To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the amount of time saved by motorists since lane rental was introduced.

Lane rental contracts have, on average, been completed 30 per cent. faster than conventional contracts since their introduction in 1984, and we estimate that that has saved more than £120 million in delay and other costs.

My hon. Friend and I are probably more at one on lane rental than we will be on line rental later today. Coming as I do from cone county in Kent, I ask my hon. Friend to reassure the House that when he decides on major works on the A20/M20 and A2/M2— which are parallel roads—he will make certain that the works are staggered and that interconnecting roads between those two major highways are not subject to road works at the same time.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sorry if there is any congestion in Kent, but it is partly caused by our determination to get those roads finished in time for the opening of the channel tunnel. Lane rental has a considerable amount to offer. A maintenance contract that used to last one month will be reduced by 10 days by lane rental, which makes a huge contribution to cutting congestion and reducing frustration among local people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the level of services to the commuters of London and the south-east; and if he will make a statement.

In the four years to the autumn of 1993, British Rail record a drop of 20 per cent. in London commuter passengers. British Rail has therefore been obliged to reduce services. Reductions in the new timetable amount to about 3 per cent. overall, which is half the recent rate of fall in demand. As demand recovers, services will be increased.

How can the Minister justify the 8 per cent. fare increase in January on Network SouthEast—the highest in the country—when last week peak-hour trains through Lewisham and north Kent were cut by 42 and the Sunday service was halved? Will he tell the House how that will enhance passenger comfort and persuade more people to travel by train?

Fewer passengers are using Network South East compared to four years ago. The recession has caused a reduction in London commuting. As we recover from the recession, demand will increase and additional services will be provided. British Rail, like any other great industrial enterprise, must tailor its services to demand. As to fare increases, I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that British Rail has for two years been differentiating between lines. Where there is a better service, there are more than average fare increases, but where it is acknowledged that the service is relatively poor, fare increases are relatively low.

Many people living in outer-London constituencies rely on train services for social and leisure activities, as well as for getting to and from work. Although one accepts that the frequency of services must be matched to demand, does not my hon. Friend think that it is extraordinary that British Rail is reducing Sunday services to one train an hour? Is that not itself likely to lead to a greater fall in demand?

As I said, British Rail must react to the fall in demand by cutting services, because that is the nature of a cash-limited nationalised industry. I hope that, with the gradual introduction of franchised passenger services, operators will take more commercial risks. I agree with my hon. Friend that one can easily fall into a downward spiral of service as services are cut and demand falls. I hope that we will be in a virtuous upward spiral with private sector operation.

How soon do the Government envisage privatising commuter services in the south-east? We heard originally that most of the privatisation would take place during the lifetime of this Parliament; later, that it might take 15 years; and, on another occasion, that the floodgates were being held back until next year. Now we hear that another 18 areas are to be identified today. Has the Department of Transport listened to the Prime Minister's advice, that lessons should be learnt from the local election results? If so, what lessons has the Department learnt about the speed of this legislation?

Our policy has not changed. We said in our election manifesto that the intention was to have a significant number of franchises in place at the end of this Parliament. I can confirm that the intention is to let the first franchise in the second half of next year. Thereafter, we shall proceed gradually. It is an evolutionary process; it is not a process that involves a great number of franchises being let at the same time. We shall learn by the process. It will take a number of years, and certainly beyond this Parliament. But our policy has not changed. All that has happened today is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has spelt out what the long-term plan is for franchising all of Great Britain's rail services.

I remind my hon. Friend that not all commuters travel by rail; many of my constituents travel into London by road. I remind him also of the complete lack of good main roads between Croydon and the centre of London and that this is the only sector where there is no good main road into or out of London.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me and the House of the need to improve road services in London. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has already laid out the Government's policy on red routes. Both my hon. Friend and I have emphasised the importance of traffic priority measures to help public transport, such as buses, move more easily in the capital. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will have heard what my hon. Friend has had to say.

Is the Minister aware that the recommendation to Network SouthEast is standing room for 16 in a carriage and that at present the number is about 160? By cutting services, the Minister would at least reduce the amount of time that people spend standing on our trains. When he talks about services, he has to take into account that people are travelling in congested, dangerous conditions on Network SouthEast trains.

I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman that Network SouthEast runs an unsafe service. British Rail rightly places great reliance on safety. This year alone, British Rail will spend about £250 million on improving the safety of rail operations. When public sector franchisees run services, safety standards will be as high, if not higher.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what efforts are being made to introduce new technology into the management of traffic flows; and if he will make a statement.

My Department already makes use of new technology for three purposes: assisting traffic management, enhancing road safety and providing information for road users. Closed circuit television and variable message signs are now well established on the busiest motorways, such as the M25. Cameras are also being used on trunk roads in London to detect drivers speeding and violating red light signals.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I certainly welcome the use of new technology to improve traffic flows and reduce accidents. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the red light signal cameras that have been installed have helped to reduce accidents considerably in Greater London, particularly serious accidents, and that the Government will continue to use technology to improve traffic flow and reduce the number of serious accidents on our roads? Furthermore, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the numbers of road deaths and serious road injuries in this country are among the lowest in the whole of Europe?

My hon. Friend is entirely right on the last point, but we want to do better. I agree that speed cameras and cameras at traffic signals can contribute considerably towards improving road safety. Since they were introduced, speed detection cameras have reduced fatal and serious casualties on roads by 50 per cent. Cameras at red light signals have reduced accidents by 60 per cent. The cameras also assist with traffic flow, the point of my hon. Friend's question, because if accidents are reduced, traffic flow is improved.

Does the Secretary of State accept that some traffic jams will not be solved by technology, however interesting the case may be? I refer him to a problem on the England-Wales border, where a new River Dee crossing is required, which will cost many millions of pounds. Can he assure me that that scheme will go ahead and will not be subject to the public expenditure review? Does he know that the communities of Queensferry, Shotton, Connah's Quay and Kelsterton are suffering a tremendous environmental blight? They need the scheme urgently. Can the Secretary of State give us a promise about that scheme?

That point is a long way from new technology to assist traffic flow. I cannot comment on that scheme, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to table a specific question I shall do so. I note his support for our record road building programme to improve traffic flow generally. I hope that he will continue to support all that we are doing in that regard, including lobbying some of his colleagues who sometimes object to it, because there is no doubt that our record road building programme is greatly assisting our economic competitiveness by reducing congestion.

Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to install cameras on the M25 to detect speeding? If there are plans to put cameras on that and other motorways, will there be advance warning signs so that drivers are more aware that they may be exceeding the speed limit?

The knowledge that such cameras are around in itself discourages speeding, but I take note of what my hon. Friend says about warning signs. At the moment, the main technology on the M25 is designed to improve information for drivers. We are also experimenting with quite an expensive new scheme which will be introduced in due course to try to stop bunching and starting and stopping. I have no doubt that we shall also install cameras to assist in other ways.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department has given to the advantages of saving Oxleas wood from destruction by means of a deep bore tunnel under the wood to connect with the east London river crossing.

When making their decision to proceed with the scheme, the Secretaries so State for Transport and for the Environment took full account of all the evidence presented at the public inquiry. That included the independent inspector's conclusion that a bored tunnel under Oxleas wood could not he justified.

Does the Minister recognise that the Government scheme, which would involve the destruction of this unique and precious piece of ancient woodland, has been universally condemned, and that even the British Road Federation is now calling for an alternative route to save Oxleas wood? When will the Government come to their senses and call a halt to this act of environmental vandalism?

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to remind the House that such hyperbole is so wildly wide of the mark that it makes no rational contribution to the debate. The reality is that 89 per cent. of Oxleas wood will be unaffected by the scheme. Perhaps the House should be more aware of that—11 per cent. of the wood will be taken, but 89 per cent. will not. Perhaps that puts the issue into proper perspecitive.

Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the inspectors recommended that the road should be covered if it went through Oxleas wood but that, since the inspectors' reports, the British Road Federation has said that if the bridge which would help Newham and perhaps Thamesmead were built, the road through Oxleas wood would not be needed and that, in line with the Government's east Thames corridor proposals, the road should go towards the M25 and Dartford—[Interruption.]—rather than coming down into Shrewsbury ward in the constituency of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and into my constituency?

I have seen the BRF's scheme. My hon. Friend will have noted from the reaction that his mention of it has caused that it solves some problems but creates others. It is an interesting proposition which I shall, of course, ensure is fully explored, but we should not underestimate the fact that after the longest public inquiry on record—lasting 15 months—the inspectors concluded that the bored tunnel could not be justified and that, in the interests of what the scheme delivers, the environmental disadvantage was capable of being set against the greater strategic advantages of the new road.

Why will not the Minister and the Secretary of State listen to what the people are saying about the £1 billion road programme and the way in which it appears to be immune from proper environmental impact assessment? Will he tell the House why he is not prepared to give us the right to know about the scheme, why is he not prepared immediately to make public the European Commission's full reasoned opinion on Oxleas wood and what action he is prepared to take to safeguard this site of special scientific interest from the bulldozer?

If the hon. Lady knew a little more about the matter, she would appreciate that the EC's reasoned opinion has nothing to do with the merits of the scheme. I am astonished that she is not aware that the EC's reasoned opinion is based on the merits of the transitional provisions of the appropritate directive. It is, incidentally, on a basis with which the Government have consistently disagreed. I see no reason, therefore, why what the EC has said should have had any impact on the route.

On publication, the hon. Lady will know that such communications between the Commission and the Governments of member states are always treated as confidential by both parties—[Interruption.] I stress that they are treated as confidential by both parties—not just by the Government, but by the Commission.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects construction of the Heathrow express to commence.

I understand that it is the intention of the joint venture partners—BAA and British Rail—to begin construction towards the end of this year.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the period of dilatoriness up to getting agreement for the project is now finally over and that he will use his best endeavours to ensure that construction proceeds speedily? The project now has enhanced importance in view of the welcome decision to proceed with crossrail.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I was pleased to play some part in bringing the discussions to a conclusion, quite speedily towards the end. I also agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of getting on with the project. It is necessary for the technical details of the joint venture to be finalised between the parties and for some further detailed design work to be undertaken before construction proper can commence. We hope that that will be towards the end of this year and, if there are no unforeseen difficulties, the railway could be open to passengers by late 1997. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the successful conclusion of the discussions and the joint venture and I hope that it leads to many more.

The Minister will know that the issue is of considerable importance to all those who travel from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen to London Heathrow and who then have that disgraceful journey from Heathrow to the centre of London. Between now and 1997, will the Minister's officials speak to officials of London Transport to speed up the service between the centre of London and Heathrow? Some trains could, for example, stop at Hammersmith and then continue uninterruptedly to Heathrow terminal 4.

I shall put that point to London Transport. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that the joint venture is now going ahead. Given that the question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), the hon. Gentleman might also point out to some of his constituents and others from Scotland who come to London that there is also a good service from Stansted airport direct to London.

Bearing in mind that the Heathrow express has a major impact on my constituents, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, with the coming of crossrail, people are not allowed to pop into Heathrow on their journeys, west or east, just to fill up the gaps left by the Heathrow express?

I note my hon. Friend's point. I do not think that people are likely to do that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a start will be made on construction of the Jubilee line extension.

Negotiations are continuing on the precise terms of the funding agreement between London Underground and the parties concerned with the financing of Canary wharf. I am hopeful that they will soon be successfully concluded.

Whether it is the dead hand of the Treasury or the dithering of the Prime Minister, does the Minister agree that the time to invest in our infrastructure is before we come out of recession? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 85 per cent. of the contracts for the building of the Jubilee line are ready to go, with the prospect of between 10,000 and 30,000 jobs being created? Will he further press the Cabinet for extension of the Jubilee line to Woolwich? Will he confirm that a rail crossing of the River Thames at Woolwich could be built at a quarter of the cost of building the east London river crossing?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have, of course, made it plain that we are prepared to commence construction of the line as soon as the private sector contribution is in place. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the Woolwich crossing, he will be aware that that was extensively investigated by London Transport and the conclusion was that it should not proceed at this stage.

As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the river crossing, he will be aware that the road crossing—the east London river crossing—is of major strategic importance to London, particularly the east of London, and that it will, in due course, play a very important role in enhancing infrastructure in east London.

I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that this is a matter of very great urgency, not only for the obvious reasons that have been outlined on many occasions in the House, but because it is impossible to proceed with phase 2 of the parliamentary building programme—as the overwhelming majority of hon. Members want to do—until we know one way or the other when the Jubilee line extension is likely to take place. Will my hon. Friend bear that in mind, as it is very important and urgent?

I, too, understand what my right hon. Friend has said. Any delay to the start of the project is regrettable. However, my right hon. Friend will appreciate that the position that the Government have adopted has remained as it was originally. When the private sector is able to put its contribution in place, construction of the scheme can begin. It clearly cannot begin before that date.

Does the Minister accept that the position on the Jubilee line is absolutely unacceptable? It is 14 months since the Bill received Royal Assent; we have had promises that construction of the line was about to be announced and completed; the money has been standing by for a year; we have had rumours one week that documentation for the scheme was about to be signed and the next week that it was not; two weeks ago, the managing director of London Underground told the Transport Select Committee that the documents between London Underground and the private sector had now been agreed; and every day that passes businesses are blighted and go under. People want an underground line and they want the Government to put their hands on and not take them off. The people concerned should bang their heads together and get the line agreed. Is that going to happen or not? For heaven's sake, tell us the truth.

I deeply resent that last suggestion. It is quite obvious that all the way through our message has been very straightforward. The Government are prepared to contribute around £1·5 billion to the project on the basis that the private sector comes forward with its own contribution of £400 million in cash. I regret the delay as much as the hon. Gentleman. He and I have debated the issue many times. We are making progress and that progress will continue. When the process is complete—and it is impossible for me or the managing director of London Underground or anyone else to set a date at this stage—we will begin construction of the line.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Jubilee line extension project will make a massive contribution to employment prospects in the centre of London. Will he confirm that he will do all he can to ensure that the project starts at the earliest opportunity? Will he also confirm that the east London crossing will remain in east London and not be shipped off to Dartford, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)?

On the first point, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his autumn statement that the Government are committed to their contribution towards building the Jubilee line. That substantial contribution is well in excess of £1·5 billion. As to my hon. Friend's point about the route of the east London river crossing, he will appreciate that its whole strategic importance is predicated on the assumption that it links the A406 with the A2 where it currently does.

Surely the Minister recalls that his Department has issued more press statements on the Jubilee line extension going ahead than I have had hot dinners—and I have had one or two of those? Once again, it looks as though the Government have changed the rules. We now learn that the contracts and understandings that have been negotiated with the private sector have been changed in terms of Government requirements. Have there been any changes in Government requirements since last November with regard to deals with the private sector?

Will the Minister make it quite clear that he is not being pressurised by the Treasury into scrapping the Jubilee line extension altogether? That is what the newspapers and various people in the private sector are saying. Is not the Minister fully aware that unless the Jubilee line extension goes ahead, a large number of question marks will hang over the development in docklands, the City airport, Canary wharf and the whole of the east Thames corridor initiative?

I shall not swap tallies of hot dinners with the hon. Gentleman because I recognise that I might lose. I am delighted to confirm that there has been no change whatever in the Government's position. Nor is there any ground between the Department of Transport and any other Department of Government. The Government's position has been clear throughout and I will restate it for the avoidance of doubt. It is that the Government remain committed to putting money into the project once the private sector contribution is concluded and assured. I readily accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the impact of the Jubilee line extension, particularly on those areas south of the Thames which stand to benefit substantially when the extension is built. I hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be arrived at so that the line can go ahead. But it must depend on the private sector contribution.

If that is so, could I confirm from the Government Benches the intense frustration of Londoners that, six months after the announcement of the Government's commitment to the project, one of the principal purposes of the project, the creation of jobs and a recovery in the capital, is being frustrated by continued prevarication by the bankers? Is there nothing more that my hon. Friend can do to persuade them to get their act together?

My hon. Friend mentioned the responsibilities of some of the creditors of Olympia and York. The complexity of arriving at an agreement with the creditors of Olympia and York, which I understand was the largest property company in the world when it went into administration, was underestimated. That has necessarily meant that the process of arriving at a new arrangement has been extremely complex and hazardous. I should like to put it on the record that the Government believe that all the parties to negotiations have acted throughout in good faith. Important and difficult negotiations have taken place. I regret the delay in the creation of jobs and opportunities, but I am convinced, as I know is my hon. Friend, that it is right to press the developers, who will gain materially from the development in return for their contribution.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the continuation of concessionary fare schemes; and if he will make a statement.

I have received several representations about the continuation of concessionary fare schemes. Such schemes are a matter for the local authorities concerned, not for the Government.

Does the Minister recognise that that was an unsatisfactory response? Concessionary fare schemes and bus passes are a vital lifeline for many pensioners: for many they are the difference between existing and living. Why will not the Minister make a straightforward statement that the Government are committed to the continuation of these enormously important schemes and that they will do everything in their power to ensure that the schemes remain? Why will not the Minister give pensioners some assurance and give them a straightforward answer? Yes or no—will he protect the schemes?

Concessionary fare schemes specifically for buses, but also for other forms of local public transport, are the responsibility of local government, not central Government. Local authorities, including passenger transport authorities, have the responsibility for ranking their schemes in priority. It is a matter for local government.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that, during the fairly long period in which concessionary fare schemes have operated, especially in the Greater London area, most local authorities have acted responsibly and have seen fit to maintain the schemes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that local authorities in Greater London currently provide about £120 million a year for concessionary fare schemes. Local authorities in London are to be congratulated on continuing to support such schemes. It must be for other local authorities to fix their own priorities and continue such schemes as they see fit.

Instead of hiding behind the local authority smokescreen, why does not the Minister acknowledge that it was the irrational and arbitary decision of the late Lord Ridley to prevent local authorities from acting as precepting authorities which has brought about the present financial problems and the direct threat to concessionary fares? For once, cannot Ministers tell the truth and admit their responsibilities?

The advantage of the levying system in comparison with the old precepting system is that passenger transport authorities have to reach agreement with local district councils about the political priorities. That seems to be essentially democratic and I believe that the system should continue.

Would not it be extraordinary if those who win the franchises for the various railway networks did not continue the concessionary railcard scheme? Is not it a way of attracting more passengers? Indeed, the new franchisees may even come up with better ideas. Am I right in saying that the Railways Bill makes the provision of railcards for disabled people an obligation?

Railcards are different from local authority concessionary fare schemes. I agree with my hon. Friend that British Rail introduced the cards not as a result of pressure from Government or individual Ministers, or parliamentary legislation, but for good commercial reasons. There is no reason to believe that franchisees will not wish to continue to provide the same service.

Is the Minister aware that his own Government, in the London Regional Transport (Amendment) Act 1985, took statutory powers to force local authorities to impose a concessionary scheme for London pensioners? Why does he draw a distinction between the two schemes?

The hon. Gentleman will know that local authorities have always arrived at voluntary agreements. The Act contains a reserve power, but authorities have reached voluntary agreements every year since they have had responsibility for these matters and I believe that they will continue to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the benefits to bus users outside London of deregulation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change has taken place in bus mileage outside London since deregulation.

The deregulation of bus services outside London has resulted in a 20 per cent. increase in bus mileage, with many new services to areas not previously served by buses. Operator costs have been reduced by more than a third.

Given the real success of deregulation in providing more buses, will my hon. Friend confirm that Londoners can expect to receive similar benefits when it is introduced here? When will we have an opportunity to experience those benefits?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Deregulation will permit new operators to provide additional services at different times of the week and in different parts of Greater London. That is the experience of deregulation outside London.

It is not.

The hon. Lady has her eyes closed. In many parts of the country, new buses are providing new services for passengers.

Will my hon. Friend note that in Surrey, as in other areas, some of the services that are now provided are much more responsive to the needs of local people? That is extremely welcome and if deregulation enables it to continue in London, it will be welcomed by Londoners as well. There is no doubt, however, that it is essential for the Government to ensure that the rules and regulations enable bus services to continue: they are much in demand.

My hon. Friend will know that the Government intend to introduce a Bill in due course and to set up a central agency in London to continue to subsidise socially necessary services. Outside London, the position is different: subsidies are provided by local authorities.

The Minister is talking a load of rubbish. He knows that deregulation does not work. It has meant higher fares, clapped-out buses and, in most cases, no buses at all in both rural and urban areas. Will the Minister accept that deregulation has not worked? Will he go up to South Yorkshire and ask old-age pensioners about it?

We have issued a consultation document to all local authorities—and, I hope, to all local bus companies—asking them to comment on how the 1985 arrangements are working. If improvements are necessary to ensure that services are provided flexibly by the private sector, we shall consider introducing legislation.

I am sure that the Minister knows—as does everyone else with an interest in these matters—of the 30 per cent. reduction in the number of passengers in urban areas outside London and the 30 per cent. increase in fares. If the Tories regard that as a success story, they are welcome to it.

I am sure that the Minister's colleagues are anxious for parallels to be made with rail privatisation today. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many private operators run schemes offering discounted through-ticketing for journeys covering more than one operator's area?

Almost without exception, in areas outside London, local authorities have sponsored and the private sector now participates in, multi-modal travel-cards. That is true of Manchester, where representatives of the Manchester Metro are discussing with local authorities the introduction of a local travelcard. The hon. Gentleman was right about the reduction in patronage, but that has been happening since the second world war. There has been a gradual decline in the use of buses because people prefer the flexibility of using a car. We must face the challenge to halt and reverse that trend—Conservative policies will meet that challenge.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to speed up the pre-construction procedures for roads.

I am committed to the faster delivery of road schemes and shall soon introduce a package of proposals to speed up statutory and administrative procedures for preparing road schemes.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is an urgent need to speed up those procedures? Does he envisage reaching a stage where either amending or primary legislation will be necessary? Will he do everything possible to speed up the construction of his Department's proposed Stockport north-south bypass?

I think that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic has been answering parliamentary questions on my hon. Friend's latter point, which I have noted. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of speeding up the procedure. On average there is an interval of about thirteen and a half years between a scheme's entering a programme and finally being opened and 12 of those thirteen and a half years are spent discussing the route and giving all interested parties the right to argue their case. I do not wish to affect the rights of interested parties to do so, but I wonder whether the process needs to take an average of 12 years. Some proposals that I introduce may require primary legislation, but I am anxious to do as much as possible without such legislation.

To ask the Attorney-General what is the role of his Department in respect of securing the return of persons on hail who have absconded overseas.

Provided that the absconder is in a country with which the United Kingdom has an extradition treaty, the prosecution authority prepares an application for extradition, where appropriate, which is then conveyed to the relevant Government.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread embarrassment and incredulity felt at the sight of the Lord Chancellor creeping across the border into north Cyprus to beg for the return to British justice of Asil Nadir, a major financier of the Tory party'? Does the Minister feel that it might be more appropriate for the Government's Law Officers to spend their time investigating matters and acting within their remit—for example, investigating the possibility of illegal donations to the Tory party and ensuring that a watch is kept on small Dorset airfields so that other dubious financiers thinking of jumping ship at a difficult time for the country are unable to flee British justice?

The principal absconder in this case seems to be the hon. Gentleman, who has absconded a long way from the question.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in the case of Asil Nadir, the Serious Fraud Office frequently objected to bail, but the judges decided to grant it against those objections? Will he also confirm that no donations were made to the Conservative party by the late Robert Maxwell?

On the portion of the question relevant to me, I can confirm that the Serious Fraud Office initially opposed bail. Thereafter, questions of bail were a matter for the court.

Members of both Front Benches must want Asil Nadir back to stand his trial. Was it on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advice as Attorney-General or on the advice of the famous advisers in the Foreign Office that the Lord Chancellor—the head of the judicial service —went as a sort of Mediterranean bounty hunter to Rauf Denktash to try to secure the return of Asil Nadir, which seems a bizarre mission for a judge? Is not the right course of action to make it clear to the administration in northern Cyprus that it does nothing to help its authority or credibility if it allows northern Cyprus to be a refuge for bail bandits?

I am afraid that I cannot accept most of the premises on which the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was based. But I certainly agree that it is the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House that those who are accused and are to stand trial in the United Kingdom should appear at their trial so that justice may be done.

Is it right that the United Kindom refused to extradite a wanted person to northern Cyprus on the ground that there is no extradition treaty between the two countries? Is not the right way to proceed to enter into an extradition treaty with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus so that the whole matter may be put on a proper legal basis?

My hon. Friend forgets that we do not recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

To ask the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to the contents of Mr. Alan Clark's memoirs in connection with the disclosure of information covered by the Official Secrets Act 1989.

None. Former Ministers are required to submit their memoirs to the Secretary of the Cabinet before publication. Matters of national security are considered in accordance with the principles set out in the Radcliffe report of 1976, Command 6386.

On the content of Alan Clark's contribution, may I ask a question of which I have given notice? Are Law Officers and Foreign Office legal advisers sure that our country has not contravened the 1989 convention on the rights of the child—which relates to what happens to children as a result of armed conflict—in the light of the fact that thousands of babies are literally dying weekly in Iraq as a result of sanctions?

I have seen a report of the hon. Gentleman's recent visit to Iraq. I am satisfied that the United Kingdom is complying with all its international obligations in this respect.

Official secrets apart, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that he will use his best endeavours with those Cabinet Ministers and former Prime Ministers who are in the business of compiling their memoirs to make them at least as vivid, prejudiced and entertaining as the memoirs which have been referred to hitherto?

An invitation like that causes me to think that my hon. Friend must be preparing something special.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the proportion of prosecutions which are brought to court.

Of the 1,433,858 cases finalised in the magistrates courts in 1992–93, excluding cases received for advice only and non-criminal proceedings, 70·5 per cent. proceeded to a trial or plea, 13·5 per cent. were discontinued, 8·2 per cent. were disposed of for other reasons, including failure to trace the defendant, and a further 7·8 per cent. were committed to the Crown court.

Of the Crown court cases, 88·1 per cent. proceeded to trial or plea, 8·1 per cent. were terminated and a further 3·8 per cent. were disposed of for other reasons.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the considerable disquiet among the public and the police about the determination of the Crown Prosecution Service strongly to prosecute cases?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Crown Prosecution Service was set up by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 as an independent prosecution service. It was given a new power under section 23 of the Act to discontinue proceedings and it does so without fear or favour. There is absolutely no reason or point in bringing to trial cases that will foreseeably fail. It is not in the interests of the victim, the defendant, the public and certainly not the police.

Is the Minister aware of a Crown court decision taken last week by Judge Kilroy who sentenced a wolf-whistler to two weeks' imprisonment? The wolf-whistler, who whistled at one of my constituents—who was quite happy with the situation—is appealing against the judge's decision of 14 days' imprisonment for whistling in court. What will the Attorney-General do about that?

That is not a matter for any of the Law Officers. It does not fall within their responsibilities.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on equal opportunity policy in the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Crown Prosecution Service is an equal opportunities employer and recruits and promotes staff on merit regardless of race, gender or disability.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is enlightening that the Director of Public Prosecutions, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, is female? Could he tell us more about the flexible practices that the CPS exercises to encourage and facilitate the employment of female staff?

My hon. Friend is right. The Crown Prosecution Service is led by an energetic, dedicated and articulate Director of Public Prosecutions who was selected in open competition and was awarded her post on merit. There are many initiatives to make a post more attractive to women. Over 60 per cent. of people in the Crown Prosecution Service are women. About 40 per cent. of its lawyers, including 33 per cent. of principal Crown prosecutors, are women.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional resources his Department is able to deploy to relieve famine and starvation in the Sudan.

On 18 March, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development made a further pledge of £4 million to support the work of non-governmental organisations and international agencies in Sudan.

Does the Minister recognise that the appalling suffering in Sudan demands firm and concerted international action? What are the Government doing to help to bring maximum pressure to bear on the Sudanese Government to respect the rule of law and the rights of all their citizens and to allow free and unfettered access by the international aid organisations to bring aid to those in need?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 6 May, the Government and, I am sure, the whole House, fully share the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the suffering in Sudan. We have taken a leading role in measures adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. We have warned the Sudanese Government in strong terms against further interference with the free passage of international aid. Only last week Dr. Garang, the SPLA leader, who was in London, was given a similar warning about those problems by officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional resources Her Majesty's Government have made available for preparation and training for the introduction of democracy in South Africa following the end of apartheid.

The objective of our aid programme is to help prepare black South Africans for a democratic and non-racial South Africa. We expect to increase aid to support the process.

The Minister will have had discussions with Nelson Mandela when he was in this country recently. Obviously, the date and the timetable for the election are likely to be announced soon. Will the Government respond rapidly to ensure that the black people who will form the majority Government in South Africa in the near future are given every possible assistance with their responsibilities after that election?

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, it has been declared that by 4 June the date should be set for elections that must take place before 4 June next year. If there are requests from the transitional executive council for assistance with election work they will he favourably considered by my right hon. and noble Friend when the elections take place. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that we provide substantial assistance for the education of young South Africans. Some 1,000 scholarships a year are provided through funds from our bilateral programme, which assists towards the future of South Africa.

Does my hon. Friend agree that as funds in the Exchequer are tight, it is wrong to divert money from our overseas budget for humanitarian aid simply to help train people in this area? Surely our priorities must be carefully considered when money is so tight.

Priorities must always be carefully considered. I take my hon. Friend's point. Our aid in this area is, however, expected to rise to reflect support for the evolving political, economic and social reform process.

While paying tribute to the work done by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in promoting multi-party democracy, does the Minister agree that, in its first year of operation, it has tended to bias its expenditure—perhaps necessarily—toward eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union? Will the Minister give an assurance that Government funds will now be directed to Africa in general and South Africa in particular?

There are many demands on the aid programme and the Westminster Foundation is a necessary ingredient of the aid programme. I have no doubt that the problems of South Africa and Africa generally will not be neglected.

May I echo the remarks of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale. Ettrick and Launderdale (Sir D. Steel) about the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, having benefited from visiting South Africa under its auspices? There is much appreciation in South Africa for what this country and the European Community aid office is doing. Is it possible to help refocus the South African Broadcasting Corporation? At present, it is not trusted and, as it will be the principal means of getting information to the people before the elections, it requires a degree of respect, which can only come with help from the World Service and the BBC in general.

I will ensure that my hon. Friend's point is carefully considered.

Do the junior Minister and the Government recognise the huge reconstruction programme that will be necessary in South Africa, once the elections have been held, for housing, education, health and employment services for the black majority? Will the Minister give an absolute guarantee—which he did not give in answer to a previous question—that any aid and development moneys now focused on South Africa and sub-Saharan Africa will not be transferred to Russia or eastern Europe, where average per capita incomes are 10 times higher? Will he press for the early establishment of the transitional executive council and make it his policy that there will be no further offers of loans, tariff concessions, debt rescheduling, or any similar aid, until the transitional executive council is in place? Above all, will the Minister make it clear that the Government have learnt from the bitter lessons of Angola and Mozambique that transition to full democracy for the first time cannot be achieved on the cheap?

I am surprised by the tone of the hon. Gentleman's question. lie knows that the African National Congress has asked for the lifting of trade and financial sanctions upon formation of the transitional executive council. To suggest that, somehow, we should delay any further—which is the hint behind the hon. Gentleman's question—is quite absurd. When that happens we will be pressing for precisely that. We are planning new programmes at the moment in areas such as rural development, health and small business development. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are opening a new development office in Pretoria on 7 June to manage aid to South Africa and some of the neighbouring countries. Surely that is a positive step in the direction that the hon. Gentleman wants.

How much?

I cannot say how much and the hon. Gentleman knows that.

May I counsel my hon. Friend to be sure that he does not rob Peter to pay Paul, particularly given our strong commitment to humanitarian aid and disaster relief? I wonder why we should commit funds so heavily to the introduction of democracy in South Africa when we must bear in mind the fact that the whole of Latin America., with the notable exception of Cuba, returned to democracy without great financial aid from this country.

I have not made any commitment at all; we are having a debate in which pressure is being exerted that we should.

I take my hon. Friend's point. I have made no commitments—I do not intend to—and this matter will be discussed in the light of questions today and other debates.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he plans to make to the declaration by the World Health Organisation of tuberculosis as a global health emergency.

We share the concern expressed by the World Health Organisation about the increasing incidence and severity of TB. We are considering with the WHO and other Governments the resources that should be made available and how they might be used most effectively to help reduce the spread of this disease.

May I encourage the Minister to make best speed with those considerations, given that about one third of the world's population is now infected with TB and that TB currently kills more people than heart disease and AIDS put together.

Is he aware that the World bank has estimated that the cure available for TB is one of the most cost-effective available? Does he accept that, unless the disease is also tackled in Britain and other industrialised countries—there is evidence of its coming back—there cannot be a cure in those countries where it is rampant: Latin America, Asia and Africa?

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's alarm at the regrowth of the disease. I can accept the figure that he used—3 million deaths occur as a result of that dreadful disease each year. The United Kingdom is one of the largest sources of World Health Organisation extrabudgetary support. We contributed £11 million in 1992. We are anxious to see a better lead from the WHO in that regard, as the problem is of such great importance to the health of the world.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I think that it is a good new clause, and I hope that the Government will accept it. I also hope that you will allow me to move the new clause formally at this stage, although I may seek to catch your eye later, Madam Speaker.

With this new clause, it will be convenient also to discuss the following: New clause 29—Joint industry pension scheme—

'.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State shall not exercise any of his functions under this Act relating to pensions until he has consulted the trustees of any existing scheme (within the meaning of Schedule 10) and such other persons as may have an interest, or appear to the Secretary of State to represent persons having an interest in any existing scheme, as to the feasibility of establishing a joint industry scheme, the form such a scheme might take, and the implications for participants in existing schemes.

(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in any case where the trustees of a scheme have received actuarial advice that the fund may not he able to meet any of its actual or projected liabilities at any time from its actual or projected assets.'.

Government amendments Nos. 106 and 107.

Recently, Madam Speaker, you informed the House of the tragic death of Robert Adley, the former Member of Parliament for Christchurch. On a day featuring both Transport questions and the beginning of a transport debate, it is appropriate for us to place on record our respect for his memory and his contribution to transport debates—and, in particular, his views on the railways. Although those views were controversial, it is to his credit that they were always well informed and added to hon. Members' knowledge of such matters.

Robert Adley was an independent-minded Member of Parliament and a distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport. His judgments were reflected in the recent Select Committee report on rail privatisation. Those views, too, were controversial, and will lie at the heart of our debate over the next two days. Undoubtedly, the controversies will continue; I think that he would want them to, and would listen with a smile—as I did yesterday, when I heard the Secretary of State quote Mr. Adley on the Frost programme yesterday. I am sure that many of us will quote him in future. The Secretary of State said:

"as far as Robert Adley is concerned, whose loss we all deeply regret, I think it's interesting that the report which he had actually drawn up concluded … 'the government is right to give a high priority to seeking ways of improving the quality of rail services offered to both passengers and freight customers and the government is justified in examining as one possible method the scope for expanding the role of the private sector.'"

That is right, and it was mentioned in the report of the Select Committee. The late Robert Adley would have asked the Secretary of State to complete the quote, and it is important for me to put it on record for him. It continued:

"provided that this can be done without jeopardising the cohesiveness of the national network and the benefits it provides."

That interpretation lies at the heart of today's debate.

There are differences of opinion on the issue. The House must be grateful for the contributions made by the late Robert Adley.

The controversy continues with today's debate, particularly in respect of pensions. Recently the newspapers have contained many pieces about how important the Bill is and what it will do for the railway industry. Clear differences of opinion have been expressed, not just between the Opposition and the Government, but between Conservative Members. Much attention has been given to whether concessionary passes should be granted and whether British Rail should have the right to bid for the franchises.

We should give attention to the question of how to treat the pensioners. It is a controversial issue, which is why we have chosen to start the debate with it. It is particularly important to do so as the Secretary of State formally moved the money resolution which will affect the Transport Act 1980 as it relates to pensions. Therefore, it seemed logical to begin the debate with a discussion on pensions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for moving new clause 3. The resolution that affects the 1980 Act will implement one of the Government's changes of heart on pensions that occurred during their discussions.

I am prepared to concede that the Government have made considerable changes after listening to representations, but I do not think that they have made the fundamental change that the new clause is designed to achieve. Some of the changes relating to pensions that have been made have been welcomed by Members—both Opposition and Government—who pressed for them in Committee. Today we can judge whether the promises given by the Minister of State in Committee will be realised, particularly those relating to pensioners who belong to the closed fund—200,000 British Rail pensioners currently receive pensions from the British Rail pension fund. They are worried that the changes will make them worse off. We must make a judgment on that issue in today's debate.

Pensioners have been worried by what happened in the Maxwell and other cases. Companies have begun to realise that surpluses have accrued and have, apparently, claimed the right to use them as they think fit. Sometimes, they have done so with the agreement of the trustees. That has often meant that the chairman—whether an independent chairman or someone appointed by the company management—has used the surplus funds for other reasons. Sometimes they have used them to fund redundancies in the industry or to relieve the financial difficulties of a company during a recession. Such cases have caused a climate of fear about what is happening to pension funds. The Goode committee has been established, and the Select Committee on Social Security is considering pensions. Our present debates are made difficult because we do not yet have the conclusions of those committees. Therefore, we must press ahead with debating the Government's proposals.

The British Rail pension fund is massive, being worth about £8 billion. The Post Office and Coal Board funds are also of the same magnitude. Large amounts of assets have been deposited in the funds which are available to pensioners or to contributors. The Government have contributed to British Rail, a publicly owned industry. The resolution means that the Government will continue to contribute to the fund, which is important.

I remember when British Rail was largely funded under an unfunded system, which was common to the public sector and applied under Labour and Tory Governments. The police forces and hospitals still operate under the same system as, I think, do firemen. The Treasury has an obligation to make payments to the pension schemes, but they are not funded schemes. In 1980 it was agreed to apply the funded scheme system to British Rail. The then Minister, who is now Home Secretary, believed that the fund should no longer be the responsibility of the Government. The Government will make their contributions to the funded schemes—a yearly payment which was agreed at that time and which we now agree should continue. The schemes are of considerable size and are of interest to the Treasury.

When the Government privatised the gas, electricity and telecommunications industries, they were faced with the question of what they should do with the pension funds. There has not been a consistent approach to that. In the main, those industries did not involve multi-operators —they have usually had only one or two operators so the pension liabilities have been split between them. In the announcement today, we are presented with the possibility that the rail industry will have multi-operators who will have obligations under the Government's reorganisation scheme for apportioning the fund's assets.

Much of our complaint about the difficulty of meeting the assurance for pensioners comes from the Government's chosen way of reorganising the industry. The tax authorities have decided that the assets must be apportioned to each of the operators. Because of that difficulty and decisions that have been made, I do not think that we will be able to meet the Government's essential commitment—that pensioners in the present British Rail pension scheme will be no worse off than they are at present. It is not possible to meet that promise and that is why we have tabled this amendment.

Does my hon. Friend accept the representations that I have received from many pensioners in my constituency who belong to the railway pension fund expressing the same concern as that of my colleagues about the future security of pensions and the bonuses that the pensioners used to receive? Does he accept that that is the real concern? I hope that he will press that on the Government.

That is the heart of the argument and I shall come to it in a moment. We must bear in mind that public pension schemes were good and, as the Secretary of State said, well managed. Because of the scale of the fund, the management of the assets—an important point is the distribution between equity and gilts—was able to put more faith in equities than gilts because gilts were not paying a great deal under this Government. Certainly, management was able to get a better rate of return under the equity arrangements. That has meant that they have had a better pay-out system.

It has been argued by employees in the privatised industries that they accepted a lower rate of pay in return for better pension provisions. They made a decision in the long term to accept a better pension provision, yet live with a lower rate of pay compared to what they may have received in the private sector. We must bear that judgment in mind when we ask whether the Government's proposals, which were announced as late as Thursday, meet the requirement that the present pensioners will be as well off in the future as they were in the past.

The concerns and failures in the past have caught up, as we have seen in the transport industry. If we look at British Rail or deregulation of the buses, evidence abounds that the break-up of the pension funds—the redistribution of the surpluses often to the management of the companies and not the employees—left the remaining employees in that industry with much inferior pension schemes. The whole purpose appears to be not to treat such schemes as a level playing field for the payment of pensions but to encourage competition for the provision of pensions, which inevitably drives down the benefits and they take the cheapest option available.

There is much evidence of that in the parts of British Rail that were privatized—catering, Travelfare, hotels and engineering. Originally, employees were told that they would be no worse off with regard to their pensions. I will not weary the House with quotes from the industry—I did that in Committee—but the evidence is absolutely clear. That evidence persuaded the Government to keep at least some semblance of an industry-wide scheme, instead of breaking it into bits and parts. The retention of an industry-wide scheme is generally agreed and accepted, although it does not provide all the assurances that we want. I shall come to that in a moment.

Many charges have been made that the scale of the resources available is such that it will make it an attractive proposition to the Treasury. The Government have responded and said that that is not true. Their original proposition, which rapidly changed in Committee, was to have a pension fund for the existing pensioners. There are about 200,000 pensioners, and 130,000 people are still in active employment. If those assets were sequestrated and payment made by the Government instead of under a funded scheme, assets of about £4 billion would be eyed by the Treasury. It could take the money to ease its £50 billion debt on the public sector borrowing requirement and simply meet the pensioners' requirements year by year. It would not be cheap for the Treasury to do that but it would certainly ease the PSBR difficulties which will continue to increase. The money in the British Rail pension fund must look attractive, as do the billions in the pension funds of British Coal and the Post Office.

4.30 pm

Although it cannot be shown that the Government would make money from selling British Rail, perhaps they have their eye on the gold pots in the pension funds. But those funds do not belong to the Government, and that was the Government view in 1980. To take that money from pensioners and contributors, even by changing the law to do so, amounts to robbery. The proposed legislation appears to make it easy to take that money. It is an Italian solution and that is not acceptable. The funds have been built up by the enforced savings of workers and they belong to them and to no one else. That is a straightforward proposition and it is our approach to the matter.

The resources of £8·5 billion have been used to pay inflation-proof pensions and have provided real value. The Minister and the Secretary of State have agreed that the pension funds have other attractive features. The Bill has seen many changes. In Committee, we tabled many amendments to clause 116, which deals with pensions, and on the morning that the Committee met the clause was removed. It was agreed to wait for a new schedule but, during debate on the Bill, three different schedules, reflecting Government thinking on the hoof, were introduced. They wanted to pinch back their contributions under the 1980 Act, which amounted to about £70 million a year.

The money resolution shows that the Government have changed their mind about ratting on their £70 million a year contribution to the pension fund. Under the 1980 Act, the Government were obliged to pay that amount each year. The Secretary of State looks surprised. I shall give way to him if he wishes to intervene. He does not. Perhaps the little look of surprise was just for the telly.

There has been no change at all as I shall explain later. We clearly set out a variety of options in a consultation document in January, and said that we would recognise our commitment in the money resolution. We have recognised that commitment from the beginning.

The Government had intended that there would be no future commitment under the 1980 Act. The money resolution must be to change something and, if it does anything, it must restore the position that we thought existed under the 1980 Act—an obligation to pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) debated the money resolution on Second Reading, and presumably it suggested that the obligation under the 1980 Act would end. That is the only reason for a money resolution at this stage. I am thinking on my feet, but what else would it he for?

In Committee we discussed the Government's obligation to pay and, for whatever reason, the Government have decided to continue to pay the £70 million a year. The only reason for the debate is that the Government were thinking of discontinuing their payments, otherwise what the hell are we talking about?

Under the 1980 Act, the Government offered the pensioners two options. They said, "If you take option 2, we shall consider that we have an obligation to pay your pension." The fund could then be closed and, presumably, the assets could go to the Government. The Government have now announced that they will not continue with option 2 because they believe that the pensioners have decided, after consultation, that that is not the option that they wish to pursue.

Option 1 would allow the fund to remain in the scheme and take its chance on future payments. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) tabled an amendment to option 1 because he wanted a guarantee that the pensioners would not be any worse off and that whatever assets were apportioned would be sufficient at least to guarantee the same payments and benefits as those given under the British Rail scheme in its new form. The hon. Member for Eastleigh has been fighting on a fair point, but I do not believe that he has secured that guarantee. He has to buy a pig in a poke and believe a Government promise —a tricky thing to do in this day and age. I do not think that that promise offers sufficient protection for his constituents, who made it clear that that is the guarantee they want from the Government.

Last week, the Government said in a parliamentary reply that they wished to honour that agreement. They have not gone out of their way to do that. Whether it will be honoured, I do not know—perhaps the Secretary of State could give an assurance about that. The difficulties that we are having over the pension fund have come about solely because the tax authorities have decided that, if one wishes to keep the railways and Railtrack as independent bodies and set up private companies, they believe that there is nothing in common between those companies and that, therefore, there cannot be an industry-wide scheme unless the assets of the pension fund are apportioned. The difficulties and uncertainties are arising out of that decision. That is what we must address.

The Minister has said that option 2 is not acceptable. Last Thursday we received a parliamentary reply in which he made it clear that option 2 was not acceptable and that he would concentrate his mind on option 1. This would mean that, instead of allowing pensioners' money to be kept in a separate fund, and protected from any other influence, that money could now remain in the British Rail industry scheme. Because of that promise, option 1 now turns out to be worse than option 2 because at least under that option the Government guaranteed that the pension would be inflation free. The Government said that, whatever the inflation rate, they would see that the pension was paid. Now, there is no such continuing obligation.

What pension fund can guarantee that it will be able to pay out pensions inflation free? It has to look at the circumstances of and the return on its investments and the balance between equities and gilts. It cannot know for sure what will happen. For example, consider the actuaries' assessment of the British Telecom fund. Everyone thought that it had a massive surplus. Now we are told that, for a number of reasons, it is not judged to be in surplus by the actuaries. The judgment of the last assessment in 1990 showed earnings of between 1·5 and 2 per cent. less on equities than they received. So, to that extent, the fund is in real difficulties in maintaining a surplus. The growth in the economy has not been as great as predicted. The actuaries made a judgment—based on what the Government had told them—believing that the recession was over and the green shoots were coming up. Well, they got it wrong, and clearly many others have as well.

The number of redundancies that have occurred in the country mean that liabilities have increased considerably, especially where pension funds are being used to fund redundancies. British Coal has made a controversial application to use the pension fund to fund redundancies. Consideration is also being given to using the British Rail pension fund to fund redundancies or to finance management buy-outs. That is unacceptable and I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear that the fund will not be used to fund management buy-outs or to fund any redundancies that might be associated with the reorganisation. If that were to happen, funds would be taken away from pensions and used for industrial reorganisation. I think that the House would find that totally unacceptable. The Goode committee is addressing that issue and I hope that the Select Committee on Social Security will also want to make it clear that that is not a realistic proposition.

I am having a little difficulty following the hon. Gentleman's argument. A moment ago he said that option 2 amounted to robbery by the Government. Now he is saying that it is a rather more attractive option than the Government's option. Will he explain that? Is he aware that the trustees have said that they are extremely pleased with the announcement that the Government made on Thursday?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am talking to the trustees, just as he is. What I am saying is quite consistent with what the trustees have said to me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to progress with the argument about the difference between option 1 and option 2. That argument is important for the pensioners and for those who wish to vote tonight.

We all thought that the guarantee on inflation sounded attractive, but the pensioners rejected that for a number of reasons. They have always received benefits which are greater than inflation, so they do not want anything less. Now, there is no guarantee on inflation and the scheme will pay only on a promise of what is given in the total fund. That will be possible only if the assets in the fund can meet the commitment. If the industrial fund cannot pay, I am sure that the Government will not step in and meet the difference between what the closed fund's obligations are and what it has to meet those obligations. There are real difficulties.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh is right to point out the dilemma, but the problem is that we shall not know whether the Government are pinching the assets until we see the regulations that will arise from the Bill. The Government have made it clear that the industry-wide single fund will not remain. People will stay in that for a while, but the Government have argued that, because the number of pensioners is greater than the number of full-time employees, instability may occur in the fund. One may wish to separate it completely from the fund—its management, its liabilities or its commitment. That is a fair point, but we shall not know for sure until the order comes before the House.

We have to buy a pig in a poke. In Committee, the hon. Member for Eastleigh voted against the opportunity to put into statutory form the promise that he has made to his constituents. We were told to wait until Report. We are here, and now we are told—as I told the hon. Gentleman in Committee that we would be told—that we should wait until some other time. We cannot judge the Government's intention until we see the order, but the House will not be able to amend that order. All that we can do is vote for or against it after a one and a half hour debate. We had to fight to get that.

Originally, the Government intended that the regulations should be set out in orders that would be drawn up in what we call the negative form, which meant no guarantee of a vote. We has to get the Government to change that. I have no doubt that the Treasury, whose hand is behind all this—it has little to do with the Department of Transport—does not want a debate that will allow justice and fairness to come into our judgment about the distribution of money.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh has to decide whether he will rely on the promise from the Secretary of State and accept the regulations or whether he will vote tonight to ensure that the rights for which his pensioners are asking are to be guaranteed and controlled by the trustees. At the moment, the only obligation on the Secretary of State is to discuss those matters with the trustees.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham tabled a new clause to deal with that matter. All the signs are that the Government may wish to accept it. I hope that they do, because it will ensure that the trustees are consulted. I want to go much further than that. I want to give the trustees who are appointed by the contributors the right to make decisions themselves and to be able to say that if they believe there are sufficient funds to meet the obligations to pensioners, they will continue to meet those obligations. They should not have to accept an order from the Government telling them to separate, and should do that only if there is an instability in the fund and the actuarial authorities say that a position cannot be maintained. That is fair enough. If the actuarial authorities have come to that judgment—we cannot know what will happen in the next 10 years—we shall have given them that authority in pension legislation. However, if they do not do that, what right have the Government to make a judgment about defaulting on those agreements?

The Minister said in Committee that people could pay into the pension fund in the same way as firemen, nurses and the police pay into theirs. In the language of pensions, that means an unfunded scheme. That means that the assets that will be transferred with the pensioners will be available to somebody. They may stay in the pension book as part of the public sector financing and, even if the money is not directly transferred to the Treasury, it will become part of the assets against the public sector borowing requirement liabilities. Even if it is kept in a separate fund, the liability over the long term for pensioners will be a yearly payment.

The £4 billion worth of assets will be discounted in public funancing under assets and liabilities. It would achieve for the Treasury what it wants. I think that that is the whole purpose of the exercise. The Government did not do that when they sold off the electricity, gas and water industries because they were making quite a lot of money selling those industries. The Treasury was the main beneficiary of that. In this sell-off, they will get no money for the industry. We know from the consultants' report and what the Minister has admitted that it will cost the country more to run a railway industry under privatisation, for many reasons, including bureaucracy, profits, and paying people. Where will the money come from? It will come from the pensioners, from the pots of gold that do not belong to the Government. We disagree with that.

4.45 pm

The Minister told us in Committee that the Bill will ensure no less favourable future pensions benefits. If he looks at how the pension fund is managed and at what he promised in his reply, he will find that the very nature of the funds is such that, under the options, he will have to agree that they will not be in a position to meet some of their obligations. For example, there may be instability in the fund. We have made it clear that if there is instability, the actuarial authorities and the trustees should tell us.

Our difficulty is that we do not trust the Government. We believe that, by breaking up the pension fund industrial scheme, they will weaken its ability to earn the right kind of income with the right kind of balance between equity and gilts—more loaded towards the former than the latter. The breaking up of assets, proposed solely to meet the privatisation of rail, will weaken the structure of the pension fund. The nature of gilts is that one gets less of a return, although it is more certain. The problem with equity is that, while one may get a bigger return, one will take a bigger gamble. If the fund is large enough to take the risk, as has been the case with the pension fund, it can get a greater benefit with that balance than from buying only gilts, on which many pension funds rely. If that is the case, the fund will not be able to meet the extra values that are over the rate of inflation. That is the nature of the fund.

Another important factor about the fund is that its contributions meet its commitments. Therefore, it has never had to sell off assets. It has been able to live from its returns. It one changes the balance—it is about 80 per cent. equity and 20 per cent. Gilts—and splits the assets in the way suggested, the balance will be switched to 80 per cent. gilts and 20 per cent. equity. The consequences for the pension fund and its" earnings will be considerable.

The fund will not be able to meet the extra benefits that people have got used to. Therefore, the promise that they will be no worse off will not be met and those in the closed pension funds—the ones with whom we are more materially concerned—will suffer most. Unless the Government say that they will apportion the assets to the closed pension funds—that is, to existing pensioners—and that if the existing railway fund pays better benefits, greater than the earnings can justify under the closed pension fund, they will make up the difference and meet that commitment, they will have made a blue chip promise. We would accept that. I do not think that they will say that. They will say that it is nothing to do with them, and the splitting up of the assets and the breaking up of the security of the fund will mean that the commitment cannot be met.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a proper allocation of the pension fund assets is absolutely crucial. However, his argument about the balance between gilts and equities was the same argument that he used in Committee against the previous proposal for a closed fund. The whole point of the Government's new proposal is that combining existing pensioners with those who continue to work for the rump British Rail—and therefore continue to pay contributions—will enable the trustees to continue to invest in a mixture of equities and gilts, as they have done previously.

An essential point is involved in this argument, which I hope the Secretary of State will clarify. The pension scheme will still be a closed fund; it will simply be managed by the industry fund. Assets will be allocated to existing pensioners, but they will not continue in the broad strength of the industry fund—[Interruption.] I want the Secretary of State to clarify the issue. My understanding is that the assets will be apportioned, probably under an order laid in the House, but eventually it will be a closed fund. In fact, I understand that that will happen before 1 April 1994, when most of the changes will occur. That closed fund, with its own assets, will be managed by the industry fund, so it will have the limitations that I have described. I agree that I have difficulty making my remarks today consistent with what I said in Committee, but that is because the Government have changed their position again. They constantly change position and we have to live with that. The hon. Member for Eastleigh knows that there have been changes virtually from day to day, so we do not have sufficient time properly to consider them.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the assets will be broken up and given to the closed fund under an order laid in the House—which we assume he will lay before April 1994—so the possibility of the fund meeting its commitments will be determined by how much money the trustees can earn from the balance of assets and equities in the fund. That is a powerful judgment. Bigger funds have a better chance of achieving that. As a fund becomes smaller, the judgment becomes more difficult.

We must bear in mind what happens with closed and open funds. With an open fund, contributions come in and contributions go out. With a closed fund, no contributions come in other than the fund's earnings. There is no revenue from employee contributions. If the earnings of the fund are less than the amount paid out in benefits in the industrywide scheme, the fund cannot meet them. Indeed, no actuarial authority would allow it to be so unless the Government guarantee to meet the shortfall. They will not give that guarantee.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh may be satisfied with the Secretary of State's promise, but the assets may not live up to that promise. We will not know until the order is laid. I ask the hon. Gentleman to join with us tonight and support us in trying to ensure that if there is a difficulty, the judgment will be that of the actuarial authorities, not of the Secretary of State. I would prefer the judgment to be in the hands of those who have to justify their action rather than in the hands of a Secretary of State who will simply bring a one-and-a-half-hour order before the House and bulldoze it through. There would be no justice for the pensioners in that.

I say to the hon. Member for Eastleigh, beware of what the Treasury is doing. It is after the assets in the pension fund, but they do not belong to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman has a choice tonight: he can either join us in trying to effect an insurance policy to protect the pensioners or he can accept the rhetoric of his Secretary of State, who gives him promises but nothing to back them up.

I join the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in his opening remarks about our late colleague, Robert Adley. As we embark on this Report state, we are all conscious of his very sad death. He took a great interest in all transport matters. I and, I am sure, all hon. Members pay tribute to him for all that he achieved. He had a deep knowledge of and passionate commitment to transport, but his greatest enthusiasm was for railways.

The hon. Gentleman said that Robert Adley and I had differences of view on some aspects of our proposals for the reform of British Rail. I quoted the key passages on television yesterday—

Why not all of them?

Because it was a short programme. I should have been quite happy to quote all the passages, on many of which Robert Adley and I agreed. Indeed, about four fifths of the Select Committee's recommendations have been accepted either in whole or in part. There is no doubt that Robert Adley made a very constructive contribution and we agreed on many matters. We disagreed about vertical integration and one or two other issues, but it is possible to have two different but genuinely held views about vertical integration.

The most important point is that Robert Adley brought his great knowledge to the House with great enthusiasm. He was a bubbly character. I had the pleasure of sharing an office with him when I first came to the House. He did not just serve the House well on transport matters; he served the House with distinction in many other ways and he will be greatly missed. I am sure that we all wish to convey our heartfelt sympathies to his widow Jane and his family.

Those of us who served with Robert Adley on the Select Committee learned to appreciate his total commitment to transport and his clear view about privatisation. I want to put on record the fact that we believe that the enormous work that he did on the Select Committee report and the pressures that were brought to bear on him unfortunately and undoubtedly had some effect.

I certainly hope that that was not the case, but that underlines the detailed work that he put into the Select Committee—and, indeed, into every other cause in which he believed.

The Government are prepared to accept, in principle, the intentions behind new clause 3 and amendment No. 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). They require a report to be published and laid before the House before an order can be made to amend the trust deed for the rules of any existing board pension scheme, contrary to the advice of the trustees.

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I cannot recommend acceptance of new clause 3 as drafted, for three technical reasons. First, it would sit better as a paragraph in schedule 10 rather than as a complete new clause. Secondly, the phrase "existing board pension scheme" is not defined in the Bill, whereas "existing scheme" is defined in paragraph 1(1) of schedule 10. Thirdly, I am advised that it would be unwise to use the word "precisely" in primary legislation. Who can judge what "precisely" means? In any case, it would be better to publish the trustees' advice, whether or not it is accepted.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is my intention to accept the clear spirit of the new clause and the amendment. I assure the House that the Government will be in close touch with the trustees on such matters and will wish to bring their views to the attention of the House when laying any relevant draft statutory instruments. We would also wish to explain the reasons for not wholly accepting their advice. Of course, that position may never arise; it is hypothetical.

I want to give further thought to the best method of achieving the intentions of the new clause, both in publication and announcement, and to bring forward a suitably drafted amendment at a later stage in the other place. I give a firm undertaking to do so. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will not wish to press his new clause.

I cannot be quite so charitable to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I welcomed his opening remarks, which acknowledged the Government's position on so many of the issues in our final pension proposal, agreed and announced last week. However, that greatly contrasted with his quite outrageous remarks on "Newsnight" on Friday night and on "Breakfast with Frost" yesterday. He repeated some of those comments in his later remarks today. He said on "Newsnight"—I shall leave out a tiny bit of the quote—[Interruption.] All right, I shall read the whole quote. He said:

"So the only money that's available—and there is money available in the railways, Post Office and the Coal Board—is in the pension funds, something like £4 billion in each one of them, and what the Government is about to do is to raid the pension funds of £4 billion each."

The hon. Gentleman said on "Breakfast with Frost" yesterday:

"Something like £8 billion belongs to British Rail pensioners and they are carving up the pension funds to get £4 billion off the pensions and into the Treasury."

Those remarks were outrageous on two counts. First, his remarks were not true; it was scaremongering of the sort to which we have become accustomed in recent months, especially with pensions. Secondly, he raised quite unnecessary fears and concern among vulnerable sections of the community—British Rail pensioners who are dependent on their British Rail and state pensions.

From the beginning, I have gone out of my way to make it quite clear that the Government have no intention of doing what the hon. Gentleman has suggested, yet even after he saw the published proposals on Thursday he continued to repeat his allegations. I can only assume that he had not read our conclusions on Thursday. I should like to take him through the facts because they are terribly important.

If the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Friday was so important and comprehensive and would have stilled pensioners' fears, why did he not come to the House to make it? Why did we have to discover it in a written answer at the back of Hansard?

We were informing the House of our conclusions so that we could hold this debate today. I want to make the position absolutely clear. I gave a pledge at the outset, and I have repeated it in the House more than once, that British Rail's pension funds would not be used for any purpose besides paying pensions. In January, we produced our pensions document. It was clearly a consultation document in which we raised a number of issues and outlined two main options. It cannot be argued that we have done a U-turn or effected any changes since then. What is the point of offering options and going out to consultation unless, ultimately, we make a decision on one or other of those options?

The two main options were the closed fund in due course and a Government offer of a guarantee of index-linked pensions to all British Rail pensioners. We offered pensioners a fair and open choice. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East put his finger today on the difference between British Rail's privatisation in respect of pension funds and the privatisation of electricity. As he rightly said, the area board structure of electricity meant that the employees involved in that industry were not to be split up into all sorts of different organisations, so there was no need for a variety of pension funds. The hon. Gentleman rightly identified the fact that the Inland Revenue would not allow employers to cross-subsidise or deploy cross-arrangements as between one pension fund and another. That Inland Revenue rule is designed to avoid the risk of unfair treatment in the use of taxation.

Clearly, then, with British Rail we were faced with a situation that was not paralleled by electricity. We therefore had to find another solution. That is why, genuinely, fairly and openly, we offered these two alternatives to existing pensioners. It was not possible to say that they could for all time participate in open funds in which employees also participate because, with a large number of pension funds, and the large number of British Rail pensioners whom the hon. Gentleman correctly identified, that could overwhelm some of the new pension fund arrangements for employees. That is why, under the first option, in due course the fund has to become a closed fund.

In order to assure pensioners that there was an alternative of a guaranteed index-linked pension—all this is spelt out in the document—we offered the same sort of arrangements to British Rail's existing pensioners as obtain for the civil service. Clearly, the Government cannot undertake the liabilities that would arise in this respect without the transfer of the assets that were available in the pension fund to meet the pensions in the first place. I have had discussions with the pension trustees and with a great many others since the document was produced in January. They have recognised straight away that assets have to flow if liabilities are being incurred. If the Government, therefore, were to offer guaranteed index-linked pensions, they clearly had to have the right assets to pay for them. The process would be carried out independently, based on actuarial advice on all sides. That is why it was outrageous to say that the Government were going to purloin pension funds and use them for other purposes.

But the issue went further than that. Having consulted widely, I came to the conclusion that, as the second option, which had been fairly offered, was not favoured by most of those who responded to the document—a few did favour it—and as most preferred the first option, it was right to accept the option that most people wanted. That is what we announced on Thursday and it meant that there was no possibility, on Friday, Sunday or today, of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East correctly arguing that the Government were taking over pension fund money to use it for other purposes.

Even so, the hon. Gentleman went on putting out his scare story, and at one point this afternoon he did it again. I want to ask him an important question—important from the point of view of pensioners. Given the background that I have outlined and the fact that the first option is the one that we have chosen, there can be no case for saying that the Government are taking 4 billion away from the pensions and putting it into the Treasury. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that allegation because it is not in the interests of pensioners or of anyone else to believe it. I invite him to withdraw it, now or at the end of the debate—

I shall deal with it at the end of the debate.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will then be able to reach agreement with me on various other aspects of pensions, too.

I want to talk about our conclusions based on the consultations that we held with trustees, the British Railways Board, large numbers of pension organisations and the rail unions. The Minister of State and I met the unions at least twice, and we have certainly consulted widely. That those consultations were genuine is shown by the fact that our conclusions met at least 90 per cent.—probably more—of the requests put to us. We could not accede to one or two of them, but the reasons for that were understood. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) for what he said about the pension trustees' approach to what we have done. They understand how far we have gone to meet all their concerns.

It would never be—it never was—any part of my purpose to take away from pensioners any of their pension funds. I understand only too well how important pensions are to them and to existing employees. That is why I was anxious to reach the best possible arrangements within the terms of the new reforms.