asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the viability of the Carlisle to Settle railway line.

:It would not be appropriate in view of the application for closure.

Is it not a fact that 80 per cent. of the work that needs to be done is in employment and less than 20 per cent. in materials? What are the real costs, in view of the numbers that would then be employed? Does that not put the preservation of the Ribblehead and other viaducts in a different light?

The hon. Gentleman has drawn an interesting point to our attention. However, Ministers will have to consider the proposals for closure in a quasi-judicial capacity. It would be quite wrong today for me to give an indication of my view of the hon. Gentleman's point.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's position, but is he aware that passenger traffic on that line, using the Settle and Skipton stations, has increased by about 400 per cent. in the 18 years since the line was first suggested for closure? Is my hon. Friend at all perplexed about the fact that a line then considered viable should now be considered uneconomic by British Rail, even though it now carries four times as many people?

Of course, that is one of the matters that we will inquire into. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to consider all relevant issues in reaching his decision.

Is the Minister aware that an integral part of the closure proposals for the Settle to Carlisle line is the closure of a section of line between Blackburn and Hellifield? Is he further aware that that has been a very popular route for Dalesrail passenger services, and that there is also a connection through to the Settle to Carlisle services? Although we all appreciate the Minister's quasi-judicial position, will he end this farce of an inquiry by saying that he will provide the money to keep those essential services going?

It is for the inquiry to report on hardship. When it has reported on that, Ministers will consider the reports on hardship and the British Rail closure proposals. We shall look searchingly into it to see whether it stands up financially, and will consider all the other aspects as well. The wider issues will be taken into account by Ministers. However, the inquiry is into hardship, and it would certainly be wrong to stop it.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the line's importance for tourist potential in north-west England and south-west Scotland, particularly with regard to the steam excursion train? Does not British Rail owe some duty to the nation to maintain such splendid viaducts?

The viaducts involve other matters, such as preservation orders, which are outside the scope of today's question. But of course we understand the tourist potential. I am very enthusiastic about the way in which steam railways can attract a lot of tourist trade. Ministers will have to consider such matters when we have the inquiry's report. However, enthusiastic as I may be about steam locomotion, it is, regretfully, not something that I shall express a view about before receiving the report and before the decision is made.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) had been in his place, I am sure that he would have asked the Minister a question, but unfortunately he is not here as he is ill. I fully understand the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role. In connection with the question of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson), is the Minister aware that I am advised that the line made a profit of about £1 million last year? We are talking, not about any old railway line, but about one of the most historic, scenic and beautiful lines in the world. I very much hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will bear those points in mind when they make their decision. The nation is proud of that line and wants to keep it.

One must recognise that there is a difference between making an operating profit and making sufficient money to be able to maintain the structures in a fit and proper condition. The two are different. However, I must agree with the hon. Gentleman about the scenic nature of the route. I have travelled on it and have climbed all over the Ribblehead viaduct. I am keenly aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, and, of course, they are ones, along with many others, that Ministers will take into account when they come to take their decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to introduce more widely the new white and brown tourist attraction signs following the experiments in Kent and Nottinghamshire; and if he will make a statement.

The experiments were very successful. The system is to be introduced throughout England. Information is now being sent to local authorities and others. Signs to attractions with over 150,000 visitors a year will be allowed on motorways. On other roads there can be lower thresholds. The new scheme will benefit both tourists and attractions.

Representing as I do an area of great tourist potential I welcome that reply and my hon. Friend's Department should be congratulated on the speed with which it has dealt with the matter. What implication does his decision have for public expenditure? Who will pay for the new signs?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The experiment was well carried out by the two counties and we are grateful to them. The Department has got on with this and that is generally welcomed. In general, the attraction operators will be paying for the signs. Local authorities can contribute, but we do not expect to see an increase in public expenditure.

The signs are attractive, but where is the Department of Transport's priority? We can travel up the M1 and at junctions 27 and 28 there is no sign at all for Sutton in Ashfield and Kirkby in Ashfield in my constituency? Will the hon. Gentleman consider that matter.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and when I next travel up the motorway I shall see whether I can advertise his constituency and the robust way in which he represents it in the House.

I welcome my hon. Friend's decision, but will he not go overboard on the standardisation of signs, which might be provided perfectly adequately by local businesses? Will he also note that people want to know about not just tourist sites but village shops in rural areas such as mine?

I am not sure that we want to advertise every village shop from motorways, but the important point is that we are allowing signs to be put up and paid for by attraction operators, so that both in boosting tourism and in deregulation we are to be congratulated.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the arrangements for security at the new terminal 4 at Heathrow.

I have personally spent a good deal of time on security arrangements at London Heathrow in general and terminal 4 in particular. There can never be 100 per cent. certainty about preventive measures and there will be a need for constant vigilance and, no doubt, future refinements. I am, however, satisfied with the attention given to this matter by the British Airports Authority at Heathrow terminal 4, which is one of the world's most advanced from a security point of view. Security measures at British airports have been further stepped up in the past few days.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and I am sure that we found it most reassuring, but he must be aware of the rather horrific stories that have been circulating recently about terminal 4 and the apparently easy access that some people have had to that terminal. Can he reassure the House that those stories will be taken seriously and will be investigated? What steps are being taken to examine baggage, both hand-held and destined for the cargo holds of aeroplanes, to ensure that there will be no repetition of certain disastrous events which have taken place in aircraft around the world?

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that it is our firm aim to ensure that British airports are as secure in future as they have been in the past. Some of the stories that have arisen, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, have been misplaced. One particular newspaper claimed to have broken security when in fact the journalists had to go through security before they were able to take their pictures.

Is the Minister aware of reports that security staff at Heathrow are not happy with the operation of machinery, which apparently failed to detect the presence of explosives at the airport last week? What action is he taking on the view of the staff that the only effective method of detection is a thorough hand search?

That point of view can be substantiated in view of the present state of the art. The X-ray facilities have their inadequacies, but the system as a whole worked at Heathrow last week, for which I am grateful, and I am happy to report that to the House.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are adequate facilities for security checks of passenger baggage going into the holds of aircraft? Are those facilities being used by the airlines?

One can never say that one is entirely happy about anything to do with security checks. Both technological and practical procedures are available for dealing with baggage going into the holds of aircraft, and they are used as they apply.

Is it not true that the only reason why the operation at Heathrow last week was successful was that the hand search revealed a discrepancy between the weight and the contents of a passenger's case? Is the Minister seriously suggesting that he is happy with the existing arrangements? If there are not sufficient staff, and if staff are not equipped properly, surely the problem will arise again?

A number of factors led to the detection at Heathrow. I do not think that the House would want me to go into all the details; suffice it to say that detection took place—

El Al.

Of course there are double systems for checking. The hon. Lady mentions El Al, and I can assure the House that other airlines have similar procedures and believe that a similar circumstance could have been detected.

I disagree with my hon. Friend. I believe that security failed at Heathrow and that it was only the additional protection taken by El Al that prevented a disastrous incident. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the commerial viability of the airport will not take precedence over the security and safety of passengers?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. A permanent balance must be struck between the convenience of passengers and the needs of security. In times of high tension, the need for security must clearly be paramount.

In view of the enhanced security needs of Heathrow, will the Minister guarantee that no one-person-operated tube trains will enter the extension area? Will he go further and ask London Regional Transport to put guards in each of the carriages on tube trains entering the airport?

I cannot give the guarantee that the hon. Gentleman seeks. Obviously the security aspects of trains entering the airport will be closely monitored.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to modify the performance objectives he sets for London Buses; and if he will make a statement.

I gave London Regional Transport demanding objectives designed to secure better and more efficient public transport services. I am very happy to tell the House that revenue subsidies for LRT this year will be down to £79 million, which is about one third of the level planned by the GLC when it was responsible. This has been achieved without any significant reduction in the quality or any increase in real prices of the services provided.

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate LRT on the improved services that it has provided since it was established following its removal from the auspices of the GLC? However, is my right hon. Friend aware of the delays and consequent frustrations of passengers using buses in heavy traffic? Will he give an assurance that driver-only buses will be used only after exhaustive tests have shown that they will be of benefit to the passengers and will not create further delays?

I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations to the chairman and board of LRT on what has been, by any yardstick, a staggeringly successful performance. LRT already incorporates the effects of congestion into its appraisal of conversion to one-person operation. I also believe that the congestion effects have been much exaggerated, for reasons to do with factors other than congestion, by those opposed to one-person operation.

Is the Secretary of State willing to join any bus queue in Battersea and tell people waiting at that queue that he believes the services are now staggeringly successful? Is it not true that one-person-operated buses are causing delays and frustration and are not a way to keep satisfactory services operating?

There has been practically no alteration in bus services since LRT took over from London Transport. The only alteration has been a 2 per cent. change in services at the margin. If services were wrong before they may well be wrong now, but LRT is improving services to meet customer demand.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the parking and garaging requirements, which are quite properly applied to London Buses in central London, and which it observes, should be applied to all coach operators?

My hon. Friend probably knows that we have been studying the provision of coach stations and possible coach parking sites in central London. Because of the massive increase in the number of long distance and tourist coaches in London, we will take a little longer to get on top of this problem.

Does the Secretary of State plan to alter the objectives as they affect the regularity of bus services and the price for short journeys in areas such as mine, in south-east London, where no alternative form of public transport is available and where, since LRT took over, services have been reduced, as admitted by SELKENT and management, and where local people are demanding more frequent bus services and, on some routes, a reduction in the relative costs?

Perhaps the deregulation of bus services in London would assist in solving the problem referred to by the hon. Gentleman, by allowing other operators to supply any demand not met. Overall, I do not believe bus services have been cut. A slight change has been made to accommodate areas in which there is more demand at the expense of areas in which the demand is less. A future objective will be to reduce the revenue subsidy cost, which this year is estimated at £79 million. It is even possible that we shall reduce that to zero. Moreover, there will be a saving of £245 million to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, as ratepayers and taxpayers, on what the GLC intended to spend.

I regularly travel by bus and wonder whether my right hon. Friend does so, too. Will he discourage LRT, at least in central London, from replacing the traditional open platform bus with oneperson-operated buses, which deter passengers.?

They also deter violence. Where one-person buses are being operated there is a far better record of safety for bus crews. I believe that it is better to leave the management of London buses to LRT. It is not my role actually to run the operation.

Are not words such as "better" "more efficient" and "staggeringly successful" a prostitution of the English language when applied to London Transport? When I am in London I regularly use the buses, and I was late for Committee last week, as were some of my hon. Friends, because I had to wait 40 minutes in a bus queue for the No. 159 bus. Over the past few months the service in London has deteriorated. How can the right hon. Gentleman claim success?

I know that it is galling for the hon. Gentleman that there has been this massive change proving the GLC to be wrong in its forecast of the subsidy that would be necessary. I realise that the increase in investment is unwelcome to him. If he wants me to respond to the complaints in his supplementary question, I shall bring forward the date on which London will be deregulated, so that other operators can come in from the private sector to ensure that the hon. Gentleman arrives on time for his Committees in future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is excellent news for ratepayers, taxpayers and everyone who uses buses that about £4 million has been saved under the guidelines by going out to tender while retaining a similar passenger mileage overall on the routes tendered?

My hon. Friend points to an important issue. He will know that 52 routes have so far been put out to tender at a saving of about £2·5 million a year, not £4 million. That is the saving so far, and it is a staggering sum to have been saved on those routes. A further 6 per cent. of total mileage is to be put out to tender in 1986–87.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements in customer services he expects from the privatisation of the National Bus Company in seperate sections.

The separate sale of NBC's individual subsidiaries will promote more competition in the bus industry. Deregulation and competition will give operators the freedom and incentive to provide the bus services which best meet the needs of the travelling public.

The Secretary of State must know that unions have already been notified of massive redundancies within the bus service. My constituents have been informed of drastic cuts in bus services in their areas. Many of the warnings given by my right hon. and hon. Friends during consideration of the Transport Bill are now being proved to have been right. Many will find themselves without bus services as the effects of that measure are felt.

The hon. Gentleman may know that the National Bus Company has reduced its work force over the past 10 years from 70,000 to 50,000 because the system of decline and subsidy was allowed to continue. I expect that there will be an increase in employment in the bus industry as demand picks up due to competition. It is time that the Labour party stopped trying to pretend that services which have not been registered will not be run. Labour Members know that stage one is to register commercial services and stage two involves local authorities going out to tender to fill the gaps that they think exist. It is misleading, scaremongering and irresponsible for hon. Members to pretend that stage one is the only stage.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any evidence that new types of services are being introduced?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that minibuses were first introduced in Exeter as a result of the publication of the Transport Bill. Minibuses are now in Bristol, Bath, Dartmouth, Luton, Shrewsbury, Cheltenham, Taunton and Leicester. They are already greatly increasing patronage and the number of drivers in employment. At the same time, they are showing a much better financial performance than the old, large buses. This is a direct result of the Transport Act, a measure which Labour Members opposed so passionately and wrongly when it was passing through the House.

Will the Secretary of State tell Richard Benson, who is one of my constituents, and his fellow travellers—[Interruption.] These constituents have discovered that the first bus to operate in the Penistone area will start on its route at 8 am and that the last bus to serve the area will leave at 6 pm. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell Richard Benson how he is to get to work and how others will be able to visit hospitals, for example, when the last bus leaves at 6 pm?

It is clear that the hon. Gentleman's informants are fellow travellers. They are trying to spread alarm and despondency without revealing the full nature of the facts. He knows—if he does not, I am telling him—that the local authority in his constituency has the power and the money to let an operator provide early morning and evening services by means of tender and contract. The hon. Gentleman can explain to his constituents that that is the fact, instead of perpetuating myths that are typical of fellow travellers.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards the liberalisation of air services to Scandinavia.

We have secured a welcome simplificaton and speeding up of procedures for new routes, but this is only a first step. We want to see real competition on routes to Scandinavia and the lower fares that this would bring. We shall continue to press for this.

I welcome that reply. What has been the reaction of the Scandinavian authorities to the proposals? Is there a likelihood of liberalisation of services resulting in fare reductions in the near future?

My hon. Friend's question implies that there will not be fare reductions. We are pessimistic about the matter, especially about multiple designation, by which more than one airline is permitted to fly along a particular route. I hope that my hon. Friend's question will be heard in the capital cities of Scandinavia, because we certainly agree that there should be lower fares on these high-fare routes.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of existing bus routes have so far been registered under the provisions of the Transport Act 1985 in West Yorkshire.

Six hundred and fifteen local services with stopping places in West Yorkshire were registered with the traffic commissioner by 28 February. The figure for current road service licences, which is not directly comparable, is 681. The tendering process should be used to fill these gaps and to supplement commercial services in the evenings and at weekends.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the extent to which many people have been needlessly misled into thinking that those routes which have not been registered will disappear? Does he accept that this reflects one of only two possibilities—either there is stunning ignorance by local Labour and alliance politicians about the facts, or a cynical attempt is being made to frighten, alarm and deceive people before next month's local government elections?

My hon. Friend has hit the target, just as he did yesterday when he completed the charity-sponsored marathon. My hon. Friend is right. The transition works in two stages, the first involving the registration of profitable services, and the second, which is still to come, involving the provision of contract services on socially necessary routes. The people who are frightened by the scandalous campaign run by the Opposition will have the certitude of a contracts service with their county council if they are on a socially necessary route.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of the services that run from West Yorkshire into my constituency in Lancashire, which adjoins West Yorkshire, will not be tendered for and maintained? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that will be another symptom of the reduction in services to the public as a result of the Transport Act 1985?

No, I do not accept that. That is not the case, and it will be proved in the event not to be so.

I absolutely reject the hon. Gentleman's comments that the Opposition have been scaremongering. Is the Minister aware that, of the current routes run in West Yorkshire, only 71 per cent. have been registered with the traffic commissioners, which means that about 30 per cent. remain unregistered? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that 35 per cent. of evening routes and 50 per cent. of Sunday service routes have been registered? Those are broad averages, because registration ranges from 70 per cent. in Bradford down to 20 per cent. in Wakefield. Will the hon. Gentleman say with absolute assurance that those routes currently run by the passenger transport executive which have not been registered will receive sufficient financial support from the Government even though the county may be subject to rate capping and other financial provisions? Will those routes continue to run?

Whether those routes will continue to run will be entirely a matter for the local PTE and how it distributes its resources. The West Yorkshire PTE has informed councillors that the commercial network mileage has increased from the 55 per cent. previously assessed to 75 per cent. of current mileage. That is a major justification of the statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me, and a condemnation of the Opposition's distortions in recent months and during the passage of the Transport Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about his Department's publication, "Tourist Coaches in London".

The first representations are just arriving. Comments are invited by the end of July.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the growing aggravation between natives and tourists at the congestion that is being caused by many of those vehicles? What would he say if British Rail decided that, instead of using stations, for which it pays rent and rates, it would park its trains in the streets, regardless of the inconvenience to other travellers? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policy is to ensure that coach operators obey the laws, meet the cost of parking, and do it now?

I should be slightly surprised if British Rail banned coaches from coming to railway stations to pick up or drop passengers. The report's proposals are for improving facilities for tourist coaches to include more on and off-street parking, to get better information and—what my hon. Friend asked for—more effective enforcement.

No doubt everyone in the House welcomes our visitors from abroad. When can they expect a fair deal from coach operators in London, and when can Londoners expect a fair deal? The Minister has known about the problem for a long time. Why does he not ask his colleagues in the Home Office just to enforce the parking regulations, then perhaps the whole of Westminster bridge will not be clogged up with tourist coaches?

I do not think that I have heard a clearer condemnation of the activities of the hon. Gentleman in his previous work across the river. I have had my responsibilities for three months, while he had his for five years. I am tackling the problem, and he did not.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on this important paper. I warmly welcome the tourists who come to London and the business and prosperity that they bring to the City. However, does he agree that it is important that there should be a definite improvement in the problem this year, because it is a great bore for the ordinary people of London trying to get from A to B if they are unable to do so because of tourist coaches?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that his document includes a picture of tourist coaches parked on Westminster bridge? Does he understand that that is now a permament feature of life, winter and summer? Does he realise that having as many as 10 tourist coaches and the odd icecream vendor on Westminster bridge is a major cause of congestion and a potential accident risk? Does he believe that that ought to be encouraged in the way that he seems to be doing?

The answer to the first part is yes, and to the second is no.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving licences issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in respect of motor cars were valid at the latest available date.

At the end of February 1986 the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre held a total of over 40 million drivers records, of which nearly 30 million relate to holders of current licences. Licences normally allow the holder to drive a range of vehicle types. Therefore, a separate figure of those covering motor cars is not available.

A substantial number of people possess driving licences, whether provisional or full. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is now a genuine need to prevent possible abuse when the licence circulates away from the holder of the licence? Therefore, as a matter of urgency, should we not introduce photo identity pass licences so that people can prove that they are entitled to drive and so that the system is not abused or the licence sold on the black market?

We have no evidence that such abuse is widespread. Insistence on a photograph on a driving licence would not square well with the long period driving licence up to the age of 70. We do not think that the British people would welcome a document which smacked of being an identification paper.

Has the Minister noted how infrequently the DVLC now figures in questions on the Order Paper, and when it does as today, it is referred to in a non-critical sense? Is that not some measure of the quality of performance of the centre? Will he give a public commendation to its work?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who, I think, has the DVLC in or near his constituency. I can confirm that the number of complaints has decreased substantially; certainly it has decreased very substantially compared to the increase in business done by the DVLC. Therefore, I certainly join in the congratulations to that part of government which is is the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the timetable for the statutory procedures following his announcement on the preferred route for the proposed M6 northern relief route.

I hope to publish draft orders for the line of the route in the middle of next year. A public inquiry would follow some months later. The publication of side road and compulsory purchase orders is not expected before 1989.

I thank my hon. Friend and his predecessor for the care with which they have considered the complex issue of the M6 relief route. My constituents have warmly welcomed the non-statutory consultation period offered by the Government, but I am alarmed about the time scale to which my hon. Friend refers. My constituents are becoming concerned about the uncertainty arising from the timing of the procedures. Could my hon. Friend not expedite them, and could he also reconsider—

Briefly.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider the question of compensation and whether it would be possible to offer replacement value?

It is important for people to have a chance to air their views both in the pre-statutory period and during the statutory procedures. I doubt whether we would have roads as effective as we are now delivering if people were not given a chance to have their questions answered and their views considered.

asked the Attorney-General what steps he takes to satisfy himself that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions operates efficiently.

In discharge of my statutory duty of superintendence of the Director of Public Prosecutions I frequently meet the Director and senior members of his staff. I receive frequent reports concerning policy issues and issues concerning the efficient management of his Department.

Does the Attorney-General recollect the serious questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) and to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, on the worrying case of Mr. Gerry Gable? As Mr. Gable, the editor of Searchlight magazine, was afforded police protection, why has the DPP's office failed to act?

I understand that the editor of Searchlight was interviewed by police officers in 1984 in response to an approach from him. However, the facts alleged by the editor did not disclose the commission of any criminal offence. If there is any evidence of a criminal offence, the hon. Gentleman should make it available to the police.

How confident is my right hon. and learned Friend that, if it becomes necessary to prepare any further papers in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to extraditions from the Republic of Ireland of those required to answer criminal charges in Great Britain, those papers will be prepared in a way that is entirely satisfactory to the authorities in the Republic?

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his statement, all those documents will now be personally supervised by the Director. In addition, my officials and the officials of the Attorney-General of the Republic have been meeting and are drawing up what is known as a check list—rather like a pilot's check list—which will be used whenever warrants are sought from the Republic.

In view of the serious nature of the bizarre but detailed allegations contained in the April edition of Searchlight, will the Attorney-General make a statement to the House at an appropriate moment? Specifically, will the statement deal with the alleged involvement of an officer of the armed forces and an hon. Member in a plot to intimidate Mr. Gable—or worse?

I have not seen the April issue of Searchlight. I shall certainly look at it, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest progress of the negotiations between the General Council of the Bar and the Lord Chancellor about fees for criminal legal aid.

asked the Attorney-General what recent steps Her Majesty's Government have taken regarding the remuneration of barristers and solicitors for legal aid work.

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the remuneration of the Bar for criminal legal aid work.

Discussions between officials and representatives of the Bar on criminal legal aid remuneration are proceeding in accordance with an agreed timetable which provides for a decision by the Lord Chancellor by 16 July. Regulations uprating the current levels of remuneration by approximately 5 per cent. came into operation on 1 April.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend able to assure the House that sufficient funds will be available to pay such remuneration as is decided upon as a result of the negotiations? Is he aware that the 1984 figures show that barristers aged between 32 and 37 were earning only £8,700 a year on average? That was the median figure.

That is a direct quote from Coopers and Lybrand. The Lord Chancellor's decision whether more funds should be made available will be made in the light of all relevant considerations, including the relevant provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1974, and also in accordance with the statutory requirement that any increase must be met from moneys provided by Parliament and subject to Parliament's control.

Does the Attorney-General agree that it is relevant to consider that the availability of justice to the less well-off members of our society depends on those people who carry out legal aid work being adequately remunerated?

Yes, that is certainly one of the considerations that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will have to take into account.

Following the remarks made by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in our debate on legal aid last Tuesday, will the Attorney-General give an assurance that if extra funds are to be found for the remuneration of the Bar, the financial burden of that will not be placed on the consumers of legal services under the legal aid scheme?

That must be one of the many matters which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will have to consider.

asked the Attorney-General in how many cases involving alleged offences of rape referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in each of the last five years a decision was made to initiate a prosecution; and if he will make a statement.

Only certain narrow categories of rape offences are required to be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Prosecution of Offences Regulations 1978. In the five years 1980 to 1984 the Director himself prosecuted 77, 74, 90, 49 and 34 such persons respectively. He additionally advised chief officers of police in relation to other such offences, but statistics are not available as to the numbers in which prosecution was advised.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the list of statistics has shown that there has been a serious increase in the incidence of rape of women of all ages, including young girls? Does he further agree that there should be more prosecutions for their own sake and as a means of reassuring the public? Will he tell the House what action he is taking to ensure the anonymity of alleged rape victims before charges are brought?

The statistics prove that more offences of rape are being reported, and the criminal statistics are compiled on that basis. However, the question whether there should be more prosecutions has to be a matter for the prosecutor and the prosecuting authorities, according to whether the Attorney-General's guidelines are fulfilled. In response to my hon. Friend's second point about anonymity, the reform of the law relating to anonymity is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I acknowledge that the 1976 Act—with which my hon. Friend will be familiar—does not fully represent the recommendations of the Heilbron committee.

I am sure the Solicitor-General recognises that there is widespread concern about rape and murder involving young children. Will he confirm that he is entirely satisfied that the officers conducting inquiries into such cases have immediate access to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice specifically with regard to the conference taking place today to coordinate inquiries into many child murders throughout the country?

The hon. Gentleman has raised an extremely important and sensitive area of criminal law. I can best answer his point by saying that the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions are always available to prosecutors and police investigators who have problems that they wish to raise in that connection. It is important that that access should be maintained.

asked the Attorney-General if he will seek to meet the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland to discuss extradition and other matters of common concern.

asked the Attorney-General when he last met his counterpart in the Irish Government; and what subjects were discussed.

I have no immediate plans to meet the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland. I have met him on three occasions this year and last met him on 7 April. Work is proceeding between officials on problems arising in the area of extradition.

Did the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland give my right hon. and learned Friend any idea when the Government of the Republic of Ireland are likely to start applying the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, which they have signed but which is not yet in operation?

As I understand it, a final decision has not been taken. However, it is likely that that matter will require legislation in the Dail.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that patient co-operation with friendly Governments and the resistance of the temptation to meet terror with terror is the best way to tackle terrorism?

The co-operation between my Department and the Department of the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland is first class. There are constant meetings between officials and we are making very good progress.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman discuss with the Attorney-General of the Republic the kidnap insurance policies being sold in the City of London by Cassidy Davis, Sedgwicks, and Syndicate No. 702? Is he aware that they make payments to the IRA, and will he stop that? Why will he not accept that he has powers under section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act to bring a case in the courts and secure a prosecution? Will he now do that and stop equivocating?

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Would it not be useful if the Attorney-General told critics of the Anglo-Irish agreement that the matters raised today are likely to make more progress if there are good relations between the Republic of Ireland and this country?

With regard to my Department—the only one over which I can exercise any control—the relationship is first-class and extremely productive.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to increase the proportion of aid given to sub-Saharan Africa; and if he will make a statement.

Most of our aid already goes to the poorest countries of the world, but we are giving increasing priority to those countries in sub-Saharan Africa where our aid can be used most effectively. Those countries are also benefiting increasingly from mulitlateral aid programmes, to which we are major contributors.

Is the Minister aware that in the decade up to 1982–83 the value of United Kingdom aid to sub-Saharan Africa decreased in real terms, whereas that of all other EEC countries, of Japan, of OPEC countries and of the United States and Canada increased, in some cases more than tenfold? Does he agree that that is a shameful state of affairs? Has that trend been reversed, and will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that reports today of a grain surplus in certain parts of Africa will not be allowed to instil a false sense of security, because as much help as we can possibly give is still needed?

I certainly accept that Africa needs help both in the long term and, in some cases, in the short term, although in other areas of Africa the food supplies overall are completely adequate at present. With regard to our own developmental aid, I believe that we are maintaining a steady rate of assistance on the bilateral side. On the multilateral side, there have been increases and we contribute considerably to them. For example, the recent Lomé 3 agreement provided for a large increase in aid to Africa, and we play our part in that.

Could not that important programme be extended from Common Market development funds if that organisation did not spend so many hundreds of millions of pounds dumping cheap food on Libya, which certainly makes no contribution to the improvement of welfare in Africa or elsewhere?

The Common Market is a very substantial contributor of development aid both through the Lome convention, to which I have referred, and through food aid, some of which is dubious, but much of which is valuable.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the areas of greatest concern are the semi-arid areas of the African continent? Does he further agree that he might be in a position to send a larger proportion of British aid to those areas where it is desperately needed if the Government had not moved away from the policy set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) in the 1975 White Paper "More Help for the Poorest" and if the Government had not introduced commercial and industrial considerations into their aid policies?

We are, of course, concerned with aid in the semi-arid areas of Africa and I believe that we make a substantial and effective contribution. We also accept that there should be commercial and political aspects to our aid programme, but, overall, I believe that our programme is marked by a high degree of effectiveness.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's decision not to make a contribution to the special fund set up by the international fund for agricultural development to help farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa.

; A British contribution would be at the expense of our bilateral aid programme. In general, we think it better to help agricultural projects directly and through the voluntary agencies rather than to contribute extra money to IFAD beyond our share of the recent general replenishment.

Even accepting that our aid can be more effectively deployed through a grant system arranged bilaterally than through a loans system arranged by a multilateral agency, does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be a concerted and co-ordinated international approach if we are to help the sub-Saharan countries to develop their agricultural economies and thus give the best possible prospects for removing the scourge of famine?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that our aid to poor African countries takes the form of grants, whereas aid through IFAD takes the form of loans. I agree that co-ordination is important. We have stepped up co-ordination recently and, I believe, successfully. We shall continue to do so.

Does not the Minister's answer overlook one simple and important fact, namely, that in sub-Saharan Africa populations are rising rapidly? That alone ought to be enough to make us consider this a special problem requiring a special multilateral solution, such as I have put forward.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that population pressure in parts of Africa is great. He will acknowledge the increase in the scale of assistance that we have provided. I agree, however, that the matter requires continued and, perhaps, increased emphasis.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on providing aid to Governments who have not reached agreement with the International Monetary Fund on structural adjustment.

Our general policy is to make balance of payments support for countries in difficulty conditional upon agreement with the International Monetary Fund. In the absence of such agreement, the level and form of any assistance must depend upon individual circumstances, and in particular on how effectively aid can be used.

The Minister will be aware that, in practice, the IMF's structural adjustment terms have proved a formula for deflation, devaluation and the denial of the public sector and social spending. Is he not worried that countries such as Tanzania have very little prospect of development if those IMF conditions are applied? Is this to be a general or universal policy? Will the Minister make an independent evaluation of the real development needs of those countries, or has the ODA simply become an agent of IMF policy?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. We are absolutely right to support those countries which are prepared to take the steps of policy reform, which are widely accepted as desirable. It is interesting that the recent development committee communiqué stressed the growing commitment of African Governments to policy reform such as the hon. Gentleman talked about.

Is the Minister aware that it is often possible for British aid to contribute directly to the welfare of peoples, even when the policies of their Governments on economic or other matters do not meet with our satisfaction?

We continue to give aid to countries such as Tanzania, where we have useful programmes. I remain of the view, which is being accepted by an increasing number of African countries, that if we do not have policy reform there will not be any progress but a continuation of the rather depressing record of aid going in without commensurate results coming out.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for providing aid to China.

We have offered the Chinese Government support under the aid and trade provision to enable banks to make long-term loans at 5 per cent. interest per annum for agreed development projects worth £300 million. In addition, we provided in excess of £2 million for a technical co-operation programme in 1985–86 and we expect to spend more in 1986–87.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that education and manpower training are fundamental to China's development? What are the Government doing to help meet that need?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are running an important English language training programme and funding scholarships, mainly at postgraduate level, to Chinese students in science and technology and assisting the Chinese through British consultancies.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has taken any recent initiatives as a result of the United Nations Nairobi conference on the advancement of women.

Since the Nairobi conference I have agreed to make a further contribution of £50,000 to the UN fund for women. We shall shortly publish a booklet setting out our policies and activities on women in development. We have also introduced regular training on the role of women in development for ODA officials.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. The Foreign Office hosted a conference at the end of February on women as overseas students in the United Kingdom, and a report has just been produced. What consideration is the Department giving to recommendations in the report, and what is the Department's initial response to them?

I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he proposes any changes in overseas policy in the light of the consultation document "Mandate for Change" published by the World Commission on Environment and Development, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

We share the World Commission on Environment and Development's commitment to environmentally sound activities. This is reflected in our own programmes and in the guidance notes and checklists issued to ODA's staff.

Does the Minister agree that this is an extremely important document? Does he futher agree that the environment is just as important for those who live in the Third world as for the rest of us? Will he bear that in mind when he appraises projects?

I agree that it is a significant document, although it is only an interim one. We shall consider the final document carefully. The environment is an important aspect of development throughout the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present level of aid to Nepal; and whether he has any plans to increase it.

Expenditure in 1984–85 was approximately £10 million. We expect to continue to spend about the same level of aid, and I have recently agreed to provide nearly £8 million towards the cost of rehabilitation of a section of the east-west highway from Naubise to Mugling.

Given that about 77 per cent. of people in Nepal are illiterate, that the average life expectancy is only 45 years of age, and that 150 out of every 1,000 children die at childbirth, does the Minister not think that £10 million is pretty inadequate? Following the recent visit to Nepal by his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has the Minister agreed to make more funds available for those areas of need?

There are many pressures on our aid programme, but within it I believe that the amount that we have allocated to Nepal is very respectable. I also believe that the quality of the work that we are doing there is valuable and well appreciated by the people of Nepal.