To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to give financial assistance to the building of an air terminal at the St. Mawgan Royal Air Force air base.

We expect any proposed development of the civil facilities to be dealt with on a commercial basis.

Does the Minister agree that virtually every economic report on Cornwall has accepted that customs and freight facilities at RAF St. Mawgan are vital to many industrialists in Cornwall and to those who might come to Cornwall? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is unlikely that the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for RAF Mawgan, will help in that regard, and does he agree that it is important to encourage both customs and freight facilities at RAF St. Mawgan? Will he comment on the fact that aircraft diverted from Plymouth to Newquay because of fog or other adverse weather conditions are currently unable to bring in any freight cargo that they may have on board?

The most helpful thing that I can say is that I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friends. They are not matters for the Department of Transport.

When my hon. Friend consults other Ministers, will he have a word with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and persuade that Ministry to scrap the ludicrous proposal to increase landing charges on Brymon, an important regional airline, by no less than 42 per cent. while the runway at St. Mawgan is being repaired?

The general point about the importance of developing local airports is very well taken. I know that the Ministry of Defence will answer the point relating to its responsibilities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the eventual introduction in the United Kingdom of cabotage in the road haulage and road passenger transport industries; and if he will make a statement.

We have received nine written representations. I met a deputation from the Transport and General Workers Union on 22 October. I have nothing to add to my reply of 28 October to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown).

Does the Minister realise that cabotage poses a threat to jobs in this country, to safety on the roads and to the environment? Has he answered the specific question put to him by the Transport and General Workers Union, and what positive measures will he take to protect jobs and to prevent overloaded lorries, perhaps carrying dangerous substances, battling it out for business on our roads?

The Government take very seriously the point about enforcing the law, and we hope that the rest of the European Community will do the same. We will agree to cabotage if our operators have free and fair access to the markets of all member states. We have much more to gain than to lose from the liberalisation of cabotage if our hauliers grasp the opportunities.

Nevertheless, will the Minister accept that there is much concern about the approach of cabotage? By the Department of Transport's own admission about 3,000 continental hauliers driving on British roads are found to be overloaded and flouting our safety regulations every year. Given the rules on toxic waste and other dangerous substances, does the Minister accept the need to look carefully at the matter before 1992, to ensure that we protect our citizens, rather than simply benefiting road hauliers who want to travel overseas?

We do not intend to wait until 1992 to continue to improve our enforcement effort, whether on foreign or domestic hauliers. We do not want different safety standards between now and then. The Polytechnic of Central London report showed that about 1 per cent. of the United Kingdom haulage market was likely to be taken by non-United Kingdom hauliers, whereas if the highly protected German market was opened up 20 per cent. of it could be secured by non-German hauliers. We have more to gain than to lose.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the date for the completion of the M40 extension.

Subject to the outcome of the public inquiry currently under way into the Waterstock-Wendlebury section, I hope that the whole of the M40 from Oxford to Birmingham will be completed during 1991.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the widespread concern felt by many of those living in the midlands and elsewhere about the restrictions that his Department is planning on the lane width of the Wendlebury to Waterstock section of the M40? It is felt that building a two-lane motorway in this day and age is unacceptable in terms of the traffic flows which most people expect on that road. Are the experts who predicted those traffic flows the same as those who predicted traffic flows on the M25?

The answer to my hon. Friend's latter point must be no, because it is about 20 years since the M25 forecasts were made. My hon. Friend asked whether I was well aware of the concern. My goodness me, I certainly am aware of it from my recent visit to Birmingham and other parts of the midlands. Of course I am well aware of that concern. The published proposals are for a dual two-lane motorway, with widened structures at that point. The proposals are currently before the inquiry. I have made no final decision, but shall reach it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the light of the inspectors' report.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he accept that even those of us who find that the motorway is to pass through our personal property are anxious that, after this long history of nearly 20 years, work should be pressed ahead as soon as possible, providing a three-lane standard from beginning to end?

I get the impression that that is the general view of my hon. Friends. I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the latest figures on the increased use of our motorways, showing a 17 per cent. increase between the second quarter of 1986 and the second quarter of 1987, bring into doubt, not only the wisdom of having a two-lane M40, but whether the M40 will be sufficient to relieve the already much overcrowded M1?

I believe that it will have that effect. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important point. I am sure that he will enthusiastically support me when I tell him that there will be a £2 billion programme of new construction for motorways and trunk roads during the next three years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the problems of air traffic control in British airspace.

I meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority frequently to discuss matters of common interest. I next plan to see him on 16 November.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the enormous contribution to this country's balance of payments made by civil aviation and of the industry's growth. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that our air traffic control system can cope with that ever-increasing growth? Will he avoid taking any action that will merely add to ATC problems, such as the imposition of an unrealistic night-flying restriction at London's airports?

I am well aware of civil aviation's contribution. It has been one of our most successful industries, and I think that that is generally recognised by both sides of the House. Night flights are a different matter. I have sent out consultative documents on this matter in the past few days. I should be interested to have the reactions of my hon. Friend and others to them. As for the general adequacy of the Civil Aviation Authority's ability to deal with air traffic control, the CAA has received investment allocations sufficient to meet planned needs. A total of £125 million has been spent on improvements to systems over the past five years and the CAA plans to increase the rate of spend in the future. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is, therefore, yes.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is great public disquiet about the crowded air space above London? Does he agree that the best way of tackling the problem is by a planned expansion of Britain's regional airports and better services between the regions and other parts of Europe?

There has been rapid growth in Britain's regional airports, and I strongly support their development. There have been outstanding success stories. The air space over London is crowded. The CAA has a duty to deal with that overcrowding. I have outlined the vast sums of money that the CAA is spending and will spend. No sensible proposal from the CAA has ever been turned down by me or by my predecessors.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that air traffic control and the subject of night flying cannot be divorced? Does he agree that it is intolerable that flights landing between 5 am and 6 am should be able to wake potentially millions of people for the benefit of a few hundred passengers? Will he seriously consider restricting landings until 6 am?

I believe that when my right hon. Friend studies my detailed consultative proposals he will find much to welcome, particularly the restriction of night flights into Heathrow if the proposals are generally agreed.

Will the Secretary of State raise with the chairman of the CAA the procedures and safety regulations to be adopted by the authority in relation to the new London City airport, which the right hon. Gentleman visited last Thursday? The right hon. Gentleman is directly responsible for these matters in relation to shipping, but with regard to air traffic they are the responsibility of the CAA. Is he aware that vague, bland assurances that cannot be verified are not satisfactory? Will he ensure that the CAA provides facts and figures in answer to questions and letters from hon. Members? Is he aware that if the authority does not do that its sloppy procedures will be made public and open to criticism, and will deserve to be changed?

I will, of course, discuss that with the chairman if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, wishes the airport to be a great success. The CAA assures me that it is wholly satisfied with procedures within the airport and with its operation. It is also evaluating how the airport traffic can be properly integrated in the future, and is satisfied with that aspect.

In addition to discussing matters of air traffic control, will my right hon. Friend reassure himself in forthcoming meetings with the CAA that related safety matters, such as the provision of smoke hoods and adequate exits from aircraft, are pushed ahead by the authority at all possible speed as it is now some two and a half years since the Manchester disaster?

I have, of course, discussed those matters with the chairman, and I shall do so again. With respect, I believe that they go a little wider than the question on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, they are extremely important.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he is having with London Regional Transport as to the policies to be followed in relation to the deregulation of London bus services.

I am currently discussing with the chairman new objectives for London Regional Transport for the next three years. I expect those objectives to include reference to our policy of extending the benefits of deregulation to bus users in London.

I note that reply, but is the Minister aware of the increasing concern expressed by people in London about the future of their bus services and specifically about the effects of deregulation? Will he assure the House that high on the list of priorities will be the protection of services, the conditions in which staff have to work and the safety of passengers? Will he give an assurance that items of that kind will be discussed in the House and in local communities, and not just with people seeking to run bus services in London?

I can well understand people in London expressing concern about the bus services and looking forward to the time when they can enjoy the benefits that other parts of the country have had, including the introduction of minibus services, hail-and-ride services and a whole tranche of innovation which London has only just begun to experience. Safety and other matters remain, of course, of prime importance to the Department of Transport.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a non-dogmatic view of deregulation suggests that there have been some disadvantages as well as advantages? Before proceeding to consider full deregulation in London, will my right hon. Friend consider the effect of coach deregulation, which has taken away local authorities' power to direct traffic on to particular routes and has led to great parking problems, increased pollution and the use of unsuitable roads? Will he give full consideration to those aspects before reaching a final decision on bus deregulation?

I hear what my hon. Friend has said and I will consider his point. However, coach deregulation has brought enormous benefits to a large number of our fellow citizens who can now travel at prices that they never dreamt would be possible. Indeed, the competition has sharpened British Rail considerably.

Will the Minister be discussing with the management of London Regional Transport the kindred subject of the further introduction of one-man-operated buses? Is it really the management's intention to proceed with that programme? Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that any figures given by LRT showing that such a programme is popular with the public must be cooked? Is it not true that the only purpose of the programme—apart from increasing the jams in London—is to throw a few more people out of work?

London Regional Transport is not committed to 100 per cent. one-person-operated buses in London, although that is the norm in other major cities in the world. Each major route that is converted to OPO saves £250,000 a year for the ratepayers of London. Indeed, OPO is safer for the crew because there are fewer assaults on staff and there are also fewer boarding and alighting accidents.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider the guidelines for transport supplementary grant to enable more schemes costing less than £1 million to be supported.

Transport supplementary grant allows extensive support for schemes costing under £1 million. There are no plans to change the grant criteria. A guide to TSG is in the Library.

While accepting that some schemes cost under £1 million, may I ask my hon. Friend to note that most schemes cost more? When schemes have sped traffic through the countryside, it tends to end up in bottlenecks in areas such as mine. Will he therefore reconsider giving more money to small schemes, where comparatively small sums for comparatively small jobs could bring joy unconfined—not to mention transports of delight—to travellers in my part of London?

We aim to give environmental relief by taking unsuitable traffic off residential roads, by giving greater chance of economic development to badly served areas and by reducing casualties. There are those who want more spent on small schemes, but a significantly greater number want more spent on large schemes. We think that we have the balance right and we have the opportunity to review it each year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further efforts are being made by the Government to reduce road casualties.

A major review of road safety has been completed. This makes it clear that we must give priority to those measures which will do most to reduce casualties. That means concentration on urban roads, vehicle design and research into driver behaviour. My target is to reduce annual casualties by one third by the year 2,000—a reduction of 100,000.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the appalling carnage that occurs on our roads every week could be greatly reduced, especially on motorways, if advisory speed limit signs were mandatory?

That is something that we are discussing with the police. The important point is that whether speed limits are mandatory or advisory people must obey them. They are there for a purpose and those who disobey them are behaving dangerously. Mandatory limits involve police enforcement. Some signs are mandatory, but others are not. The police must decide on the level of enforcement and the priorities that they give to that as opposed to other aspects of motorway enforcement. However, if they decided that that was the priority, I would not stand in the way.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a major way to improve road safety would be to attract more passengers and freight to the railways? Therefore, will he assure British Rail that he will give it the fullest support and, in particular, agree to preserve the Settle-Carlisle railway, so that that important and beautiful railway retains full passenger——

Order. The question is ingenious, but a little wide of the main question.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that drink is a major factor in many accidents on our roads? Will he confirm that, under the existing law, a constable may require a specimen of breath for analysis if there has been an accident, or a moving traffic offence, or if he has reasonable cause to believe that somebody has been drinking? Does he also agree that the courts have held that such reasonable cause need not arise until after a person has finished driving? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the widest possible publicity is given to that provision in our law so that, if random breath tests as such are not acceptable, at least that step, which is little short of it, is well known to the public?

My hon. Friend has done a useful service in pointing out that fact. He was right on all the points that he raised. In fact, there is considerable misunderstanding about random testing. Police already have wide powers under the legislation. They can stop people at random. They can then test if there is reasonable cause to suspect alcohol in a driver's body, if a moving traffic offence has been committed or if someone is involved in an accident. Two recent cases in Sussex have shown how wide police powers are.

Has the Minister seen the report that Mr. Bill Gillan, the co-ordinator of the Prometheus project into road safety, has told university researchers that there is no point in proceeding with work which does not in some way follow vehicle companies' aims? Is that not crass and insensitive in view of the fact that 2,000 pedestrians were killed last year, that 35 per cent. of deaths on roads involve pedestrians, and that the number is rising? Will he give an assurance that no inhibitions will be placed on any research into road safety under the Prometheus project?

I am not in favour of any inhibitions on research into road safety. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about accidents involving pedestrians. In fact, he will be pleased to see that recent figures show that there has been some improvement. There is no need for complacency in the House, but it is extremely important that hon. Members should understand that the 1987 casualty trends are encouraging and that child casualties and motor cyclist casualties are down substantially. In fact, our road safety record is perhaps the least bad in the whole of Europe. I am determined to build on that record, and the House should be aware of it.

Although I welcome the fact that our record is not as bad as that in Europe, will my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot afford to be smug when the number of deaths is equivalent to those in a jumbo jet crash every month of every year? Is he aware that a substantial cause of accidents is vehicles, particularly heavy goods vehicles, driving too fast too close behind each other? Is he further aware that there are well known technical means of preventing that? Will he bring in regulations to achieve it as soon as possible?

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We have had special publicity about keeping one's distance. I am experimenting with special signs on motorways about keeping one's distance and keeping left except when overtaking. Insufficient attention is paid to that matter on motorways. I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend raised.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take on the findings of the inquiry conducted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into Network SouthEast.

I am discussing the report with British Rail, which will be making its formal response in the new year.

The Minister must be aware of the report's key recommendation that substantial new investment is required to resolve the chronic problems of overcrowding, cancellations and unpunctuality which plague 400,000 daily commuters in London and the southeast. Does he propose to ignore the recommendation or sweep it under the carpet?

It is not for Ministers to propose investment to British Rail; it is for British Rail to propose investment to Ministers. There are no proposals from British Rail that I have turned down that it has not been able to re-present in any acceptable form. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the average annual investment in British Rail at 1985–86 prices was £112 million in 1970–79, £153 million in 1980–86 and the projected level is £175 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that he has considerable influence with British Rail? Does he accept that there is serious concern about deteriorating standards in the south-east after many years during which services had improved progressively? Will he talk to British Rail about the need to implement some of the recommendations of the report to ensure decent travelling standards for hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens?

Yes, I shall discuss the report with British Rail and, of course, take account of my hon. Friend's points. However, we are sometimes a little unfair to British Rail and its staff, especially in the Network SouthEast area, because punctuality has increased from 84 per cent. of all trains arriving within five minutes in 1979 to 91 per cent. last year. Reliability has also increased with cancellations decreasing from 4·9, to 1·6 per cent. Several other quality standards have been improved.

Does the Minister accept that this is the second such inquiry in seven years and that, like the previous one, the main recommendation of this inquiry has been the need for greater investment in rail services in Network SouthEast? Does he accept that Opposition Members blame, not British Rail and its staff, but the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends?

It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to seek to do that, but he must know that British Rail proposes investment decisions and that I dispose of them—or, rather, the Secretary of State and I do that—and that in disposing of them I have given approval time after time. I think it is fair to say that no other Minister in a similar period has given as much approval as I have done. For good measure, I advise the hon. Gentleman that I have just approved £59·5 million for new electric multiple units for the great eastern lines.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest information on the effect of deregulation on buses.

Bus mileage has increased by almost 12 per cent. over the last year, with 85 per cent. of the mileage now operated on a commercial basis; the number of operators has grown; operating costs and subsidies have been reduced; and the private sector has increased its share of the market.

I welcome the tone of that response and express pleasure especially at the fact that 85 per cent. of road mileage is now supported on a commercially viable basis, but will my hon. Friend comment on what I might describe as predatory subsidies? He may be aware that some local authorities are inserting a subsidised frequency into what was a commercially viable network, thereby destroying that commercial network. That cannot be the object of the Bill nor in the interests of the public at large. Will he also note——

No. The hon. Gentleman should ask only one question.

My hon. Friend has, with great perception, highlighted an area that causes some concern. If local authorities have so much money that they can afford to waste it by providing duplicate services with existing commercial services, that is a matter for the Audit Commission.

Is the Minister aware of the chaos that has been caused by deregulation and the fact that more buses on the road does not mean that there is more efficiency? Is he further aware that, in effect, deregulation means more buses on profitable routes, but fewer on routes that are unprofitable, leaving people in outlying areas, not only in Leicester, but throughout the country, suffering as a result of that profit-based and awful scheme?

I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that there are more buses in many of our towns and city centres——

Only in the centres.

I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but I am sure that he will not object to my saying yes to his question. In rural areas socially necessary services that are not profitable are provided by subsidy from the county or passenger transport executive concerned. They have saved £40 million in providing such services. If there is an area in which and the hon. and learned Gentleman feels that there is some under provision, perhaps a small percentage of that £40 million could be devoted to putting that right.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the deregulation of buses in Greater Manchester has been a success, but that since the control of a major bus operator, Greater Manchester Buses, has been left with local politicians, who have not the first idea of how to run a bus company, the job has been left half finished? When will he introduce legislation to ensure that management buyouts can take place and control can pass to the employees of municipal bus operators?

My hon. Friend has referred to the success of bus deregulation in Greater Manchester, and he is right. Greater Manchester Buses has reported that costs per mile have decreased by no less than 23·3 per cent., that miles per employee have increased by up to 23 per cent., that miles per bus have increased by 17 per cent., and that its costs have come tumbling down as a result of improved efficiency. If, on the back of that improved efficiency, there is pressure for a staff buyout, I hope that local politicians will respond to it.

Does the Minister accept that over Christmas last year there were no buses in Greater Manchester——

Or the year before.

That is not true.

Order. That was not part of the question.

If these interruptions are going to be picked up by Hansard, I hope that for once the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) will get his facts right.

I am glad that this time the hon. Gentleman has chosen to sing that tune and not to say how much the bus staff look forward to having the time off over Christmas. The opportunity was there for the Greater Manchester PTE to seek to have services provided over the Christmas holiday period if it wished. It did not make such arrangements, and that is why the services were not provided.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what issues were discussed.

Last week. We discussed a variety of railway matters.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss with him the state of the north Wales railway line between Holyhead and Crewe? Will he stress the importance of that line, not only to passengers, but to industry, in view of the expected increase in the volume of road traffic from January 1988 when B and I shifts part of its operations to the port of Holyhead? Will he use his influence with the chairman of British Rail and urge him to include in his medium-term strategy plans to electrify the north Wales line and in the short term to include plans to upgrade the line and improve the quality of the rolling stock?

As the hon. Gentleman asks me to do so, naturally I shall discuss that matter with the chairman of British Rail, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, for any programme of electrification—I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence about this—it is for British Rail to make proposals to me. I have received none, but naturally I shall be happy to approve any proposal that offers good value for money.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the arguments in favour of electrifying the north Wales railway line have been greatly strengthened by the imminence of the Channel tunnel?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will put those arguments to the chairman of British Rail. I repeat that we shall naturally be happy to accept any proposal that offers good value for money.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the report on the future of the driving test; and if he will make a statement.

I hope to receive a report on the Department's examination of ways of improving the efficiency of the testing system in the next few days.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to deny that he is going to privatise the driving test, and ensure that there are sufficient inspectors to undertake it, especially in view of the problems that the trade unions believe there will be with this extension?

The hon. Gentleman and I play in the same football team, Mr. Speaker.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not necessary to have a report to know that it is common sense that people should have a secondary test after they have passed the basic test before they are allowed to drive on the major motorways? It is foolish to allow people who have merely passed in daylight on slack roads to go out on major motorways and compete with the traffic thereon. The Government should do something about that now and not wait for any report.

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that at about the age of 24 people start to have more accidents and injuries on motorways than on other roads. Most accidents on motorways happen to so-called experienced drivers—usually the 90 per cent. of us who regard ourselves as being in the top 10 per cent. of those with driving skills.

To ask the Attorney-General whether he is considering bringing any prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act arising from the "Spycatcher" episode.

No, Sir.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he is not yet prosecuting Lord Rothschild?

My answer as to why no prosecution was being brought was given several months ago. To bring such a prosecution would not have been in conformity with the Attorney-General's published guidelines for prosecutors.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it extraordinary that, even after yesterday's outrage, the Opposition still do not support the need to uphold the duty of confidentiality of those who work in our security service in order to defend the country from terrorism and subversion?

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There seems to be a certain ambivalence in the attitude of Opposition Members to that litigation. I venture to suggest that if we were not prepared to incur the cost of litigation to uphold the duty to which my hon. Friend has referred, the cost would very soon be more than money.

To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to reach a decision on the possible prosecution of Mr. Ducan Campbell for alleged breaches of the Official Secrets Act in relation to Project Zircon; and if he will make a statement.

In consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, I expect to have completed my consideration of all relevant matters shortly.

That was the answer of some months ago. How, in conscience, does the Attorney-General, who, left to himself, is a decent and humane man, justify dithering about a decision that has been awaited for nine months? Why cannot Duncan Campbell be told one way or the other? Why is the BBC still waiting for the return of the Zircon material from the authorities?

I am grateful for the compliment, but I must make it clear that in matters affecting my prosecution function I am always left to myself. This is a complex matter in which short-cuts would not have been appropriate. They might even have been criticised by the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any money spent on deterring employees or ex-employees of the security services from betraying the trust placed in them is money well spent? It is important to establish——

Order. Has the hon. Gentleman read the question? It is about Zircon.

To ask the Attorney-General how much in total Her Majesty's Government have allocated for future expenditure on trying to prevent the publication of the book "Spycatcher".

No specific amount for future expenditure is allocated in respect of any particular case.

Has Wright expressed his gratitude to the British Government for helping to boost the sale and publicity of his book? Would not all the public money that has so far been spent, and probably the greater amount that will be spent in future on this farcical exercise, be better spent on scrutinising the security service and having a parliamentary Select Committee reporting on the matter?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind two factors. The first is that in litigation it is the ultimately successful party that is normally awarded costs. Secondly, we are claiming an account of profits against Heinemann and Wright in Australia and against newspapers in New Zealand, Hong Kong and here. If those claims are ultimately successful — [HON. MEMBERS "If".]—that will cause money to flow hack to the Treasury. In those circumstances, I would expect the Opposition, with their notable concern for reducing public expenditure, to rejoice.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend considering any changes in the law or in the terms of contract of security service men to stop those who may be tempted to betray their country's secrets for money from doing so?

The present legislation remains in force and work has been in hand for some time on devising provisions that would be an effective, enforceable and reasonable alternative. This is not without difficulties. As my hon. and learned Friend is aware, the Official Information Bill 1979 was found to be unacceptable, although it closely followed the recommendations of the Franks committee.

As Mr. Wright's disclosures are now about as confidential as a stage whisper, and if the Government are sensitive about the expenditure of public money, why does the Attorney-General not simply pursue Mr. Wright and his publishers for an account of profits? Why is it necessary to proceed with these extraordinarily expensive proceedings in the courts in many countries? The Attorney-General is presently reviewing the legal aid system. Will he be as indulgent to the ordinary citizen pursuing his rights as he is to the Government in pursuing Mr. Wright?

By now it must be understood that it is as important to uphold the principle in this jurisdiction, as it is in every other jurisdiction where it proves possible to do so, that when somebody retires from a position in our security service he continues to owe a duty of confidentiality. If the Government do not take all the steps that are properly open to them to enforce that obligation, they will not be able to do so in any subsequent and perhaps even more serious case.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to confer immunity from actions for discovery in criminal and civil cases upon all correspondence between Members of Parliament and their constituents; and if he will make a statement.

I am aware of my hon. Friend's very conscientious efforts to preserve the privacy of certain letters sent to him by a constituent who was to be a witness in a criminal trial. Those letters became the subject of a subpoena issued by the High Court judge trying the case. Nevertheless, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is not at present persuaded of any need to change the law in this area, which is of long standing.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the case that he has mentioned cost me £2,500 and that that was without choice on my part? Could the same thing not happen to any hon. Member, and would that not effect and inhibit future relations between hon. Members and their constituents? If it did, would my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to think again and either seek amendments to the law to give immunity to correspondence between hon. Members and their constituents, or allow reimbursement if a case such as the one that I have just gone through were to occur again?

The whole House will have great sympathy for my hon. Friend, but he will know that we are faced with a conflict between two important interests. One is the interest of preserving privacy in correspondence between a constituent and a Member of Parliament, and the other is the importance of not withholding from a court of law material that may be necessary to enable justice to be done in that court. I shall, of course, draw the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to what my hon. Friend has said, but I should be misleading him if I were to hold out hope of a change in the law.

To ask the Attorney-General how many High Court judges and circuit judges, respectively, there are currently in England and Wales; if the Lord Chancellor has any proposals for increasing their establishment; and if he will make a statement.

As at 1 November there were 79 High Court judges and 394 circuit judges in England and Wales.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer. However, does he agree that there are still far too many people spending far too much time in custody between remand and trial at Crown courts, and that more circuit judges should be appointed from both sides of the legal profession, especially including more women judges, to deal with the cases that are awaiting hearings?

My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor makes no distinction between male and female candidates for the bench. He is very anxious to recruit as many as can be recruited without diminishing the judicial quality.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reach the United Nations target for aid of 0·7 per cent. of GNP.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has yet set any target date for increasing United Kingdom overseas aid to match United Nations guidelines as a percentage of gross domestic product.

The Government accept the United Nations target in principle. As with previous Administrations, they have not set a timetable for achieving it, but aid is now planned to grow in real terms.

Does the Minister agree that, despite the small increase that was announced last week, the amount of GNP now allocated is still well below what many of our major EEC partners give and well below the amount achieved by the previous Labour Government when they left office in 1979? Would it not be an encouragement to all those working in aid and development if he were able to state categorically that the increase will be maintained and that it will reach the United Nations target within the next year or two?

I believe that it should be an encouragement to the sort of people to whom the hon. Lady has referred that, on the figures for this year, the aid budget will be increased by £70 million next year, by £140 million the following year and by a further £185 million the year after that.

Has the Minister looked at early-day motion 257, which points out that the aid budget has fallen by 15 per cent. since 1979? Why are the Government so loth to set a target? What is the difficulty in naming the date?

We take very much the same view as our predecessors about this. I repeat that the aid budget did fall between 1979 and 1982, but since then it has been maintained in real terms, and this year I was extremely pleased that we were able to announce an increase in real terms.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the increases that he has achieved in the aid programme. Does he agree that what matters is not targets but the effectiveness of the aid that is delivered? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the great burden of the aid that we give will go towards enabling people of the poorer countries to become more self-sufficient and more reliant on their own resources?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of our aid programme. I am delighted that, not long ago, the OECD complimented us on the quality of our aid programme and pointed out that 75 per cent. of our aid goes to poor countries, as against an average of about 60 per cent. for other OECD donors. I believe that we should continue to concentrate on the quality and effectiveness of what we are doing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has just said, it is not so much the volume of the aid as the effectiveness with which it is used that is crucial for development? Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is often much easier for charities and voluntary bodies, which do not have to work through local host Governments and become entangled to the same extent with local bureaucracy, to provide the most effective contribution to development?

I wholly agree with what my hon. Friend said. That is why I am pleased that recently we were able to announce a 50 per cent. increase for next year for the joint funding scheme, which assists non-governmental organisations, and why I am also pleased that we have been able to announce an 18 per cent. increase in the amount of money available to help British volunteers to go overseas.

While we welcome the increases, we must not forget that they are increases on decreases. Is it not a matter of profound regret that in 1979, when the Government came to power, we gave more in overseas aid than France, Germany, Italy and Canada, and now all of them give more than we do? Is the Minister saying that that means that the quality of their aid has declined?

We still have the sixth largest aid programme in the world. It is extremely effective. In 1979 we were undergoing a structural adjustment programme with the support of the International Monetary Fund. Now we are able to go to the IMF and help other countries to go through structural adjustment programmes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress in the UNICEF global immunisation project and the United Kingdom contribution to it.

UNICEF says that there is a slow but steady increase in contributions. The British Government have contributed £5·31 million bilaterally to the immunisation programme, and some £2 million through the European Community. Other British contributors, the United Kingdom National Committee for UNICEF and the TUC, have pledged a further £2 million over three years.

I welcome the initiative and the contribution by Her Majesty's Government towards that United Nations special project, which I am sure has universal support, and recognise that the programme to immunise all the world's children against the six preventable diseases must take some years, but will my hon. Friend look sympathetically at the need to announce a five-year special contribution by the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the programme is given that necessary lift and to encourage other countries to follow the lead given by our Government?

We shall, of course, consider special appeals by UNICEF. It is important to note that our contribution to the core budget of UNICEF has increased to £7·5 million for next year, which is more than the increase in the rate of inflation. It is also important to remember what we are doing to support primary health care in aid recipient countries, which has a considerable bearing on the problem to which my hon. Friend referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of public expenditure was devoted to overseas aid in 1979 and in 1986.

In 1979, 1·1 per cent. of public expenditure was devoted to overseas aid. In 1986 the figure was 0·83 per cent.

Does not that decline underline the point that our aid budget is now below the OECD average of 0·36 per cent. and that it has been cut more than any other area of public expenditure apart from housing? Is not that underinvestment in aid morally wrong and economically nonsensical?

It is not entirely clear to me which public expenditure programmes the hon. Gentleman thinks should fall as a proportion of public expenditure overall. I am sure that he must have been as delighted by the real terms increase in the aid programme as he was by the real increase in the arts budget.

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is it welcome that the size of our aid programme is now increasing in real terms and that its effectiveness has been improved in recent years, but that there is a role for this country to play in influencing the policies of other countries? In that context, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the initiative take by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in adopting a fresh approach to the debt problem, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa?

Thanks to this country's economic strength we have been able to take the initiative in trying to help the most debt-distressed countries in Africa. As my hon. Friend will know, the Chancellor's initiative was endorsed by the Commonwealth Finance Ministers and the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present level of aid given by Her Majesty's Government to Sri Lanka.

In the calendar year 1986 aid to Sri Lanka totalled £13·4million, including expenditure£7·8 of million from the aid and trade provision. An additional £2 million was disbursed by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in that year.

I note the Minister's answer, but, in view of the tragic events in Sri Lanka, will fresh aid be given? Is it the Government's policy to work with the Sri Lankan Government to rehabilitate and ensure that confidence returns to that country? Will he, or a representative of his Department, attend the special aid meeting in Paris at the beginning of next month?

We have announced a contribution of £1·5 million for immediate relief work in Sri Lanka. Much of it will be disbursed through non-governmental organisations, such as Oxfam. We will be attending the meeting in early December, held under the auspices of the World Bank, when we shall consider what more we can do to help with long-term reconstruction in Sri Lanka. I am sure that we will be in a position to make a substantial contribution.