asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are his future plans for road safety publicity.

A top priority is to reduce the number of road casualties. To do so we need the most effective mix and use of measures, including publicity. For this reason, an interdepartmental review of road safety was set up. This looked, among other things, at the role of road safety publicity in future. A copy of the review is in the Library. I shall be circulating it more widely to interested organisations next week.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied that enough is being done to bring down the number of road casualties?

We shall never be satisfied, and we must not be complacent. but at the moment the figures are extremely encouraging. The latest figures for the first quarter of 1987, compared with the first quarter last year, show that deaths are down by 12 per cent., serious injuries are down by 13 per cent., and the casualty rate per mile is down by 13 per cent. That is very good news. It is not good enough, but it is good news.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that some time ago his Department held a "Think Bike" publicity campaign directed at motorists? In view of the appalling standard of motor cycle riding in London, which means that motor cyclists often disregard central barriers and squeeze in between cars and barriers, will my right hon. Friend consider whether a similar advertising campaign should be directed at motor cyclists, to seek to ensure better safety records?

I shall certainly consider what my right hon. Friend has said. It is a very interesting idea. In fact, a set of leaflets on motor cycling and safety is to be launched this week as part of the Cheshire motor cycling day, which should be useful to those taking up motory cycle riding. I shall bear in mind what my right hon. Friend has suggested.

Has the Secretary of State any information about the number of road accidents caused by people using car telephones? Will he consider banning the use of hand-held car telephones? Clearly they must be a contributory factor in road accidents. I should be very interested to know the thinking of the Secretary of State on this matter.

I do not think that we have any figures directly related to the number of people using car telephones when accidents occur. However, it is obviously extremely dangerous to use a car telephone while driving, and the police take a very serious view of the matter. Furthermore, I should have thought that anyone who could afford a car telephone could afford a remote microphone.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the recommendation of the Select Committee on Transport that road safety publicity would be much improved if his Department would improve the collection and publicity of road accident statistics?

Yes, Sir. I shall certainly do that. I have announced some road statistics today and I hope my hon. Friend will study the interdepartmental review. I should very much welcome his views on it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the representions he has received on the current campaign against drinking and driving.

The effective advertising has been warmly welcomed.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts to curb drink-driving. What will be the main feature of the next campaign and will he pay particular attention to the need to educate the organisers of parties and functions to ensure that plenty of non-alcoholic drinks are available? That would prevent much unwitting over-indulgence.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are working on further new major initiatives with the Brewers Society. Drivers need to see and notice low-alcohol or non-alcoholic drinks in pubs, clubs, restaurants and at functions on private premises. However, I should prefer people to choose not to drink before driving. They should make the choice rather than have the Government or the law make the choice for them.

Would it not be the height of irresponsibility to make fundamental changes in the licensing law without first being certain that it would not further contribute to the problem of drinking and driving? Is the Minister taking part in serious consultations on this aspect, or is there no overall Government policy on alcohol?

There is overall Government policy on alcohol, and it is likely to be further refined. I shall send the hon. Gentleman the excellent article by Godfrey Smith in The Sunday Times two weeks ago, rightly approving of the remarks which I made in public that drinking alcohol for two hours in a pub before driving is wrong and that extending drinking time to four hours or having flexible licensing hours does not make much difference to the basic decision that drivers should not drink alcohol.

Is my hon. Friend concerned that the proposal to extend drinking in public houses throughout the afternoon may bring people who have drunk too much on to the road at peak travel time, particularly when many children are coming home from school?

My right hon. Friend, like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), raises a serious issue. The key issue is whether drinking alcohol before driving continues to be socially acceptable. I believe that it is not. The precise points raised by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman are matters for the Home Office.

I welcome the Minister's remarks about drinking and driving. Will he consider introducing random breath tests? Has he had an opportunity to study the effects of random breath testing in other countries? I understand that there has been a good effect in reducing the number of deaths on the road and the number of convictions for drinking and driving. Will the hon. Gentleman consider preparing a report on that matter?

It is worth the House remembering that some countries which brought in random breath tests and imposed stricter limits than those that we have by law found that they did not have much effect until the public attitude changed. I ask every hon. Member to concentrate on changing the public attitude to the unacceptable crime of drinking and driving rather than to use a change of law as a talisman and substitute for each of us moderating and, if necessary, changing our behaviour.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with progress on the construction of the north Devon link road; and if he will make a statement.

We are making excellent progress towards completing this new 47-mile length of new road for the summer of 1989.

Is my hon. Friend aware, first, that better roads are safer roads and, secondly, that the west country is duly grateful to this Administration for at long last giving it the roads that it needs? Will my hon. Friend let me know when we may expect a start on the remaining portions of the north Devon link road?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The contract for the next section has been let and we hope that work on the Barnstaple bypass will start within a few weeks.

We are most grateful for the Bideford bridge in the constituency of Torridge and Devon, West which joins the north Devon link road. Can my hon. Friend confirm the date on which the road will be completed?

We hope that the road will be open by the peak summer holiday season of 1989. I know that if we can achieve that it will be as welcome as the east of Okehampton stretch, which we opened last week.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has assessed the impact of the Transport Act 1985 on children's fares; and if he will make a statement.

Some local authorities have used the powers introduced under the Transport Act 1985 to provide for new or improved children's concessions. But in most areas there has been no change.

Is the Minister aware of the threat posed to the future of children's fares? In Lancashire, Ribble Motor Services is saying to Lancashire county council, "Unless you pay for this concession, we will make all children pay the full fare." This matter is to he discussed again on 28 July. Is this not an appalling situation? Will the Government give a clear indication that transport undertakings must give children a fare reduction?

Our information does not confirm that there has been any widespread withdrawal of such concessions. I know of only two operators who have withdrawn children's fares, and one has since reintroduced them. Ribble Motor Services has threatened to withdraw child fares, but the matter is to he discussed on 28 July. I suggest that we wait until then. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I add that new schemes introduced as a result of the Act have operated in Cleveland, East Sussex and Milton Keynes.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the discrimination against children in the private sector of education? Before deregulation, all children in the county of Nottinghamshire were allowed a concessionary fare. As an act of political vandalism, our county discriminates and will now give that concession only to children in the maintained sector. Is that not disgraceful?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is disgraceful that there should be such regrettable discrimination. The matter rests with the local authority. Perhaps my hon. Friend will succeed in changing control of it at the next election.

Does the Minister also agree that it is deplorable for a private bus company, as has happened in Strathclyde, to withdraw that concessionary fare?

That is a commercial decision for the operator concerned. Under the Transport Act 1985 the local authority is empowered to make arrangements for substitution.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact on children's fares under the Transport Act would be as nothing compared with the impact on children's fares of any proposal emanating from Brussels to put VAT on public transport? Will my hon. Friend make it clear beyond peradventure that the Government will veto any such suggestion?

I note my hon. Friend's views.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has conducted on the effects of bus deregulation on urban and rural transport in the north of England.

Research being carried out by the Department's Transport and Road Research Laboratory into the effects of bus deregulation includes a number of studies in the north of England, including Merseyside.

Does the Minister remember his comments on Merseyside during the general election that deregulation had not been the success there that he had hoped for? Is he aware that 36 per cent. of fare-paying passengers have been lost from the Merseyside buses since deregulation and that fares have risen by almost 50 per cent.? Will he tell the House how Merseyside passenger transport executive can continue running services when the guidelines that have been set by the Government are £36 million less than the sum that it estimates is needed for its requirements?

When I was on Merseyside, I said that as yet the benefits of deregulation had not become as apparent in Merseyside as I had hoped, and as I expect they will. It is true that fares on Merseyside had been kept artificially low for many years. The cost of transport service provision on Merseyside amounted to almost £50 per man, woman and child, and that huge and excessive amount is being trimmed hack. Last week I met representatives of the passenger transport authority in that area, and we are considering the comments that it made.

Would my hon. Friend care to note that in Cleveland, as a consequence of deregulation, the subsidy by the ratepayers has been reduced from £5·8 million per year to £1·8 million, a saving to the ratepayers of £4 million, without any effect on the services, except perhaps to improve them?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What he says is borne out by the interim report of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, which confirms what Ministers have been saying — that deregulation is a success. Bus mileage has been broadly maintained, there have been no massive cuts in services as forecast, the number of operators is about the same, and competition is starting to introduce new and innovative forms of service such as minibuses in over 200 towns.

Is the Minister aware that some of those advances are very unfair to people in my constituency? In rural areas, many of the bus services are much worse, the fares are much higher and, above all, it is singularly unfair on those who work in the bus industry, who are being forced to renew their contracts by a one-sided abrogation by Crosville that will lower the terms, conditions and wages of the bus men?

Obviously, the latter matters are for the Crosville management, not for Ministers. Many rural services are loss-making. It is for the county or the PTE to decide whether they are socially necessary and for them to make the necessary provisions.

As the widespread perception is that deregulation has caused a severe loss of quality in bus transport, especially in rural areas, and as passenger transport authorities do not believe a word that Ministers say, does the Minister agree that an independent survey should be published as soon as possible so that we can discover what is really happening?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position on the Opposition Front Bench and congratulate him on reaching that particular bed of nails.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how advanced the plans are for a direct rail link from Newcastle and the north-east of England to the Channel tunnel.

British Rail is well aware of the commercial opportunities that the Channel tunnel will bring to provide services from the continent to many parts of the country, including the north-east. It will be making detailed plans over the next two years.

I am disappointed at the Minister's reply. Will he give an assurance that on the day when the tunnel opens there will be a direct link to areas such as the northeast of England? Does he accept that if that is not the case, areas most in need of economic recovery will be further disadvantaged?

Clause 39 of the Channel Tunnel Bill requires British Rail, by the end of 1989, to produce a plan for the dispersal of passenger and freight traffic to various points in the country, subject to various commercial criteria. At present, planning is naturally at a very early stage and the pattern of services will depend on British Rail's assessment of demand.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are investing £300 million in electrifying the east coast main line, one of the biggest infrastructure projects ever undertaken, for the benefit of the north-east? Is he further aware that industry in the north-east welcomes the Channel tunnel because it will provide a cheaper, faster freight transport link to European markets of a kind never before enjoyed?

Electrification of the east coast main line is the biggest investment by British Rail in 25 years, and it will bring substantial benefits to the north-east, as will the link with the Channel tunnel.

Does the Minister accept that the link is especially important for freight traffic and that it is vital that freight and inland Customs clearance depots be provided in the north-east in the short term so that rail-based traffic patterns can be established well before the tunnel opens in 1993?

I am expecting the director of British Rail Freight to give me some guidance this summer on the pattern of freight depots that he expects will be required. I shall take into account the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the trend in the volume of heavy vehicle movements in and around the metropolis following the completion of London's M25 orbital motorway.

Surveys indicate that the effect of the M25 has been substantial. The number of heavy goods vehicles using London's roads has fallen by 20 per cent.

I welcome that trend and consequence, which was a prime purpose of the London orbital motorway. Does my hon. Friend agree that the time is now propitious for the introduction of lorry action areas in at least part of the metropolis, banning heavy vehicle through traffic from inadequate roads when alternatives such as the M25 are available?

The GLC lorry ban.

Some people who have brought their voices from the other side of the Thames seem to have forgotten that many local lorry action areas are not controversial and are well supported. I should perhaps agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said.

In effect, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has asked for a GLC lorry ban. It is a great pity that the Minister, because of his ideological objections, has not seen fit to support that ban. What proposals do the Government have to increase the capacity of the M25, as it is clearly becoming one of the longest circular traffic jams that the country has ever seen?

Before ascending to the realms of fantasy, the hon. Gentleman might allow me to interpret the comments of my hon. Friend rather than doing it for me. The M25 is a circle on the map, but it is designed to be used for half its length or less. There will be a review to see what extra can be provided, but the changes already made at some junctions have helped to cope with some of the problems because half the traffic comes off at successive junctions.

When does my hon. Friend expect work to start on the widening of the M4 through my constituency——

Order. The question relates to the M25.

Yes, Mr. Speaker—which I believe was envisaged in the roads White Paper to deal with the additional volume of traffic that is generated by the M25 in the area of Heathrow?

I am not sure whether to answer that question. Obviously, getting extra capacity where it is needed is important. I shall try to make sure that we continue to make announcements on the widening of the M4, and, for that matter, the M25 when we can. I expect that we shall continue to see improvements without covering the whole of the countryside with concrete.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the welcome completion of the M25, heavy vehicles —indeed, other vehicles—move with extreme difficulty on the north circular road through Ealing? When does he propose to come to a decision on the inspector's report, which has been with his Department for about two years?

Shortly.

Will the Minister now reconsider his reply to his hon. Friend?

I do not think that that would meet with my hon. Friend's approval.

Does my hon. Friend accept that much of the jamming that takes place on the M25 and other motorways is the result of the cone cloning that has developed over the past two years? A few weeks ago I wrote to my hon. Friend about the matter, in respect of which he said that he would let me have a reply, but I have not yet received it.

We try, when we can, to send cones off on holiday during bank holidays. On other occasions when work is going on, as my hon. Friend will have heard from my right hon. Friend in answer to question No. 1, we take road casualty reduction seriously. We do not want to see heavy traffic going past workmen. We often see cones because concrete is hardening. There is always some good purpose for cones being there.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on the deregulation of European air fares and routes.

The Transport Council was unable to adopt a unanimously agreed package of air transport liberalisation measures, which Spain blocked rather than see Gibraltar included. The Government are now doing all that they can to find ways of saving the package, without compromising the legitimate rights of the people of Gibraltar.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he assure the House that the proposals that he and his European colleagues discussed last month in Luxembourg would have resulted in true competition and lower fares? Does he agree that the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian only makes the matter even more urgent to resolve?

I had better not comment on the last part of my hon. Friend's question. On the first part of his question, I can assure him that what we discussed in the Transport Council would have widened the choice of fares on European services, would have widened the choice of services, would have introduced real competition to many major routes for the first time, and would have been much in the interests of British travellers. I hope that a way can be found to achieve that.

My right hon. Friend must have a view on whether progress towards deregulation will be helped or hindered by the proposed merger between British Caledonian and British Airways. May we hear it?

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the matter is being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading. He has to report to my right hon. Friend. In the circumstances, it would be quite wrong for me to make any comment.

Is this the same Government who, several years ago. welcomed Freddie Laker and his enterprises?

As usual, the hon. Member has put an important point.

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is little point in having deregulation if there is no competition left in this country? Will he also agree, with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to see the chairman of Virgin Atlantic, who is concerned about international routes, the chairman of Air Europe, who is concerned about European routes, and the chairman of British Midland Airways, who is concerned about domestic routes? Will he make sure that such a delegation is seen by him and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry before any decision is made about the British Caledonian and British Airways merger?

All those people should, in the first instance, put their views to the Director General of Fair Trading. I have some experience as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I know how these things operate. It is for the Director General to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who can then decide whether to accept or reject it. This question deals with the deregulation of European routes, and does not go nearly as wide as my hon. Friend's question.

The Minister must realise that there is a connection between deregulation. whether internationally or in Europe, and the merger between British Caledonian and British Airways. Would it not have been much better, since, as I understand it, he was advised of the talks early last week, to have had a thorough discussion with the two airlines and with the other operators in order to arrive at a sensible and rational solution to the issues, instead of the unseemly scramble that is going on to try to get routes from British Caledonian and British Airways? If the matter is to go to the Director General of Fair Trading, will the Minister advise the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a reference quickly so that the matter can be resolved as early as possible in the interests of all those concerned in airline aviation?

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider the hon. Gentleman's representation. This question deals with the deregulation of European air fares and routes. The House might he interested to know that British Airways serves 52 European destinations from London. British Caledonian serves eight, and competes with British Airways on seven of them.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total capital expenditure at local authority airports since 1979.

Since 1979, capital investment at local authority airports has totalled more than £260 million.

How much did the Labour Government invest in local authority airports? How much of the £260 million was invested in Manchester airport?

The Labour Government invested about £16 million, as opposed to the £260 million invested under the Conservative Administration. Of the £260 million, £93 million was invested at Manchester alone.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that Liverpool airport, which is owned by the local authority, is having to meet repayment charges on revenue of about £2 million a year and debt charges of £2 million a year'? What additional assistance can be given to Liverpool airport? Where does it fit in his plan for regional airport policy, and what is being done to resolve the shareholding issue among the five district councils?

I want Liverpool airport to he run by a Companies Act company very soon. The passenger transport authority has so far failed to produce a scheme which transfers ownership of the shell company which it formed to the five Merseyside district councils. I am urgently considering what action to take in respect of the problems at Liverpool.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very necessary for those airports to continue their investment, and does he envisage that investment coming from the private sector? Will he ensure that the local authorities float their shares on the public market so that we can have wider share ownership and financing for the necessary investment from the private sector rather than the public sector?

It is a matter for the local authorities. They now have the advantage of powers to privatise their airports. It has not so far been suggested that there should be compulsory privatisation of local authority airports, but I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend said about private sector investment.

Will the Secretary of State give the House an undertaking that he does not intend to introduce legislation which would force the local authorities to relinquish control of Manchester airport?

That is not an issue at present. Manchester airport has received investment of £93 million since the Conservative Government came to office, so no one can doubt our desire that Manchester airport should flourish and be an outstanding success, which it is.

If my right hon. Friend is interested in the welfare of east midlands airports, does he believe that it would be advantageous for the northern continuation of the M42 to be a motorway, not a dual carriageway?

That is a very ingenious question. I shall look at the matter urgently.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the £93 million worth of investment in Manchester airport was done by the local authority and had nothing to do with the Government? Will he answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and say categorically that the Government will not allow plans for the privatisation of Manchester and similar municipal airports?

I have no current plans to privatise compulsorily local airports. Indeed, I cannot understand why Opposition Members make such a fuss about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he will take to reduce the number of uninsured drivers on roads in the United Kingdom.

Driving without insurance is illegal. Reducing uninsured driving involves vehicle owners and drivers, insurers, enforcement authorities and the Government. The road traffic law review is considering possible changes to penalties, including those for insurance offences.

Is my hon. Friend aware of estimates suggesting that there are no fewer than 1 million uninsured drivers on the roads? Is he also aware that the insured drivers cough up and have to pay about £30 million a year towards the cost of meeting claims in respect of those uninsured drivers? Is it not time to consider a scheme whereby drivers are required to display on their vehicles some sort of disc to show that they have insurance cover?

The difficulty is that our insurance system varies from those of other countries that have such a system. Our insurance policies can contain exclusion clauses so that the vehicle may be covered for one driver, but not for others. The insurance would need to be vehicle-specific. Perhaps I can write to my hon. Friend giving details of some of the inhibitions.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what additions have been made to the roads programme in the last 12 months.

Since 1 July 1986, 86 schemes have been added to the trunk road construction programme. Details are given in the roads policy White Paper, Cm. 125, published on 28 April 1987.

Is my hon. Friend aware of how welcome the improvements and additions have been in the county of Northamptonshire, especially in the eastern part of the county, and not least the A1-M1 link the construction of which will begin shortly? Will my hon. Friend accept that the huge industrial and commercial success of the town of Corby is making it necessary for the roads in the Stamford and Peterborough areas to be considerably improved so that the carriageway to parts of Boston and King's Lynn, and further across Norfolk, can be made a great deal easier than is currently the case?

I cannot give a detailed answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question. However, on the first part, it is true that better roads help economic development as well as road safety and the improvement of the environment. The Government intend to continue to manage the economy so that we can continue to have gradual improvements to the road network.

The Minister knows full well that the Government are providing money for the extension of the road surface programme. However, when will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State so that he will ask at Cabinet meetings for the provision of money for resurfacing roads when that is required? The roads in my constituency are full of potholes. The Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself. He should open his mouth in Cabinet meetings so that we can have such holes filled in.

My right hon. Friend is responsible for about 4 per cent. of the road network. The other 96 per cent. is the responsibility of the local authorities——

The Government have cut the rate support grant.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. The amount of money that has been spent on road maintenance has increased under the Government in roughly inverse proportion to the amount that was cut by the Labour Government. I hope that we shall receive the hon. Gentleman's support for what we are doing and for our continuation in office.

While accepting that the A1-M1 link is now to he a fact, will my hon. Friend give us the firmest possible assurance that he will treat the problems of the intervening villages along the access roads with the greatest possible sensitivity, because there is great concern?

On both the national roads and in our dealings with local authorities about local highways we try to make sure that the greatest advantage is taken from improved roads such as the A1-M1 link.

Is the Minister aware that the most dangerous stretch of roadway in Britain is the A74, which is connected to the M74 in Scotland, 32 miles of which go through my constituency? Is he also aware that the Conservative manifesto for Scotland pledged to upgrade the A74 to the M74? People are still being killed on that roadway and as recently as last week a family of three were wiped out. Will the Government carry out their commitment to upgrade that roadway to motorway category as soon as possible, because we are now told that it might take 10 years. That is not acceptable. The Government must complete that roadway to save people's lives.

I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman makes those points, but they would be more appropriately made to my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for roads in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman emphasised the point that, with more than 5,000 people killed on our roads a year, many lives may be saved by having roads built to the appropriate standard, whether low-cost, high-return engineering work, motorways or something in the spectrum in between. I shall continue to do what I can, as will my colleague in the Scottish Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will review the scope for reducing delays in the procedure for determining routes for road improvements; and if he will make a statement.

All pre-construction procedures are kept under continuous review with the aim of minimising the time taken and improving efficiency.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As he is aware, in the time since I tabled the question my hon. Friend has announced after 13 years the re-routing long sought by my constituents in Rainham, for which I am grateful, as are they. Nevertheless, will he consider, on reflection, that 13 years is rather a long time to await such a decision for which we pressed in 1975?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Attorney-General if he will request the Director of Public Prosecutions to reach a decision on prosecution by 24 July in the case involving the search of BBC premises in Glasgow in relation to the Zircon satelite project.

The Director will reach his decision, if necessary in consultation with me, when all the relevant police inquiries have been completed and the evidence obtained has been carefully considered.

When will the Zircon material currently in the possession of the police be returned to the BBC?

That is a matter for the police on which I am not qualified to reply today.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the police had not searched the BBC premises they would have been accused of incompetence and endangering national security?

Critics of the police, to say nothing of the Law Officers, do not lack versatility.

This invasion of BBC Scotland took place in my constituency and one of the makers of the Zircon film, Mr. Brian Barr — a film maker of distinction—is one of my constituents. Is the Attorney-General aware of the deep sense of violation which is still felt in BBC Scotland about this raid and the unjustified cloud of anxiety about prosecution that still hangs over my constituent and his family? When will this sinister farce be brought to an end and the book on this matter closed?

Responsibility for a possible prosecution rests with me, as I superintend the Director of Public Prosecutions. I repeat the answer that I gave, which is that the Director of Public Prosecutions will reach his decision, if necessary in consultation with me, when all the relevant police inquiries have been completed and the evidence obtained has been carefully considered.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members are delighted that the police raided the BBC and that we accept that the BBC is not above the law on matters of national security?

The Director of Public Prosecutions makes any request to the police for investigations, regardless of any partisan considerations. He acts impartially, as do the police, in all circumstances.

When will the decision be taken?

I hesitate to give the same answer three times in one Question Time, hut, as I have said, the decision will be taken when all the evidence has been fully considered. I intend next to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions on this matter later this week.

In view of that unsatisfactory reply. I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on progress on the working of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act provisions for overnight prisoners in police stations and their access to legal advice.

Arrangements are now well established to enable prisoners in police stations to have access to free legal advice, day or night. Cases before 88 per cent. of all magistrates' courts and 94 per cent. of busy courts now originate in police stations covered by a duty solicitor service. The Law Society continues to encourage improved coverage at local level.

Will my hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that the overnight duty solicitor scheme, far from providing advice and assistance to suspects whose civil liberties might be at risk, is being exploited by old lags who could perfectly well wait until 9 o'clock in the morning? Surely that is not the intention of the scheme and is not good for the morale of that scheme.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 constitutes a balance between proper and effective powers for the police, which may get the old lag into the police station, and a safeguard of the rights and liberties of the subject. The right of access to legal advice is an important safeguard. We believe that that balance is working well.

Will the Solicitor-General discourage the police from the practice of taking incriminating statements oral or written first, and then allowing the prisoner access to legal advice?

I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the code of practice are perfectly clear as to the right to legal advice, and they should be followed.

Will my hon. and learned Friend consider a review of the procedures of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act relating to the detention of prisoners at a police station and the interviews in the light of the fact that so many hours are being spent by police officers on those statements? That task is reducing the effectiveness of policing on the streets and is causing widespread worry among the police force and the public.

I note carefully what my hon. Friend has said. Our evidence is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is, on the whole, working well. However, I shall take my hon. Friend's remarks into account.

asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions under the Official Secrets Acts he has instituted in 1987.

Since becoming Attorney-General I have not consented to any such prosecution.

If Wright's allegations have damaged the security service, which was part of Sir Robert Armstrong's case in the Australian courts, why have no prosecutions under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act been brought against The Observer, The Guardian, the Sunday Telegraph, The Sunday Times, the Daily Mirror, the London Daily News and The London Evening Standard? Could the answer be that the Attorney-General knows that when he brings proceedings for criminal contempt and injunctions there are no juries to adjudicate and examine those matters, whereas if he brings the case under the Official Secrets Act there will be a jury and he knows well that the courts and the juries would simply reject his whole case?

The hon. Gentleman is very ingenious at constructing any number of potential reasons for the exercise of the discretion of the Law Officers. These are matters for discretion and, at present, I take responsibility for them.

Given the tidal wave of legal actions that are now going on around the world on such issues as what is and is not an official secret, or what the press may or may not publish, does it not worry my right hon. and learned Friend that these issues are being resolved and new law being made ostensibly by the judges while Parliament declines to reform the now discredited Official Secrets Act? Surely it is time for Parliament to make the rules and draw the lines in clear places.

My hon. Friend is aware that responsibility for any reform of the Official Secrets Act lies with my hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Equally, he knows that the predecessor Conservative Government attempted that reform, but it did not find favour in the House of Lords. Meanwhile, the Attorney-General, as first Law Officer of the Crown, has a duty to ensure that the due administration of justice is not interfered with. The Government, collectively, have the responsibility to take such steps as seem appropriate to protect the duty of confidentiality owed by former members of the secret service.

When are the Government going to cut their losses on the Peter Wright case and recognise that the amount of material already available and the significance of the issues raised totally outweigh the Government's capacity, now virtually non-existent, to strengthen the issue of confidentiality by further legal proceedings?

I am criticised for losing in the courts—as I was by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on "Newsnight" last Tuesday —and I am criticised for winning, as I did in the Court of Appeal on Wednesday. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's question can be answered until we see whether, and if so to what extent, the Government have lost.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Mr. Peter Wright is regarded by many people in this country as a squalid little man who has betrayed his oath and now will betray his country, and that others should be deterred from doing exactly the same thing?

I must hold to the practice of myself and my immediate predecessor of not commenting on matters that remain in issue in the Australian proceedings.

While I would expect the Attorney-General to say that the Prime Minister has no hand in prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act, can he give the same assurance regarding the inference that, had the Court of Appeal ruled against the Government last week the Prime Minister would have instructed him to obtain an injunction against The Sunday Times, and the further inference that could be drawn from the Treasury solicitor's call to Theodore Goddard, The Sunday Times solicitor? Do the inferences that the Prime Minister was involved have no basis?

I can answer that question clearly by referring the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the written answer given to him on 8 December last year by my immediate predecessor. In matters that relate to proceedings of a criminal nature, which embraces criminal contempt, proceedings and the question whether to take them are entirely a matter for the Attorney-General. The proceedings that I took on Sunday last and Thursday last week fell into that category. They were taken by me without reference to the Prime Minister or any other Minister. Civil proceedings to protect by injunction the duty of confidentiality, to which I referred this afternoon, are a matter for the Government collectively. The Prime Minister, other Ministers and myself properly have a say in those matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to ensure that overseas aid spending through the aid-trade provision serves the development needs of the overseas countries concerned; and what share of official development assistance has been absorbed by the aid-trade provision in the latest available 12-month period, relative to 1979–80.

Our appraisal procedures are designed to ensure that ATP projects represent a sound investment for the recipient country. In 1979–80, expenditure on ATP was approximately £29 million, or about 3·5 per cent. of the total gross aid programme. In 1986–87, expenditure on ATP was approximately £81·3 million, or about 65 per cent.—I meant to say, 6·5 per cent.—of the total gross aid programme.

We hope that the ATP will not rise to 65 per cent. of the aid programme. However, it is clear that the long-term trend under the Government is that it has risen, is rising and is likely to rise still further. I commiserate with the Minister, granted the attack by the Minister for Trade on the development criteria for ATP, as reported in Wednesday's edition of the Financial Times. He should be concerned to ensure that development context of ATP provision. If he does, I am sure that he will have the support of both sides of the House and of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), whom we welcome to the Front Bench.

I wish the hon. Gentleman well, although not too well, in his new responsibilities. I read the characteristically supportive speech by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention. As I said at our previous Question Time, we shall respond to the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in due course. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry will make a valuable contribution to the Government's response to that report.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is much better that decisions about the allocation of ATP money should be made by him, with proper regard to developmental considerations, than by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade?

I note my right hon. Friend's remarks. As I said, we shall respond to the FAC report in due course, but I should not want in any way to criticise my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take in the light of of the recent Oxfam paper on the use of United Nations aid to refugees on the Thai-Kampuchean border, a copy of which has been sent to him.

The refugees on the Thai-Cambodian border, who are there as a result of Vietnamese military operations in Cambodia, have no means of support other than the international humanitarian assistance provided by donor countries such as Britain. Most of that assistance is channelled through United Nations agencies. We shall continue our contribution to the international relief effort for the refugees and our political support for efforts aimed at securing a peaceful solution to the problem.

Does the Minister not consider it shameful that British taxpayers' money is supporting what is in effect a front organisation for the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot?

No, because it is not.

Is the Minister aware that the Jesuit Refugee Service estimates that there are now about 386,000 displaced persons in Thailand, 54,000 of whom are Kampucheans? Can he say that the Government will not take into account political considerations when determin-ing what aid to give those people who are living in squalid conditions in refugee camps? What help are the Government giving to ensure that a political initiative is taken whereby Vietnamese troops will be withdrawn from Kampuchea?

We have provided £13 million through United Nations agencies and international relief organisa-tions for refugee programmes in the area. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of continuing to give that humanitarian assistance. We are also prepared to consider humanitarian assistance projects within Cambodia, but we are not prepared to consider support for developmental projects in Cambodia that would support the Government there and the occupying forces of Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the United Nations children's fund's proposals entitled "Adjustment with a Human Face"; and if Her Majesty's Government will promote these policies at the forthcoming annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

We share the concern of the United Nations children's fund for the welfare of the poorest people when developing countries are carrying out structural adjustment. At the annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank we shall continue to encourage Governments to take steps which will protect the poorest vulnerable groups during adjustment. But without adjustment, continuing economic decline would deepen poverty for many poor people.

Is the Minister aware that hon. Members will welcome the Chancellor's spoken initiatives on African debt, based as they no doubt are on Judith Hart's negotiating achievements? Does he accept that there is a crying need for the Chancellor to press hard on the call for a more equitable approach to structural adjustment, and that he will be given a brilliant opportunity to do that at the important meetings in Washington?

I hope that we shall be able to follow up what was said at the spring and the autumn meetings of the fund and the bank, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He is quite right to draw attention to the important initiative that my right hon. Friend has taken on African debt. I very much hope that that initiative will receive the support that it deserves from other countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be meeting Ministers at the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to review aid flows to developing countries.

I expect to attend this year's high level meeting of the development assistance committee in early December.

Does the Minister agree that the people of this country have responded incredibly well to all the efforts that have been made to combat some of the terrible tragedies that have occurred in the Third world? Does he not therefore think it a good idea, when he attends the discussions, to set a target of reaching 0·7 per cent. of gross national product as aid in order to encourage these people? Repeatedly, we see reports of the declining level of our aid, which must bring no comfort to the Third world and even less to the people of this country, who have responded so well to the appeals that have been made.

May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. I know that she is highly knowledgeable about the subject on which she will be speaking.

When my hon. Friend next meets his fellow Ministers will he discuss with them what can be done to help Zambia, so as to persuade it to stop blocking funds due to be repatriated to this country to constituents of hon. Members, such as one of mine, who is currently on supplementary benefit?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. I have taken up the issue of remittances with a number of Governments in sub-Saharan Africa and will do so again when I have the opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the combined average percentage of gross national product given to developing countries as official aid by Belgium, France, Holland, Italy and West Germany.

Total net official development assistance provided by Belgium, France, Holland. Italy and West Germany, as a proportion of their combined GNP, is estimated to have been 0·55 per cent. in 1986.

Does the Minister accept that that percentage is considerably in excess of what Britain is making available? Does he realise that, notwithstanding his earlier answer about the quality of our aid, quantity is clearly important? What steps will be take to ensure that Britain's aid to the poorest countries is increased to a higher proportion of our GNP, and when will it reach the United Nations recommended level of 0·7 per cent. of GNP?

Our position is exactly the same as that of all previous Governments, who have not been able to give a timetable for achieving the target. The hon. Lady mentioned the proportion of our aid budget going to the poorest countries and I am sure that she will have noted what I said to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor).

Does my hon. Friend agree that aid given voluntarily by individuals is intrinsically of much more value than taxes levied on an unwilling population and distributed according to an arbitrary figure decided by outside sources? Will he encourage individual giving to charities of people's choice as the best means of helping the Third world?

I believe that individual giving and contributions by the taxpayer can make an important contribution to the development of countries that are less advantaged than our own.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's aid to African agriculture.

Preliminary estimates indicate that some 30 per cent. of our bilateral aid programme for Africa in 1986 was spent on agriculture and related activities, and that total British aid expenditure on these activities last year, through both bilateral and multilateral channels taken together, amounted to about £140 million.

Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that small-scale agricultural development is vital in establishing self-sufficiency in food in African countries and that in 1984 only 15 per cent. of our bilateral aid was allocated to agriculture and related economic developments, compared with about 55 per cent. that was devoted to energy developments?

I am not sure that I can agree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. About 30 per cent. of our bilateral programme goes to agriculture and related projects in Africa. I agree with him about the importance of supporting small-scale agriculture, and agriculture generally. That is why we made a contribution to the International Fund for Agricultural Development's special programme for Africa. That was one of the motivations in our successful efforts to reform the European Community's food aid policy.