asked the Secretary of State for Transport how the road price index has changed in relation to the retail prices index in each of the last five years.

Road prices have fallen, relative to the retail prices index by about 25 per cent. since 1980. This means that we are getting more road for our money. The supporting yearly figures have been placed in the Library of the House.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging reply. Is he aware that the director-general of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors recently commented that he viewed the health of the industry with some rapture? Does my right hon. Friend agree with that assessment, and to what extent is his Department responsible for it?

I am delighted to hear that our policies are causing rapture. I confirm that he have increased spending on roads by 25 per cent., and that there has been a 30 per cent. increase in value for money. That is why we have such a massive roads programme, whose benefits can be seen in all parts of the country.

Does that mean that more money has been spent on roads and that the programme for building new roads has been substantially increased and improved since 1951? Will funds be made available to widen the M25 between junctions 8 and 10?

I should point out that the relevant date is not 1951 but 1980. The road output price index has hardly increased during the past six years. That means that we are getting the same cash prices, despite inflation over six years. I am studying the south-west quadrant of the M25 to discover the cause of the congestion, but I was not aware of any problems between junctions 8 and 10.

Does not the immense transfer of traffic from rail to road mean more pollution, more policing and more blockages all over the country? Are not the Government following a quite reactionary policy, given that, for example, the railways cause no pollution?

The hon. Gentleman should know that we are coping well with the increased traffic on our roads. Indeed, the programme that I have just set out explains just how well we have coped with it. I believe that people want roads, because motorists want to travel in their cars. It is up to shippers to decide on the cheapest and most convenient form of carriage for their goods. A little freedom in this area, as in others, is well worth while.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the M3-M27 motorway link to be completed.

We await the inspector's report on the final section of the M3. This section of the route from Bar End to Bassett may be completed by 1989.

Business commuters and tourists to Dorset will welcome that day, but in the meantime is my hon. Friend satisfied with the safety of the existing link, the A33 Eastleigh bypass which The Economist recently described as a "death trap"?

People rightly draw attention to dangers on our roads. We recognise the concern that exists, and have agreed to extend the central reserve crash barrier near Ironbridge at Crompton. Barriers on the rest of the Otterbourne to Chandlers Ford bypass would probably not be justified for the short period of use involved before the M3 extension is completed.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the completion of that stretch of motorway has serious implications for the noble and ancient city of Winchester? Will he ask the Secretary of State to warn his Cabinet colleagues that there must be an unusual degree of expenditure in order to protect the environment and to prevent irreparable damage being done to the city? I am thinking, for example, of the construction of a tunnel to the south and south-east of St. Catherine's hill in order to protect this beautiful city, which is important and historic both nationally and internationally?

My hon. Friend has made his local anxieties plain and I am sure that his message will have been heard.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding the privatisation of the National Bus Company.

I have received a number of representations, mostly on behalf of groups of local managers and employees who welcome the forthcoming privatisation of NBC's subsidiaries and wish to gain controlling interests in their local companies.

Does the Secretary of State accept that if the NBC must be privatised the services would be better protected if it were privatised as a whole and not split up? Would that not protect both services and jobs?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We discussed the issue often enough in Committee. Already over 50 management teams have expressed interest in buying the subsidiaries, out of the 65 companies involved. Having that number of different companies, together with other private operators, such as the municipal and passenger transport executive operators, will provide that element of competition which has been lacking in bus services and will give a much better deal to the passengers. After all, that is what it is all about.

When does the Secretary of State expect to announce the acceptance of a bid for one of the companies by a management-work force buyer?

Currently four bids are at an advanced stage of negotiation with the NBC. I cannot say when the negotiations will be complete, but so far as I am aware no bus company management is being held up by NBC in its efforts to purchase the company. I shall announce to the House the details of sales as and when they take place.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us think that privatising any service is good so long as it not only puts money into the Exchequer but helps the service? Does he understand, as I do, that one of the great ideas behind privatisation was that the difficult services would be improved? Does he agree that the scheme would fail if some services turned out to be worse than they are now? Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that services will improve?

Well in advance of the deregulation and the tendering for routes, which has not yet happened, in many cities services have already improved. Mini-buses are being introduced on a large scale. We can do all that without the Act being in force, so how much more will we be able to do when it is in force?

Will not deregulation and privatisation result in the loss of thousands of routes?

No.

Well, the people of Ryedale believed that. Do the Government now intend to change course? Do they accept that the people of Ryedale said no and that they want the restoration of proper policies?

I accept that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, along with members of the alliance, succeeded to some extent in awakening people's fears that only the registered mileage would be run, but everyone concerned knows that that is not the full truth. The whole of the tendered services are involved. Local councils have 10 per cent. more cash provision to subsidise those tendered services than they had last year, and they have to subsidise only 25 per cent. of routes instead of the 100 per cent. that they did before.

Does not the privatisation of individual companies give employees and passengers an opportunity to become shareholders? What steps will my right hon. Friend take to encourage them to take that opportunity?

My hon. Friend is right. As is the case in the Isle of Wight, there is considerable enthusiasm for buying a local bus company. I have made it clear throughout the passage of the legislation that we would give some preference to employees and managers if they sought to buy their company. That is being translated into effect as the sales take place. I believe that the measure will spread ownership widely as well as improve passenger services.

Why does the Secretary of State not face the facts concerning both the National Bus Company and other bus company services? Does he realise that the early morning mileage of NBC services is down by 37 per cent., that evening mileage is down by 48 per cent., and that Sunday mileage is down by 53 per cent.? National Welsh intends to withdraw completely its children's concessionary fare. Is that not the clearest indication possible that the right hon. Gentleman's policy is failing? It is no excuse to say, "Wait until October, when everything will be confirmed."

When will the hon. Gentleman wake up to the fact that he is telling only half the story? He knows perfectly well that to get half the Sunday services on 75 per cent. of all routes for no subsidy leaves more subsidy to provide the other half.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed with the management of British Rail the effects of British Railways Board procurement policy on BREL.

My right hon. Friend has discussed this with the chairman, but the BR Board's procurement policy and its specific effect on British Rail Engineering Ltd. remain matters for management decision.

I have met the Minister, the deputy director of BR and of BREL, all of whom have stated that there will always be a presence in the Springburn railway engineering workshops, small though they are. Will the Minister help to dampen the rumours recorded in newspapers since Friday that there will be complete closure of the Springburn workshops, which, if true, means that people have been telling me lies for the past 18 months?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that proposals which affect employment should be discussed first with the unions. There is to be a meeting tomorrow between British Rail and its unions to discuss its proposals as they affect BREL.

Will my hon. Friend give an estimate of the number of new jobs that have been created as a result of the Government's major investment programme in British Rail? Will he also say whether any jobs have gone overseas as a result of the programme?

I do not know the precise number of jobs, but I can tell the House that £2·5 billion has been invested by British Rail since the Conservative party came to office. Virtually all that money has been spent in the United Kingdom, thus creating a large number of jobs. I do not have the specific number. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Ministers know nothing about the contents of the statement to be made tomorrow? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to admit that the weakend's rumours are based on facts and that there are to be massive cuts in BREL? How much of that has been brought about by pressure from Ministers in order to get rid of the part of the industry that is not paying, and to get the other half ready for privatisation?

The changes that British Rail proposes to make about BREL are matters for discussion between the management and the unions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a good trade unionist, recognises that it is right that the proposals should first be disclosed to the unions that represent the men involved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to make a statement in the House tomorrow.

Is the Minister aware that the Springburn works have a reputation not only in Scotland and the United Kingdom generally, but world wide? Is he further aware that, quite apart from the hundreds of jobs that might go, its closure would be a black mark against engineering in the United Kingdom throughout the world? Will he come clean with the House and say what the Government intend to do about the works?

The distribution of work between one rail works and another is entirely a matter for the BREL management. As BR announced earlier this year. it intends to change the pattern of its maintainance work so that works, including Springburn, will be associated directly with the maintainance work of the areas and regions in which they operate.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent announcement of substantial and unexpected losses at the BREL foundry at Norwich'? Will he confirm that he is aware of the foundry's importance to employment in the town and that he is keeping the situation under review?

I can assure my hon. Friend. I have been to Horwich and seen what has been happening there. I have also been involved in the increasing effort to provide employment there and at Shildon, where a major part of the rail works has been closed. I shall of course keep what my hon. Friend said in mind.

Will the Minister have the honesty to admit that it is his policy that is causing BREL to retract at this speed? Can he give the House any idea how many of the BREL workshops have to close before he will lift a finger to protect the thousands of jobs involved in this engineering industry?

The hon. Lady is quite wrong to say that that is my policy or the Government's policy. Let me make the cause absolutely clear. It is the result of massive investment in new rolling stock that we have acceded to BR's request to make. If there is investment in new rolling stock, less maintainance is required. There is no point in keeping maintainance capacity when there is no demand for it.

Although I acknowledge the investment that the Government have authorised in BR, will my hon. Friend nevertheless look at the legislation was passed as long ago as 1929 under which the Government authorised expenditure to alleviate unemployment by the acquisition, by Britain's then private railways, of locomotives and rolling stock and by vast numbers of schemes to improve the permanent way and safety? Is my hon. Friend convinced that social circumstances today are any different from social circumstances then with regard to these jobs?

The resources that BR devotes to rolling stock and track maintenance are a matter for BR. It wants to achieve the most cost-effective service possible to persuade passengers to use the railways rather than the roads. It can attract passengers only if it runs an efficient and cost-effective service. That must be a management decision.

Does the Minister agree that the Department of Transport's policy of minimum resources for BR means that the existing intercity fleet is not big enough to meet demand, that the excessive demands on BR rolling stock are leading to the bad punctuality figures that are filling our newspapers, that in Wolverton, Eastleigh, Doncaster and Glasgow up to 4,000 people will lose their jobs as a result of an announcement that is to be made tomorrow, and that tomorrow we expect to see the organ grinder at the Dispatch Box accounting for his bankrupt philosophies rather than hiding, as he usually does, behind the jacket, if not the skirts, of the Minister of State?

The hon. Gentleman has rather overrun himself. I have never worn a skirt in my life. What the hon. Gentleman said about minimum resources for BR is arrant nonsense. The maintenance requirements are down because of the massive investment in new rolling stock.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cash limit for grants under section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 for the years 1979 to 1986, inclusive; and what was the total sum authorised for section 8 expenditure in those years.

The total cash limit for all freight facilities grants in the period 1979–80 to 1985–86 inclusive was £65·5 million. In the same period total expenditure was £43·8 million, which includes £1·4 million for waterway grants. All figures relate to England, Scotland and Wales.

Will the Minister give some precise information about this year? It is suggested that the authorisation limits have now been reached and that any further applications under section 8 will not be accepted. Is that the position? Will the Minister clarify what the position is this year so that the industry may know what response to expect from its applications?

The cash limit for this year is £7·3 million. I shall be surprised if we have claims that equal that amount.

Will the Minister categorically state that the applications in the pipeline will be processed and that any new applications that might be forthcoming to his Department in the next three or four weeks will not be held up or grant refused because of a lack of money?

I have no reason to believe that there will be rationing through lack of money. Throughout the period to which I referred the claims have never equalled the amount of money that has been available. In both the past two years I have approved record numbers of grants.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with interested parties concerning the Channel tunnel project.

We hold frequent discussions with the concessionaires, the French Government, local authorities and other interested groups, particularly in Kent.

I understand the opposition of certain hon. Members from Kent and of the Transport and General Workers Union, which is perfectly respectable. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is altogether different to find commercial interests such as Sealink deliberately trying to thwart the will of the House in this matter? As the project has, I believe, received the support of all the Opposition parties, will my right hon. Friend ensure that they are kept fully informed and that he takes them along with him in all the steps he needs to take to get the Bill through the House?

It is for hon. Members to decide what they do and say in Committees and in the House. In response to my hon. Friend, I must point out that there are about £800 million worth of railway orders involved in the Channel tunnel project, and every week that the Bill does not get through the House is a week in which those orders cannot find their way into the workshops of the country to remedy such problems as we were discussing earlier.

Incidentally, I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House. I hear that he has not been well, and we are all glad to see him back.

Will the Secretary of State inform interested parties that on 1 May, during business questions the Leader of the House told me that he was considering setting up a Committee to look at the opposed private Bill procedure? Will the Secretary of State say that he will take into consideration any recommendations by that Committee, thereby encouraging a more open and democratic decision-making process on thiss unnecessary, unacceptable and unwanted project?

Although that question is not remotely a matter for me in my responsibilities, I must make it clear that I would welcome the setting up of the inquiry referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that there is a great deal that we can do to improve procedures in that area. I only hope that it will be possible for the Channel tunnel and other such schemes to get through the House in reasonably good order so that we can contribute to creating jobs throughout the country.

When my right hon. Friend is considering the Channel tunnel project, will he bear in mind the shambles that has been caused on the M25 by the inaccuracy of the planning of officials in his Department? What confidence can my right hon. Friend have in the forecast traffic levels for the Channel tunnel project?

Forecasting is always a hazardous business. It may be that 12 years ago those who forecast and planned parts of the M25 underestimated it. However, I am not sure that it is right to prejudge the nature of the cause of the congestion on the M25. It may be due to traffic signing or badly designed junctions. That is not quite the same thing as a shortage of capacity.

What estimate has been made of the effect of delay on jobs, which are likely to be lost? What have the French had to say about what is going on in the House of Commons?

The hon. Gentleman will know that about 65,000 man-years of employment are involved in the project, and every week that it is delayed is a week when that employment does not find its way to the factories and workshops of Britain.

In response to his second question, I think that it would be difficult to explain to a Frenchman, in my appallingly bad French, the processes that cause us to take so long to do what the French say they can do in three months.

Does my right hon. Friend not think it strange that those who constantly urge and exhort us to spend more on infrastructure are always in the vanguard of those who oppose any specific infrastructure project, whether it be the Channel tunnel or the building of a new motorway?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have had three experience of that — Stansted airport, the Okehampton bypass and the London docklands light railway. Now there is the Channel tunnel. They are all major infrastructure projects involving thousands of jobs, and on every occasion Opposition Members have voted against them.

Will the Secretary of State be a bit more forthcoming? He constantly repeats at the Dispatch Box the number of jobs involved, yet when he is asked specifically to provide Government machinery to make sure that the jobs come to England, Scotland and Wales, he says that it is nothing to do with him. If he wants his bread buttered on both sides, and jam as well, the fact is that he has the responsibility for ensuring that, and he must take it. Otherwise, people will listen with some scepticism to his protestations about wanting the jobs.

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I do not have the power to direct a private organisation, such as Eurotunnel, as to where it should place its contracts. Indeed, it would be against the European Community rules if I were to seek to do so. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that massive opportunities exist for British firms, and I have no doubt that with their keenness and effectiveness they will secure more than their fair share.

What is the Secretary of State's current estimate of when work is likely to commence on the Channel tunnel? Will there be genuine new through routes across London when the tunnel is open, which will be essential if I am to convince my constituents that the tunnel is not just for the south-east of England?

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's first question about when work will start on the tunnel, because that would be to prejudge the time that Parliament will take to consider the legislation, but I can assure him that the Channel Tunnel Group wishes to start as soon as Royal Assent is given. The hon. Gentleman will know that, on the best estimate, the tunnel might not be operative until 1993. British Rail is actively pursuing ways of opening up the tunnel not only to all points east of Calais but to all points north and west of Dover. It will put forward its plans in due course.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the project should provide many thousands of jobs among suppliers of equipment and materials, particularly in the north of England, and that any delay is to be deplored?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a massive infrastructure programme, involving large numbers of jobs, which will be distributed equally all over the country. All regions will benefit.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate the effectiveness of bus lanes in London on roads for which he is responsible.

Yes, Sir.

Does the Minister agree that buses in London benefit a great deal from having clear bus lanes? May I ask him, yet again, to look at the bus lane in Park lane? If the Minister were to go down there on a Monday to Friday at any time when the bus lane is in operation, he would find it filled with vehicles that use it as a parking lane.

I have to report to the House that I have been down Park lane on a bus. I took a sandwich with me, and it was unfinished when I reached the other end. Unlike frogs, which eat with their eyes closed, I had mine open. Neither the bus nor the other traffic was held up.

Will my hon. Friend take overall responsibility for all roads with bus lanes and other unnecessary obstructions — for example, those at the Aldwych and on Westminster bridge? Why do we have what looks like a new parking lot for buses on Westminster bridge, because of the curious obstruction at its far end?

As the suggestion comes from my right hon. Friend, I must take it seriously. Like the first inhabitants of Burkina Faso, the land of the wise men, otherwise known as Upper Volta, I might wonder whether it is right to take all those powers into my Department's hands. I have to report that I have been across Westminster bridge and down Aldwych and the Strand and I was not held up by the traffic.

Is the Minister aware that London Regional Transport estimates that bus lanes in London saved £9·9 million last year? Is that not a good reason for extending the bus lane network across London, because it would speed the flow of traffic through London? Is he further aware that a recent reply from the Secretary of State for the Environment revealed that the Department issued 429 parking tickets last year to civil servants who ignored bus lanes and double yellow lines? Will he encourage civil servants to park properly, so that buses and other traffic can be speeded up?

We can do many things with statistics. We can say that Anne Boleyn had six fingers or that 18 per cent. of people share their baths. However, it is more important to consider each bus lane to see whether it is worth while.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to make to the fees charged for the heavy goods vehicle driver tests.

I have been consulting industry about proposals to unify the time allotted and fees charged for heavy goods vehicle and public service vehicle driving tests. The effect would be a common test time of 90 minutes and a common fee of £40. For heavy goods vehicle tests, this is a reduction of £25. I shall shortly be inviting the House to approve regulations to make the new lower fee effective from 1 July 1986.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. How much does he envisage the reduced fees will save the freight industry per annum?

The figure is about £1 million. I shall be interested to know whether the major reduction in the fee will receive as much publicity as it would have done if it had been an increase.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will pay an official visit to those parts of the Epping Forest constituency where residents suffer from noise and lighting from the M25.

My right hon. Friend has already done so by opening it. I shall visit it too.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents will be grateful for the fact that he will be seeing for himself how far his Department's undertaking on landscaping, tree planting and lighting have been carried out? Will he take the opportunity to meet some of the sufferers in places such as Theydon Garnon, Roundhills and Woodbine Close?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from highway authority associations about the criteria for the provision of pedestrian crossings.

We are considering suggestions that greater allowance should be made for the needs and safety of school children.

My hon. Friend's answer will be welcomed. Will he encourage local highway authorities not to stick rigidly to criteria based on numbers of traffic or pedestrians, but to be more flexible in their approach, taking into account the speed of traffic as well as numbers and especially the needs of the community and the need to get the two halves of the community together?

The key point which my hon. Friend makes and which I support, is that guidelines should be correct, and local authorities should use them appropriately.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now respond to the report of the Transport Committee on tolled crossings, H.C. 250–1, published on 19 February.

I am considering the report, which was published on 12 March. I shall respond as soon as possible.

Before going ahead with his proposal in October this year to appeal against the High Court decision to reject his decision to increase tolls on the Severn bridge by 150 per cent., will the right hon. Gentleman consider the horrific unemployment in Wales? If he does, he will be more likely to respond positively to the recommendations of the Select Committee.

It would be wrong to prejudge my response to the Select Committee report and to comment on matters before the Appeal Court in relation to the Severn bridge tolls. I fear that the hon. Gentleman must be disappointed in his desire to know my views on those matters.

What did my right hon. Friend mean when he told the Select Committee that the Humber bridge was an exceptional problem? Does he concur with the report of the Select Committee that the Humber bridge is in an impossible financial situation and is losing more than £20 million a year, which is the deficit over income? Does he agree that the time has come to abolish the toll on this bridge, which is increasingly used by fewer and fewer people?

I agree that the circumstances in which the Humber bridge was built were indeed exceptional. It is the only example of the cost of winning a by-election that is known to this House. I fear that it falls to the Conservative Government to sort out this problem, and for some time I have asked the Humber Bridge Board to put forward proposals for discussion. It has just asked for a meeting, and that will be held as soon as possible to determine the best way forward.

asked the Attorney-General on what date it was decided to prosecute Mr. Derry Mainwairing Knight; and if he will make a statement.

The Director of Public Prosecutions decided to prosecute Mr. Derry Mainwairing Knight on 20 May 1985.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of estimates that the "Satan trial", which lasted 36 days, cost up to £500,000 and that some lawyers were paid as much as £30,000 in fees? Does he share my concern that for some people the cost of justice looks too high?

The figure of £500,000 is a gross exaggeration. I have made preliminary inquiries, but I do not yet have the full figures. A number of lawyers, both solicitors and banisters, would not agree with my hon. Friend's second point.

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's present review of legal aid funding.

asked the Attorney-General if he will publish the results of the legal aid efficiency scrutiny.

The report is expected in about a month's time. It will be published as soon as this can conveniently be arranged.

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for that promise to publish the report of the Treasury efficiency unit. Will he give an assurance that in their search for savings and extra money for the profession the Government will protect the interests of the consumers of legal services under the legal aid system? Does he acknowledge the now widespread fear that we are getting a second-class service for the most vulnerable sectors of the community?

I do not acknowledge the latter part of the question, nor would the Lord Chancellor. The scrutiny was set up with no preconceived ideas, but it is of concern to everyone, especially taxpayers, that the cost of legal aid in real terms has doubled since 1979.

I welcome the decision to publish the report. Does the Solicitor-General agree that efficiency is only one of several matters of concern about the legal aid system, and that many people believe that a wider ranging review of the scheme would have been of benefit both to the legal profession and to people who depend upon legal aid?

I agree that efficiency is very important, but it is not the whole story.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the great deficiencies of the legal aid system is the fact that if the litigant has an income below a certain level legal aid is forthcoming but that consequently a vast section of the public come into an income category which means that they are not able to obtain legal aid, even though at the same time, because of legal costs, they are unable to prosecute or defend cases?

I think that litigation should generally be avoided. The fact remains that very nearly 80 per cent. of our fellow countrymen who receive legal aid do so free of contribution. That is a substantial preponderance.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the question he was asked was absolutely right, because there is no justice in this country for the vast majority of people who do not qualify for legal aid and cannot afford to go to court without it? What will he do to increase legal aid so that ordinary people with ordinary incomes can get ordinary justice from our courts, so that they do not remain like the Waldorf hotel—open to all?

In legal aid, as elsewhere, the more one does, the more one may do. The Lord Chancellor has a very good record in the extension of the availability of legal aid. For example, legal aid has been extended to patients appearing before mental health review tribunals, and there is now the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme for all suspects held at police stations. People have had to wait for a Conservative Government before that has been achieved. Therefore, I do not feel that the implicit criticism of the Lord Chancellor is justified.

Does the Solicitor-General accept that some of those denied access to legal aid are bitter at their inability to go to court and defend themselves? Has he ever considered linking legal aid to the law centre provision so that there is some balance between the two which would enable more people to take part in the legal process?

I expect that it is my fault, but I have not followed the later part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Apart from a few exceptions, law centres are not funded from Government funds, and it is right that they should not be. I quite understand that somebody outside the financial limits for legal aid may wish that he were within them. However, there must be a limit to the amount spent on legal aid. I repeat that twice the sum in real terms is being spent this year than was spent in 1979.

Can the Government do something to protect people who are sued by a legally-aided plaintiff, spend a great deal of time and money defending the case and cannot recover their costs? I have always thought that the provision is unfair. I believe that many people in the legal profession think it is wrong that a non-legally aided person who defends a case and wins can never recover the costs against the legal aid fund. Are the Government looking into that?

I acknowledge the sense of injustice that is apparent, but I cannot hold out any prospect of a change in the rules. Legal aid committees should pay careful attention, as I believe they do, to the merits of a proposed case before granting legal aid certificates.

asked the Attorney-General why no charges of treason have been brought against alleged terrorists; and if he will make a statement.

While treason remains available for an appropriate case, there are substantial problems in bringing a prosecution based on the language of a statute designed for the different circumstances of more than six centuries ago. The common law remedy of murder, coupled with legislation on explosives and firearms, has proved both appropriate and effective for all recent cases.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I do not find his answer wholly convincing, having regard to the recent announcement on this matter by the Lord Chancellor?

I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in this matter. I think that there was an early-day motion in his name on the subject some 12 years ago. One must realise that the 600-year-old statute is couched in such archaic language that it would be difficult to prove all the necessary ingredients of the crime and for a modern jury to come to grips with the terminology. It should be remembered that the Act was originally intended to deal with rival claimants to the throne in the 14th century, or where the country was at war with a foreign power. Fortunately, those conditions do not prevail today.

In view of that answer, why does the head of the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor, keep suggesting the use of the Act?

The Lord Chancellor was speaking in his personal capacity. As the House will know, the only people who have ministerial responsibility to this House for prosecutions are my hon. and learned Friend and myself.

As there is a capital penalty for crimes of treason, arson of the royal dockyards and certain other crimes, which I shall riot specify, would a not be convenient to add terrorism to the list? Regarding history, surely the dangers now are greater, but the penalties seem weaker.

The penalties would be the same under the Treason (Felony) Act 1848, for example, but, as I said in my initial answer, the Treason Act 1351 remains available in appropriate circumstances.

Will the Attorney-General confirm that there have been no cases of peacetime treason this century? Was he confirming a moment ago that constitutionally responsibility for prosecution is his and that the Lord Chancellor, while head of the judiciary, has no role in it? If the Lord Chancellor's recent speech at Grantham was a criticism that no treason charges were preferred in the Knightsbridge bomb case, which he gave as an example, will the Attorney-General remind the Lord Chancellor that, while we would all condemn any act of terrorism, the House, on a free vote, rejected the restoration of capital punishment for terrorist murder?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. The constitutional position remains the same.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the total levels of aid planned for the current financial year for (a) countries of the Commonwealth and (b) other countries.

From bilateral country programmes, about £440 million and £110 million, respectively.

In the light of the proposed financial aid to Commonwealth countries during the coming financial year, why are the Government proposing to reduce, however slightly, aid to India, when the need is growing? Why, when considering the implementation of the retrospective terms of adjustment, are other countries to be freed from the responsibility of repaying loans incurred before 1975, when Her Majesty's Government are to insist upon India meeting its loans, thereby making our aid worth about half its paper value?

We have a special arrangement over retrospective terms adjustment with India, which includes our extremely valuable poverty focus element. We shall continue to provide India with far and away the largest of our bilateral programmes.

Does not India get the best deal from us of any country? Are not the needs of all countries equally claimant and difficult to decide against?

I have a difficult job in allocating aid. My hon. Friend is right. Our programme to India is of great importance, and it is highly regarded by the Indians themselves.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome Mr. Geldof's efforts through Sport Aid, and what are the Government doing to help Sport Aid?

Like everybody, I greatly welcome and admire what is happening through Sport Aid, as I did the efforts of Live Aid and Band Aid. The money provided by the latter two, £26 million, to help with the emergency in Africa was a valuable addition to the £190 million provided by the British Government over the past two years. We are funding the offices from which Sport Aid is organised.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the share of contracts granted to United Kingdom countries by the International Fund for Agricultural Development as a percentage of the total number of external contracts offered by the organisation since its inception.

By the end of 1984, 5·6 percent. by value of IFAD's total spending was on British goods and services. We won 21 per cent. of procurement placed outside the benefiting countries.

How does the Minister defend the Government's astonishing attitude to the special fund for sub-Saharan Africa, in view of the fact that this country obtained 47 per cent. of non-local contracts, in spite of competition from Germany, the United States, Japan and other countries? Why are the Government being so insensitive to the agricultural needs of the area, as well as throwing away jobs?

We are playing our full part in the replenishment of IFAD. I see the merits of the special fund, but the more we provide to multilateral agencies, the less we can provide for bilateral aid. Our bilateral aid is largely a tied programme, and it is highly effective. I am not anxious to see it whittled away.

Will we not lose contracts for British firms if we do not contribute to the special programme? Is not the record of the IFAD programme in giving aid directly to agricultural production good, and does it not compare favourably with much of our direct aid?

That programme does not yet have a record, because it has not yet come into being. Only a limited number of countries are subscribing to it. If we switch money from the bilateral to the multilateral programme, we shall lose the return on the bilateral programme, even though we make it up on the multilateral spending.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report progress on co-ordination with other countries to ensure a concerted programme to help sub-Saharan African countries with their agricultural development programmes.

There is widespread acceptance among bilateral and multilateral donors that their efforts in agricultural development and in other sectors should be co-ordinated, in support of policies agreed with recipient countries. I expect that the United Nations Special Session on Africa later this month will also focus attention on this subject.

I accept that there are good and logical reasons why this country should not contribute to the special IFAD fund, for the reasons that my right hon. Friend has given. Nevertheless, does he agree that co-ordination between donor countries is vital if we are to remove the scourge of famine from sub-Saharan countries? Can my right hon. Friend provide examples of co-ordination, and will he assure the House that the United Kingdom Government will play a leading part in the United Nations Special Session to deal with agricultural development in Africa?

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be very active in the United Nations Special Session. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs plans to attend, and so do I. As for co-ordination, we have already played a very prominent part in backing the efforts of the World Bank consultative groups, the United Nations development programme round tables, other World Bank activities and a variety of donor co-ordinating efforts, particularly those which are carried on in recipient countries.

What prevents Britain from spending a greater proportion of its aid to sub-Saharan Africa on rural and agricultural development? Is there a policy block, or is it just that that is the way things have been done in the past and it is very difficult to change them?

I am ready to consider proposals for increased and further agricultural aid, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very important. However, one has to remember that it is a question not only of this country accepting proposals but of the recipient Governments making a commitment to agricultural proposals as opposed to others.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to make increased provision to the voluntary agencies concerned with development over the next three years.

The voluntary agencies provide very cost-effective aid to some of the poorest communities in the developing world. Our support for the agencies has increased considerably in recent years, and I expect to continue to offer them substantial financial support in the future.

Will the Minister come clean about how much he will contribute, because he did not in his reply say how much that might be? Does he intend at least to keep the increase in contributions in line with inflation? If not, in effect there will be a real cut. Despite all that he has said about his support for such excellent intitiatives as Sport Aid, if the Government's contributions to voluntary agencies cannot be increased in real terms, Sport Aid is the privatisation of what should be the Government's support policy.

It is not the Government's practice to publish detailed figures for three years ahead. If the hon. Gentleman looks at our record in the voluntary sector since 1979, he will find that our support for the British volunteer programme has increased by no less than 101 per cent. in real terms and that our support for the joint funding scheme has increased, again in real terms, by 41 per cent. That represents a major increase in support to the voluntary sector.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends think that to increase the provision for the voluntary agencies is a most cost-effective way of using the funds that are available for the aid programme? Does he take heart from the paragraph in the Tokyo summit declaration that makes it clear that the Prime Minister and all the other Heads of Government are committed to maintaining and, where appropriate, increasing official aid from this country and from the other countries involved?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the Government's support for the voluntary sector. I have already said that our support has been outstanding. I, too, was heartened by the Tokyo summit communiqué.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards aid projects which affect the conservation of equatorial and tropical forests.

Our policy is to support the wise use and replenishment of the forests. In doing so we have accepted the Food and Agriculture Organisation's tropical forest action plan as a valuable framework for our actions.

I thank the Minister for that reply. 'Will he assure the House that special attention will be given where there is objection to any aid project for which he is responsible which does not comply with the criteria that he has laid down? What action are Her Majesty's Government taking in respect of aid projects from other countries which do not meet the criteria which he outlined?

I accept that it is important that our aid projects should have full regard to environmental and human factors. As I have told the House, I have made representations to the president of the World Bank stressing our belief in the importance of giving proper regard to the environmental factors in respect of other aid programmes; and, of course, we are happy to discuss that with our fellow donors through the various means of donor co-ordination.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of total public expenditure was spent on overseas aid in 1985.

For the financial year 1985–86 provisional figures indicate that overseas aid accounted for 0·84 per cent. of total public expenditure.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that as a percentage of GDP that is a lower precentage than in the late 1970s, and, despite Live Aid, Band Aid and the famine in africa, we are spending less now in real terms than we were then? Do the Government have any plans for increasing the amount of money spent on overseas aid?

There has been a fall in percentage terms since 1979. On the other hand, the aid programme is now broadly stable as a proportion of planned public expenditure, and we have had an increase in real terms this year over last year.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on South African incursions into Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

As the House knows, a number of locations in Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe were attacked early this morning. The South African defence forces have acknowledged that they were responsible for these attacks, full details of which are not yet available.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) has already summoned the South African chargé to ask for an urgent explanation. She expressed to him our grave concern. Our ambassador in South Africa has been instructed to seek an early call on the South African Foreign Minister.

Our high commissioners in Gabarone, Lusaka and Harare have been instructed to convey to their host Governments the British Government's concern at these attacks and to seek further details about them, including any indication of casualties.

We have always made plain our opposition to cross-border violence and have consistently condemned the resort to force by South Africa against her neighbours. Today's attacks by the South African defence forces represent a plain violation of the sovereignty of three fellow Commonwealth countries It is particularly' deplorable that they should have taken place while the Commonwealth Group of Eminent Persons were in South Africa, seeking to promote a process of dialogue which would lead to the ending of apartheid, in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides. Today's events underline the urgent need for just such a suspension of violence.

Yet again the South African Government have committed acts of aggression against front-line states. Yet again the sovereignty of independent Commonwealth Governments has been infringed by acts of state terrorism by the South African Government. Following President Botha's speech last Thursday, when he spoke against meddling foreigners, does that not show that South Africa is rejecting possibly its last chance of proceeding to a relatively bloodless evolution to majority rule via the mediation of the Eminent Persons Group, which, after all, our Prime Minister put forward at Nassau last October as a means, in her isolation, of preventing effective sanctions against South Africa?

President Botha, by this raid, has sent us a clear message. What a limp message the Foreign Secretary has sent in reply. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Bishop Tutu has just said that the world awaits what the Prime Minister and President Reagan will do now, as always in the past the Prime Minister and President Reagan have vetoed mandatory sanctions against South Africa?

Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that because of what happened at the Tokyo summit, and because of our isolated stance at the Luxembourg meeting last September with EEC Foreign Ministers and our isolated stance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nassau last October, we are perceived in the world as South Africa's best friend? The Foreign Secretary proposes to show our disapproval of this incursion by' asking the Minister of State to wag her finger at the South African chargé d'affaires. This is an absurdly weak response, but how typical of the Government.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now take the lead in seeking the full implementation of the range of measures agreed at Luxembourg in September and at Nassau in October? In the letter and spirit of Luxembourg, how can he justify the South African military attachés accredited to Britain remaining en poste in London? In the light of the decision at Nassau last October, how can we still allow the importation of Krugerrands? Will he now send to President Botha a message that he will understand? What better reason than this aggression is there for immediately proceeding with selective sanctions against South Africa?

I can understand the indignation that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) seeks to express in his questions. I deny absolutely the suggestion that the Government have adopted an isolated stance. We have condemned apartheid, and shall continue to condemn it, without reservation, and we wish it to be abolished as soon as possible. We wish that abolition to be achieved without the condemnation of all the peoples of South Africa to a bloodbath of violence. For that reason, the Prime Minister and the Government were able to take the lead at Nassau and in the European Community in promoting an effective opportunity for a peaceful solution through the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group. When it has suited them, Opposition Members have been only too willing to endorse the legitimacy and effectiveness of that group. Let us start from the common ground.

We wish to bring about an early end to apartheid in South Africa. We wish that to be brought about by peaceful means, and the Eminent Persons Group is the most effective instrument devised so far for achieving that. As I said in my statement, it is for that reason that we regret this series of attacks. I have described as particularly deplorable the fact that they are taking place at this time. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members wished to address themselves seriously to trying to bring about what is necessary, they should stop shouting about it in their present absurd fashion. We have made our condemnation clear and will consider with our partners what further action may be necessary. Our objective will be to bring about a suspension of violence and a cessation of apartheid as soon as possible.

Should not our judgment of these matters be based, not on the merits or demerits of African Governments, but on international law? What is the international law on these matters? Was the air strike against terrorists in Tunisia consistent with international law?

My hon. Friend raises the matter of the air strike against Tunisia. He will recollect that we condemned that air strike without hesitation as having no foundation in international law.

Libya.

My hon. Friend said Tunisia.

I apologise, I meant Libya.

Libya was quite different. There we had the plainest possible conclusion that state-directed terrorism was promoted, organised, sustained and directed by the Libyan Government, and it was universally recognised and condemned as such. That must be distinguished from what is happening in this case. One cannot conclude that any of the three Governments concerned have been promoting or inspiring, still less directing, terrorism in South Africa. In addition, we know that the Government of Botswana are at this moment considering with the South African Government means of curtailing terrorism. The circumstances could not be more different.

The whole House will join the Foreign Secretary in condemning this attack — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] — this outrageous attack, particularly as it is not justifiable in international law. I am glad, at least, that the Foreign Secretary has not given us a justification in terms of article 51. Will he recognise that he will have to come before the House and the Security Council and agree now to a package of sanctions against South Africa? That is the logic of the present position. The South Africans deliberately undermined the Commonwealth peace initiative. That must now be met with sanctions, which must involve a banning of air flights to and from South Africa and a banning of new investment in South Africa.

I understand the point of view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not depart from what I have said about the deplorable nature and timing of what has taken place, particularly because of the powerful efforts that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others have made in trying to promote the work of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group. However, it is too early to come to a judgment on what action should be taken. Certainly the situation is very serious.

What representations has my right hon. and learned Friend made to the Governments of the three Commonwealth countries concerned against the quite open and flagrant harbouring of Communist-assisted terrorists?

We have made plain our position over a very long period of time. We are opposed to cross-frontier violence of any kind, from whatever country, in southern Africa. Equally I must make it plain to my hon Friend that there is no evidence comparable to that cited in other cases that the front-line Commonwealth Governments concerned have been involved in the promotion, direction or inspiration of terrorism. Certainly there is nothing whatever to justify unprovoked attacks of this kind from South Africa.

May we come back to the point about international law? Is the Foreign Secretary saying on behalf of the Government that these violations of sovereignty are wrong and that the violation of the sovereignty of Libya, using aircraft from this country, was right?

I have already said in my statement that the attacks by the South African defence forces represent a plain violation of the sovereignty of three fellow Commonwealth countries, and they are to be deplored. I have made it plain to the House on other occasions, and do so again, that in the case of Libya—a totally different case from this—there was the plainest possible evidence of a Government directing and promoting state-sponsored terrorism and attacks on innocent targets. In the case of Libya there is plain evidence of state-sponsored terrorism, but there is no evidence of that kind in this case.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there might be a more balanced view on this matter if the Government were in touch with the ANC and were able to talk to it and find out the reactions, not only from the terrorist parts of that organisation, but from the nationalist parts?

It was for that reason that we took steps to authorise contacts with the ANC at the time of my visit to Lusaka earlier this year and subsequently.

Will the Foreign Secretary accept that those of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who visited Gabarone last summer, after that infamous raid, and who saw rooms where young children had been shot in their own beds, regard South Africa as the focus of evil in the international society? Does not what has happened call for more than mere words and platitudes? Will the Foreign Secretary join the three Commonwealth countries concerned in demanding sanctions as the only real response to this outrage?

I entirely sympathise with the point expressed by the hon. Gentleman and by his hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the way in which the incident is bound to be seen in Botswana. I have discussed the earlier incident there on more than one occasion with my opposite number, the Botswanan Foreign Minister, and I know that throughout the earlier part of this year Botswana was engaged in discussions with the South African Government, through a joint commission and other means, about methods of preventing the risk of terrorist action across their frontier. In those circumstances, with a meeting of the joint commission due to take place at the end of this week, I have already deplored this action, particularly with reference to Botswana.

My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that our American friends and allies persuaded us that Libya had mounted terrorist attacks from its territory, which justified an attack in turn on Libya. What opportunity has he given our South African friends to tell us of their evidence of terrorist attacks mounted on them from the three countries concerned?

We have, of course, been in touch with the South African Government on earlier occasions—

This time.

Today, my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been in touch with the South African charge in London. I cannot emphasise too strongly the lack of similarity between the two events. There is almost universal recognition of sustained, direct, proclaimed Libyan state-sponsored terrorist attacks on innocent people outside that country. The two cases are as different as chalk from cheese.

Leaving aside the fellow travellers of the South African regime who are sitting on the Tory Benches, do not the raids once again demonstrate that the South Africans have no more intention of observing international law than of respecting human and political rights in South Africa? When will the Foreign Secretary realise that a gentle rebuke now and again of the South African authorities is not sufficient? Much stronger action is required. When will the British Government face their responsibilities and recognise that far more effective measures including economic sanctions, are required against that apartheid regime?

If the matter were only one tenth as simple as the hon. Gentleman implies! The Prime Minister and I have made it plain to the South African Government on many occasions that there is an urgent need for them to take the necessary steps to bring apartheid to an end. To that end, with the support of Commonwealth and European Governments, we have promoted the energetic work of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group. We have invested a lot of effort in that exercise, and that is why we join the whole House in deploring the attacks that have taken place today.

If terrorist raids had taken place from those three Commonwealth countries against South Africa's sovereign territory, it would surely have been with the connivance, at the very least, of their Governments.

I have already said that there is no evidence that any violence by the ANC or anybody else in South Arica is sanctioned, still less directed, by the authorities in Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. At the very time when the attack took place, contacts were made between the Governments of Botswana and South Africa with a view to a further meeting of the joint commission directed towards joint action against such activity.

Did the Foreign Secretary notice that when President Masire of Botswana surveyed the damage done by the brutality of South African troops he described the action as being "completely unprovoked and unwarranted"? He asked:

"What have we done to deserve this?"

Does that not sound like a cry for help to fellow Commonwealth countries? What practical contribution will the Government make to the Government of Botswana in order to repair some of the damage done by South African troops?

I have not yet seen the President's observation, but I can well understand why he made it. We shall have to consider that question, and several other matters arising out of it.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the fact that he has made a statement is appreciated in all parts of the House, especially as the United Kingdom Government is in a difficult position, which deserves some sympathy, but do not the raids conclusively show that the regime in Pretoria is not only extremely dislikable, but stupid? After all, it has perpetrated an act that will make it far more difficult for the Eminent Persons Group to reach a successful conclusion. Is there any prospect of this Government, as a leading Government in the Commonwealth, and as they are taking over the EEC presidency on 1 July, making sure that there are renewed initiatives? Is my right hon. and learned Friend still hopeful that the Eminent Persons Group will be successful? Has not the day been brought inevitably closer when full sanctions will be imposed against Pretoria?

The Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, the Governments concerned, and others, are bound now to consider how far, and in what way—if at all — the group can continue to play a part. We believe that it should be possible for it to play an important role in the search for a settlement, but obviously this series of raids underlines the urgency of its work. We have made absolutely plain to the South African Government our view of the gravity of the action that they have taken.

Is it not likely that the raids will make it impossible for the CEPG to continue its work, and that the raids might have been designed for that purpose? If that work comes to an end, will that not represent a decisive change in the circumstances under which the Prime Minister said in Bermuda that she was not prepared to contemplate sanctions? Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the British Government's attitude must be completely reassessed if those circumstances arise?

I shall not undertake a reassessment of the Government's attitude in the House of Commons this afternoon. It is plain from what I have said already that the attacks, when the Commonwealth group is in South Africa, are to be particularly deplored. Plainly, they make a substantial difference to the atmosphere in which the group has been trying to do its work. We still believe that it is important to try, if it is humanly possible, to promote a peaceful solution to the troubles of southern Africa.

rose—

Order. I have to take into account subsequent business being under the guillotine. I shall allow questions to continue until 4 o'clock, and then we must move on.

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to make a statement today, and I welcome what he said. Will he please note that his description of state terrorism as perpetrated by the South Africans seems to be a more accurate use of such a phrase than on other occasions on which it has been used recently by Her Majesty's Government? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the South Africans have put themselves in exactly the same position as the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the Vietnamese in Kampuchia and the Israelis in the Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Syria, in that they have deliberately invaded and occupied a neighbouring country because they do not like the nature of the regime there?

I have made plain our condemnation of the action. I urge my hon. Friend not to press his analogies too far, because what is plainly different is that incursions have taken place into three countries, but no attempt at occupation has been made. That is totally different from my hon. Friend's examples.

The Secretary of State has said several times that he has condemned the action. The interesting question to put to him now is simply this: if that is all that he is to do, what impact will that condemnation have on President Botha, and what impression will that condemnation, without any other action, have upon the Commonwealth countries affected?

If that were all that happened, the hon. Gentleman's question might have some sense in it. We are speaking less than 12 hours after the incident took place. I have already made it plain that we shall have to assess the situation carefully—not only on our own—with a view to deciding whether any further action is appropriate.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Government Members understand the difficulties, particularly in view of our membership of the Commonwealth, but how long are this Government and country planning to behave towards South Africa as if we were a sort of nanny? Surely that independent nation should pursue its own salvation in its own way? Pious protests from us might be counter-productive.

There is no question of our proceeding as a "sort of nanny". We have important political and economic relations with South Africa, and a large number of British citizens are resident there. We have had historic connections over many years and a profound interest in the prospects of peace in southern Africa. For those reasons, we rightly interest ourselves in the future of that country.

Is the Foreign Secretary not aware that this violent and brutal attack when the Commonwealth group of personages are in South Africa is no accident but is a deliberate policy of destabilisation? Those of us who saw the brutal attacks on people who had nothing to do with politics and the murder of a six-year-old in the street know exactly the degree of savagery of which the South Africans are capable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must do more than talk.

I understand the hon. Lady's concern. We are all totally affronted and shocked by violence and savagery, in whatever form. For that reason, we have consistently called for a way forward in South Africa in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides. For that reason also, I have already made plain the extent to which we deplore the fact that the action took place while the Commonwealth group was in South Africa.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the ANC is heavily infiltrated by Soviet Marxist forces, which are anti-democratic, and are fulfilling a role of world terror? The raids emphasise only too clearly that the chances of a peaceful solution in South Africa are fast running out. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the chances of a peaceful solution are based on power sharing that will protect minorities, and that such a solution has been adopted in the past by Switzerland, where the power is based on cantons? Does he believe that such a solution is applicable to South Africa? If so, will he agree to push for one?

Despite our close interest in the future of South Africa, we have, I think rightly, refrained from seeking to offer detailed prescriptions for the constitutional future of that country.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has obviously heard of Libya, because he agreed to this country's bases being used in an attack on that country. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that had the British Government attempted to say no, Reagan would have gone ahead in any case?

When will he stop trying to differentiate between state terrorism, whether launched by South Africa. Israel or America, in countries such as Libya and against a possible foe such as Nicaragua?

I can understand how anyone might be tempted to draw parallels and comparisons within the wide number of examples cited by the hon. Gentleman. It is not possible to lump them together in one general categorisation.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend draw the attention of advocates of sanctions to the experience of the Wilson Government in the late 1960s, when they tried to impose sanctions against Rhodesia and failed completely, especially in respect of oil?

That is one of the reasons why our view of sanctions has always been as we have expressed it many times.

Will the Secretary of State take on board the fact that, in the eyes of the world, we are on trial? The Commonwealth is looking at us to see to what degree we put words in place of action. The terrorists in South Africa, who are nothing but a lot of terrorist wolves, recognise a dead sheep when they see one.

I cannot accept the absurd proposition with which the hon. Gentleman started his question.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the South Africans would be better advised to try to learn something from the remarkable reconciliation and co-existence between blacks and whites in Zimbabwe than to try to disrupt the whole region through such an attack?

My hon. Friend has made an entirely valid point.

As the Government in Harare have made it clear that Zimbabwe is not being used for attacks on South Africa, is the Secretary of State prepared to accept any requests from the Government of Zimbabwe, or of any Commonwealth country to erect British anti-aircraft missile systems around the capital cities? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to send British military advisers to those countries to safeguard territorial integrity?

The points raised by the hon. Gentleman went a good deal further than the conclusions that we have drawn from our discussions.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend expand on his answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Adley) concerning the fact that the operation today is a lesser evil than the Israeli incursion into Lebanon? When my right hon. and learned Friend considers what action to take— if he considers taking action—will he bear in mind the action that was taken in respect of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon?

I can understand why my hon. Friend attempted to draw every kind of parallel. It is not easy to deal with the matter in any sensible fashion at this length. The fact is that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon involved both an invasion and an occupation of Lebanon. That is to be distinguished from the incidents taking place today, however deplorable they may be.