asked the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to take to seek to improve the wellbeing and safety of women travelling on public transport.

I have recently announced a new study of crime on the London Underground. I expect to receive the report and recommendations by the end of July. This study will cover the safety of women.

The Secretary of State has taken a long time to instigate that survey. Does he realise that women are the major users of public transport? The GLC has carried out the only survey of women by women to identify the difficulties which they experience on buses, underground trains and so on, and in badly lit streets. Over three quarters of them said that they felt unsafe at night. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the findings of the GLC and proposals from other metropolitan authorities, and improve the safety of women, by recruiting more conductors and other staff, rather than relying on machines, which cannot respond to cries for help?

The hon. Lady is a little over-critical. We have set up a study into the problems on the Underground. The problems of bus staff are being examined, as is violence to road passenger transport staff, by another of my Department's working groups, which will report shortly. A great deal is being done to investigate what can be done, and a lot is being done. If the hon. Lady would like to go to the Bank station, she will see the plans for modernising it, making it better lit and better laid out. Those are the sorts of ways in which to prevent crime, and the hon. Lady will find that the Government are doing a lot in that direction.

If, as it is reported, London Regional Transport is anxious to appoint additional members of the British Transport police, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will turn a sympathetic ear to any appeal for additional funds which may be required as a result?

The British Transport police have been increased substantially as a result of the perceived problem to which my hon. Friend refers. In the first instance such matters are for London Regional Transport or the bus operator, whoever he may be, but we are doing all that we can to assist them.

Will the Secretary of State accept that one of the things that he can do to help is the early phasing out from, Charing Cross on southern region of outdated stock with individual compartment carriages, because their use late at night worries women.

It is for British Rail to propose replacing old stock of that sort, and if it makes an application to us for investment approval we shall consider it quickly and sympathetically.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement today, which I am sure will be given a greater welcome by women in general than it was by the Opposition Front Bench. May I underline that a number of men and women are deterred from travelling on the underground and that, in a sense, the amount of deterrence is greater than the number of attacks that take place?

I think that that is true, but I am sure that the ways that are being examined by London Regional Transport to improve the situation will all help. For some time efforts have been made to improve lighting and the safety of ticket and other staff, and to increase the presence of the British Transport police and inspectors in order to improve the situation.

Has the Secretary of State read the GLC women's committee's pamphlet "Women on the Move" which, to make the point in another way from my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), makes it clear that only 17 per cent. of women feel safe travelling on public transport at night. In order to try to increase the number of women who want to travel on the tube and buses, and feel safe doing so, will he ask London Regional Transport to drop its proposals for further one-person operated buses and the reduction of guards on tubes, both of which add to the feeling of insecurity among women travelling on London transport?

The hon. Gentleman must understand that it is taking a little time to get the London Underground more efficient, safe, and attractive to passengers. We took the system away from the GLC only 18 months ago and we have had remarkable progress in rectifying the GLC's errors.

I appreciate the efforts that my right hon. Friend has been making for the safety of women. However, the question also refers to "the wellbeing" of women. Would it not be for the wellbeing and convenience of women if there were female attendants looking after female toilets?

I shall pass that important point on to the authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with county officials concerning the effect of abolition of the metropolitan counties on public transport in those areas.

There has been a continuing dialogue between my Department and the officers of local authorities and passenger transport executives.

As that tells me nothing in answer to my question, will the Minister say what he is doing to avoid increased fares and poorer services as a consequence of the Government's policies?

The level of fares is a matter for the bus operator concerned.

Is it not an error in timing that the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority has introduced proposals for a tram in Sheffield when the authority has been abolished and is running into serious deficit in its financing?

That is a matter for the authority, and on that matter it is answerable to its local electorate.

Has the Minister learnt from his discussions that the effect of abolishing the South Yorkshire county council, coupled with the implementation of the last two Transport Acts, will be to treble at least the fares, to cut services substantially and to make some hundreds of the staff redundant in an area of high unemployment? Does he regard this as a mark of progress in a civilised society?

It is important to get a better balance between the amount paid by the user and the amount paid by the ratepayer. The high level of rates in South Yorkshire has undoubtedly contributed to the high level of unemployment there. In South Yorkshire the subsidy on transport amounts to 62·8 per cent. of the cost in cash terms for operating the service, while only 22 per cent. comes from fares. Nowhere else in the country is there such an extraordinary state of affairs.

Will the Minister admit, openly and plainly, that the responsibility for increased fares, reductions in services and increased redundancies rests solely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because of the expenditure limits that he has set?

It is for the passenger transport authority to establish the policy, and for the passenger transport executive to decide its priorities in the expenditure that it will undertake during the year as between the level of fares and the extent of service and of concessions.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to allocate additional funds to British Rail in the light of Her Majesty's Government's decision to proceed with the fixed Channel link.

External financing limits for 1990–91 to 1992–3, the years of maximum BR capital expenditure on Channel fixed link services, have not been set, but the Government recognise that BR's investment in these services will require a higher level of external financing than would otherwise have been the case.

Will the Secretary of State concede that he said recently, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), that he would not allow EFL constraints to affect British Rail investment in new rolling stock for the Channel link? Will he also accept that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport in the other place said exactly the opposite—that EFL would have to be taken into consideration? Will he sort out the departmental act, and will he give a guarantee that all the railway stock that will be needed will be built in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman is, as always, wrong. My noble Friend said that the expenditure will have to be accommodated within the EFL—indeed, it will—and I say that the EFL will be big enough to accommodate it. I do not understand what the argument is.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that during the past five years the Government have given more investment support to British Rail than any previous Government? The Opposition's protests are not consistent with the present position.

It must be extremely disappointing to the Opposition that, since 1979, more than £2·25 billion at today's prices has been invested by British Rail, plus £100 million a year on the installation of continuous welded rail. Those startling and impressive figures completely refute any charge that the Opposition might make that we have cut investment.

To limit development in the south-east following the building of the Channel tunnel, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that some compensation to the north will be required? That can be done by the improvement of the road and rail network to serve not just the London area but to provide direct links to the north, to make up for the damage that will be caused to it by the Channel tunnel.

The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that £700 million or £800 million of railway investment will flow from the decision to build the Channel Tunnel Group's scheme. He may not know that there are no railway workshops in the south-east. They are all in the north and in the midlands. He might acknowledge the fact that those jobs will come to the areas about which he is talking. Further, if the Channel tunnel results in lower transport costs and quicker and more certain transport across the Channel, it will be of great assistance to his constituents. If he would stop trying to fight the party battle and recognise the immense advantages of what is happening, he would get on better with his constituents.

How many additional jobs does my right hon. Friend think will result from this additional investment?

It is hard to say precisely, but tomorrow we shall be publishing a White Paper from which my hon. Friend will discover the best guesses that we can make about extra employment and where it will occur. Of course, it will be for the many industrial companies in the midlands and the north to make sure that they win the contracts when they are put out to tender.

Does the Minister accept that there is some anxiety that the Channel fixed link will not necessarily benefit the north? If it is to benefit the north, we must have decent, first-class links across London. Will the Secretary of State consider this and ensure that British Rail provides not just links, but first-class, fast links across London so that the north and the regions can consider themselves connected to the fixed link?

I have frequently discussed this point with the chairman of British Rail. As the opportunities which the link gives to British Rail become more widely appreciated and worked out, there will be scope for through rail services from the entire country to the entire continent. British Rail has not had such an opportunity for many a generation, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the board is fully aware of it.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the Opposition that he has already authorised the Snow Hill link, which will be one cross-London link? Following the previous two questions from the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend invite British Rail to introduce a specific plan to make the most of the Channel tunnel for the north by using Kensington Olympia station and the west London line as a link to the Channel tunnel, and upgrading the south-eastern and Chatham line from Redhill to Reading, which would link straight through to the north and the west? Will he invite the chairman to produce a report for him?

It is for the chairman of British Rail to say how he believes it is best to open up the opportunities which the link will provide. I cannot claim to know more than he does about the railway system. It is right that the railways should make proposals. We shall assess them in the light of their viability and the time scale in which they would have to be built. It has not been possible to do that in the short time since the decision was made.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss the fixed Channel link.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of the British Railways Board, he will raise with him the implications for British Rail of Her Majesty's Government's decision to proceed with a fixed Channel link; and if he will make a statement.

I meet ihe chairman of British Rail regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest. I last discussed the Channel fixed link with him on 22 January.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the EFL for British Rail should be set far enough ahead so that we can all see what will happen? It will enable and encourage British Rail to develop and expand services not just in the south-east of England but in the north and Scotland, and clarify the different view taken by him and his noble Friend in the other place. Will he give an assurance that the EFL will be expanded to take account of British Rail's needs for the Channel link and that other investment required by British Rail will not be curtailed as a result of the Channel link decision?

Yes, Sir.

Can we take it, therefore, that the Secretary of State will be recommending to his Cabinet colleagues a bigger EFL for British Rail in the years ahead? In particular, will he take note of the need for further investment in the Ashford to London line? If it is to cater for the Channel tunnel and commuters, it will need a great deal of capital expenditure?

In the relevant years—1990 to 1993—the railways' provisional programme of investment is such that, even with investment in the Channel fixed link, it will be investing less than at present. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point is that the costs of the Ashford line are included in the investment plans which British Rail has put forward as an immediate consequence of the Channel Tunnel Group's proposals. British Rail estimates that if it has high-speed trains working between London, Paris and Brussels the investment will be £390 million, but that if it has conventional-speed trains it will be £290 million. A decision as to which trains will be used has not yet been taken.

Are there any outstanding matters still to be settled between the Channel Tunnel Group, BR and SNCF?

I was careful to ensure that the bones of an agreement were reached between the two railways and between the combined railways and the Channel Tunnel Group before the decision was finally taken. The agreement is that there will be a 50-50 joint venture between BR and SNCF. They will be able to decide jointly on the services, the costs, the share of the revenue and the investment. I believe that that is a thoroughly satisfactory deal for BR. BR is content with, and has agreed the schedule of, tolls to be charged on trains passing through the Channel tunnel. I cannot at the moment speak definitely for SNCF in that respect.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that before the announcement of the Channel tunnel decision he gave the impression of being a Scrooge-like Minister who would not allow a penny of taxpayers' money to be spent in connection with the project? Since the announcement, and in the House this afternoon, he has given a somewhat different impression—that of a Lord Bountiful who is willing to spend money on expanding the EFL and on railways for the north. Does my right hon. Friend not think that he may be in danger of suffering from a little schizophrenia?

I know that my hon. Friend will never lack ingenuity in finding ways in which to question the Channel tunnel decision. This afternoon is no exception. I have always made it clear to the House that the essential road links and railway investment which result from the decision to build the Channel link would be accepted by the Government. We accept the need to build roads and sanction railway investment to any new port, new town or new factory where the traffic justifies increased infrastructure expenditure.

In his original answer the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there would be more funding for British Rail as a result of the Channel tunnel. Is that why he opposed the scheme?

I did not hear the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he could repeat his question.

There are none so deaf as those who will not hear, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the Channel tunnel will mean extra funding for British Rail. Is that why he originally opposed the scheme?

I was opposed to the original scheme 11 years ago because it was to be paid for by taxpayers. I am in favour of this scheme because it will not involve taxpayers' money for the construction of the link, and it will therefore not be at the expense of other Government programmes which could have serious consequences for public spending.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the central question concerning the project is not whether we or the French get the most out of it, but how it can be directed so as to give the maximum benefit to both nations?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Another question is whether the people who use the link will benefit, whether as passengers or as senders of freight. If they will not benefit, I shall be very surprised if the City finances the scheme. The fact that the City is likely to be prepared to finance the scheme is evidence of real need among users, which will be met profitably.

The Secretary of State has given certain assurances about communication development concerning the fixed link, but, after all these months, he has still not convinced industrialists in the north. When he has discussions with the chairman of British Rail and other transport interests, will he take account of the concern of industrialists and trade unionists in the north and of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, the third largest in the United Kingdom, which has expressed its deep worry about future trade when the link is developed?

I sometimes wonder how the Labour party, which is always calling for more investment, more infrastructure and more jobs in heavy industry, can find such contorted ways in which to disagree with the biggest infrastructure project that the Government have ever announced. They love it in general, but when projects that will provide many jobs in the north, the midlands and elsewhere are announced, they cannot even bring themselves to welcome them.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has reached a decision on the Civil Aviation Authority's advice on the allocation of British Airways' financial assistance to independent airlines; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. Based upon the Civil Aviation Authority's advice, we have recommended 15 services to British Airways for assistance. I hope that the detailed arrangements can now be completed quickly so that the new services can be started as soon as possible.

I welcome the development of these new services, but will my hon. Friend say what steps he has taken to ensure that the appropriate traffic rights are available? Will he confirm that the other undertaking in last year's White Paper—the development of longer-haul services in competition with British Airways—remains part of the Government's policy? What is he doing to prosecute that?

As for traffic rights, following the new, more liberal, arrangements that we have made with Scandinavia and West Germany, traffic rights are available on all routes except Glasgow to Gothenburg and Aberdeen to Esbjerg, and we hope that they will be sorted out soon. Our policy on multiple designation was set out in the White Paper on airline competition policy and we are, of course, sticking to it.

If the Minister is so keen on multiple designation, would he be prepared to add some money to that already being paid by British Airways to finance this scheme?

No, Sir. The agreement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last year was for £450,000 to be given to 15 routes, which is a pretty generous arrangement.

As Britain has more independent and charter airlines than any other European country, will my hon. Friend ensure that our European partners do not drive some of our independent airlines out of business by insisting on noise regulations for those airlines that fly special planes not used by other European countries?

I am mindful, as is my hon. Friend, who does much work in that area for the industry, of the problems and the opportunities facing our airlines. In Europe our airlines are in a strong position—due in large measure to the policies of this Government. We shall do everything that we can to ensure that those opportunities are fulfilled.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the value of export orders achieved by British Rail Engineering Ltd. during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and how this compares with each of the preceding five years.

BREL exports in 1985 were worth some £12 million. Exports in the years 1980 to 1984 were £34 million, £19 million, £3 million, £1·5 million and £30 million.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the figures are disappointing, the prospect for British Rail Engineering Ltd. looks good, especially with its design team? Does he further agree that the greatest obstacle to increasing exports is the negative view adopted by the conveners of the unions in opposing innovation? Will he support the management of British Rail Engineering Ltd. and help ensure maximum possible exports?

I pay tribute to BREL for its excellent efforts to obtain more overseas work. Last year it submitted tenders and indicative bids for export orders worth £580 million. More than 400 overseas trips were made to gain business. I am aware of a large number of possible orders in the offing. I congratulate BREL on its sterling efforts to try to increase business through exports. I realise that that is difficult, because many railways operate a protective attitude to exports. Despite that, BREL is beginning to break through in many parts of the world.

How many of those export orders were lost because of the attitude of the Government and the Export Credits Guarantee Department? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is sensible to tell people that they are likely to lose their jobs in BREL because of privatisation and at the same time expect them to work harder?

The answer to the first question is none. As to the second question, no one has suggested that those people should lose their jobs. We are discussing extra efforts for the core works of BREL in the export business so that it can expand and create more jobs.

I warmly applaud the efforts of BREL to win overseas orders. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what proportion of the export sales have been manufactured at BREL's Glasgow works, where many of my constituents work? Does he regard it as disappointing that the management have proposed the downgrading of that works to a repair unit for ScotRail instead of using the undoubted talents and abilities of that work force for export orders?

The works at Springburn are devoted to repair and maintenance and not to new build or heavy reconstruction. British Rail envisaged BREL handing over the works to ScotRail in 1987 as the main works to repair and maintain Scottish rolling stock. As such, it is not possible for them to participate in new export services, which are confined to the core BREL works at York, Derby and Crewe.

Does the Secretary of State accept that since the Conservative party took office, the railway works at Shildon, Stratford and most of Horwich have closed? Does he accept that Swindon is scheduled shortly to close and that the works at Glasgow are also under threat? Does he accept that up to 12,000 further redundancies in BREL are threatened and that it will take more than the disgraceful slur from his creeping hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) to alter that?

The hon. Gentleman has been told—again he does not seem to take it in—that his pressure for increased investment in the railways, which has been met, as I said earlier, has resulted in rolling stock that does not require so much repair, maintenance and reconstruction because it is new and of a higher quality. That has been the cause of the rundown in BREL's work force. To try to increase employment in the railway engineering industry I have agreed with the chairman of British Rail the new arrangements whereby BREL's activities will be split into repair and new build. The new build part will, therefore, at least have the opportunity to gain export orders. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. He never seems to welcome good news.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the response of the bus and coach industry to his proposal that all coaches should be fitted with speed governors.

The Bus and Coach Council has supported speed governors as a means of ensuring that coaches observe the motorway speed limit. The council is involved in the work now under way to establish a technical specification for speed governors.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this measure will be a great relief to all who use the motorways, especially the MI? Will he underline his statement that the bus and coach operators will be involved closely in establishing a technical specification for speed governors?

Yes, Sir. I think that the introduction of speed governors will be welcome not only to other users of the motorways but to passengers on the buses and coaches and, I suspect, to drivers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that buses and coaches travelling at more than 70 miles an hour are the new biggest menace on the motorways? Does he agree that anything that can be done to curb them will be very much welcomed?

I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many hon. Members. Public concern during the past two years has led to the proposal to introduce speed governors.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the London taxicard scheme following the agreement reached by the London co-ordinating committee of boroughs.

Around 30 such letters have been received in the last four months. I have welcomed the decision of the London boroughs to continue the scheme along with other concessionary travel arrangements.

Is it not a matter for congratulation that after the abolition of the GLC all the London borough's will continue the taxicard scheme and that concessionary travel passes for pensioners, the disabled and blind people and dial-a-ride will continue? Will my hon. Friend end, once and for all, the GLC's constant lies, which are put about at public expense, that those services will not continue after abolition?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the taxicard and dial-a-ride schemes will continue. I join him in deploring the deception by which elderly and disabled people are frightened and misled by the GLC's campaign suggesting that that would not happen.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the London boroughs have not agreed to support the taxicard scheme? The Tory boroughs of Sutton, Bromley, Barnet and Hillingdon have all refused to become involved in the Londonwide scheme for the taxicard. What pressure will the hon. Gentleman put on those Tory boroughs to come into the scheme, or will he be as complacent as they are?

That is a decision for them. It is a democratically arrived at decision, for which they will take responsibility. They will be answerable to the electorate for their decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the Government's decision to proceed with a fixed Channel link; and if he will make a statement.

Since 20 January we have received a small number of letters about the fixed link from members of the public.

Will my hon. Friend accept, once again, universal congratulations to himself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because exactly the right scheme has been chosen to give a much-needed boost to British Rail, which needs that long-term development? Does he agree that overnight this has improved Anglo-French relations and shown that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a good European after all? As the French immediately announced that in the period up to the opening of the link they would spend £700 million on infrastructure, including transport infrastructure, around the Channel tunnel entrance on their side, will my hon. Friend consider again the merits of doing the same on the British side?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that this will be a boost to British Rail. One of the big advantages will be the way in which freight will be able to move throughout the European network from stations in the United Kingdom. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should wait for the White Paper tomorrow, which will give him a great deal of information on expenditure.

Does the Minister recall that on 20 January the Secretary of State said in his statement that he would have to consider carefully the employment consequences of the development? Is he aware that people in my area find it astonishing and incredible that the Secretary of State could make an announcement about a project without considering the employment consequences?

The consequences of the project on employment were taken into account by the Government and formed part of the assessment process when considering the four projects in detail. A very large volume of orders will be available to be won, but they will not be allocated to any part of the country. They must be won by people competing for them successfully.

asked the Attorney-General when he was first asked to give legal advice on the proposed financial reconstruction arrangements for Westland plc; and if he will make a statement.

The two letters from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to the then Secretary of State for Defence dated 6 and 7 January 1986, which have been placed in the Library, reveal the fact that advice was given by him on 31 December 1985 and on those two days. In accordance with the convention on Law Officers' advice, I am not prepared to disclose whether I or my hon. and learned Friend was asked to give legal advice on the proposed financial reconstruction arrangements for Westland plc on any other occasion.

On the leak of the Solicitor-General's letter, the Prime Minister admitted to the House on 27 January that at least by 7 January she was told

"in general terms, that there had been contacts between my office and the Department of Trade and Industry."—[Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 657.]

The only time that I had any communication with the Prime Minister was on 22 January, when the Secretary of the Cabinet gave us an outline of his report.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is just the sort of question that amplifies the policy of the Labour party of obeying only those laws that it finds advantageous to accept? Labour Members have stated on numerous occasions that advice between Law Officers and members of the Cabinet is in forbidden territory.

I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been a long-standing convention that neither the fact nor the content of advice should be disclosed.

Bearing in mind that the Solicitor-General gave his advice on the usual confidential terms, will the Attorney-General tell us, first, whether the prosecution of Mr. Bernard Ingham under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act has been considered, and, secondly, why it has not been proceeded with?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her statement, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, I took the view that my guidelines would not be fulfilled by any prosecution.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition are following a line of disreputable questioning? Are they not pleading confidentiality when it suites them, while taking the opposite view when that suits them?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is to be regretted that the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her speech have not been accepted as they should have been.

When the Attorney-General replied to the House in a written answer on 16 January that the internal inquiry into the leak was

"still some considerable way from being completed"—[Official Report, 16 January 1986; Vol. 89, c. 614.]

I consulted the Cabinet Secretary and expressed my view that it was essential that an inquiry into the leak should be set up. I did not know any more about the inquiry until I was informed of the results. I was informed first in summary form and then I was provided with the actual document on 22 January, the same day on which it was given to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As for leaking, I have nothing to add to what has already been said. I agree entirely with what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said in his letter of 7 January.

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the offer of immunity to a civil servant arising from the inquiry into the leak of the letter sent by the Solicitor-General to the then Secretary of State for Defence on the Westland affair.

I refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the House with my agreement on 23 January, and to my three written answers to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on 27 January.

Why did the director of information in the Department of Trade and Industry require immunity from prosecution? Is it not clear that she was understandably anxious not to be used as a scapegoat in this affair? Will the private secretaries who have been involved in the matter at No. 10 and the Department of Trade and Industry be given immunity, if they so require it, as a result of the latest developments? Does the Attorney-General accept that it is most unfortunate that the Solicitor-General was used in the first place by the Prime Minister in her war against the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)?

There is no question of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General being used — [Interruption.] When his attention was drawn on Saturday by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the letter which had been published in full in The Times from the then Secretary of State for Defence, he telephoned the then Secretary of State for Defence and told him of his anxieties about the inaccuracies in the letter and wrote a letter, entirely of his own decision, on the Monday morning.

Why was immunity given?

The answer to that question is the one which I have already given in a number of replies to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a constitutional necessity that Law Officers' advice should be confidential?

That is a long-established convention and one which the House should think carefully about before seeking to change it.

Did the Solicitor-General discuss his letter to the then Secretary of State for Defence with the Prime Minister on 6, 7, 8 or 9 January? Secondly, if the Solicitor-General is asked to give evidence to the Select Committee on Defence, will he be able to do so?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is no. There was no such communication on any of those days. As for the second part of his supplementary question, I would need notice.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the use by any Government of leaks by public servants is demoralising to the public service? May we be assured that the practice will now cease?

I cannot give that assurance, save on behalf of my own Department. I am happy to say that there have been no leaks from my Department since I have been in office. I agree with my hon. Friend that leaking of any sort is deplorable. I agree entirely with the phrase used by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General at the end of his letter of 7 January.

Is it a fair summary to say that the Solicitor-General was being used by other Ministers, that the Attorney-General was hoodwinked, in that he was not told the proper basis for the inquiry, that the salient facts were known to the Prime Minister from the start, and that in the bogus inquiry he was persuaded to grant immunity when he knew, or should have known, or should have been told, that there was no question of a prosecution and that it was an official leak?

There is no truth in the allegation that my hon. and learned Friend was being used. When I was asked to grant immunity because the girl—the information officer—was refusing to give evidence unless she had immunity and her evidence was uniquely important in the pursuance of the inquiry, I was also told enough to make it clear to me that under no circumstances would I have prosecuted her in any event.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the aid and trade provision in 1985–86 and 1986–87 is to be funded from sources outside his Department.

The aid and trade provision is a separate allocation of funds within the aid programme. It is not funded from any other source.

Is it not inequitable that the Department of Trade and Industry, which gets most of the benefit from the ATP, makes no contribution towards the total and rising cost of that provision? Will the Minister consider seriously for the future asking his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry for a contribution, either in whole or in part?

The hon. Gentleman must understand that the funds for the ATP come from public expenditure funds as a whole. It is important to remember that the ATP provides both jobs and employment in Britain, and schemes of real developmental value in the Third world.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether, if the ATP were to come from a different departmental budget, for example the Department of Trade and Industry budget, the scheme, which is admirable and needs to be expanded, might fall foul of GATT rules?

My hon. Friend is broadly right. The important point is that this is aid. It counts as, and is recorded as, aid, and is directed to developmental as well as commercial ends.

Is it not the case that the ATP has virtually trebled in size, while provision for rural development has decreased? Is it not inevitable that such emphasis on the ATP will distort the priorities which the Minister's Department should have as its main concern?

The ATP has certainly increased in size over the years since it was started by the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart). However, we are now putting increasing emphasis on rural development, and I recently announced some valuable schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the level of overseas aid to Indonesia in each of the last five years.

Gross bilateral aid to Indonesia includes capital aid, technical co-operation, aid and trade provision and investment by the Commonwealth Development Corporation. In the years 1980 to 1984 aid amounted to £11·19 million, £15·35 million, £17·22 million, £12·36 million and £28·29 million, respectively.

Notwithstanding those generous figures and the supply of arms from this country, Indonesia has continued its policy of suppression against its own people, those in East Timor, and refugees in Papua New Guinea. What protest will be made?

The Indonesian Government are well aware of our position, namely, that we are against abuses of human rights, wherever they occur. However, the fact remains that Indonesia needs aid and can make good use of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to help the Zambian economy.

We have pledged more than £30 million to the Zambian Government since last summer. In June we agreed to provide £4 million in programme aid, and £10 million to be associated with the World Bank's special facility. In December we undertook to provide a further £8 million in programme aid, and £5 million in association with the special facility. We also agreed a special grant of more than £1·5 million to permit the clearance of arrears of payments on aid loans. In addition, I have agreed to provide £3·17 million for a continuation of the integrated rural development project.

In welcoming that package of measures, may I ask my right hon. Friend to update the House on the present state of negotiations between the IMF and the Zambian Government, and particularly on the degree of dependence of the Zambian economy on mining, because the fall in copper prices recently must clearly have had adverse effect?

I think it is well known that the major problem facing Zambia has been the fact that its economy in earlier years was heavily dependent on copper prices, which, of course, have fallen in recent years. That has helped produce its substantial problems. Zambia is making good progress in its discussions with the IMF, and I am glad to be able to support it.

Does the Minister intend to help Zambian agriculture by making an appropriate contribution to the international fund for agricultural development?

I am glad to say that agreement has just been reached within IFAD. I have also just announced a new contribution to the integrated rural development programme in Zambia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further aid he proposes to make available to Mozambique.

As I told Mozambican Ministers on 28 January, I am making available to Mozambique additional capital aid of £6 million for developmental purposes and £1 million for emergency relief.

I note my right hon. Friend's answer. Will he tell the House what the existing aid programme is being spent on in Mozambique?

We are already providing £6·7 million for capital aid and £1·3 million for manpower aid. In addition a substantial amount of the money that we have pledged to the Southern African development co-ordination conference is also intended for use in Mozambique.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us the main topics of conversation with the President of Mozambique at the recent Southern African development co-ordination conference which he attended last week?

I attended that conference but the President of Mozambique did not, so I did not have any conversations with him. However, I did have conversations with his Foreign Minister, Minister of Finance and Minister of Transport. I told them about our new offer to their country. They were extremely pleased and we had very constructive discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to increase the allocation of funds to India for the coming 12 months.

I have no plans to do so, but India will remain by far the largest recipient of British bilateral aid.

I very much regret that there is not to be an increase in aid in view of the staggering scale of poverty and deprivation that exists in India. Will the Minister at least promise to match, by governmental funds, sums that are raised by non-governmental efforts in this country to try to aid specific projects, rural and otherwise, in India?

Our aid programme to India is very big indeed. We are the biggest bilateral donor, and in the next year we expect to spend £108 million. We are willing to take part in the joint funding of voluntary schemes, but the extent of our support far exceeds that provided by the voluntary sector, valuable though the latter is.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report progress on the construction of the thermal power plant for Bharat Aluminium Company, India and the amount of aid provided by Her Majesty's Government.

Work on the project is well in hand for completion on schedule in June 1987. ODA is providing grant-aid of almost £132 million, of which £33 million comes under the aid and trade provision.

I welcome the progress and the planned completion of the significant project within the next 18 months. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the project will not only bring immense benefit to Indians but will have a beneficial spin-off for British consultants working abroad and for British manufacturers? Is it not such significant and tangible projects that British overseas aid should be geared to and support?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The project is proceeding very successfully. It will mean a valuable contribution towards the Indian power programme and also provides many jobs for British industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of assistance being given by Her Majesty's Government for the transport of food in the Sudan.

The 100 vehicles that we provided for Save the Children Fund last year are now being used to distribute food within Darfur. The additional £5 million that I announced to the House on 13 January is earmarked for distribution costs within Darfur over the coming months. The aim is to position as much food as possible, particularly in the most remote areas, before the next rains. We are in constant touch with the other major donors and non-government agencies which are also involved in the relief operation.

Is it now the Minister's assessment that, with this assistance and the assistance coming from other sources, there will be no starvation arising directly from lack of transport within Sudan, or is he still anxious about the problem?

It would be foolish to produce a smug answer to that question. Progress will need to be watched carefully, but I believe that things are proceeding along the right lines.

During the previous Question Time on overseas development I referred to fuel for transport in Sudan. The Minister dismissed my concern as ridiculous. Will he withdraw that remark?

I do not believe that fuel itself is the major problem, but I accept that all aspects of transport must be watched closely. There is basically enough food in the Sudan, the problem is making sure that it can be purchased and distributed among the people who need it most.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Southern African development coordination conference held in Harare on 30 to 31 January.

I attended the annual consultative meeting of the Southern Africa development co-ordination conference in Harare on 30 and 31 January. During the conference I made a new pledge of £10 million, mainly to be used for strengthening the regional transport link between Malawi and the port of Dar es Salaam. That sum is in addition to the £12 million that we have pledged at previous meetings.

I welcome the aid for improving the infrastructure of the area, but can my right hon. Friend assure me that aid is going into projects that will help the economy to become self-supporting in due course?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is always a primary objective of our aid programme to help the economies concerned to strengthen, so that they can become more self-reliant.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take the point of order immediately after—

My point of order arises directly out of questions.

I know. That is why I shall take it immediately after Question Time.