asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit Merseyside to consider at first hand the results of bus deregulation in the area.

Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have immediate plans to do so.

May I assure the hon. Gentleman that I should be only too ready to take him on a walk round bus stops in Liverpool and Merseyside? It would have to be a walk, because of the irregularity of the buses. It is not on for the Minister simply to say "No", when he must realise the scandal and chaos that have resulted from the disastrous deregulation of the buses on Merseyside. Does he realise that a Merseyside passenger transport executive report stated last week that no fewer than 20 per cent. of passengers have turned to other forms of transport? Does he realise that the report says that what was a good and reasonable service is now completely inefficient and incompetent?

That is entirely a matter for those on the ground. The extent of the reliability of the operations of a local bus service is nothing to do with the Government or with legislation. It demonstrates the management efficiency of the local operators. In this case, they have not been helped by strikes.

Does my hon. Friend recall that only a few years ago between 80 and 90 per cent. of passengers on off-peak Merseyside public transport services paid no fares? That resulted in large sums of public money having to be spent to sustain Merseyside public transport, and that was one of the major reasons for the Government's reorganisation.

Total ratepayer subsidy on Merseyside last year amounted to nearly £50 per man, woman and child in the area.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that before the Government's legislation the people on Merseyside were very happy with the bus services and that since the legislation bus fares have gone up, services have been slashed and there has been a strike every Saturday, which has inconvenienced the local people of Merseyside? Trench warfare has developed between the company and the users, and the initials MPTA are now thought to stand for, "Make Passenger Transport Awful".

Those who were using the bus services at subsidised fares may have been happy, but the ratepayers who were having to foot the bill were certainly not happy.

When my hon. Friend visits Merseyside, will he also consider the position in neighbouring Greater Manchester where the passenger transport executive decided to withhold £10 million of the £l7 million available and failed to provide an adequate timetable——

Order. The question is about Merseyside.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister draw a comparison with the situation on Merseyside?

My hon. Friend is right to compare the way in which Manchester has sought to implement the Act and the position elsewhere in the country. Manchester provided only a skeleton or essential network instead of providing the socially necessary services found elsewhere in Britain.

Is the Minister aware that the ratepayers of Merseyside are also electors and that they voted consistently for a proper public transport system? The Minister cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and refuse to accept responsibility for what is happening on Merseyside and elsewhere. Since the Government introduced the Transport Act 1985, transport in Britain has been ruined. Responsibility lies with the Secretary of State and the Minister and not with the MPTA, which is having to put up with the results of that legislation. The Minister bears responsibility, and he was warned what would happen during the passage of the Bill two years ago.

Whether bus services are reliable and comply with timetables is a matter for local management, not for the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps beyond those announced on 28 November he is taking to respond to and implement the recommendations in the report "Crime on the London Underground".

Our priority is to ensure that the extra £15 million is used to greatest effect. To this end we are in close touch with London Underground and the British Transport police on monitoring the pilot schemes and ensuring that the other recommendations are followed up.

Although the Secretary of State's reply is welcome, will he confirm that that £15 million is sufficient only to fund pilot schemes in a number of very important crime prevention areas? In view of the seriousness of the problem, will he give an assurance that resources will be available to make crime prevention measures more widely available if the pilot schemes turn out to be successful?

The £15 million goes beyond the pilot schemes. The hon. Gentleman and, I believe, all hon. Members rightly support what is being done, and I think that they will first want to see the pilot schemes in operation. The £15 million is spread over three years. I shall not go into the other things on which the money will be spent, but it will be spent on more than pilot schemes. The key issue is not resources, but putting them effectively to work.

Although I welcome the prospect of there being improved equipment to enable the British Transport police to carry out their task on the London Underground system, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that their establishment is adequate for that? Although equipment is desirable, effectiveness may well depend, at the end of the day, on the number of men available to prevent crime on the London Underground system.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. However, it is not a matter, in this case, of the number of officers involved. Indeed, the number of British Transport police has increased. We are talking about an improvement in specific facilities. That is what the report sought, and that is what the Government are committed to.

Is it not also a crime of sorts for the management of London Regional Transport and of the Underground to disregard and tear up negotiated agreements with the unions? That has led to the strike that is threatened on Wednesday. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do anything about the fact that in a 75 per cent. turnout, 82 per cent. voted for a strike on Wednesday——

Order. The question is about crime.

Absolutely.

The hon. Gentleman's attempt to change the question was the absolute in crime. London Regional Transport staff were asked whether they would oppose the current threat to pay, conditions and employment opportunities by taking industrial action, including strike action if necessary, and were assured by the general-secretary that that would mean that they would not be going to the barricades on 6 January. There is no dispute with London Regional Transport, and in the absence of a dispute, it would be a crime against the travelling public if there were a strike.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of London Regional Transport, he will raise with him the improvement of bus and Underground services.

Yes, I would expect bus and rail service standards to be among the subjects discussed.

Apart from the threatened strike, which we hope will be averted, will my hon. Friend ask the chairman to take my constituents into his confidence and give them some hope that there will be an end to difficulties on the Central line arising from timetabling, the failure of equipment and work on the track?

I join my hon. Friend in regretting deeply the proposed strike, which would be an especially callous act. Speed restrictions for essential maintenance have been largely responsible for the level of service on the Central line for my hon. Friend's constituents, and London Regional Transport apologises for delays. It has plans for new signalling and new rolling stock.

Will the Minister explain why the world-famous driving school at Chiswick has been closed? Will he comment on the allegation that it is possible for private contractors to hire men with public service vehicle licences who have not been eligible for employment on London Transport buses for health reasons?

The closure of the Chiswick driving school is outside the scope of the question, but I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman about that.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that in recent months there has been an unprecedented rise in the number of passengers using the Underground service and that this is being reflected by the LRT management in the provision of additional services? Is he aware that some problems arise from the new timetables which were introduced at the beginning of November in the light of staffing problems, but will he recognise that the more people who use the Underground the more the Government should look favourably on providing increased capital expenditure for this vital part of our public transport network?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Last year there were 1,900 million passenger journeys on the LRT network, including an all-time record level of Underground patronage. LRT's investment level is at an all-time record this year and is planned to be even greater next year.

Now that the London Docklands Development Corporation has shown an interest in linking the east London line and the Bakerloo and Northern lines at the Elephant and Castle so that there is an east-west link south of the river as well as the proposed docklands light railway north of the river, will the Minister ask his Department to take a positive interest in the improvement of services south of the river, east-west, so that a natural circuit can be completed and we do not have the present difficulty of travelling in a congested part of south London which is a white hole in the underground network?

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the chairman's attention.

When my hon. Friend sees the chairman of London Transport, will he tell him that I still receive complaints about the quality of London Transport bus services, but that in recent months I have had the unusual experience of receiving compliments about contracted-out services, especially the 61 service in my constituency, which is run by Metrobus Ltd.? Is there not a moral to be drawn from this, and will he bring it to the chairman's notice?

London Transport has started a programme of putting out to competitive tender a series of routes. Some of the routes have been won by London Buses Ltd. and some by outside companies. Standards appear to be satisfactory, and in a number of instances better than they were before.

Has the Minister ever travelled on the Underground in London? If he has from time to time, can he account for the fact that throughout the system there are unmanned booking offices, ticket machines that are either out of order or switched off altogether, and unmanned stations, especially after 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock in the evening, yet London Regional Transport's management can still hand back about £20 million to the Government, presumably because it is not needed? Will he reflect on the fact that at £20 million the knighthood for the chairman of London Regional Transport must be one of the most expensive baubles known since Lloyd George was alive?

First, I travel on the London Underground from time to time. Secondly, I consider that the hon. Gentleman has made a cheap and nasty jibe at a gentleman who has provided distinguished public service and who is not here to answer back.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received representations about the speed of traffic upon motorways.

The Department receives representations on a wide range of road safety issues, including speeds on motorways. Ninety eight per cent. of accidents are on other roads.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the 70 mph speed limit on motorways is not being enforced? Will he have a word with the Home Secretary, if there are substantial safety or oil conservation grounds, and ask him to enforce the present speed limit? If, as I believe is the case, there are no such grounds, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we have the lowest motorway speed limit of any major country in western Europe? Will he seek to raise the limit to a realistic level?

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that there are over 30,000 prosecutions a year for motorway offences. I shall do as he suggests and have a word with colleagues in the Home Office. I am sure that the suggestion that the motorway speed limit should be raised will not find favour.

Will the Under-Secretary of State take a representation from me about the lack of regard for the 50 mph speed limit at contraflows? That is where accidents take place. It is my view that the indicators for a 50 mph speed limit are not clear enough, given the situation at contraflows, and that is dangerous.

I shall review the signs. It is important that, unless advised otherwise, people stick to motorways, even where there are contraflows. Even with contraflows, with their increased dangers, motorways are still safer than other roads. It might be a seasonal time to remind everyone that the speed limit is the limit. It is not supposed to be an average. In bad weather conditions—whether fog or ice—people should reduce their speeds.

My hon. Friend does not intend to raise the 70 mph limit on motorways. This will encourage even more the maniacs who occupy outside lanes. Will he please erect 70 mph signs on motorways? At the moment there is no indication or reminder of what the limit is, in contrast, for example, with France, where the limit is constantly repeated.

I am considering the suggestion of erecting 70 mph signs. Everyone who has passed the driving test at any stage since the war should know that the old unrestricted speed limit went a long time ago. I shall do what I can to remind people of the need to keep to the speed limit. Raising the speed limit from 70 mph would not be applauded universally. I do not propose such action.

When will the Minister wake up to the fact that his Government have introduced more transport legislation than any other Government? The result is that the motorway system is cluttered with all sorts of vehicles, including buses. The important point is that there is far too much traffic bunching. Why does the Minister not seriously consider raising the motorway speed limit so that we avoid some of the accidents?

I suggest to hon. Members that the way to deal with accidents is to slow down rather than to speed up. Bunching can take place at any speed, and the slower the speed of the bunch, the better.

Will my hon. Friend contemplate the simple proposition that, with more than 5,000 people killed and 250,000 people maimed on the roads every year, safety standards on our motorways and other roads are virtually non-existent when compared with the stringent safety requirements laid down for British Rail? When will the Government make road transport subject to the same safety rules and requirements as are laid down for rail transport?

My hon. Friend will know, or will be interested to hear if he does not know, that motorways carry 13 per cent. of national vehicle mileage but have only 2 per cent of accidents. Although motorway safety is an important subject, it is even more important in urban areas—built-up areas—where there is over 40 per cent. of the traffic and 80 per cent. of the accidents. A real reduction in the number of people who die on our roads—5,000—will be achieved by attention to built-up area traffic and other matters such as drink driving.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has taken any action to end the practice whereby vehicles which have been written off are allowed to re-appear on the market.

We are reviewing the problems associated with written-off vehicles with the police, insurers and other interested bodies to see whether there are ways in which the present situation can be improved.

Does the Minister accept that there is an accumulating body of evidence that ripping off customers by unscrupulous car dealers is becoming far too widespread and, in some cases, dangerous to the customers? Will he therefore consider making certain that no vehicle registration document is issued from Swansea for any vehicle that has been written off, or, if he cannot go that far, will he at least make sure that it is printed on every document that the car has been written off, so that the customer might have some redress through fair trading legislation?

We are aware that there is considerable public concern about this matter. The working party should report within the next two or three months. It has been set up with a view to seeing whether we can get more rigid guidelines for what constitutes a write off and what can be done to make severe accident history more readily available to the public, and, as the hon. Gentleman asks, we seek to ensure that potentially hazardous vehicles are kept off the road.

Does my hon. Friend accept that probably the poorer members of the community are forced to buy those potential death traps because they are the cheaper cars on the forecourt of the second-hand car lot? Perhaps those people would not go to the Automobile Association for an independent structural survey beforehand. At the moment, the power of monitoring is vested in the county trading officers, who can see the cars only after they have been bought. Will my hon. Friend consider giving the police power, where there is a suspicion that such death traps are on second-hand car lot forecourts, to enter those forecourts to examine the cars before they are sold?

The police already have powers to investigate accidents when write offs occur, so police powers already exist. The question is whether one should have more rigid guidelines on what constitutes a write off. That is the real problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the London Docklands Development Corporation concerning the funding of the Beckton extension of the docklands light railway.

We expect to receive LDDC's formal proposals for financing the Beckton extension of the docklands light railway later this month. In the meantime my officials, together with those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, have been discussing with LDDC the form that those proposals might take.

Is the Minister aware that everybody in the area wants that railway, and wants it to be provided by public funds? There is also a desire for it to be routed via Canning Town. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is open to him to let the Second Reading of the Bill go forward, and if he receives the financial guarantees from the LDDC that he seeks, then and only then should he approve its construction? Is that not the best way to proceed?

I am in some doubt whether everyone takes the view that the railway should be provided by public funds. The LDDC believes, and its research suggests, that large increases in land values in the docklands when the railway is built can be harnessed to pay for it. I plan to visit the area to see for myself on Wednesday this week, and I hope to see the hon. Gentleman on that occasion.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a very important and desirable development, which will bring great advantages to the people of that part of London? Will he give all the assistance that the Government are able to give to that project?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in and connections with the area. I hope that I shall also have the opportunity to see him on my visit on Wednesday, and I shall keep in mind the point that he made.

As the railway will be funded by private developers—indeed, it is just a developers' railway—may I point out that there are other transport needs in Newham that must be met? That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and myself argue that the railway should be provided out of public funds so that it can meet public need in the area.

If the same objective can be achieved without use of the public purse, it seems to be wholly desirable that it should so be.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what sites are being considered for the construction of service areas on the M25.

A service area is already in partial operation at South Mimms, and Esso has been chosen to develop another at Thurrock. Our proposal for a site at Clacket lane near Westerham has recently been the subject of a public inquiry, together with other proposals by private developers. We are still considering proposals for Iver.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is proposed that the service area at Iver should be built on green belt land between two built-up areas in my constituency—Richings park and Iver village? Because that would be so close to hundreds of houses, there is considerable local opposition. Will my hon. Friend consider looking at a more suitable site?

The consultants tried to identify other more suitable sites, but I am not sure whether one was found. I shall bear my hon. Friend's considerations in mind. We understand that considerable landscaping would be undertaken to shield housing from environmental intrusions.

Is there any restriction on military vehicles using service areas, especially as nuclear warheads are frequently transported on our motorways, and bearing in mind the serious accident that took place at the weekend? Is the Minister not concerned about the use of public roads for that purpose?

I am not sure that military convoys often use motorway service areas.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that no service area is to be placed in Loughton or elsewhere in the Epping Forest constituency?

I was asked where we proposed to have motorway service areas on the M25, and my hon. Friend's area of concern is not one that I mentioned.

rose——

The question is about the M25.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker. What provision is being made for facilities for those driving heavy goods vehicles on the M25, and what is the general policy on the provision of such facilities on the motorway network?

One of the reasons why we maintain strict control over motorway service areas is to ensure the availability of some services which may not otherwise be provided. We take the provision of rest facilities for heavy goods vehicle drivers seriously and ensure that they are provided in motorway service areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision concerning the application by British Rail for the closure of the Settle to Carlisle line.

I have only recently received the joint report of the transport users consultative committees for north-eastern and north-western England and British Rail's financial case. I cannot say how long it will take to consider these reports carefully, together with other relevant factors.

I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in the future of this line and has visited it. As the TUCCs came out unanimously in favour of the retention of the line and thousands of people wrote in support of that approach, does my hon. Friend agree that it could be seen as perverse to take a decision which did not involve the retention of the line? At the same time, does he agree that it would be unreasonable to make such a decision without allowing for the provision of funds which are particularly necessary for repairs, and that such funds could come from the Government's tourism budget?

As I have only just received the report I cannot possibly pre-empt a decision at this stage. I take note of my hon. Friend's point about the availability of funds from alternative sources, including tourism.

If the Minister has had a chance to read some of the report, does he accept that it shows that British Rail has not made a detailed case for closure? Apart from the hardship caused to local people by closure, there appears to be considerable potential for further marketing and promotion of this line to make it even more profitable than it has been until now. Should not the Government take that approach, rather than entertain any possibility of closure?

It may be helpful to say that it is not part of the TUCCs' role to consider British Rail's case for closure. Its job is to consider what hardship would be caused if the line were closed and to report to Ministers on that. That is why British Rail's case was not deployed before them. We now have British Rail's financial case and we are considering it together with the report of the TUCCs.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend cannot pre-empt his decision, but is he aware of strong rumours circulating locally and in British Rail that this line will be kept open? In those circumstances, will he confirm that any decision on his part to close the line would be greeted with some surprise and dismay?

I can report to my hon. Friend that there are rumours in British Rail and among the public that the line is to be kept open and that there are also rumours that it is to be closed.

Is the Minister aware that a great deal of pleasure has been expressed at the TUCCs' recommendation that the Settle-Carlisle line should remain open?

Of course we will consider carefully the points which the hon. Gentleman has properly made. I accept entirely that the economic factors, and particularly the effect on Appleby as the largest town to be isolated if the railway line is closed, must be taken into account and that they are separate from the questions of hardship which the TUCCs considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further action after the Christmas drink drive campaign he proposes on road safety publicity.

Our clear-cut "Don't Drink and Drive" campaign won strong public support. I shall follow it up in the spring and autumn. This will reinforce the message that drinking and driving is a year-round problem and must be tackled as seriously as we can.

Further to my right hon. Friend's reply, is he aware that in Scotland a campaign group is being formed of some of the relatives of bereaved families whose relatives have been killed through reckless driving? Is he further aware that a point which they make is that if the periods of disqualification for driving were much longer that would constitute an effective deterrent?

I was not aware of the particular Scottish illustration to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention, and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my colleagues in the Home Office.

Does the Minister recognise the strength of the powerful campaign that was run over Christmas time? Many hon. Members welcome the Secretary of State's undertaking to carry the campaign on throughout the year. Will the Secretary of State give three further undertakings? First, will he make the message even stronger? Secondly, will he consider stronger sentences for people convicted of drink driving offences? Thirdly, as an indication of his good will, will he reduce further the acceptable blood alcohol limit of people caught drinking and driving?

In relation to the particular points that have been raised, I have listened very carefully to the public reaction. I was especially delighted with the media reaction to the message and I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about making it even stronger and clearer. I shall certainly consider that sympathetically. I am not sure that sentencing policy—although that is not my departmental job—is the key in this area, as opposed to trying to change attitudes, which is what we are seeking to do through our campaigns, which are supported by the private and the public sectors. I shall consider anything that will help in this area.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the public inquiry on the Waterstock to Wendlebury section of the M40 to begin; how long he expects it to last; and when he expects to be able to publish his decision.

Draft orders for this section of the M40 will be published shortly. A public inquiry could take place six to nine months later.

Will my hon. Friend simply confirm two points: first, that, irrespective of the length of the public inquiry, it is the Government's firm intention that the whole of the M40 extension from Oxford to Birmingham should be opened as one complete entity, and, secondly, that it is the Government's firm intention that the whole of the motorway extension should be opened by 1990?

Subject to the outcome of statutory procedures, the aim is to start construction on the Waterstock to Wendlebury section in time to open the whole of the M40 extension from Waterstock to Warwick at about the same time, which is about the end of 1990.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress was made during the United Kingdom presidency to secure the liberalisation of air transport within the European Community.

Solid progress has been made on the contents of a three-year first step towards full liberalisation by the agreed target date of 1992.

My hon. Friend is to be heartily congratulated on the progress made during the past few months on the liberalisation of air transport. In view, however, of the dilatory, often hostile, attitude of many of our EEC partners, what concrete steps can he take during the next few months, during the Belgian presidency and thereafter, to quicken the pace of reforms? Furthermore, is he satisfied that British airlines, especially British Airways, will be well placed to take full advantage of a more competitive regime?

I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks. Our proposals provide for a great deal more competition between airlines in Europe and will undoubtedly reduce air fares there. As to my hon. Friend's main question, we shall fully support the Belgian presidency in it efforts to finalise the package. We also intend to enter into further bilateral discussions with certain Governments, and in particular I am arranging to have discussions with the French Minister in early February.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the light of the Mackay Consultants report "The Social and Economic Case for the Dornoch Firth Rail Bridge", he will meet a deputation of local interests further to consider the financing of a rail crossing of the Dornoch Firth.

No, Sir. British Rail has not to date submitted an investment proposal, either based on the Mackay report or not.

Will the Minister clarify the position, because the Mackay report says that British Rail could put forward a proposal based only on financial considerations and that a cost-benefit analysis is needed? Will that cost-benefit analysis have to be done by British Rail, or will the Government do it themselves? Will they do it as a matter of urgency, as the cost of constructing a rail bridge in association with a road bridge is much less than if one has to be built subsequently?

The Mackay Consultants' report is being considered by the Government, but nothing has yet persuaded us that we should interfere with British Rail's judgment. The expenditure for British Rail would amount to some £12·7 million and the amount of revenue that would be at risk if the Dornoch bridge were not proceeded with for rail connection would be only £120,000 per year. The hon. Gentleman will see that there is a dramatic difference between the outlay and the potential financial saving. The point made by the consultants on the cost benefit is being considered by the Government.

asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act there have been since 1979.

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement concerning recent consultations he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act.

asked the Attorney-General what recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning cases currently under consideration involving alleged offences under the Official Secrets Act.

Since 1979 there have been 16 prosecutions under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, including two which were not proceeded with. During the same period there have been seven prosecutions under section 1, including one which was not proceeded with, and three under section 7 of the 1920 Act. Five cases under section 2 are presently pending before the courts.

Does it not seem that in recent years the motive in deciding whether there should be prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act was more to avoid political embarrassment than for any other reason? While I appreciate that, until the Wright case is over, the Attorney-General cannot make a full statement, would it not be right, when the case is completed, for him to make a full and frank statement to the House as to the basis on which future prosecutions under the Act will be carried out?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to a list published in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), on 15 December last year, which discloses the type of offence. There are too many cases of people who have for money given information that is subject to the Official Secrets Act, such as police officers who have given details of previous criminal offences and things of that kind. I intend to make a full statement the moment that I am able to do so.

Is it not frequently the case that Governments, faced with the publication of unpalatable facts, engineer or promote the leakage of those facts from Select Committee or minority reports of Select Committees, or by other means? Bearing in mind the dual responsibilities of Law Officers of the Crown, political on the one hand and legal on the other, is it not a principle that their legal actions, particularly in matters relating to prosecutions, or lack of action relating to prosecutions, should be, and should be seen to be, wholly on the legal side of their functions?

I entirely agree with that. I assure the House that there is no question of a political basis for any decision that I or my right hon. and learned Friend have taken in any case under the Official Secrets Act.

Has the Attorney-General considered himself, or discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the workings of this archaic and terrible old Act? For example, has he considered whether or not it would be a breach of the Act for information to be given to the public concerning the horrific dangers arising from the crashes of military convoys, such as that which occurred this weekend, about which public-spirited citizens saw fit to tell the public? Had they not done so, the public would not have known about the crash

The basis upon which I operate was given in an oral answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) as far back as 9 April 1984. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that in appropriate circumstances Ministers themselves can authorise disclosure.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Attorney-General of the day is frequently put in a virtually impossible position by the Act? On the one hand the Law Officers have a clear duty to enforce the law, while on the other, the law is so widely drafted that it is virtually unenforceable without bizarre selectivity in the exercise of the prosecutor's discretion. When my right hon. and learned Friend makes his statement, will he therefore place himself firmly on the side of the reformers of the Official Secrets Act?

Inevitably the decisions that I, the Director of Public Prosecutions and my right hon. and learned Friend have to take are sometimes described as political decisions. However, I assure the House that we look at each case entirely wearing our quasi-judicial hats. We are not influenced in any way by the political consequences. Sometimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said, one is put in an impossible position. However, we use our discretion and our best judgment.

Despite the comparatively wide terms in which the Official Secrets Act is drafted, do not the figures revealed by my right hon. and learned Friend's original reply show that because the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required there is a proper balance between the public interest and the enforcement of the law in every case and that, given the discretion that can be exercised by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and in the absence of any serious suggestions for reform of the Act, the present system is working much better than one might have expected?

My hon. Friend must appreciate that it is primarily my decision, but always I am advised by the DPP, and in many cases I am also advised by counsel.

And by the Prime Minister.

Certainly not. There is no question——

The Prime Minister's dish cloth.

Order.

Now that I have a moment to reply, there is no question, ever, in any single case under the Official Secrets Act or, indeed, in any case involving a criminal prosecution, of my having been ordered or directed in any way by the Prime Minister.

I have no sympathy at all with those who reveal real state secrets, but the ludicrous Australian trial and the Official Secrets Act combined have not even preserved the Government's dignity in the Wright case. Will the Attorney-General confirm that if Wright were to decide to publish in Ireland, following the Miller case, the chances of successfully preventing publication would be very slight? In the light of that, is the House not entitled to a Government statement on the future of the Official Secrets Act? Once Mr. Justice Powell has announced his decision, will the Attorney-General make a full statement to the House about the Government's handling of the Wright case?

On the Australian case, I should have thought that it would be absolutely apparent to the hon. Gentleman that it involves a very important principle, namely, that those who promise to keep quiet for the rest of their lives should keep that promise. It is very interesting that I cannot find a single hon. Member, on either side of the House, who has received a letter complaining about that.

Can the Attorney-General tell the House if any useful purpose is served by prosecuting people who reveal matters of ancient history which can do no possible damage to the state and who, by reason of the threat of prosecution, feel driven to leave the United Kingdom?

Let us get the procedure clear. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not appreciate the position. The case in Australia is not a prosecution—it is civil proceedings for an injunction. Whether the person concerned left to go to Tasmania because of the book or for other reasons, I simply do not know. The principle remains, and it is one that we are determined to uphold.

asked the Attorney-General what is the cost to date to public funds of the case being brought against publication of Mr. Wright's book in Australia; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Attorney-General what has been the cost to public funds of the action taken against Mr. Peter Wright in the Australian courts; and if he will make a statement.

The total cost to public funds to date of the court action in Australia concerning the publication of a book by Mr. Peter Wright, including legal fees paid to date, and fares and subsistence for civil servants, is estimated to be of the order of £170,000.

Even if counsel's fees considerably increased that figure, is not money spent in this way on proceedings against Mr. Wright necessary in order to deter ill-motivated ex-MI5 employees from damaging the security of the nation? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in future every ex-MI5 employee who breaks the Official Secrets Act should have all pension and emoluments ended forthwith?

I agree entirely with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but the latter part of his question is not a matter for me.

As there is now quite a lot of public money involved, will the Attorney-General tell us whether the action was taken because Mr. Wright broke the rules of confidentiality, or because the material in his proposed publication was considered damaging to national security?

The principal purpose of those proceedings is to preserve the principle that those who have promised to keep the secrets do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the current overseas aid programme and budget is channelled through multilateral agencies and bilateral Government agreements, respectively.

In 1985–86, the latest year for which figures are available, Britain's contributions to multilateral aid agencies accounted for 42 per cent. of gross aid programme expenditure, and total bilateral aid for 58 per cent. Bilateral country programmes amounted to 40 per cent. of total expenditure.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Can he say whether there has been any change in those proportions in recent years, and will he confirm that, generally speaking, long-term sustained aid projects can be more effectively attained through bilateral Government agreements and that a major role for multilateral agencies should be to assist in providing short-term emergency aid when necessary?

By and large I agree with my hon. Friend. There has not been much change in the balance in the past few years, except that our membership of the Community has had some effect because of the size of the European Community programme. Multilateral agencies have an important role to play. For example, UNICEF, which I am hoping to visit next week, has an important role. That point was put to me by the late hon. Member for Greenwich, Guy Barnett, shortly before his death. He felt strongly about these issues and the House will miss his contributions in debates about aid and development, about which he felt so passionately and about which he knew so much.

Will the Minister confirm that the relative increase in the proportion paid by way of multilateral aid has nothing to do with Government policy, but has more to do with the drop in total aid given by the Government? Does he not think that recipient countries can get far more value from multilateral aid than from bilateral aid, which has conditions attached?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's second proposition. In relation to his first proposition I am pleased to say that in the last three or four years our aid programme has been increasing and, based on the public expenditure figures, over the next three years it should be secured in real terms.

While congratulating my hon. Friend on maintaining the increase in the overseas development budget, may I ask him whether he agrees that he can accommodate the increased aid and trade provision and the increased demands of multilateral agencies only by increasing the total aid budget so that there is more in the bilateral budget, thus supporting the efforts of the Department of Trade and Industry in promoting British exports and interests overseas?

I hope that I can satisfy my hon. Friend yet again in the next few weeks by announcing some small increases in our contributions to the multilateral agencies and increases in some of our most important bilateral programmes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the votes cast by the representative of Her Majesty's Government concerning recent loans to Chile by the Inter-American Development Bank.

After weighing the views of the members of his constituency and obtaining satisfactory answers to technical questions that we had raised, our executive director supported the loans for a hydro-electric project and a global neighbourhood improvement and sites-and-services programme.

First, may I express my appreciation for what the Minister said about the sad death of our friend Guy Barnett, the late hon. Member for Greenwich?

Uncharacteristically, the right hon. Lady is wrong on this issue. She is wrong to say that Britain was the only country, of the larger donors, to support the World Bank loan. As she knows, although I think she disagrees with what I shall say on this, we always judge issues in the international financial institutions entirely on technical grounds, as we are bound to do by the IADB and World Bank articles of agreement.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with the remarks made by the Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) about the tragic death of Guy Barnett, the late hon. Member for Greenwich. His commitment to development issues, not only in the Commons but in the Commonwealth and in developing countries, will be sorely missed.

Why not?

Because the reality is that the Inter-American Development Bank loan, with the World Bank and International Finance Corporation loan, and loans for projects currently under appraisal, total about £1,000 million. They have either been made or are in the pipeline. Apart from anything else, this includes $150 million support for a pulp and paper factory in a country with no press freedoms. Less than 3 per cent. of the total package will go to social development projects. The World Bank loan to Chile was passed by only 1·7 per cent. of the vote. Mr. Elliott Abrahams of the United States managed to persuade his master that the United States should abstain. What was the weakness in the Minister's case? Could he not handle his mistress and persuade her that he should have opposed this loan to what is still a dictatorship?

May I be permitted a brief reply to that question? Article VIII, section 5(f) of the World Bank's articles prohibits the bank from being influenced in its decisions by the political character of the borrowing member concerned and requires such decisions to be based only upon economic considerations impartially weighed. We made perfectly clear before the General Assembly on 18 November, and our ambassador made clear on 20 November, what we think of the Chilean human rights record.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the aid Ministers of other EEC countries; and what issues were discussed.

I chaired the Council of European Community Development Ministers on 11 November. The main topics covered were food aid reform, aid for population activities and programming of the sixth European development fund.

I note the Minister's reply and welcome the discussion on food aid, but what meaningful action will be taken in Europe to ensure that suitable food surpluses are made available to countries that face hunger and poverty? Is the Minister aware that such a policy would be received with much greater support in Britain than is the present policy, under which surplus food seems to be sold off at giveaway prices to eastern Europe and is then sold in those countries at enormous profits, which are made at the expense of British taxpayers?

I am pleased to say that, during our presidency of the Community, we secured reform of the Community's food aid regulation. That should now mean that food goes to the developing countries to meet their needs rather than as a means of surplus disposal. Food aid will now be better integrated with general Community development programmes, and the procedures will be streamlined so that people in emergencies get food far more rapidly. I think that that reform is one of the most important things that we achieved during our presidency and that that view is widely shared in Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will expand schemes for the provision of administrative and technical services to developing countries.

In recent years we have devoted increasing resources to the provision of skilled manpower and training in technical, administrative and other areas. Our programmes of technical co-operation are designed to build up the human resources of individual developing countries and are planned in close consultation with their Governments.

Is my hon. Friend aware that such programmes are strongly welcomed on this side of the House? Will he also see whether he can achieve a substantial expansion in the Voluntary Service Overseas programme for young people from the present figure of about 1,000 a year?

I hope that I can satisfy my hon. Friend on that. Our aid to the British volunteer programme has been increased by 113 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and it will increase by a further 11·5 per cent. next year, taking it to £8·6 million as opposed to about £2 million in 1979. That is a formidable record.