asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss the proposed westward extension of the docklands light railway to Bank station.

I discussed this matter with the chairman when I met him on 12 November. I and my officials are in close touch with him.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the principle that applies privatisation to rail transport is very much welcomed on this side of the House? When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, will he convey that sentiment to him, and will he wish the project every success?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree entirely with him that it is a very important breakthrough that the provision of public transport can now be contemplated in the private sector. I shall certainly convey what my hon. Friend has said to the chairman of LRT, who I know shares his and my view.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the westward extension will go ahead only if the Canary wharf project goes ahead first?

Yes, Sir.

Can my right hon. Friend indicate when the STOLport, of which the docklands light railway will be a feature, will take effect?

There are no proposals for the extension of the docklands light railway east to the STOLport from the central section, which is currently being constructed. The date when STOLport will go forward is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I believe that it will go ahead, but he must give the precise time.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his roads policy, in the light of the National Economic Development Office civil engineering report: "A Fairer and Faster Route to Major Road Construction".

My right hon. Friend made an interim response to the Economic Development Committee last March. Consideration of the report is almost complete and we hope to give a full response to the EDC in the near future. The response will be published and I shall send my hon. Friend a copy.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's objective—there is plenty of scope for doing this—ought to be to expedite public inquiries into major road proposals and that this can be done without any loss of rights by those who are adversely affected or who make representations? Furthermore, will he confirm that it would be possible for the Government to improve the compensation paid to those who are adversely affected without any extra call being made upon public funds, provided that the consultations and the procedures could be expedited?

I cannot prejudge our response to the Economic Development Committee. However, we recognise that serious delays can be caused by planning procedures. We have to balance these against the rights of those individuals who are affected. We are looking at ways in which compensation can be improved.

I recognise the need to speed up motorway and major road construction, but will my hon. Friend consider the need to monitor the working of these roads once they have been constructed? I have in mind the notorious cracks that arose on the M25 during construction.

The answer has to be, yes. We certainly monitor roads after they have been built. That is one of the reasons why maintenance has been stepped up.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outstanding debt on the Severn bridge at the latest available date.

At 31 March 1984, some £46 million.

Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State said a few days ago that the former Secretary of State for Defence ought to go because he had become an embarrassment to the Government, and bearing in mind also that this Secretary of State is so persistently flouting the law, is he not equally an embarrassment to the Government? Is it not simply ridiculous to impose a 150 per cent. increase in tolls on the Severn bridge when the Welsh economy is in such a parlous condition?

The judgment was not concerned with the level of tolls or the question which the hon. Gentleman has attached to that. It was concerned with procedural impropriety at the 1984 inquiry, and that is an entirely different matter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Welsh economy needs assistance from public funds, which may well be so, that can far more clearly be provided through regional aid than through an indiscriminate subsidy to all road users on a particular stretch of road?

I entirely concur with my hon. Friend's view.

Surely the Secretary of State must realise the problems of attracting new industrial investment over the bridge. Why do the Government insist on persisting in a policy the certain effect of which is to place an additional obstacle before the regeneration of the Welsh economy?

It is by no means certain that the best use of such money would be to subsidise the tolls on the bridge rather than give more direct help to the Welsh economy.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the steadily growing opinion in all shades of political views in Wales that the trouble of having tolls on the Severn bridge is by no means justified by the sums raised and that it would be far better to sweep them all away?

I hear clearly what my hon. Friend says, but a substantial debt has to be worked off, and that is slowly being done. By the year 2006 it will have gone. It would be wrong for us to ignore the extent of that debt and pretend that it does not exist.

Does the Minister realise that there is no logic in the argument that on the one hand tolls should be retained and on the other that subsidies should be given by regional aid, particularly when the Government this year have already cut regional aid by 50 per cent.? Given the recent legal defeat, why does the Minister not realise that there is massive resentment on the Welsh side of the bridge against the tolls and that the Welsh people regard them as a block on industrial and commercial development? Why does he not take this opportunity to admit defeat and do away with the tolls altogether?

The question whether there should be tolls is different from that tabled today, but we have given notice of appeal against the judgment and perhaps we had better await the outcome of that.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that speed governors on coaches will be required to be fitted; and if he will make a statement.

We expect to consult on draft regulations later this year with a view to requiring coaches that can exceed 70 mph starting to be fitted with speed governors in 1987.

I welcome the Government's decision to try to do something to control the increasing menace of coaches on our roads, but may I ask my hon. Friend, if he has not yet done so, to look at the recent Channel 4 programme called "Catching the coach"? Is he aware that it was made clear in that programme that the safety standards applied by coach operators in Britain are well below those of other countries and that the behaviour of some coach operators in using physical short cuts in many of our towns and cities is just one of the problems that mean that we should have a full review of the way in which coach companies are using or abusing the law in a whole area of activity at the moment?

I have not seen the programme to which my hon. Friend refers, but I shall do so. I agree about the sense of urgency that this matter requires, but before introducing the necessary regulations we must be sure that the devices work properly and safely and are calibrated and sealed.

My hon. Friend knows that we shall all welcome the introduction of the governors on coaches, but what will the Government do about the drivers who are able to drive lethally often when they are inadequately trained and qualified and moonlighting?

If the drivers are not obeying the law they will be prosecuted.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the safety provisions of the alternative transport systems put forward in the prospective Channel tunnel schemes.

Concerns about safety have been included in a number of letters from members of the public and representative and voluntary bodies. Safety has, of course, been at the forefront of the Government's assessment of the schemes.

Will the Minister recognise that there is strong concern about the safety aspects of any Channel tunnel, whether rail or road, and the problems of satisfactorily dealing with an accident should it occur under the middle of the Channel? We want to be sure that if the project goes ahead such problems can be dealt with and that there will be adequate safety measures and facilities to deal with them.

The question of the results of accidents and how to deal with them is covered by the assessment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have been receiving a great amount of flak recently from my constituents for having given support to the idea of a fixed link? Has he any safety provisions—not for me, because I can easily get a flak jacket, as they are readily available these days—but for my consitituents, who are properly concerned about the possible destruction of the Kentish environment that the project might produce?

Order. That is rather wide of the question.

The environment has been one of our major considerations, in which we have been assisted by an outside assessor. I assure my hon. Friend that the problems for his constituents and for all people living in one of our most beautiful counties have been taken into account.

As the Channel Expressway is being reported as one of the two runners for this contract, will the Minister assure us that he is taking into account the problems of a 31-mile road link, the ventilation for that road, the extraction of carbon monoxide and the danger of an accident in such a tunnel?

Assessments have covered ventilation and the particular circumstances that would arise if there were an accident in the tunnel leading to a build-up of stationary traffic, with the consequent effect on the carbon monoxide level.

Is the Minister prepared to meet the North of England Regional Consortium to consider and respond in detail to its important views about the proposed link?

If those views are concerned with safety, of course I would be prepared to meet a deputation if the right hon. Gentleman wished to bring one.

On the safety considerations, will there be continuous adequate lighting in the tunnel, unlike the lighting provision on our motorways, especially the M1 and the M62, in both of which I have an interest?

The right hon. Gentleman will have to await the choice of project before he can have full details on such matters.

In deciding on which type of link to have, taking into account the safety aspects, will the decision be made by the Cabinet after full discussion of the Secretary of State's recommendation, or by the Prime Minister by political prejudice? If the latter, are we to expect further ministerial resignations?

The decision will be made by the Prime Minister and the President of France on 20 January. As always, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will consult her Cabinet colleagues before reaching a major decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the average increase in bus fares since 1979; what information he has as to the likely trend in bus fares in South Yorkshire in 1986–87; and if he will make a statement.

The average increase in bus fares nationally since 1979 has been 84 per cent. In the same period, South Yorkshire county council has chosen to place the entire burden of mounting costs on its ratepayers rather than increase fares for passengers. Future bus fare levels in South Yorkshire will be a matter for the passenger transport authorities and for bus operators.

Is the Minister aware that when the Secretary of State announced his bus policy, he offered the House the firm prospect of better services and lower fares? Will not the result of Government policy be to push up fares in South Yorkshire by such an enormous amount that it will imperil our services?

South Yorkshire county council has pursued a high subsidy policy, which has meant that there has been no rise in fares for 10 years. Where a subsidy policy has been followed in that way there have been high rates, with all the consequences of that on employment and business, and the damage that it does to the community.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if politicians in South Yorkshire insist on increasing bus fares at one jump as a political gesture, instead of gradually, as the professional busmen on South Yorkshire passenger transport want, it would be a cruel and unnecessary abuse of South Yorkshire's passengers?

My hon. Friend is right. The professional advice that must have been received by politicians in South Yorkshire is that they should already have started a gradual increase to carry their passengers with them. If they decide to play politics, the result will be a sharp rise in fares, a loss of passengers, and a consequent loss of jobs for those employed in the bus undertaking.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the privatisation of the National Bus Company and its subsidiaries.

The process for the disposal of the NBC has now started. I have suggested to general managers that they and their staff should consider whether they wish to buy control of the companies for which they work. I understand that the NBC will be canvassing bids in the near future.

I read the Secretary of State's press statement on 9 December. What steps is he taking to prevent asset-stripping by possible purchasers whose prime intention may be speculative rather than to run a bus company?

We are prepared to consider selling the companies with the property assets already removed and leased back to the companies, which would effectively avoid the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the danger of what is happening now where NBC subsidiaries, while still nationalised, are uncommercially underbidding the private sector for the bids that must be tendered shortly? Is he further aware that the private sector, unlike the public sector, cannot match those bids because it is not backed by public money, and it may be frozen out of routes which must be contracted for within a few weeks' time, and which will he operated later in the year only if they are contracted for? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not an equal or even-handed situation?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital to strive for an equal and even-handed situation. However, it is not yet time for the receipt of tenders for unremunerative routes to local authorities. No tenders have yet been called for. If any publicly owned bus company were to contract at unviable rates, the consequences would fall on the company at a later stage, when it would find that it made losses as a result. Where managers may be taking a controlling interest in their company, they would wish to avoid that.

When my right hon. Friend denationalises the NBC, will he consider breaking it into sufficiently small units so that as many employees as possible can participate in the purchase of shares? In that way, he will move from the present monolithic system to one where employees can receive benefits from the privatisation of the company.

Yes, Sir. The expected break-up of the NBC will result in about 60 operating subsidiaries. I am happy to tell the House that more than two-thirds of them have already said that they want to mount bids for their company. My hon. Friend's point is well made.

If that is the case, can the Secretary of State guarantee those who are at present employed in the NBC that the pension provisions they enjoy will remain the same?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is no guarantee of the present pensions. There will be no formal guarantee of the pensions in future, but there are options before the trustees of the NBC pension funds which enable them to choose whether they prefer greater security to other considerations.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any proposals for the withdrawal of any railway passenger services in the west London area; and if he will make a statement.

The British Railways Board has proposed the closure of Marylebone station and the withdrawal of passenger services between Marylebone and Harrow on the Hill and Northolt Park stations. In reaching a decision on the board's proposal I and my right hon. Friend will take into account all relevant factors.

In addition to objecting to the proposal to close the Marylebone-Northolt Park line, is my hon. Friend aware of British Rail's proposal to withdraw a third of the services to Hanwell and west London? Does he agree that British Rail is at present receiving a much higher subsidy in real terms than in 1979, in addition to having recently increased fares to Hanwell and elsewhere by 8 per cent.? Will he support me in demanding that British Rail retains a proper and full service for my constituents in Hanwell and west London?

British Rail intends next year to reduce suburban services from Paddington. These services are among the most lightly used and heavily loss making in the London area. It is for British Rail to determine what level of services to operate in the light of the broad financial and other objectives set by Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what factors he intends to take into account in meeting the demands for additional crossing capacity at Dartford on the M25; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend will make these clear soon in an invitation to promoters to make proposals for a third crossing at Dartford.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that additional capacity at Dartford is urgently required? Will he take into account the fact that the present tolls on the Dartford tunnel will pay off the capital costs by the early 1990s and that it would be inappropriate for tolls to continue after that date?

I agree that the matter is becoming urgent, but consideration as to whether tolls should be applied thereafter would depend upon the method by which any additional crossing was financed.

Does the hon. Gentleman intend that only the third crossing will be privately owned and operated, or is it the Government's longer-term intention that the whole Dartford tunnel complex will be transferred from public to private hands?

It would not be precisely as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, but more the latter than the former.

May I underline to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), that throughout most of the day the flow of traffic in either direction through the two Dartford tunnels is much higher than they were ever intended to carry? Even when the east London river crossing is constructed—if it is constructed—the central problem of Dartford will not be resolved.

I accept that capacity is important. It is one of the crucial factors in assessing the promotors' proposals, which we shall be inviting.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether any progress has been made in negotiations with his colleagues in the European Economic Community towards agreeing free acess to European Economic Community shipping cabotage; and if he will make a statement.

Almost all member states now accept the principle of early liberalisation but further negotiations will be needed on this and a number of other aspects of European Community shipping policy before regulations can be agreed. If negotiations are not successful within the next few months, I shall have to consider taking other steps to ensure fair and equal treatment for United Kingdom flag vessels.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he consider, as one of those steps, denying access to our shipping cabotage to those countries which improperly prevent our merchant vessels from enjoying freedom of their cabotage? In addition, will my right hon. Friend consider going to the European Court of Justice?

I agree that it is inequitable that our cabotage is open to all members states of the European Community whereas, roughly speaking, the northern European states have agreed to open their cabotage to our vessels but the southern European states have not yet done so. I shall certainly have to take account of the two ways of proceeding which my hon. Friend suggests—either closing our cabotage to those countries which will not open theirs or proceeding through the European Court of Justice. I would prefer it if we could obtain agreement by negotiation this year. That would be the best solution.

Did the discussions on cabotage involve in any way the trade in offshore supplies in the North sea gas and oil industries? At the moment, Norway, which is not a member of the EEC, enjoys a clear lead over British maritime interests. Is the EEC conducting negotiations on Britain's behalf with Norway to restore balance to this trade?

The matters that the hon. Gentleman mentions touch upon the cabotage issue, although they are slightly different, because Norway is not a member of the European Community. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport was responsible for those matters he succeeded in persuading the Norwegians to withdraw a charge for pilotage which discriminated against our fleet in favour of the Norwegian fleet. If there are any examples of unfair competition in the Norwegian part of the continental shelf I am prepared to pursue them further. I believe that it is better to have both markets open on fair terms rather than have both markets closed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is wrong that these restrictions on competition within the EEC should exist so long after we joined? Will he fight that matter as strongly as he possibly can? He will have the support of both sides of the House in doing so.

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I am glad to be able to tell the House that I reached a bilateral agreement with the West German Government that they will open their cabotage to us in practice. I intend to pursue this matter relentlessly with the other members of the European Community. At a meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers last week it appeared that my colleagues agreed that cabotage should be liberalised by at least 1992, but that was an informal meeting and I should like to see the agreement in writing.

I thank the Secretary of State for what he said to his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) about this matter. I am not at all surprised that he is having some problems with the Greeks on this issue. As I understand it, the regulations concern the nationality of the company. In other words, they do not concern British companies which flag their ships out and whose ships are manned by foreign crews. When we achieve greater freedom of cabotage, will he ensure that it is carried out by British ships carrying British seamen, and not by British ships that are flagged out under flags of convenience?

The Greek difficulty to some extent relates to defence and the Greek's ability to resupply islands off the coast of Greece for possible defensive action. We should seek to open up the cabotage of all member states of the Community to the fleets of those who fly the flags of the member states.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects construction work to commence on the A629/A650 Airedale route.

A decision will be announced very shortly on the outstanding statutory orders for the Kildwick to Beechcliffe section. The timing of the start of work depends on the decision.

When considering the speed at which future decisions about this road are reached, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the strongly held feeling in the whole of the Aire valley that the new road is vital to the area's future economic prosperity? Is he aware that plans and inquiries relating to this route have been going on for over 20 years, and that a long period has elapsed since the public inquiry on the side road orders relating to the Kildwick to Beechcliffe section?

I am aware of the great interest that my hon. Friend has taken in this matter. I cannot, however, prejudge or prejudice the decision, which, as I have said, will be made soon.

Does the Minister recognise how important north-east Lancashire feels the completion of the Airedale route and the link of that route to the M65 and the M1 are, because it is important to have another east-west Lancashire to Yorkshire crossing?

I am aware of the great interest that is felt about this road in the area that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I must repeat that I cannot say anything that will prejudice the decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what approaches he has received from potential future purchasers of the London docklands light railway.

I have received two approaches, including the one from the consortium which plans to develop Canary wharf, about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an announcement on 27 November.

Is it not a fact that even if the western extension is built, about nine tenths of the route mileage of that railway will have been provided with public money? On what basis can there be private profit from public expenditure? Will the Minister reconsider the Secretary of State's decision not to require private operators to fit in with the system of travel cards and general traffic and fare levels which have been arranged by London Regional Transport?

The railway is not expected to make a profit. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that this is a case of public investment designed to create private profit. I am sorry to have to say that it will create a running loss.

Is there not cause for slight concern about the manner in which permission for the westward extension of this railway has been granted? Can my hon. Friend say whether I am right in assuming that the decision by the private operator to proceed was made only on the basis of his receiving planning permission at the other end of the line for a project which was originally rejected not only by the local authorities but by the Department of the Environment? Is this not a somewhat dangerous proposition?

Just say, "I do not know."

I was going to say that they are dependent one upon the other.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters he has received in his official capacity about the fixed Channel link; and if he will make a statement.

Approximately 1,700 letters about the Channel fixed link have been received since the promoters submitted their proposals on 31 October 1985. Of these, about 1,500 have been from members of the public.

Does not this correspondence show that the public would much prefer a third Dartford tunnel to a Channel tunnel? Will the Minister issue a warning to innocent investors who might be tempted to put their savings into this project that if private enterprise funds run out before the project is completed, there is no question of the Government bailing out the project or their savings with taxpayers' money?

In relation to the first question, I do not consider that 1,700 letters from a population of 54 million is statistically significant. Secondly, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that no public finances will be made available if either of the projects that might be selected runs into financial difficulties halfway through.

Since the Under-Secretary of State most courteously answered my Consolidated Fund debate on 19 December, have the Government got any further in considering the problems of microsleep, driver hypnosis, and what could happen if people attempt to drive from Edinburgh to France and are fatigued when they enter the tunnel and do nuttish things?

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, those matters have been analysed and considered, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to await the decision and the White Paper that will follow it. It will be impossible to publish that White Paper on the day of the decision, because the decision must come first, and the White Paper must be written thereafter, but it will provide the answers to the hon. Gentleman's worries.

I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for not being here earlier when my question was called. How many letters has my right hon. Friend received about Britain's ability to fulfil its NATO defence commitments should the Channel fixed link lead to a reduction in our ferry fleet? What mechanism will be used to monitor the position as the impact of the Channel fixed link becomes clearer?

I have received 19 letters on that subject, and I do not consider that 19 letters can be taken as expressing major national concern. The impact on the ferry fleet of any fixed link depends radically upon which fixed link is chosen. The White Paper will attempt to provide an analysis of the impact of our choice on the ferry fleet.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that his noble Friend the Earl of Caithness advised the Merchant Navy and Air Line Officers' Association that the Government intended to maintain a ferry service and fleet? How will that be done? Can he also confirm that no treaty between Britain and France will be signed before the House has had an opportunity to analyse and debate the White Paper?

I am not sure what my noble Friend might or might not have said. However, the impact of any choice upon the ferry fleet and the defence consequences will be spelt out in the White Paper. Debates in the House are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his best estimate of when construction of the Berkhamsted bypass will start.

Subject to the outcome of the outstanding statutory procedures, construction could start in the second half of 1988.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that many of my constitutents want the bypass to be built urgently? As there seems to be an increase in traffic along the existing road through towns and villages, will he ensure that the road is dual tracked?

My hon. Friend is right to imply that a revision of traffic forecasts caused the delay. He is also right to say that we are considering the whole question of dualling along that stretch of the road.

asked the Attorney-General when he proposes to introduce legislation to amend the law relating to latent damage.

It is hoped to introduce a Bill in the near future to amend the law of limitation in negligence cases involving latent damage, based on the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the disquiet among professional organisations in the construction industry that the proposed date of breach is vague and imprecise? Does he agree that that is the problem in existing legislation? Will he consider sympathetically the suggestion that the period of liability should begin on a date which is definite and leaves nothing to chance?

I shall draw my hon. Friend's views to the Lord Chancellor's attention. The Government have accepted the Law Reform Committee's reasons for rejecting the date of completion approach. The date of completion would be difficult to apply to the many other types of cases, other than construction, for which legislation is intended. Moreover, date of completion might cause injustice in lengthy construction projects, when completion occurs many years after the relevant date of breach of duty.

Regarding the law relating to latent damage, can the Solicitor-General confirm that he wrote a letter to the former Secretary of State for Defence accusing him of uttering a material inaccuracy?

I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, but his question does not arise out of the main question.

asked the Attorney-General whether he now has any plans to increase manpower dealing with fraud investigations.

rose—

Hear, hear.

I am grateful to the House.

I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend on behalf of hon. Members in all parts of the House and express the hope that he has recovered. I thank him for the answer. Does he now believe that, at long last, we have the basis, in terms of the number of people available, coupled with the Roskill recommendations, for a real and serious attack on the growing problem of fraud?

This involves the operation of the fraud investigation group. Roskill's first recommendation involves something even better than FIG and of course the Government will look closely at that. That might need even more resources, in which case I shall welcome them.

Does the Attorney-General realise that he has a lot to live up to in view of his statement some months ago that the level of City fraud was unacceptable? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a guarantee that, based upon these new recruits, including lawyers, he will be able to state unequivocally—

—and categorically.

—and categorically, as well as without ambiguity, that Peter Cameron-Webb, who is now living in Miami, will be brought back to Britain to face charges that relate to him getting rid of a sum approaching £130 million? According to yesterday's newspaper reports, Cameron-Webb, along with Peter Dixon, made £13 million for himself. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a guarantee that law and order applies to people such as Cameron-Webb and Dixon as well as to those in the inner cities, and that they are subject to the law like the rest of the British people?

I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question by giving him an idea of the resources that we are applying to the PCW and Howden frauds. There is the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions—

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bring them back?

There is an assistant director and a professional officer —

Answer the question.

I shall come to it. There are two detective superintendents and other police and five counsel, including two QCs. The problem lies in tracing the funds so that we can ascertain who were the ultimate beneficiaries. There are several countries involved as well as a bank in Switzerland which was acquired by Howden. More than 1 million documents have been seized from Howden. There are extradition problems to face in getting back Cameron-Webb and others, and it may be that they are in Costa Rica and not Miami.

The newspapers say that they are in Miami.

I do not mind what is in the newspapers. If Cameron-Webb is in Costa Rica, the House will be aware that we do not have an extradition treaty with that country. If he is in the United States—this applies to Cameron-Webb and to Dixon—the extradition procedure will be a lengthy business. Grob is another person who we would like to see back in this country . He has dual nationality—Swiss and British—and the Swiss do not extradite their own nationals.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that outside London the country forces have been dealing effectively with cases of long-firm fraud and fraudulent trading for many years and bringing those guilty of such offences to book, with the courts passing appropriate sentences?

Long-firm frauds are some of the easiest frauds to investigate and to prosecute. It is the much more complex frauds that have been causing difficulties. It is interesting that the Director of Public Prosecutions informed provincial police forces last year that if they wanted the assistance of FIG they had only to ask for it. A number of provincial fraud cases of great complexity—there are stock exchanges outside London—have been referred to FIG.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I extend a warm welcome to the Attorney-General on his return to our proceedings. I hope that he has made a full and robust recovery from his recent operation. In taking up the issues raised by the committee on fraud trials, is it now the Government's view that too few reported fraud cases are brought to trial, and that this is primarily because of a lack of resources? What consideration is being given to the issues of expertise that are raised in the report, especially the training in accountancy and information technology that is suggested for barristers and judges, and especially for fraud squad investigation officers?

I am very grateful for the kind words of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I feel very much better.

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of the Director of Public Prosecutions' inquiry into alleged breaches of the Official Secrets Act involving the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) and Miss Sara Keays.

The Director of Public Prosecutions announced on 7 January that there was no evidence available which could support a prosecution in respect of any infringement of the Offiial Secrets Acts arising out of this matter. In these circumstances, the Director has decided to take no further action and has advised the Metropolitan police that no further inquiries by them are required.

Does the DPP or the police have access to the relevant Cabinet papers?

No, Sir.

In view of the principle of equality under the law, will the Solicitor-General consider prosecuting under the Official Secrets Acts those responsible for disclosing the contents of his recent letter to the Secretary of State for Defence? Can he assure the House—

Order. The same rules must apply to everyone. The question relates to a completely different matter.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to ensure that the Official Secrets Acts are applied in the same way and—

Order. But this question relates to the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson).

Has the Director of Public Prosecutions been inhibited in any way in his inquiry into this or any other matter concerning possible breaches of the Official Secrets Acts? Can the Solicitor-General assure the House that the law will be applied equally, whether to the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the press secretary at No. 10 or anybody else who leaks official documents?

I am happy to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that, in the discharge of all of their functions, Law Officers exercise an independent and impartial judgment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to increase the amount of basic agriculture development work undertaken under the aid programme.

Agricultural development is at the heart of our bilateral aid policy. In devising our programmes we have to take account of the wishes of recipient countries, but we aim to increase the agricultural content whenever we can.

Has there not been a drastic reduction in the proportion of resources and the number of people employed under our aid programme giving essential aid to subsistence agriculture? Would not the reversal of that trend do a tremendous amount of good and go some way towards altering the bad impression given by the Government's new year honours list recommendations?

The proportion of British bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa used for agriculture and related purposes rose from 27 to 33 per cent. between 1979 and 1983. I have just seen extremely valuable agricultural work in the Sudan and the Yemen being carried out under the Government's auspices, which is strongly directed towards the poorer partners.

Bearing in mind the appalling background of what has happened in sub-Saharan Africa, is there not an urgent need for Western aid donors to co-operate more closely to identify medium-term projects which could raise food production in that area? To what extent is that happening and what machinery is being used to further such steps?

My right hon. Friend is right. I assure him that co-ordination between donors is increasing all the time and that there is general agreement about the great importance of developing agriculture in those regions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the aid and trade provision.

The new loan scheme announced to the House on 12 November by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry strengthens the existing aid and trade provision. We shall now be able to respond more flexibly to the preferences of developing countries and to match the practices of other donors.

The Minister will be aware that there is considerable concern about this matter and about the extent to which priority is being given to aid and trade schemes rather than rural development initiatives. What resources does he expect to go to the ATP? Is he really in the business of trade to aid development, or mainly in development to aid trade?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the aid and trade provision was introduced in 1977 by the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart). The additions required over the next three years under the ATP provisions that are being extended to loans are £3 million in the first year, £10 million in the next year and £20 million in he third year. It is important to remember that under the aid and trade provision we provide development help to the countries concerned and we have provided about £1 billion of export orders for British industry over the past few years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ELE company in my constituency has developed a portable water purification testing centre that is far in advance of anything elsewhere? That is a prime candidate for trade aid and could benefit employment in this country as well as helping people overseas.

I shall be very happy to talk to my hon. Friend about that company.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his statement of 5 December about the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, what arrangements he has made for additional sums for work on soil and water management in arid or semi-arid areas.

I have allocated £400,000 per annum to support work on soil and water management in arid or semi-arid areas.

Does the Minister agree that, welcome though the allocation is, it does not fill the gap left by the decimation of the Land Resources Development Centre, which was cut by the Prime Minister-inspired Rayner review three or four years ago? If the Government take African famine seriously, will they restore the resources for the centre at least to the level that existed before the cuts insisted on by the Prime Minister?

The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. The LRDC is an admirable body which is continuing to do admirable work.

In the wake of the decision to withdraw from UNESCO, will my right hon. Friend undertake to give the best support he can to the work of agricultural research institutes in this country, such as the national vegetable research station at Wellesbourne, which is doing work of proven value to Third world countries as well as to our own? Will my right hon. Friend encourage his colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Education and Science to do likewise?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the great importance of agricultural research. My Department certainly does all that it can to propagate that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present amount of aid given by the Government to the Sudan.

British bilateral development aid to Sudan in the last financial year amounted to £27·5 million. We expect to spend about the same amount in 1985–86. We have also provided more than £29 million on bilateral famine relief for Sudan since October 1984, including over £10 million through voluntary agencies. Following my visit to Sudan earlier this month, I have agreed to make a further £5 million available through the Save the Children Fund, mainly to meet the costs of urgent food distribution in Darfur. In addition, I am allocating £200,000 to Oxfam for emergency work in the Red sea province and the south.

I thank the Minister very much for that reply, and especially for the fact that he has agreed to give money to the Save the Children Fund. In view of the superb work done by the fund in appalling conditions in Sudan, I am sure that his support will be warmly welcomed, not only in the House, but outside. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that the support will continue if the need exists.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He might like to know that the £5 million that I have just announced, together with another £1 million that I announced a short time ago, will make it possible to distribute within Darfur 110,000 tonnes of badly needed food.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that development projects such as the Equatoria region agricultural scheme, which he recently visited, are the sorts of projects that could be developed elsewhere in Sudan?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have just visited that project. It is an excellent project and it is the sort of thing that we are looking to do elsewhere.

One of the critical issues in the Sudan is whether there is adequate fuel for food aid distribution. What did the right hon. Gentleman learn about that on his recent visit? Shall we find, as we did last time, that he will be overtaken by Bob Geldof's transport convoys in getting the food distributed?

The hon. Gentleman is being ludicrous about this matter. Bob Geldof has done a very good job, but the British aid programme to Sudan has made a substantial contribution, both short-term and long-term. One of the factors that we are examining is the provision of fuel wood.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial support he has given to keep the Vietnamese refugees in the camps in Hong Kong in each of the last five years.

The Overseas Development. Administration has made the following contributions to the Save the Children Fund for its programme of assistance to Vietnamese refugees in camps in Hong Kong:—£15,000 in 1981; £10,000 in 1982; £9,000 in 1983; £14,000 in 1984 and £15,000 in 1985. In addition, the ODA makes an annual contribution of approximately £3·5 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who also runs a refugee programme in Hong Kong.

Does the Minister not accept that we in Britain have a great responsibility for supporting the Hong Kong Government in what they are doing for the Vietnamese in camps in Hong Kong? Does he accept also that the resources available are not adequate? He has only to look at the schools in the camps to understand that. Will he reconsider the possibility of Britain giving more support to those who need help?

I believe the facts show that we are already making a reasonable contribution. Indeed, the work that we are doing is fully appreciated.