To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority on the safety regulations for flights over London, Glasgow and Manchester.

The regulation of air safety is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. The chairman keeps me informed on important issues.

Does the Secretary of State agree that we have had two near misses in the past fortnight and 365 near misses since 1986? Obviously, many complaints have been made to the Civil Aviation Authority, and air traffic controllers have complained about the reporting system. Does the Secretary of State agree that the skies have become like the A74, in that they are overcrowded, and will he consider extending the vertical and horizontal space?

I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, but is he satisfied that everything is being done to encourage the reporting of these events so that we have reliable statistics? On the question of capacity, is there not an argument for having more routes, especially across the Channel, so that traffic can be more widely spread? In particular, will my right hon. Friend investigate the restrictions placed by the Ministry of Defence on Channel flying?

As my right hon. Friend knows, he and I are in discussion with the Ministry of Defence about that latter point. I do not want to raise his hopes, but obviously we shall investigate that.

Does the Secretary of State accept that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party was not being alarmist when he last raised this matter on 8 February? Does he accept that we are seeking a proper investigation into what is going on? One does not want to be alarmist, but I, too, fly regularly up to and down from Scotland — [Interruption.] Flying frightens the living daylights out of me. Many people are seriously worried. If there is so much traffic in the south-east, why does the Secretary of State not accept that more planes should fly out of Prestwick, for example?

I am longing for more planes to fly out of Prestwick and every other provincial aerodrome, including Scottish ones. The more traffic that can be encouraged to do that, the better. I think that that is common ground between us. I hope the hon. Lady realises that the number of near misses on the form of transport that she is now using is going down, not up. That is the point that I must make the House understand. With respect, her right hon. Friend's speech last autumn— I cannot understand why people keep referring to it—was alarmist and irresponsible and did not take these factors into account.

With the incident over Essex at the weekend coming only two weeks after he announced an inquiry into the severe air miss of a couple of weeks ago, will my right hon. Friend consider extending the range of that inquiry within his Department to include the more recent incident? Taking our cue from him, and trying to keep a balance between those who wish to be alarmist and those who wish to be complacent, may we ask whether the time is not on the horizon when individual inquiries into individual incidents should be replaced by an inquiry into the whole issue of air traffic control, so as to bring some sort of reassurance to the many who fly and those who live under flight paths?

I understand my hon. Friend's views, and I listened to what he said this morning. The present signs are that the incident to which he referred was not a risk-bearing air miss — I told the House why a few moments ago. It is the chief inspector, not I—I have no power to change this without legislation—who by law decides what the AAIB is to investigate. It is right that he should not be under political pressure from Ministers. An inspector's investigation of the incident over Lydd on 6 February is under way. Any safety recommendations that emerge about air traffic control systems from the investigation will be reported to the CAA without delay.

Does it not make matters worse for the south-east that large numbers of northerners must still travel down to Heathrow and Gatwick to reach destinations abroad for which there should be scheduled services from Manchester? What recent action has the right hon. Gentleman taken further to develop the regional airports?

The right hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone—we discussed it recently—that there are now a substantial number of new international destinations from Manchester. I hope that we shall have formal discussions with the Americans before long. I am at one with the right hon. Gentleman in wanting opportunities for Manchester airport, and many other provincial airports, to expand. That will be good in itself and will help to ease congestion in London.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to differentiate between reported air misses and risk-bearing air misses? It is clear from what he said that it is four times safer to fly today, in terms of reported air misses, than it was 10 years ago. Following on from what he said about risk-bearing air misses, the figure for 1986 was only 16, while the figure for 1977 was 45. There again, there has been a massive improvement. Does he agree that it is wholly inconsistent with the dedication and skill of air traffic controllers for a small minority of that profession to try to make political capital out of the present circumstances?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on the right point, especially in the first part of his question. Trends in risk-bearing air misses have been markedly downwards in recent years. That is precisely the point. I hope the House realises that, as a result of that, air journeys in the London area have been proved safer in recent years than they were in the past.

Does the Minister realise that many flights from the three main regional airports, Glasgow, Manchester and Belfast, do not leave on time because of chaos in London? Even if they leave on time, they cannot land because of chaos there. As one-hour flights now require one and a half hours, will the Secretary of State stop passing the buck to the Civil Aviation Authority and accept the responsibility for the increasing chaos at London airports?

I am not passing the buck. The CAA has the statutory duty by law, as passed by this House. That is why I must reiterate where the statutory duty lies. I am considering a number of points about Belfast flights which concern the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that there has been no major crash at Heathrow since about 1972? As there are 300,000 flights per year, that is a very impressive record. However, near misses are alarming for people beneath the flight path and I hope that the inquiry will be extremely thorough.

I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the large number of flights from Heathrow and the very good safety record there. That is why I urge the House to understand what is going on and to appreciate the extraordinary good record of pilots and air traffic controllers, all of whom ought to be congratulated.

Does the Minister not recognise that he has become so complacent at the Dispatch Box that he has degenerated into using claptrap? What on earth is a non-risk-bearing air miss? If it is not risky, why is it reported? To talk like that does not help the situation one little bit. The time has come for the Secretary of State to get all the interested parties together to have a proper investigation into air safety. The Secretary of State may think that people are not worried, but I can tell him that they are, and that they will be especially worried at Easter when there will be much more traffic in the air than there is now.

Untypically, the hon. Gentleman has asked a ridiculous question. All incidents and sightings should be reported, whether they contain a risk or are non-risk bearing. Preliminary indications in the incident at the weekend are that there was not a risk. Quite rightly, air statistics have been compiled like this for a great many years, including the years when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office. I cannot understand why he makes that ridiculous attack.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that within controlled air space aircraft in a position where they ought not to be should properly be reported by other aircraft using the same air space? In that situation there is not necessarily any risk, but it comes into the category of an air miss. It is unfortunate that Opposition Members do not understand the difference between the genuine concern about what ought to be done and the fact that there is a need, perhaps to satisfy the public, for some alternative to the Civil Aviation Authority investigating itself. That may well be one of the ways of alleviating risks. I do not accept that there is an increasing risk.

I agree with my hon. Friend's first point about air misses. I thought that that was common knowledge throughout the House, and I am amazed that it is not. My hon. Friend asked about air miss reporting and investigating systems. As I have told the House, the CAA chairman has initiated discussions about that matter. My Department will participate in them. It is an extremely good idea and I hope that the House welcomes it.

rose—

Order. I have allowed a rather long run on that question and I think the House will understand if we now proceed rather more rapidly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to review the enforcement of transport safety standards by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

The safe movement of people and goods is one of my top priorities. Effective enforcement of safety standards is part of that and I keep it under constant review.

I should like to return to yesterday's near miss, because the Secretary of State has said that on the one hand it was a near miss and on the other hand no safety implications were attached. Secondly, he said that in any event it is not his responsibility. That is completely unsatisfactory. Does the Secretary of State not understand that when hundreds of lives are put at risk there is a clear need to investigate, not only the original individual circumstances, but the system of reporting that allows such events to take place? Will he give an undertaking that he will launch a thorough and open investigation, not only of individual cases, but of the system of reporting?

I have already answered that point twice and I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants to return to it. He has completely distorted my original answer. The whole House knows that if there is a sighting, or any other incident that should be reported, it must be reported. The vast majority of incidents that are reported are not risk bearing. Surely that must be understood by the House. It seems from preliminary reports that yesterday's incident was such a case.

In matters of transport safety, does my right hon. Friend think it right that the Civil Aviation Authority should investigate itself? Does he also think it right that when the authority produces a report, it produces it to itself? Does he not think that he should be the recipient of that report and that it should be the sort of report that can be debated in the House?

In general, air miss reports are widely circulated. I see them because my civil aviation safety adviser wants to discuss them, and it is he who receives the reports from the CAA. Therefore, I have answered my hon. Friend's point. As for the air miss reporting and investigation system, I have told the House four times that the CAA chairman has initiated discussions. I very much welcome that.

Does the Secretary of State not realise that for all inhabitants of London his replies will not be satisfactory? Following the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), unlike sea or rail safety standards, which are the responsibility of the Secretary of State and which are open and visible, that for the Civil Aviation Authority is not visible or open. The CAA is judge and jury in its own court. Surely that is wrong and we need legislation to change it.

As I have said, the CAA chairman has initiated discussions. The House says that the situation is unsatisfactory. I do not wish to politicise the issue, but I must point out that when the Labour Government were in office there were non-risk-bearing air misses. It is important that the House should understand that this is not a new situation.

It is getting worse.

It is not getting worse. In 1978 there were 119 non-risk-incidents. Traffic has increased since then. For some reason the House will not accept that incidents can be non-risk-bearing. In fact, the numbers of no-risk misses are lower than they were in 1978. So this is not a new phenomenon, and the preliminary reports of the recent incident reveal that there was no risk.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had any recent meetings with representatives of the Anglo-French Channel tunnel construction consortium.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State last met senior representatives of Eurotunnel and their contractors Transmanche Link on 15 February.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that when that brilliant project, which is going so well and was recently warmly endorsed by the Prime Minister, is completed, as soon as possible in the early 1990s, it will be the best way to allay the anxieties of people who worry about air misses between London and Paris?

Certainly, it is a brilliant programme and it will be completed in the early 1990s. We shall take every step to ensure that it is completed to the highest safety standards.

Is the Minister not concerned about the disparity in Chunnel-related investment on each side of the Channel? The French are spending at least £1,200 million on the Paris-to-tunnel rail line, while British Rail is spending only £400 million on the total infrastructure. Will the Minister take shelter behind saying that this is a matter for the board, or will he take the lead and say that it is a matter of national concern with enormous regional implications, and that the Government will do something about it?

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood one point. The Channel tunnel is a comparatively small part of the French investment. The French are investing in a high-speed rail system linking them with Brussels and, eventually, Cologne and Amsterdam, and they are spending vast sums of money on that at the moment. British Rail has been asked to study the adequacy of investment by June this year, and it will report then. As the House knows, BR has put forward many investment proposals during the past few years, all of which have received approval.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 25 January, Official Report, columns 23–24, what estimate has been made of the percentage of heavy goods vehicles from abroad which are overloaded, in the light of the 24 per cent. of weighed vehicles which are found to be overloaded; and what actions he proposes to reduce this figure.

A series of surveys carried out between 1980 and 1986 showed that 20 per cent. of foreign goods vehicles selected on a random basis were overloaded by more than 5 per cent. We propose to install weighbridges at Ramsgate and Immingham, the two major ferry ports which lack them. Consultations are also being held with selected port authorities about testing automatic equipment for weighing incoming lorries.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the fact that one in five incoming vehicles is found to be overweight is a matter of deep concern? As the maximum penalty on a successful prosecution is only a £200 fine, should not, at the very least, magistrates courts be encouraged to impose the maximum fine?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There must be effective deterrents. We must be able to catch and deter them. Overweight lorries are unsafe, they are cheating and they cause more damage to the roads than they pay for. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister satisfied with the situation that police forces, for understandable reasons, are not taking action when they know that the drivers will soon be out of the country, and possibly will not return for prosecution? There is a problem, and it is becoming an increasing worry.

Overloaded vehicles are prohibited movement until the load is adjusted, and that is one of the ways in which it cannot pay lorry drivers to overload. We need to use both deterrence and enforcement, as well as trying to ensure that the enforcement strategy is such that people find that it is not worth their while cheating.

Following the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), does it not make sense to seize part of the cargo of overweight lorries, take a lien on it and not hand it back until the fines are redeemed?

It would be right for us to go on considering effective ways to reduce this bad problem.

Will the Minister confirm that one of the problems identified after the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise was the danger posed by overloaded lorries on ferries? The Minister's complacent response to this problem will not do. What will the Government do, both in negotiations with foreign Governments and at British ports, to ensure that it is virtually impossible for lorries to risk life at sea by coming to this country overloaded?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the last sentence of my initial reply.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the future of the British merchant fleet.

A policy document from the General Council of British Shipping, a leaflet from the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers, and about 45 letters from members of the public.

Will the Minister accept that in spite of the admittedly helpful measures in the Merchant Shipping Bill, which is passing through the House, there is still considerable anxiety about the state of our merchant shipping, not only because of the dramatic decline in merchant tonnage, but because over the past 10 years the pay rates for seafarers have gone down considerably in comparison with rates paid in comparable occupations on land? With the Budget looming, has the Secretary of State made, or does he intend to make, representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about having special tax arrangements to encourage the replacement of ships or the undertaking of heavy repairs? Will the Secretary of State also promote special tax and social security arrangements for seafarers, as is done in other EEC countries?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for me. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Merchant Shipping Bill measures. Yes, the fleet is slimmer, but it is more efficient, and company success should not necessarily be judged by the number of ships. The important point is to improve efficiency on sea and on land and open up new trade.

When did my right hon. Friend last receive representations about the size of the merchant fleet from the Ministry of Defence, and what was the nature of those representations?

All letters from the Ministry of Defence are confidential, but I cannot recall one on that issue. I have already answered the question raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). If my hon. Friend is asking for taxation measures, I must point out that that is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much transport supplementary grant will be increased in 1988–89 vis à vis 1987–88.

By £11 million—6 per cent.

I note my hon. Friend's reply, but he will know of the concern in Lancashire over this year's transport supplementary grant application. Will he do all that he can in the financial year 1989–90 to ensure that the projects in the transport planning programme for Lancashire, which his Department has seen, are adequately funded, as they contain many much-needed road improvements, particularly in west Lancashire and my constituency of Fylde?

I will do the best that I can for my hon. Friend, as I would for any other hon. Member. It is worth recognising that if everyone knew how well Lancashire did on occasion, I would face much more pressure from around the House.

Is the Minister aware that large lorries cause at least £200 million worth of damage annually to roads, and the effect of the increase in the weighings of lorries by 50 per cent. at ports, to which the Minister referred, will mean that only 1.5 per cent. of lorry movements inwards and outwards from Britain will be subject to weight checks? In view of the damage caused by lorries to our roads, is it not about time that the Government stopped being permissive and started getting tough?

I shall try to bear that in mind when considering the transport supplementary grant next year.

I thank my hon. Friend for the courtesy and help that he has always shown to West Sussex with regard to transport supplementary grant, but is he aware of the very serious problems that exist on the roads, particularly around Crawley and beyond, caused by the M25? Will he assure the House that he will do all that he can to confer the same benefits on my constituency as he intends to confer on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to get me to visit Sussex to see the work that is going on and the work that needs to be carried out. I hope to visit Sussex next week, but I am not sure whether I will be spending much time in his constituency.

Mrs. Fyfe to ask question 8.

Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for me to answer question 7?

That would not be in order, because I have already notified the Government Whip that question 7 has been unstarred. We will have question 8.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has commissioned any studies on the economic impact of the provision of rail commuter services; and if he will make a statement.

The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has published or collaborated in a number of national and international urban transport studies.

What did the Minister tell the Bank of England's City commuter services group, which reported to him that a survey of 5,250 employers revealed that more time was lost from work because of delays and cancellations than through sickness or any other cause?

The hon. Lady is complaining about delays.

There have been delays here.

The hon. Lady has complained about delays and the reliability of trains. There is great interest at the moment in Network SouthEast, and reliability on these services has improved from 98.5 to 98.8 per cent. of trains running. Reliability and punctuality have improved. If the hon. Lady can give me a specific area of anxiety in Scotland, I shall write to her.

This is not fair on the Government. Is the Minister aware that groups as diverse as the transport users' consultative committees, the Railway Development Society, Transport 2000, the Confederation of British Industry, the TUC—I wonder whether the Minister has found the right page for this answer yet—the Evening Standard commuter club and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have complained recently about the "inadequacy, strain and danger" and overcrowding on British Rail services? Why is it that when Ministers find the right page, we receive only platitudes written by civil servants? Why has the chairman of the British Railways Board received a knighthood for being the most incompetent public servant in the country? Why is the ever-greedy road lobby the only group to be delighted by the incompetence of the hon. Gentleman and his fellow Ministers?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his supplementary to question 7. New quality standards were set and accepted by British Rail last July. Punctuality, reliability, cleaning, overcrowding, inquiry delays and queueing for tickets are all covered by the standards. Those matters have been accepted by the chairman of British Rail. In the last six months of last year there was an improvement in punctuality and reliability on the Network SouthEast commuter services.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the commuter service from Manningtree is very important? Despite a rather erratic record of reliability, that service is used by an increasing number of my constituents and others elsewhere in East Anglia. Is he further aware that a great shock was caused when, following the construction of a large new car park at the station, British Rail announced its decision to eliminate most of the InterCity services? At the next meeting with British Rail's management, will my hon. Friend prevail upon it, if he can, to adopt more business-like practices and not to treat its customers as an inconvenience?

I shall be seeing the sector director of Network SouthEast this evening, and I shall draw that point to his attention.

If the Minister seriously wants to receive complaints from Scotland, is he prepared to accept dossiers from Scottish Members of Parliament, who can all cite extensive cases of the problems faced by our commuters? Does he accept that one of the major problems facing commuters in Scotland is the poor quality of the rolling stock and the fact that the upgrading, being so slow as to be ineffective, is hindering economic recovery?

I am aware of the improvements that have occurred in ScotRail. If the hon. Lady is referring to section 20 services, she must refer to the passenger transport authority concerned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.

Various representations have been received which urge speedy completion of repairs. We aim to minimise delays by careful programming, improved traffic management and greater use of lane rental contracts which give an incentive for early completion.

Will my hon. Friend explain why it appears to take so long to effect motorway repairs?

It now takes between 30 and 40 per cent. less time than before lane rental was introduced. It is important to organise the work properly and to ensure that it is carried out efficiently and effectively. We are seeing substantial improvements. We are extending the use of lane rental contracts. We will not see such an improvement in time because lane rental is now being extended to some of the more complicated roadworks. I should like to see it on other roads as well as motorways.

Is the Minister aware that part of the M54 to Telford has been under repair almost since the day it was opened? The Minister let us know recently that some inquiries were taking place into long-term but permanent remedial work on the motorway. Can he tell us how those inquiries are proceeding?

It would be simpler for me to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Does my hon. Friend accept that his reply is completely complacent? I ask him to come with me and drive on a Friday from London to my constituency. A journey that used to take four and half hours now takes six and a half hours because of the miles and miles of coned-off A1 from Rotherham, north, which adds about one and a half to two hours to a journey. If the Minister had to pass through that in order to get to work, he would damn soon get rid of some of the cones.

If I were going to my hon. Friend's constituency on a Friday night, I would go by train. It is worth remembering that some of the roadworks are to improve and expand the network, and I think that that is generally welcomed. It is also worth saying that if it had started in 1975, rather than in 1979, the roads would be in a much better state than they are now.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning the electrification of the rail network, and other matters; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of British Rail on 11 February. A variety of railway matters were discussed.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman, will the Minister ensure that he reminds him of the need for the early electrification of the London to south Wales main line? Will he also tell the chairman what provision the Government are making for our local authorities to ensure that they are able to provide for local halts, such as that in Magor in Gwent, which are so urgently needed?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. It is for British Rail to come forward with proposals for electrification where it considers that to be appropriate. I have had no application from British Rail in respect of that line.

Will my hon. Friend say what progress has been made on assessing the possibilities for an improved rail service linking the Channel tunnel with Manchester and the north of England?

British Rail is required by section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to prepare a plan by the end of 1989 setting out its service proposals. It intends to consult widely in preparation for the plan, but it is too early yet to say exactly what it will entail.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the north-west group of Labour Members on their success in persuading British Rail not to take the nonsensical decision to abolish sleeper services to Manchester and Liverpool and to run empty sleeper trains in one direction? Does he not think that that shows the effectiveness of my hon. Friends from the north-west?

It was not only Opposition Members who were responsible for making representations on that matter. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is now converted to approving of the chairman of British Rail and his activities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee to discuss the quality of rail services.

I met the chairman of the CTCC in September 1987 to discuss quality of service and other matters.

The Minister is not talking about quality; he is talking about inequality. Why is his Department cutting £3 million a day from financial support for British Rail when people are moaning and groaning all over the country? I want to know when we shall get our proper service from Mansfield and Ashfield to Nottingham to catch the London train. Is the Minister aware that I want to travel on that train, see the beautiful countryside in Nottinghamshire and read what the local papers are saying about me? What will he do about that?

The key to the standards of service that the hon. Gentleman would like to see is investment. The Government have approved any worthwhile investment proposals put forward by British Rail. My in-tray is empty, and I shall be happy to have it filled again.

To ask the Attorney-General when he now expects to reach a decision "on whether to prosecute Mr. John Stalker under the Official Secrets Acts in respect of his book entitled "Stalker".

I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 11 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden).

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Sir John Hermon, Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, said on television yesterday, and will say again today, that Mr. Stalker is thoroughly immature and that his book is a tissue of lies? Should not the public, therefore, treat Mr. Stalker and his book with the contempt that they deserve?

My hon. Friend expresses himself with characteristic robustness. I am not responsible for the views expressed by the Chief Constable or, indeed, by anybody else. Naturally, the Government deplore any breach of confidence of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers.

Does the Attorney-General agree that, in respect of decisions about prosecutions, he is accountable to this House, and only to this House? Although there may be difficulties about disclosing particular facts, does he agree that that accountability should be made a reality, either through a Select Committee or another acceptable channel? Has he directed his mind to that question, and would he care to make a statement?

I am accountable to this House. That does not need to be made a reality. It is a reality.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend know whether the book is a tissue of lies, or a breach of confidence? Surely it cannot be both.

My hon. Friend speaks as though these things are mutually incompatible and as though the entire book, or any book, is wholly consistent in falling into one category or another. That is not always the case.

Is the Attorney-General aware that I agree that, although the Stalker book obviously contravenes the Official Secrets Act 1911, he is right not to prosecute? Will he consider other circumstances in the background to the case in which it is alleged that, while the report was being undertaken, details were passed to a journalist in Manchester? Will he speak to the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office and suggest that, in the light of his investigations and these worrying allegations, senior officers who are put in to investigate other police forces should be given instructions on how to carry out those investigations?

The right hon. Gentleman speaks with much authority and experience. I shall undertake to ensure that his observations are referred to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for the Home Department, who plainly have an interest in the matter.

Was one of the Attorney-General's considerations that it might have been in the public interest for the public to have the right to know Mr. Stalker's conclusions on his investigations in Northern Ireland? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's conclusion not to prosecute was based on that consideration, will it apply similarly to any civil proceedings?

It falls to me to take into account, in my criminal jurisdiction, all relevant circumstances. The hon. Gentleman has referred to one of them, but all of them have to be considered and a right and sound judgment has to be reached at the end. That I endeavour to do.

To ask the Attorney-General what has been the cost hitherto of his actions against various publications in relation to Mr. Anthony Cavendish's memoirs.

The total amount of costs expended to date in the actions, relating to the Cavendish memoirs, brought against The Sunday Times and The Observer, is £157.

Wherein lies Mr. Cavendish's alleged breach of security?

Mr. Cavendish, as a former member of the security service, owes a lifelong duty of confidentiality. It is to establish and enforce that lifelong duty that the actions were brought.

Why is Mr. Cavendish being treated more lightly and generously than Mr. Peter Wright?

He has not been treated in any substantially different way as a matter of principle.

If, in pursuing further action against Mr. Cavendish, consideration has to be given to the expenditure which may be incurred, will consideration also be given to the abortive expenditure which has already been incurred in the Court of Session in Scotland?

Matters in Scotland have not yet reached their conclusion, and therefore it remains to be seen whether they are or are not abortive.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a prerequisite of joining the secret service is the ability to keep a secret?

I agree.

Do I understand from the Solicitor-General's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there was no breach of security — that there was only a breach of confidentiality?

The action was brought to enforce the lifelong duty of confidentiality.

To ask the Attorney-General what recent consideration has been given to initiating prosecutions in relation to offences concerning alleged attempts to subvert the Government of Lord Wilson; and if he will make a statement.

I refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's statement of 6 May 1987, in which she said that this matter had been investigated by the then director general of the security service; that no evidence or indication had been found of any plot or conspiracy against Lord Wilson by or within the security service; and that she did not propose to institute any other inquiry into the matter.

The Attorney-General will be aware that allegations have been made by a senior former MI5 operative — Mr. Peter Wright — in his book "Spycatcher". Will he now stop his inactivity in this matter, because many people feel that by not having a further inquiry the right hon. and learned Gentleman is condoning the security service acting as the second team, or back stop, to the Conservative party?

I do not go along with what the hon. Gentleman has said at all. In matters of this kind it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide what, if any, action is to be taken in the face of any evidence, however presented, relating to the commission of any possible offence.

Are these not just about the most damaging allegations that can be made about Crown servants—that they tried to destabilise a legally elected Government? For public confidence, is not the best way forward to have an independent inquiry into these matters? We had Lord Franks' inquiry into the conduct of the Falklands war. Surely such an inquiry would lay to rest the public's anxiety, because people would then know that public servants are there to help, not undermine, the country's institutions.

That point was made to the Prime Minister — no doubt it was made by my hon. Friend — when she made the statement to which I referred in my original reply. As the ultimate prosecuting authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I am not responsible for whether there should be public inquiries. The Prime Minister is, and she dealt with the matter fully and to the satisfaction of the House in the answer that she gave in 1987.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss prosecution policy.

Last Thursday morning.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the immense harm done to Anglo-Irish relations by the statement that he made two weeks ago, in which he said that there would be no prosecution of RUC officers? While a later statement was made on the issue only last week, the fact remains that immense harm has been caused to Anglo-Irish relations. Would it not be wise to look again at the decision?

This question relates not to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, but to the DPP for England and Wales. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman by way of a supplementary question has no bearing on it, but if it had, my answer would be no.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the decision not to prosecute was made, not by him, but by the DPP for Northern Ireland?

That is entirely true, as I made clear in my statement on 25 January.

Has the Attorney-General discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions the possibility of prosecuting Chapman Pincher? All the information produced by Peter Wright in the book "Spycatcher" had been provided for Chapman Pincher. Is it not hypocritical of the Attorney-General to wax lyrical about a lifelong duty of confidentiality for members of MI5 when he knows full well that information has been provided to Chapman Pincher with the approval of the Government and Government officers? If Peter Wright and others are open to prosecution, should not Chapman Pincher, as the Government's mouthpiece, be subject to prosecution as well?

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that nearly a year ago I announced that the prosecution of Mr. Chapman Pincher would not be in conformity with the code for Crown prosecutors.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is planning any meetings with officials from the International Fund for Agricultural Development to discuss investment policy; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir.

In view of the good track record of the International Fund for Agricultural Development in investing in agriculture for the benefit of those who need it most — the rural poor — will the Minister give an undertaking that Britain will contribute to the next replenishment of IFAD funds? Will he consider making a larger contribution than we have made in the past, so that this country can give a lead in obtaining adequate resources for a viable level of work from this invaluable organisation?

As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we have committed about £47 million so far to IFAD, including £7 million for the special programme for Africa. We are playing, and will continue to play, our full part in the negotiations about the next replenishment. I was pleased to be able to discuss that issue, among others, with the president of IFAD—who does a splended job—as recently as last November.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to provide textbooks for schools in Commonwealth developing countries; and if he will make a statement.

This year we expect to spend about £1·3 million from the aid programme on textbooks for schools in developing Commonwealth countries. I am also considering support for some interesting proposals to provide textbooks no longer needed in British schools to developing countries.

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply. Can he tell us whether the Ranfurly library is involved in the project? Can he also give some details of which countries are being considered for assistance?

The Ranfurly library service, which does such a magnificent job, is centrally involved in the proposals, which are being discussed with Rotary and the British Council. I very much hope that the scheme will get off the ground. If it does, it is intended to cover all developing Commonwealth countries.

Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the provision of textbooks, many developing countries welcome the provision of audio-visual aids, and that the British Council, which is doing splendid work in many countries, would be able to assist if more resources were made available?

Through the aid programme we have been making more resources available to the British Council, which has been doing a superb job in helping to manage our technical co-operation and training programme. Of course, audio-visual aids have an important part to play in education in developing countries, as do books, which is why we have increased spending on the books presentation programme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received asking the Government to rectify the anomaly whereby all public service pensioners receive credit for pre-appointment war service except where that public service was overseas.

Over the past few years there have been many representations from the Overseas Service Pensioners Association and its members, primarily through constituency correspondence. The Government have also taken note of early-day motions tabled by my hon. Friend on this matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one early-day motion has been signed by no fewer than 245 right hon. and hon. Members, asking the Government to rectify this anomaly as soon as possible? Is it not a fact that the anomaly concerns only a small amount of money and that the number of people involved is small, and is getting smaller in the natural course of events, as most of them are elderly? Is it not a matter of honour for the Government to rectify this anomaly? Will my hon. Friend press for funds to enable him to do justice to these deserving people?

I think I am right in saying that the matter relates to between 5,000 and 6,000 pensioners. The estimated cost — it is only an estimate — is about £6 million a year. We are keeping the matter under careful review. I am afraid that, so far, the Government have not felt able to accommodate this extra commitment. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot add anything substantive to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs —the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar)—said in the debate last July.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what United Kingdom contribution will be made to the Ghanaian Government programme of action to mitigate the social costs of adjustment; and if he will make a statement.

The United Kingdom helped the Ghanaian Government to draw up their programme of action to mitigate the social costs of adjustment — PAMSCAD. Following the recent conference on the programme we shall be discussing with the Ghanaian Government ways in which we may use our substantial aid to Ghana to contribute to PAMSCAD's objectives.

As the Minister has previously voiced his support for the debtor nations that adopt programmes like PAMSCAD to help the poor in their own countries, will he say whether, on such an important programme, the Government would consider extra cash outside the bilateral aid that he has mentioned?

So far we have contributed almost £50 million for the support of the economic reform programme in Ghana. I envisage our making a further substantial commitment before too long. A health sector mission will visit Ghana in March, and I hope that some of its proposals on the development of primary health care and mother and child health will make a considerable contribution to PAMSCAD, which is so valuable and such a model for other countries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in adopting the recommendations of the second report from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on "Bi-Lateral Aid (Country Programmes)."

The Government welcomed the second report from the FAC, and its reply (Cm. 225) is a detailed response to the Committee's recommendations.

Does the Minister agree that it is unfortunate that the Department of Overseas Development has many millions of pounds at its disposal for the assistance of what are, in effect, industrial exports? Although some of those exports may have a development element, would it not be better if the sums spent for that purpose were deducted from the Pearson targets or any other percentage related specifically to overseas aid?

I thought that our response to the FAC on that point was overwhelmingly convincing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will match, pound for pound, the money raised by Comic Relief.

I should like to congratulate the organisers of Comic Relief on their magnificent effort. We attach great importance to the work of the voluntary agencies. That is why we have increased, by 50 per cent. to £9 million next year, the support of the joint funding scheme, which matches pound for pound the cost of agreed projects.

That is not exactly an answer, as the Minister knows.

Of course it is an answer, but it is a lousy one.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) as always. Will the Minister specifically match pound for pound the amount raised by Comic Relief and give a Government commitment, which would surely have a positive effect on any future voluntary efforts, to match pound for pound the money raised for overseas aid in this way?

If we were to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests— I accept that it might be a headline-making gimmick—it might limit the amount of money that we provide to the Horn of Africa. So far, taxpayers' generosity has exceeded that of those who contributed so magnificently to Comic Relief. As taxpayers, we have contributed almost £36 million to the relief operation in Ethiopia. When I was in Sudan recently I announced an extra £15 million worth of support for Sudan, in addition to the £10 million that we made available just before Christmas.

I acknowledge the contribution that the Government have made to Ethiopia and other areas. Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) was asking for extra money—not that the Government should merely match what has already been given—to stimulate interest in this country? Comic Relief—and the little effort that was made here—captured the imagination of thousands of people. Will the Minister reconsider his action, bearing in mind that such action from him, in addition to what is already being given, would help to keep people's minds on the problem and encourage them to give more generously?

Of course I welcome the interest that was shown in the contributions to Comic Relief. I repeat that we shall be doing more in Ethiopia and Sudan. We shall be adding to what we have already given from a growing programme. We have increased by 50 per cent. our support for the pound-for-pound joint funding scheme with non-governmental organisations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the provision of development assistance for Kampuchea.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of United Kingdom overseas aid to Kampuchea; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations. As I said on 1 February, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), it would, in the Government's view, be wrong in principle to give development aid to the illegitimate and unrepresentative regime in Phnom Penh. We should nevertheless be prepared to consider providing humanitarian assistance in the context of any internationally organised relief effort. We provided nearly £1·5 million in 1987 to help Cambodians who have sought refuge in the camps along the Thai-Cambodian border.

Does the Minister agree with the views given in the White Paper that was produced by Oxfam, specifically regarding Kampuchea? Does he agree that, if people are living in poverty and if there is infant mortality and problems of personal health, they are entitled to our aid and assistance without any regard to the political views that a minority in those countries might express?

I do not agree with Oxfam on this matter. I agree with the 116 countries, in addition to the United Kingdom, which have endorsed the position taken by the United Nations General Assembly.