around London.

I have recently made visits to seven specialist business aviation airfields in the London area and am confident that the available facilities are well placed to compete in serving a thriving business aviation industry.

Is the Minister satisfied that customs and immigration facilities are adequate at business aviation airfields?

These matters are primarily for my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary. I can confirm that the industry has a unique business user concession providing on-call customs and immigration cover at about 40 small airfields throughout the United Kingdom. These are for United Kingdom and EEC nationals travelling for business purposes. The scheme is under continuous review and improvement, and a further enhancement should be made shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is perhaps an unhappy answer to a situation that he knows very well is extremely unsatisfactory? Is he aware that no really satisfactory customs and excise facilities exist at Gatwick airport for business aircraft arriving and leaving? Will he take what steps he can to urge his right hon. Friends to ensure that this important service is not neglected?

I know that the industry would like to have. 24-hour cover at all airports for business purposes, but that would be extremely expensive. I shall, of course, make sure that my right hon. Friends hear what my hon. Friend has said, but I cannot make any promises.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the latest fares increase on London Regional Transport undertakings; what was the increase in 1981; and if he will make a statement.

London Regional Transport fares increased in real terms by an average of 0·5 per cent. on 11 January. Fares have again been held broadly at their real level following the last fares change under the GLC-controlled London Transport in 1983.

Through my right hon. Friend, may I congratulate London Regional Transport on that very low increase in fares, which is so much below the level of inflation? May I also invite my right hon. Friend to compare it with the GLC's 100 per cent. increase in London Transport fares in 1982 at the same time as it increased rates by 100 per cent.? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is to the eternal satisfaction of Londoners that London Regional Transport has been put in charge?

My hon. Friend is quite right. He had experience of the impact of GLC policies on his constituents when they wished to travel. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that Labour's transport policy document "Fresh Directions" offers a GLC-type transport policy if ever we have the misfortune to have the Labour party in government again.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that keeping fares broadly in line with inflation, and not ahead of it, has resulted in more people using LRT services, particularly on the Underground, and that that has made it possible for management to provide more services? Surely that is a good thing. Will he confirm that it has also led to an increase in the capital investment programme?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in all the points that he makes. About 30 per cent. more passenger journeys are now being made than in 1983. In fact, there is a record level of travelling on the Underground. That is a clear indication of the success of these policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the first report of the research he has commissioned into the effects of bus deregulations in rural areas; and if he proposes to publish the report.

I hope to publish first reports of the studies of selected areas in the summer. All the evidence available so far indicates that the level of rural bus services has been broadly maintained.

In view of that reply, does the Minister not realise that the main bus operator in Northumberland reduced services by 25,000 miles a week in the aftermath of deregulation and that very few of those services were taken up by other operators? Must the public wait for the publication of all this research before some of the gaps are filled, and must people give up jobs because they are unable to get to work in the meantime?

Most counties have made such savings by going over to competitive tendering for the provision of socially necessary services and they have adequate resources to provide all the services that are necessary in rural areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith), in the west country and in north Devon in particular the deregulation of rural buses has resulted in the appearance of buses where none had been seen for more than a decade and that that has been entirely welcomed by my constituents?

I am aware that that is so not just in Devon but in many other parts of the country.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Crosville bus company, which is responsible for both rural and city bus services on Merseyside, has been purchasing bad second-hand buses from Birmingham which its employees have refused to drive? Is he aware that those workers have been sacked and are now unemployed purely as a result of the Government's deregulation policy?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It should perhaps be more widely known that Crosville, having won a large number of contracts that would have provided additional employment at the Love Lane depot, took in 10 second-hand buses which in the previous few weeks had been used on the roads and had been driven in the Birmingham area by Transport and General Workers Union drivers, but that when that opportunity was obtained for Liverpool the men refused to drive the buses. The hon. Gentleman may care to ponder why buses which were perfectly satisfactory when driven on the roads of Birmingham by TGWU drivers should be unacceptable in Liverpool.

Surely the real evidence shows that there has been a severe disruption of bus services in the rural areas. Will the Minister define what he means by "broadly maintained", and will he now name the selected areas in respect of which the studies will be published?

The selected areas in England for the special studies are west Wiltshire, Blackburn, the Medway towns and Nottingham. In Scotland they are parts of the Highland region, north-east Fife, the Dumfries and Galloway regions, parts of Strathclyde and part of Edinburgh. In Wales they are west Glamorgan, parts of Powys and parts of Clwyd. All the evidence so far shows that with minor variations there is broadly the same level of service as before, but with an increasing provision of minibus sevices, which are highly popular.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total level of investment in regional airports in the midlands since 1979.

Capital investment at airports in the midlands since 1979 has totalled more than £80 million. That compares with total capital investment of less than £16 million at all regional airports under the Labour Administration.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, despite the Opposition's allegation that we never invest any money in our infrastructure, this substantial investment must mean an increase in traffic at those airports? Has my hon. Friend any idea of the present amount of traffic?

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the investment is, as he says, generating valuable new business for the region. At Birmingham airport about 180 direct scheduled services are operated each week to 17 foreign destinations. In 1986 alone, passenger traffic increased by more than 25 per cent. At East Midlands airport about 34 scheduled services a week serve five overseas destinations, and in 1986 traffic rose by 20 per cent.

asked the Attorney-General what recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding investigations of suspected infringements of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General has frequent meetings with the Director at which current investigations and pending prosecutions under section 2 are discussed when appropriate.

Will the Solicitor-General tell the House how many investigations and prosecutions are current at the present time under this awful, intolerable section? Will he also say which is correct—the Prime Minister's letter to me saying that the Government have, in effect, no intention of amending the section or attempting to do so, or the leading article that appeared on the front page of The Sunday Times a week ago, which reported that Ministers had said that the section was to be amended or repealed?

A total of eight prosecutions or matters are at present under active consideration under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that the Government have more than once acknowledged the inadequacies of the Act and sought to introduce amending legislation in the previous Parliament, but it did not find favour. Clearly, whether further legislation is introduced is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although the Official Secrets Act may need amending the growing number of people who are willing to betray their country is a much more important problem?

My hon. Friend acknowledges, as do the vast majority of hon. Members of this House, that any community needs legislation which effectively protects its secrets. The difficulty is to get legislation which actively, accurately and appropriately balances conflicting interests.

Before getting to the question, may I ask the Solicitor-General if he will convey our best wishes to the Attorney-General during his convalescence? We hope to see him back here shortly. [Interruption.] That is not the question. Mild mannered I may be, but not that mild mannered.

On the more contentious matters, will the Solicitor-General give the House an assurance that the matters referred to in Granada television's "World in Action" programme last week about that despicable organisation the Economic League are being investigated, especially the possibility that the league's officials have contravened the Official Secrets Act? Will the Solicitor-General also give us an assurance that there is no political impediment to a prosecution?

The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were characteristic of his generosity and were most gratefully received.

On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. the procedures for drawing evidence to the attention of the prosecuting authorities are well understood. As has been made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, matters of political partisanship are never taken into consideration.

asked the Attorney-General on what date, and at what time, he first became aware of the police search of the British Broadcasting Corporation offices at Queen Margaret Drive, Glasgow, as part of inquiries initiated at his request into alleged breaches of the Official Secrets Acts in relation to a secret defence project.

On the morning of Sunday 1 February.

Has it dawned on the Government that the raid on the BBC in Glasgow was an illegal act? Why do Ministers think that they know better than Professor Robert Black, professor of Scots law at the University of Edinburgh, who has argued convincingly that since a justice of the peace did not sign a warrant it was an illegal act? Why do they think that they know better than Professor Tony Bradley, professor of constitutional law at Edinburgh university and editor of Public Law, who says that the feelings of the victims—in this case, the Foreign Office—had to be taken into account?

Reluctant though I am to play so tempting a question away into the heather, that is not a matter for the Attorney-General.

Might not those who appear to believe in the divine right of investigative journalists reflect on what would have been thought, said and done if pre-war journalists had betrayed the secret of radar?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It is all very well for us to pay careful attention—and we need to—to the rights of a free press and freedom of speech, but the need for the United Kingdom to protect its essential security interests tends to receive less vocal support and recognition

Does the Solicitor-General regard it as satisfactory that the law governing the obtaining of search warrants is different in England and in Scotland, thus enabling the authorities to indulge in the sort of gamesmanship of which we heard in relation to the Glasgow search?

The hon. and learned Gentleman invites me to stray into matters which are the responsibility of my Scottish colleagues, but it would he wrong for me to do so. It is right that the Act of Union should be respected and that the Scots should continue to be able to have a law of their own.

asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the use of his proposed powers under clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill to refer cases to the Court of Appeal for a review of their implications for future sentencing policy; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received in favour of a right of appeal for the Crown in rape cases, where he is of the opinion that (a) a judge has been lenient in his sentence or (b) has not complied with the Lord Chief Justice's guidelines on the subject.

I have not received any specific representations about the use of the proposed powers under clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect on the victim's position in the recent Ealing vicarage case and in similar cases in which, because the rapist pleads guilty, the full details of the case are not brought out before the judge, the victim's evidence is not heard and the case is thus not open to full assessment by the judge? Does he share my concern that in that situation the judge cannot make a proper evaluation of the mind of the victim and that something needs to be done?

This is an important point. It is' sometimes said that in making a speech in mitigation the defence counsel may reflect adversely on the character of the victim. If anything is said that the prosecution knows to be misleading, the prosecuting counsel should intervene to correct it to avoid the court being misled. The judiciary will always seek to ensure that any judicial observations are squarely based on fact.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the completely inadequate sentences being given by certain judges? Is he aware that the average sentence for rape is three and a half years and the term actually served only 20 months? Does he agree also also that if all judges looked at the Regina v. Billam case, useful guidelines would be given. Does he agree that when clause 29 is reconsidered there is a possibility of directly amending any particular ludicrously light and lenient sentence and thus the opportunity to deter other potential rapists from committing such a heinous crime?

To the extent that there is current public disquiet, it is important that clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill should be enacted, and I hope that it will be enacted. Without accepting the adjectives used by my hon. Friend, it is important— I believe that the House shares this view—that the guidelines that have been laid down by the Court of Appeal criminal division should be adhered to and applied by the judiciary.

Are there any aspects of the Kincora affair that could be brought to the attention of the Court of Appeal under the proposed powers of clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill? Is it not true that the file was given to the Prime Minister on 1 November 1984 by Mr. Wallace and Captain Holyroyd, setting out major allegations about the destabilisation of a Labour Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, but that no action was taken? Is it not about time that the Government made a statement so that Parliament can learn the truth? We want to know whether the findings in the report are true or false.

I find it just as difficult as the hon. Gentleman must find it to see how clause 29 can relate to the Kincora affair. However, active consideration is being given to certain reports that have recently appeared about Mr. Holroyd and Mr. Wallace.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to seek to prevent the re-emergence of famine in sub-Saharan Africa.

We are working with the Governments of the affected countries, and other donors, including the international organisations, to help cope with the complex problems of famine. We seek to help increase indigenous food production, to prevent desertification, to develop food security and early warning systems, and to ensure that measures to avert famine can be taken swiftly.

We are also continuing to respond quickly to emergencies. In the past two weeks I have announced more than £3 million for help in Mozambique.

Is the Minister aware that his commitment to Mozambique amounts to only 20p per head of the population? As about 4 million people are threatened with starvation, and given the key strategic role of Mozambique for all the front-line states, why does the Minister not commit at least £10 per head for the famine population—or £40 million—through an income and foreign exchange support programme for Mozambique?

What steps has the Minister taken, with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on joint international action to write off a major share of the $130 billion worth of debt in the remainder of sub-Saharan Africa—a debt which denies such countries a chance of fighting famine and saving lives?

As the hon. Gentleman should know, we have taken the lead in writing off official aid debts to the poorest countries. We have written off debts to the tune of about £264 million to the 13 poorest African countries. As for our assistance to Mozambique, the hon. Gentleman's views were not shared by Ministers in Mozambique a week ago.

Given the massive scale of the crisis that has developed in sub-Saharan Africa in recent years, and its likely duration, is there not a strong case for a substantial increase in the aid programme for that region alone, rather than having to help that region at the expense of other poor areas?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I know how much he knows about the subject. We are hoping to be able to spend more in sub-Saharan Africa in the coming year. This year we are spending about £570 million in Africa on our bilateral programme alone.

Will the Minister acknowledge that we are talking, not just about the quantity of money, but about the quality of investment? Will he also acknowledge the importance of supporting subsistence agriculture? Will he assure the House that the percentage of United Kingdom bilateral aid in that direction will increase?

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of agriculture and the quality of our programme. I am pleased to be able to say that our bilateral project aid for the renewable natural resources sector rose by 50 per cent. in the five years to 1985 and now stands at £65 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the worst way of dealing with sub-Saharan Africa is through a programme of indiscriminate debt write-off and undermining the adjustment programme supported by the IMF, as in the policy advanced by the Opposition last week? Would not such a policy be rightly interpreted as a charter for irresponsible Third world Governments, which all observers agree contribute to the lack of development in the Third world? Is it not essential to face the fact that development in the Third world, like economic activity anywhere else, involves difficult and tough choices?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There was a marked difference in tone between the action programme agreed by the African countries at the end of the United Nations special session last year and the document produced by the Labour party last week. However, if David Blunkett is to be believed, that document was entirely academic.

Will the geographical redistribution of the British aid effort in the next few years benefit sub-Saharan Africa? In particular, will the countries in the region get an increasing share of whatever that aid budget may be?

That will certainly be my intention over the next year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that any benefit accruing from overseas aid to Mozambique, Zimbabwe and other African nations will be obliterated by the devastation that will follow a policy of universal sanctions against South Africa?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what impact he estimates the appointment of a women's health specialist at his Department will have on project work on women and development.

We believe that the appointment of a new nursing and health services adviser, with particular interest in women's health matters, should further strengthen our capacity to improve the health and wellbeing of women.

Bearing in mind the Minister's comments when he opened the Overseas Development Administration conference on 2 December, does the appointment of a women's health adviser signify a change of policy within his Department? Can we look forward to much-needed women's educational, economic and agricultural advisers in the near future?

No, the appointment does not represent a change of policy. It represents the reaffirmation of an existing, sensible policy.

Does my hon. Friend accept that all development policies, by definition, affect women? Will his Department continue to consider the impact of such policies on women, without forming separate women's units within the Department?

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I am against tokenism.

Did the Minister see the article by Mr. Davie in The Observer yesterday? If so, what were his reactions, particularly to the suggestion that more positive help should be given to men and women in the Third world to resolve their problems rather than Western agencies imposing solutions upon them?

I did not read that meaning into the article, but I was impressed by the article, as I am with most of Mr. Davie's articles. I took from the article the important role of non-governmental organisations in the development effort. I am delighted to say that we have spent a considerable extra amount on the joint funding scheme with non-governmental organisations and we intend to increase further the amount that we spend on that scheme in the coming years.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many medically qualified personnel are responsible to him in relation to his overseas development responsibilities; and what rank is the most senior of such personnel.

The ODA has two full-time medical advisers on its permanent staff, both of medical officer rank, and a part-time nutrition adviser. One medical adviser post is currently vacant, but will be filled on 2 March. The ODA can also turn for advice to 13 medically qualified lecturers and senior lecturers whom it supports at the Liverpool and London schools of tropical medicine, the University of Edinburgh and the University of London. In addition, the ODA supports more than 80 medically qualified personnel working for Governments or public authorities overseas.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which this country can help the Third world is through medical advice? From the Minister's reply, it is clear that the Department is inadequat:ely staffed with medical practitioners. Should not the Department have at least somebody of under-secretary rank, or preferably deputy-secretary rank? In view of the current problem of AIDS in Africa, we shall soon have to give a great deal of advice. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a great deal more important to give sound medical advice than to throw a lot of money into the Third world? Will his Department do a bit better?

I do not agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, but I agree about the importance of our health and population programmes. At present we are spending about £38 million on those programmes. I believe that in those programmes more emphasis should be placed on primary health care. We should, of course, work through multilateral as well as bilateral prograrnmes and we look forward to giving more support to the World Health Organisation and the work that it is proposing to carry out in relation to AIDS.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the role of women in development.

Our policy was set out in the booklet "Women in Development", copies of which are available in the Library.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's attitude seems rather complacent in view of continuing reports that the position of women in development issues is becoming worse, not better? Is he aware that a report to be published on Thursday by War on Want sets out the evidence for this? Will he read it carefully and respond positively to its findings?

I hope that I shall respond positively, but I do not always agree with everything that War on Want says; nor, I think, does the Labour party. I am not complacent. I want to see more women being trained under our own programme. Only about 15 per cent. of places currently go to women. We are talking about how to improve that figure with aid-recipient Governments.

What explanation can my hon. Friend offer for the new-found interest of the Liberal party in women?

After the events of last week, I think that I should be careful about referring to the role of women in politics.