To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases of assaults on staff have been reported during the past year on staff of (a) the London Underground, (b) London Buses and (c) British Rail in London; and if he will make a statement.

Before I answer this question I should like to convey apologies for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is detained in Brussels on urgent EEC business. He tenders his apologies.

Does my hon. Friend accept my great concern at the size of those figures, particularly those for London Buses? Will he also consider assaults on members of the public on the buses, the Underground and railways across London, particularly on pay nights? Is he aware that many people, particularly the elderly and parents of children, are afraid of travelling on public transport in London, especially late at night? Will every possible apparatus be brought to bear, in the form of more police, more surveillance equipment and everything else, to stamp out violence on London transport, and may we have some exemplary sentencing? Something must be done.

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the level of assaults on staff. I know that he has particularly noticed the figure of 880 assaults on bus staff, and I am glad to say that that is 200 down on the previous year and more than 400 down on 1985. I accept that it is still an unacceptable level.

Is my hon. Friend aware that assaults on the Victoria line, which serves my constituency, are getting worse and worse? Will he take whatever measures are necessary to protect the travelling public, including the installation of video cameras on trains and platforms and the provision of more policemen on trains?

The proposal for more video apparatus for the Victoria line is one of a number of actions that are being taken, including improved radio equipment, video surveillance, increased police recruitment and staff surveillance. I hope that those actions will have a considerable impact.

Are not the violent incidents occurring as a direct consequence of the action being taken to reduce staff, particularly on the London Underground? What action is being taken to ensure that more staff are appointed, especially for nights and weekends? What is being done to ensure that the police who operate underground have radios that work there? I understand that the radios are often wholly ineffective once the police are underground attempting to deal with the violence that is taking place on an increasing scale.

The Government have made £15 million available to LRT over a three-year period for a crash programme against crime. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the problem of underground radios. Normal radios will not work underground. Extensive investment in underground cable-laying is required to enable them to work.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on London Regional Transport proposals for investment in the Northern line.

Current plans include an additional eight trains, a new depot next year, and investment of £45 million over the next three years on continuing station improvements, signalling and better communications. Major plans for altering the configuration and modernising the line are also being considered by London Underground.

My hon. Friend mentioned an additional eight trains. Does he agree that that total will be regarded by commuters on the Northern line as woefully inadequate? Does he accept that there has been a dramatic deterioration in the quality of service being given to my constituents and to many other residents of London? An improvement to the Northern line should be the top priority of London Regional Transport.

London Regional Transport clearly understands that the situation on the Northern line is not as good as it would want, nor is it as good as the London Regional Passengers' Committee or the Government would want. Average waiting time on the Northern line is now 4·1 minutes, which is perhaps not as bad as some people might imagine. An investment of £20 million is under way at the Angel to replace lifts with escalators, and a further £20 million scheme to eliminate island platforms is being considered. The eight additional trains that will become available next year are a significant improvement. One is doing the best that one can within the time available, bearing in mind the very sharp increase in the number of passengers.

Is not the £45 million a classic example of throwing money at the wrong problem? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not investment to titivate stations that is required, but more guards and drivers? Does he not realise that London Regional Transport has sold off, on his instructions or those of his right hon. Friend, large numbers of houses in areas where guards and drivers are in short supply, so that they are not encouraged to be in on early and late turns? Would it not be better to spend some of the millions that he mentioned on buying back those houses and reversing the Government's policy, so that at least some encouragement is given to the recruitment of much needed guards and drivers?

As always, the hon. Gentleman has got the position only half right. The driver shortage on the Northern line is currently 23. Far from there being a shortage of guards, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is a surplus of 22. Considerable training is being undertaken. Six guards are currently under training as drivers and another 10 are starting on 14 March. A further 35 guard-train drivers for other lines are currently under conversion training for Northern line duties. That is 51 against a present shortage of 23. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we are dealing with the problem.

As the chairman of LRT agrees that presently the Northern line is "an abomination", will my hon. Friend accept that two measures are urgent priorities? One is to pay a premium to get extra staff to man the Northern line, because staff leave that line. Apparently one of the reasons is that it is the longest tunnel in the world. Secondly, the increased capital investment, which I welcome, should be examined to see whether the Northern line is getting its fair share. There ought to be additional capital investment to cover the need to train the new staff that are necessary on this line, as well as to cover the other technological progress.

I have already given the House the figures for the substantial amount of training that is taking place, specifically of drivers for the Northern line. The average weekly wastage of train staff grades in 1987 was only eight. Compared with the figures that I have given, that offers some grounds for reassurance. Investment is very much the key to raising standards, and investment in LRT will be running at £ I million a day next year. That £365 million is 60 per cent. higher than during the last year that the GLC was in charge.

In his usual complacent way, the Minister insists that there is an adequate number of drivers. Will he confirm to the House that things are kept ticking along on the Northern line simply because 55 guard motormen are covering for drivers? Will he confirm also that, for that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Speaking) made a valid point when he said that we should consider something practical about the housing of staff used on the Northern line?

It is not for me to bring forward investment proposals for the Northern line or any other line. It is for the management to bring forward what it believes to be the right priorities. I shall draw the management's attention to the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, but it is not for Ministers to propose investment. That is for those who operate the system.

rose—

Order. We are making rather slow progress today. May I ask for briefer questions, and perhaps we will have briefer answers too?

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding the road safety implications of the use of car telephones.

None. In simple terms, if one can afford a car telephone, one can afford a hands-free microphone. It is not safe to hold a telephone when driving.

Is my hon. Friend aware that concerns have been expressed following the practice of drivers using telephones while proceeding along motorways or turning corners? Does he agree that such practices are dangerous? Is he satisfied that the present law would meet those points, because I am not?

The answer is yes. However, I welcome the opportunity of repeating the advice in the Highway Code which is: do not use a hand-held telephone when driving.

May I tell the Minister that anyone in a car who is holding a telephone and talking into it looks a right wally anyway? Before becoming too involved in the subject, will the Minister tell us what evidence he has, if any, of accidents that have occurred as a result of people driving and using a telephone at the same time? Is there any empirical evidence?

There is anecdotal evidence. A BBC radio taxi was taking me to a high hill in Guildford and, with a hand on the microphone, the driver went through a red light.

If my hon. Friend's criterion for the use of a hands-free set is the fact that it is not safe to use a telephone in the hand in the car, will he take steps to ban smoking in cars?

Wiser politicians than I have said that one needs to work by common agreement whenever possible. There is common agreement on the dangers of holding a telephone when driving a car.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to increase safety standards in transport during the next year; and if he will make a statement.

We keep transport safety standards under regular review and shall continue to develop proposals whenever the need arises.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the interdepartmental committee on road safety has attempted to produce a comprehensive and objective report of road safety matters? Nevertheless, it fails to acknowledge a proven range of counter measures against drink driving, and that omission has marred the credibility of the full report. Is the fact that drink driving measures, particularly random breath testing, have been ignored, another example of the Government behaving in an ostrich-like way with their head in the sand over this vital matter?

No. I welcome the sustained interest of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and the House in drink driving. There may be an opportunity for some hon. Members to listen to an Adjournment debate this evening on the subject. In simple terms, I am surprised that anyone should accuse the Department or the Government of being soft in the action against drinking and driving.

Given the appalling number of accidents to motor cyclists and the fact that every other form of commercial operation requires the driver of a vehicle to be fully qualified, would my hon. Friend be sympathetic to a private Member's Bill which prohibited motor cycle couriers from employing learner drivers who have passed no test at all?

I am not sure that I have the authority to prejudge that suggestion. I make the point made by the Highway Code, that the dangers to motor cyclists often come from other road users. I would welcome further attention both to our training and testing proposals for motor cyclists and to those for leg protection, which I am sure will come. I also hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pays little attention to the petition with 250,000 signatures asking for me to be removed. I fear that I may be condemned to stay in transport for four years.

Given the problems in increasing the scope of driving tests—for example, it is difficult for all drivers to have experience of motorways, as many would have to travel hundreds of miles to find a motorway—will the Minister consider introducing a probationary year after the driver has taken the test?

Perhaps it would be better if I wrote to the hon. Lady and put a copy of the reply in the Library. It would take too long to give the answer now.

Does my hon. Friend accept that most of us agree that there is no need for random breath tests, because the police have enough powers already? Does he also agree, however, that many of us who are with him on that issue are rather disturbed at the idea of carrying out tests on drivers who will then escape prosecution? We all know already that drinking and driving is dangerous. Why should there be any need to go in for more tests, when we all know the results before we start?

What we do not know is how far we are succeeding in cutting out drinking and driving. In the 350,000 tests administered by the police, every one of 120,000 who fail—one in three—will be considered for prosecution. We are proposing to add 2,500 tests carried out by researchers, not by the police, which will give us a baseline to see how effective the advice "Don't drink and drive" will be.

On this first transport Question Time since the anniversary of the Zeebrugge ferry disaster, will the Minister and his hon. Friends turn their attention to ferry safety and to dangerous working practices?

It is normally accepted that the House should not become involved in negotiations. It is plain that any working practices must meet the statutory requirements.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the work of the British Transport police in protecting persons and property on the London Underground.

The British Transport police are co-operating with London Underground Limited in the implementation of the recommendations of my Department's report of November 1986 on "Crime on the London Underground".

While new measures will be welcomed by my constituents, whether passengers or staff, is it not the case that threatening and drunken behaviour, mugging and other violence—not to mention illegal graffiti and litter—are rife, and would it not be a good idea if the British Transport police, like other constabulary forces, had a special constabulary to supplement their regular personnel?

There has been a 25 per cent. reduction in muggings where new methods of policing have been employed on the southern end of the Victoria line. I shall be meeting the chief constable of BTP and the chairman of London Underground Limited before the end of the month to review progress. Projects at Oxford Circus and eastern stations on the Central line to test improved equipment and practices will be inaugurated later this month. I shall discuss with the chief constable when I meet him the point that my hon. Friend raised about specials.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing anxiety among most people who travel on the London Underground at the long, deserted stretches of platform and stairways with no police in sight? Is it not about time that the Metropolitan police took over the responsibilities of the British Transport police? Most of us think that they are pretty ineffective.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that there is a degree of specialisation in transport police work, and I do not think that it would be right to make the change that he suggests.

Does the Minister recall the recent reply that he gave me:

"The complement of the Underground division of the British Transport police has increased to 350 officers; the number so far in post is 314."? — [Official Report, 25 February 1988; Vol. 128, c. 309.]

As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, recruitment is up from 280 and 314. It is planned to increase that figure to 350 by October this year, and we expect that that target will be reached. The other items that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are matters in which, frequently, new methods will be more effective.

Given the difficulty that has sometimes arisen in recruiting transport policemen for British Rail because of the financial limitations placed on it, will my hon. Friend confirm that no such considerations will stand in the way of reaching the target of 350 officers, to which he has referred?

Yes, Sir.

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 Edinburgh.

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

Is there now to be more than one nightshift duty air traffic controller?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has put that question to the authority, but I shall certainly ensure that he gets an answer.

Has the Minister discussed the movement of military aircraft over Turnhouse airport, in particular a practice that has been adopted of military aircraft flying very fast and very low over the main runway at Turnhouse when civilian aircraft are either on the runway or in the vicinity? Will he take that matter up with the chairman and and seek an assurance that civilian aircraft will not be put at risk?

It is clear that civilian aircraft should not be put at risk. I suspect that they are not put at risk, but I shall do as the hon. Gentleman asks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up an inquiry into the potential benefits of electrifying railway lines to south Wales and the west of England in the light of the Channel tunnel development.

No. It is the responsibility of the British Railways Board to bring forward proposals for investment in the railways.

Will the Minister confirm that under present plans there will be no possibility for the people of Wales or the west of England to have a direct rail link through to the continent of Europe after the Channel tunnel is constructed? Will he reconsider the possibility of such a link for the benefit of business, commercial affairs and tourism in south Wales? Is he content for the Channel tunnel to be a further deepening of the east-west divide between the claustrophic, overheated and overcrowded south-east of England and the vast acres of opportunity in Wales and the west of England, which increasingly will be on the periphery of the Common Market?

In parenthesis, I should say that I believe that TSB has moved from my constituency to the hon. Gentleman's, but I do not think that that is an exact illustration of the point that he is seeking to make.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the reality is that the British Government's attitude to electrification and investment in Channel tunnel-related expenditure is "How little can we get away with?", while the French Government's attitude for SNCF is "What do we need to make the most of this splendid facility?" Will my hon. Friend please do everything that he can to persuade his ministerial colleagues to change their attitudes? Is he aware that if he does not do so we shall find ourselves with a Cinderella railway on this side of the Channel and a modern railway on the other side?

The French and ourselves regard investment in Channel tunnel-related lines as a commercial matter. The French's line for the Channel tunnel will ride on the back of the expenditure on the Paris-Brussels-Cologne-Amsterdam line, as my hon. Friend will well know. We are investing roughly comparable amounts, when that is taken into account.

Will my hon. Friend look at the electrification which has already been authorised by the Government for the line to Weymouth to ensure that British Rail uses that wonderful asset to the best advantage? It appears from BR's plans that it is looking backwards rather than forwards.

I was pleased to approve the electrification of the line to Weymouth. If my hon. Friend is not happy with the way in which British Rail proposes to manage that service, perhaps he will write to me.

Will the Minister concede that there must be a case for an inquiry into the electrification of British Rail nationally as a result of the Channel tunnel opening, the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) referred? Does the Minister agree that if such an inquiry does not take place and, to adopt the phrase used by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), Britain remains the Cinderella of Europe because of its railways, the south of England in particular will drown under a tidal wave of largely foreign-built lorries and coaches?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. As he well knows, British Rail expects more than 1,500 juggernaut-sized lorries a day to be taken off the roads and put on rail as a result of the Channel tunnel. Modern diesels have a similar performance to electrics. In any case, 20 electrification schemes have been approved since 1979, including the biggest that there has ever been on the east coast main line. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have it with both barrels, I should tell him that the average annual spend on electrification under this Government is £72 million, compared with only £41 million under the Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to introduce a mandatory requirement for British airlines to carry passenger protection smoke hoods.

Policy on air safety is for the Civil Aviation Authority. The CAA decided in December against making smoke hoods mandatory at present. It is continuing to work on improved standards of cabin fire safety.

Two and half years after the incident at Manchester airport, when there was considerable loss of life through smoke suffocation, is it not about time that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport leant somewhat on the Civil Aviation Authority? The CAA's attitude appears to be that until there is a perfect smoke hood it should continue to drag its feet. Surely that is not sensible in the interests of safety.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I understand also that the CAA hopes to finalise the specification soon. The CAA has made it clear that the final decision will be based on safety, not on cost.

Does my hon. Friend agree that until there is international acceptance of a specification for smoke hoods it would he wrong to insist on mandatory carrying of them by airlines and that the working draft paper, recently issued by the CAA, is a welcome step forward? Will my hon. Friend confirm that comments on that paper are required by 31 March? Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that this will assist British industry to capitalise on its technical lead?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right about the deadline for comments. It is important to build on the joint research with the other major aviation nations. The point is to get practicable safety measures for passengers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received since the introduction of one-person operated buses in Greater London concerning longer journey times.

I have received a number of representations on various aspects of one-person operated buses in London. It is our normal practice to refer questions involving operational matters to London Regional Transport for reply.

Does the Minister recall that when we had the debate on the London Regional Transport levy, one matter that I raised was the fact that since 1982 there has never been as long an average waiting time in London for buses—whether run by London Regional Transport or by private contractors — as this year? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to revise the operation of one-person operated buses to ensure that we have less time to wait, which clearly cannot happen when there is only one member of staff on the bus and the queue takes longer to get from the pavement to the inside of the bus?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that we had quite a lot of discussion earlier this afternoon on safety. He will realise that OPO buses are much safer than open-plan crewed buses and that there are far fewer assaults on staff.

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is due to people parking where they should not? Will he take steps to ensure that selfish people do not park their cars and vans in the area of bus stops?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. One of the problems with London buses' time-keeping is the parking of vehicles wrongly in particular route areas. I have discussed this with the Metropolitan police and priority is being given to action on those routes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of London Buses Ltd.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said in the London Regional Transport levy order debate on 25 January, we have asked LRT to bring forward early proposals for restructuring London Buses Ltd. into smaller units which will be able to operate commercially under conditions of competition.

I understand that London Regional Transport is now considering a proposal to break up the bus fleet into 15 separate companies. Will the Minister tell the House what good that will do for the efficiency of bus services in London generally? He must know how many people are complaining about the system at present. The LRT 1988–89 business plan shows that there will not be any improvement in waiting time next year, that about 70 million bus miles will be lost and that there will be no new investment in buses. Will he tell us how his proposals will assist the travelling public in London?

The hon. Gentleman refers to the level of complaints now. He should therefore warmly welcome the proposals brought forward by London Buses Ltd. for restructuring the system.

Will my hon. Friend accept that people in my constituency, where there is a local bus organisation called Harrow Buses, want more of the decisions made by local people on the spot and that, therefore, the splitting into different companies is warmly welcomed?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the features of smaller-based operations is that they are able to be more flexible in responding to consumer demand. This has been well demonstrated in the deregulated system outside London, where the National Bus Company has been broken up in that way, and it has proved to be very successful.

Will the Minister confirm that if there is to be any improvement — which is doubtful — as a result of the break-up of London Buses, it will come only as a result of higher bus fares? Will he also tell the House whether he intends to push ahead with the deregulation of the London bus system within the lifetime of this Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that there is a direct correlation in those matters with bus fares, which should be operated at the optimum level to secure both continuing custom and a viable business, where it is practicable to do so. I hope that I have successfully answered the hon. Gentleman's question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the programme for new road projects in the north-west.

The trunk road programme includes some £700 million of planned schemes in the north-west. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced on 11 March the decision to go ahead with the region's highest priority scheme—the £160 million final section of the Manchester outer ring road from Denton to Middleton.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are making a very good job of providing road links for the north of the country as a whole, as Bolton council is for the north of my constituency?

There is a local point there on which I should not detain the House with an explanation. However, it is true that the previous Government, although full of good intentions, managed to cut the roads programme dramatically. We are delighted to be able to make sensible spending decisions, which will help to bring economic prosperity especially to the north-west, to bring environmental relief to many people living on main roads and to reduce the number of road casualties.

Does the Minister accept that the whole of north-east Lancashire believes that, for the regeneration of that area, the linking of the M65 to the M6-M61 should be done as soon as possible? Does he further accept that they disagree with his Department's view that it is not necessary for that link to be of motorway standard? There is a strong need for that link to be of motorway standard.

I am sure that the House will have appreciated the hon. Gentleman's view.

Will my hon. Friend give high priority to the M6 link, which would give an enormous boost to industry in Lancaster and Morecambe? I am aware of the dilatoriness of the Labour-controlled county council, which has never given that road a high enough priority. Does my hon. Friend accept that my constituents are not prepared to suffer for the council's sins?

My hon. Friend has made her point very strongly. Speaking generally, the partnership between the Department of Transport and the 107 highway authorities is generally pretty good and shows that normally local and national Government can work together.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's proposed changes in the financing of passenger transport authorities and their likely effects on (a) Tyne and Wear and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.

We propose that PTAs should bill their districts instead of precepting separately. The effect will make Tyne and Wear and other PTAs more accountable to their electorates. A paper was circulated for comments on 22 January, and I met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 2 March.

Are the Government aware of the concern about the proposals in Tyne and Wear? Do the Government agree that, following the abolition of the metropolitan county council and the introduction of deregulation, the latest proposals are the final death blow to the concept of integrated passenger transport in Tyne and Wear?

Nothing in the proposals should pose any threat to the degree of integration of transport in Tyne and Wear. They will make the provision of transport services by the PTA far more accountable than they are under the existing system. If the hon. Lady and the PTA are afraid of accountability, perhaps I understand what lies behind her question.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the establishment of family courts, in the light of the statement by the Lord Chancellor in the February issue of "Family Law".

The Lord Chancellor endorsed the strength of the arguments for both a unified legal framework for child and family law and for a unified court structure. The latter is dependent on the former, upon which officials from a number of Departments are actively engaged.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but, alas, it does not really get us much further. Is he aware that many individuals and organisations went to a great deal of trouble to respond to the Government's consultative document on family courts? Also, our noble and learned Friend Lord Havers seemed to demonstrate some sympathy for the idea of family courts. Indeed, from time to time, my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General have said that work is proceeding on proposals for family courts. The tone of the present Lord Chancellor's statement suggests that he is now looking for all sorts of reasons not to proceed with the family court. Will my hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to clear up the situation and make a statement, so that we know exactly where we stand? If he could do that in a debate that he could persuade our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to hold on the subject, so much the better.

My hon. Friend should take heart. We must seek to deal in a rational, comprehensive and integral way with child law, both public and private, including harmonisation of the available remedies and reform of court procedures. That objective is necessary in itself and will provide an essential foundation for any reform of court structures. We must get the law right first and then look at court structures.

Does the Solicitor-General accept that the long delays over the past 16 years since the Finer recommendation are a sad commentary on the prospects for achieving legal reform of any sort in this country? Will he now get some steam behind his proposal, as hardly any serious legal body is opposed to it?

It is not steam that is needed, but a bit of clear thinking. Child care law and family law are in a great muddle, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We intend to get child care and family law right. We shall then have set the legal framework against which to provide the court framework, if that seems appropriate.

May we take it that the article that was written by the Lord Chancellor does not demonstrate that the Government's real thinking is that too much else on the statute hook needs to be done before there is a reform of family law? As it is agreed by hon. Members of all parties that speedy action should be taken along the lines that my hon. and learned Friend has stated, does he agree that we should not have to keep coming back year after year asking the same questions on this important subject?

My hon. and learned Friend has seen and made the point. Child care law is receiving high priority.

In a somewhat unusual — although welcome—article in "Family Law", the Lord Chancellor appears to be saying that he believes that the present system is unduly complicated and that he would welcome reform, but is he also saying that he rejects reform because it is too complicated, or that the reform is rejected by other colleagues in the Cabinet because of other business? What is the answer?

The Lord Chancellor is not saying either of those things. He is saying that reform in the form of clarification and harmonisation of the many different strands of child law is badly needed and that we should get on with it, and that is what he proposes to do.

Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the widespread support for family courts among hon. Members of all parties, and, bearing in mind that there is good will for reforming child law, will he exert pressure on the business managers of the House to bring in what many others feel is a long-overdue reform that will receive widespread support?

Again, my hon. Friend should take heart. We intend to get child care law right. As he knows, it is a large and complex subject that needs to be tackled. Once that has been dealt with, we can move on to the concomitant of the actual court structure, if that seems appropriate. The concept of a family court embodies getting right both the law and the court structure.

To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss matters relating to prosecution policy.

In the near future.

When the hon. and learned Gentleman sees the Director of Public Prosecutions, will he please discuss once again the question of the Director's failure to prosecute the perpetrators of "Holocaust News". In that context, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is monstrous that the law is too weak to allow people who are stirring Fascist and racist ill will in this decent country to be brought to book?

I advise the hon. and learned Gentleman that this matter has been considered with great care, not only by the Director's office, but by the Directcr himself, with the benefit of advice of senior Treasury counsel, and by both Law Officers. Having regard to all the material factors, including the nature and effect of the defences likely to be open to and relied on by the defendants, the likelihood or otherwise of a conviction, and the circumstances as a whole, it is not thought appropriate to prosecute.

When my hon. and learned Friend meets the Director of Public prosecutions, will he draw to his attention a "Today" radio programme of a few weeks ago in which it was asserted that a number of abortions are being carried out in this country because the parents do not wish to give birth to a baby girl? The programme said that baby girl foetuses are being aborted. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that is a most serious allegation, involving crime? Will he ensure that the DPP carries out a thorough investigation and that those who are alleged to be involved are brought before the courts?

I quite understand what my hon. Friend says. It is most important to emphasise that any evidence that is available should go straight to the police.

When the hon. and learned Gentleman next meets the DPP, will he express his concern at the increasing acquittal rate in the Crown courts, which shows one of two things: either too many innocent people are being prosecuted, or cases are being underprepared by the prosecution, or possibly both? Does he recognise that there remains the problem that the starting salaries for new recruits to the Crown Prosecution Service simply do not compare with salaries in the private sector?

I cannot accept that there are any reliable trends that are capable of yet being established. As to the second part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, that matter is under close consideration.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest development in the various cases relating to the book "Spycatcher".

I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 10 March to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).

I recognise from that reply that neither the circumstances nor the principle have changed. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Wright's behaviour has been to exchange his oath of loyalty for a substantial royalty? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most of my constituents believe that Wright's behaviour is clear and despicable? In spite of the difficulties, will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to pursue the matter vigorously?

I am certain that my hon. Friend speaks with complete reliability about the responses from his constituents. I will not comment personally upon Mr. Wright, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that all judges in this country who have pronounced on the case have described Mr. Wright as being in flagrant breach of the duty of confidentiality that he owes to the Crown.

Does the Attorney-General consider it appropriate that, as the senior Law Officer, he should have sent out a propaganda letter to all Conservative Members explaining the position on the "Spycatcher" case? Is that not incompatible with his position as Attorney-General?

The "Spycatcher" proceedings are civil proceedings instituted by the Government as a result of a collective decision in pursuance of their policy to uphold the duty of confidentiality owed to the Crown by former members of the security services. In those circumstances, it is entirely proper for the Government to communicate on the subject with their parliamentary supporters— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—as it is on any other subject. I communicate with this House every three weeks, and more often on demand.

Is not the difficulty for the Government the fact that they have chosen to emphasise the lifelong duty of confidentiality to the grave as being more important than the right of the public to know and the press to report on crime, fraud or the possibly mooted causes of treason as reported in Mr. Wright's book? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one cannot enjoin any public servant to a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the grave without the caveat that that cannot cover fraud, crime or possible treason? Is it not in the interests of the House to know about those circumstances?

The first thing to establish in these difficult matters is the law of the country. My hon. Friend is aware that considerable importance is attached to the fact that former and serving members of the security services owe a duty to the Crown. The question whether that duty is owed in all circumstances, including the circumstances to which my hon. Friend has referred, is before the courts at the moment. We shall have to see what the House of Lords says when it hears that appeal on 7 June. Then will be the time to consider what, if any, changes should be made to the law by other means. The first thing, however, is to protect that duty because, if we do not, and if we are not prepared to pay the cost that is required in money, it will not be very long before that cost is payable in lives as well as money.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have considered proposals to use additional aid funds to refinance outstanding debts owed to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development by low-income developing countries; and if he will make a statement.

What counts is that the bank should be making more money available for those countries than they are due to repay to it. We believe that we can more effectively support low-income countries following adjustment programmes by using our aid to finance the imports they desperately need now.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Would he care to comment on the recent proposal of Nordic countries to create a facility to ease the debts owed to the IBRD by many low-income African countries? Will the Government support that proposal at the meeting of the bank in Washington in the spring?

It is one of several interesting proposals that have been made about indebtedness. Of course, there is nothing to stop individual donors from taking that action without setting up a special fund to do so. What is important is that any new initiative should represent additionality in flows of aid to African countries. We have taken a number of steps ourselves—the contribution to the enhanced structural adjustment facility, the major contribution to the World Bank's special programme and the Chancellor's own debt initiative.

Would it not be better if these long-dated loans from the IBRD to the poorest countries—because they must have pre-dated the International Development Association—were to be re-financed by the World Bank through the IDA itself and, by so doing, have the right kind of conditionality attached to their renewal, so that we do not have a repetition of the poor economic policies in some of the countries concerned?

What I am anxious to do, as I tried to explain just now, is to ensure that any new initiatives are accompanied by additional funds for countries in Africa. We must also make sure that we protect the credit rating of the World Bank, which is extremely important to the developing countries, as well as to the rest of us.

Will the Minister tell the House why the Government are not following the policy clearly set out in the Vancouver communiqué of October last year, to which the Prime Minister was a signatory, which advised that we should write off official development assistance debts to all low-income countries and also give renewed priority to reaching the United Nations assistance target?

I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman is a little confused. This country had written off, rather before that statement was made, aid loans to the tune of £280 million for 14 African countries. What the hon. and learned Gentleman could have gone on to do was to read out the endorsement of the Chancellor's debt initiative by not only the Commonwealth Heads of Government but the Commonwealth Finance Ministers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further support he proposes to give to Ghana's economic recovery plans.

I announced on 26 February a further £20 million of grant-aid to Ghana, which is linked to the continued maintenance of Ghana's economic recovery programme agreed with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. We have pledged a total of £69 million in support of the programme since it began in 1983.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he reassure the House that the full effects of that programme will not fall on the poorest groups in Ghana?

Yes, we regard that as particularly important. We commend the efforts being made by the Government of Ghana to try to design a programme which takes account of its impact on the poor. I very much hope that the health sector review which we are currently undertaking in Ghana will come up with proposals for work in primary health care, particularly regarding the health of mothers and children, and in family planning, both of which can make a considerable impact on the poor and poor groups.

Has the Minister noted that a number of British clearing banks have this year written off a substantial amount of Third-world debt? I presume that customers in Ghana have had their debts written off as well. Does he accept that in many ways this is a form of overseas aid? If so, would it not be better if the money were directed through decisions taken by the Government rather than by the private banking system?

The hon. Gentleman must distinguish between the commercial debt owed by a number of countries and the debt owed to Governments and international financial institutions. In Africa overwhelmingly — the hon. Gentleman referred to it — one is talking about debt owed to Governments and financial institutions. There is, therefore, a particular onus on Governments to do something about that debt, as the Chancellor has made clear. What commercial banks do is a matter for their own judgment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what changes in procedure he has adopted concerning the effect of bilateral aid provisions on the poorest income groups in recipient countries since his reply to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report on bilateral aid of October 1987 (Cm. 225)

I continue to keep under review those procedures designed to examine the impact of projects on the poorer groups. Our bilateral aid procedures already include an assessment of poverty orientation, and explicit consideration is given to the impact of adjustment programmes on vulnerable groups.

Does the Minister recall that the Select Committee made a specific recommendation in paragraph 54 that greater priority should be given to aid which would directly attack poverty and include sustainable measures for that to be continued into the future? By saying that he keeps matters under review, is he not saying that he does not agree with the recommendation? If he does not agree with it, will he tell us why? If he does, what has he done about it?

The hon. Gentleman is overlooking a number of projects that we already have that have a direct impact on poorer groups. I refer him to the Hyderabad slum improvement project, the Vishakhapatnam slum improvement project, the resettlement programme in Zimbabwe, and a score of others. However, I accept that we need to make sure that the impact on poverty is part of the routine evaluation, and we are ensuring that that the case. I would be happy to share more of the information about that with the Select Committee and with all those who are interested. This year we intend to commission specific evaluation studies on the subject of poverty impact.

Does the Minister accept that it is very difficult to target aid at poverty in Third-world countries when we still have not resolved the problem of international debt? Bearing in mind what he said about the World Bank, does he accept that many African countries see the World Bank and its demands as part of their problems rather than as a solution to them? Would it not be better for the bank to come up with a strategy of debt relief instead of dealing with default in the interests of its own credit rating?

Nothing would make us happier than to convince by tomorrow morning a number of other countries of the importance of implementing the sort of measures that we have been talking about since the spring of last year, such as writing off aid loans, rescheduling commercially guaranteed debts and lowering interest rates on those debts by countries which are pursuing sensible economic reform programmes. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the sooner there is progress on that, the better.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further relief aid for refugees is planned for the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

I have just agreed to provide £5 million, to be divided equally between the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross, for their refugee programmes in Ethiopia, Sudan and Malawi.

Those additional funds in the current financial year will be very much welcomed. Will my hon.

I can give my hon. Friend that important assurance. A sum of £2·5 million will be used by the International Committee of the Red Cross for work in Ethiopia. Another £300,000 will be used by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Ethiopia, and £700,000 in Sudan, and £1·5 million will go to help Mozambican refugees in Malawi.