To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding facilities for the disabled on public transport.

We often receive representations. We work with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, with transport operators arid authorities, and with vehicle designers and manufacturers to improve facilities for disabled people.

Is the Minister aware that disabled people are being trapped in the London Underground, mainly because there are no notices at the top of escalators? They go down into the tube and then the escalators cease to run. A few weeks ago, 11 up escalators were not in service. Will the Minister confirm that he will do something about that? Will he also consider whether disabled people can be catered for when the Channel tunnel rail link is started?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am sure that he will have contacted London Regional Transport direct, and perhaps we may take the matter from there.

Will the Minister confirm that British Rail, in making those tremendous improvements, which I recognise, is made aware that disabled people have a need for toilets as well as seats? Will he discuss that point when opportunities arise? Will he confirm that the committee has links not only with railways and buses but with taxis and aeroplanes?

Yes. I ought to pay tribute to those who serve on the Baldwin committee, because they bring a great deal of expertise and concern to bear and provide assistance to the advisory committee and to the Department's disabilities unit. The nationalised industry operators and other private operators would do a great deal better to pay more attention to what is said on behalf of the disabled. People with mobility difficulties make up about 10 per cent. of the population.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with interested parties about the level of domestic air fares in the United Kingdom.

None. Fares on domestic services are effectively deregulated. The Civil Aviation Authority intervenes only to prevent anti-competitive pricing on these services.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread concern at the escalating cost of air fares within the United Kingdom, both from the point of tourism—I speak here of British holidaymakers who face add-on costs when they go abroad as well as the disincentive to foreign visitors to visit parts of the United Kingdom other than London—and of regional development? Is the Minister further aware that unless something is done about high air fares there will be a disincentive for firms to move away from London, which is not something that I would have thought the Government would welcome?

The advantages of the competition policy that has been pursued for the past few years means that there is now more choice on many provincial services. There are now four operators on the London to Edinburgh route and six airlines have applied for licences to take over the B-Cal route. We shall have to see what happens, but I entirely agree that it is important that fares should be kept as low as possible. One new advantage is the recently introduced Apex fare, which goes some way towards meeting the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to make any improvements in aviation safety during the next year.

The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for regulating aviation safety. The authority will be investing £200 million over the next five years. That includes the replacement of the main air traffic control computer, which I recently approved, and the progressive introduction of a computerised air miss alert system.

In view of the recent near misses and the projected increase of air traffic over the summer holiday period, has there not been serious under-funding on computer development? Can the Minister assure the people of this country that safety will take absolute priority over competition in aviation policy?

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. As to the first part of his question concerning computers, the Government have provided the funding for which the CAA has asked. The matter is now proceeding and I hope that there will be substantial improvements.

Following the near accident at Gatwick airport recently, will my right hon. Friend discuss with the CAA and the BAA the adequacy of the airport as it is presently configured? Will he consider building a proper runway there so that aircraft do not have to use the taxiway as an alternative when the main runway is closed for repair?

I shall consider that suggestion. I share hon. Members' worry about congestion in airspace in the south-east. The problem is not confined to Gatwick. I asked my officials some time ago to collaborate with the CAA and the BAA to produce a forecast of air traffic demand in the south-east and the capacity required to meet it.

Is the Secretary of State completely satisfied with air safety over the new City airport, which is in the London borough of Newham? Does he agree that, to restore some public confidence in air safety over London, it would be in everybody's interests if he initiated a full public discussion, through some form of inquiry, so that representations from all interests could be made? Does he agree that public confidence might be restored in that way?

I hope that the hon. Member will play his part in restoring public confidence. The House will be aware that the number of air misses that pose a danger to the public has declined dramatically in the past few years. There were only 16 in 1986, and I should be surprised if the provisional figures for 1987, which are not yet available, showed an increase. There is a later question about London City airport, but, in case it is not reached, I should say that it is matter for the CAA, which is satisfied that the operation of the airport is safe.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at the beginning of the peak season in air travel, it is irresponsible to put about groundless scares? While near misses must always be a matter of concern, if we consider the number of passengers who are carried it is clear that air safety has improved dramatically during the past 10 years, which is contrary to the impression that getting into an aeroplane is somehow dicing with death.

I entirely agree. All the statistics bear out what my hon. Friend says. Nevertheless, I am in no way complacent about the matter. Any risk is serious. The CAA and all other relevant authorities will continue to pursue measures to make air travel even safer. I have already mentioned the new computer, and the air miss alert system is being investigated. The CAA is involved in a whole host of measures to make air travel even safer. My hon. Friend is entirely right. All the published figures and all the evidence of the past 10 years shows that the number of air misses has declined substantially.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with the appropriate authorities the curious arrangement whereby an aeroplane that is coming in to land at Gatwick in certain circumstances lands on the taxiway? Did someone plan for that, or did it have to happen because of an emergency?

The right hon. Gentleman does not put it quite fairly. The main runway is receiving necessary maintenance, which will take some time. During night hours, therefore—when the airport is less congested—the taxiway is being used. The runway must be maintained at some time. The CAA and the BAA think that this is the right time and the right way in which to do it. If either organisation or I were worried about safety, we would take measures to stop the work.

Bearing in mind the tragedy at Manchester, can my right hon. Friend say when he hopes the CAA will report on the specification of safety hoods?

The CAA hopes to finalise the specification for smoke hood's by the end of this month. It will then wish to consult widely other aviation authorities to establish whether it would be a good idea to make hoods mandatory.

Nobody wishes to scaremonger, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread concern as air misses are reported almost every day? Although we appreciate the investment that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed, will he have urgent talks with the CAA and anyone else concerned to establish whether the investment can come to fruition much sooner than the five years he mentioned? It is quite clear that we cannot wait that long to get the matter right.

I am in continual touch with the CAA, which has prime responsibility for these matters. It is as anxious as I am to speed up the process as much as it possibly can to improve the main air traffic control computers. I shall continue to have discussions with the CAA.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to simplify procedures for the removal by local authorities of abandoned, unroadworthy and untaxed vehicles.

We are considering whether procedures for removing abandoned vehicles can be simplified. Local authorities have no powers to remove unroadworthy or untaxed vehicles.

Will my hon. Friend consider two points in particular, among the many things that one can do, to improve the situation? First, will he consider initiating discussions with the DVLC and local authorities to see whether we can speed up the transfer of information from the DVLC, which can take 10 seconds for the police, but three weeks for local authorities? Secondly, will he consider the possibility of deeming cars which do not bear tax discs to be abandoned? There is nothing more infuriating for the law-abiding taxpayer than to see cars outside his home, alongside his own car, without any such tax discs.

My hon. Friend will know that the North report covers some of those points. The Government will be considering their response to the recommendations.

Does the Minister accept that lack of public transport encourages people to use their cars excessively, so that elderly cars become unroadworthy and become the old bangers which are the subject of the question? Does he agree, therefore, that abandoned cars in the Yorkshire dales national park are a particular eyesore? Should he not come to the House as soon as possible to make an urgent statement that the Settle-Carlisle railway will be retained?

It has always struck me as rather odd that the hon. Gentleman should ask for a Minister to come to the House as soon as possible when he is already here and answering questions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the level of bus services in Warrington since deregulation.

The level of bus services in Warrington is about the same as it was before deregulation, but with improvements in some areas.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a lesson to be learnt from Warrington borough transport, which, with excellent trade union support, has increased its route mileage from 1.7 million to 3 million, its passenger fleet by 65 per cent. and its staff by 50 per cent. since deregulation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for illustrating yet again the advantages that flow from deregulation.

The next time that the Minister is on a No. 18 or No. 19 bus in Warrington, perhaps he would care to consider that, although Warrington may be a success story, according to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' recent report on deregulation, patronage is down everywhere else—by 3 per cent. in the shire counties and by one third in Merseyside. Why has only Warrington made a success of deregulation?

That is simply an indication that the hon. Gentleman is wholly out of touch with what is happening on the ground. Throughout the country there is about the same level of service as there was before. Increased mileage is being run and, moreover, the savings to ratepayers amount to £40 million a year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorway are currently under construction; how many miles are planned to be built in the next five years; and how many miles have been completed in the last five years.

Over 160 miles of motorway construction and improvement have been completed in the last five years. Almost 60 miles are under construction. We are today announcing several additions to our road programme, including our decision that the Blackburn southern bypass will be built as a motorway. This brings our motorway construction programme to 150 milles over the next five years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many more miles of motorways or motorway standard roads are needed if we are to have an adequate and modern road system? Does he further agree that, by and large, motorway building brings great safety and environmental benefits to the community as a whole, even if some people in local neighbourhoods are adversely affected? Does he agree that the priority in his road-building programme should be to remove voluminous and heavy vehicles from many inadequately designed roads within the centres of residential areas?

Yes, I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. That is why we have such a large motorway programme. Of course, some of the points raised in the latter part of his question can be solved by bypasses, for which we also have a large programme. For the speed of communications that businesses want increasingly, it is extremely important to have better and faster communications, and that means more motorways and trunk roads. It is also a great help to safety, because motorways are by far the safest roads in the country, and I am sure that the House will have been pleased to see that the recent provisional road statistics show that casualties are very much down.

What is the Government's policy on motorway tolls? Is any work being done in the Department on toll stations being placed on the existing motorway network, and does the Minister have any proposals for tolls on roads to be built in the future?

I am looking at all ways of encouraging private sector infrastructure, but I certainly have no plans for putting tolls on existing roads.

The House will undoubtedly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement today about further expenditure on motorways. Does he agree that there is an appalling waste of time and resources on overcrowded motorways on the present network? Will he tell the House what plans he has to look at the widening of existing motorways—apart from the M25—particularly the M4 east and west of the M25, which every day constitutes a major aggravation for many thousands of motorists trying to reach London?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The growth of road traffic has meant that some of the motorways are no longer as adequate as they were to deal with the enormous amount of traffic on them. We shall keep that under review. It makes it all the more important that we should continue with a proper programme of building motorways and trunk roads so that we can deal with the increasing problems.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in my constituency we are grateful for the excellent standards of motorways, which enable businesses to come readily to Lancaster and tourists to come to our lovely city? But we want not only motorways: we want motorway links. Will my right hon. Friend please consider seriously the M6 link?

I was rather nervous about my hon. Friend's question. I thought that there would be a sting in the tail. I shall certainly consider anything that he puts to me. I have opened one motorway link in the past few months. We have that very much in mind as well. It is a question of priorities as to how one spends the money in the roads programme. All I can say is that the roads programme of £3 billion over the next five years is enormous by anyone's standards. It is far higher than in the past, and we shall look at all proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make additional financial provision for improvements in safety standards on the London Underground.

We await proposals from London Regional Transport for any additional expenditure which may be necessary as a result of the lessons learnt from the King's Cross fire. These will be carefully considered during this year's investment and financing review.

Did the Minister or the Secretary of State receive any advice from the railway inspectorate, either before or after the tragedy at King's Cross, about the need for further investment in safety by London Regional Transport? Can he assure the House, in the light of widespread concern, particularly among users of the Metropolitan, Jubilee and Bakerloo lines, that any necessary investment will not await the outcome of the report, but will be put in hand immediately?

The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is that London Underground is planning 50 per cent. more investment in real terms next year than in 1984–85, the last year for which the GLC had responsibility. Moreover, it is planning to spend this year the equivalent of 45 per cent. of its turnover on investment. I do not know of any other corporation in the country that is planning to invest on that scale.

Will my hon. Friend consider the problems of muggings and other crimes of violence, including robbery, that take place on underground stations and trains late at night, particularly on trains with no guards? Sometimes a train is virtually empty, so people cannot move to a carriage that is occupied.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this matter. We have provided an additional £15 million to fight crime on the London Underground. Recently, I had discussions with the British Transport police to see what can be done to learn the lessons of the effective changes that they have made on the southern end of the Northern line and to employ them elsewhere.

Will the Minister not be so defensive as to answer questions different from those that he has been asked? The question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) related specifically to investment in safety, but the Minister chose to answer about general investment programmes. Is he aware that on 19 November, the day after the King's Cross disaster, I asked the Secretary of State whether LRT would consider quickly the lessons to be learnt from that disaster, make any necessary investment, and take action immediately rather than wait for the report to be finished? Is it not sad that five months later my hon. Friend and other hon. Members should be asking the same question about how seriously LRT takes safety? Will the Minister meet LRT and Sir Keith Bright so that no further criticisms can be made at the inquiry about lackadaisical attitudes to safety?

I think that, unintentionally, the hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. I assure him that I have had meetings with Dr. Ridley about this subject and received assurances that anything deemed to be necessary for safety will not be held up by LRT's management until the completion of the inquiry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he or the Civil Aviation Authority has made of the fire safety implications of considerable quantities of duty-free alcohol being carried aboard large passenger aircraft; if he will examine the feasibility of siting duty free shops in arrival lounges only; and if he will make a statement.

The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for air safety regulation. It says that there is no evidence that carrying duty-free alcohol on passenger flights is in itself dangerous. We do not propose to review the siting of duty-free shops.

With regard to the Civil Aviation Authority, Christopher Tugendhat writes:

"Nevertheless, we would be happy to see any international moves to eliminate its carriage, such as may happen in the EEC over the forthcoming period."

The hon. Gentleman does not provide any discrepancy when he reads out the letter from Christopher Tugendhat. Clearly, if 500 bottles are not being carried there could be a saving of £12,000 a year, and that point was made in "The Green Capitalist," which was reviewed in the New Scientist. The important point is that where there is a safety risk the CAA takes action, but where there is not, it does not.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of tyres tested on motor vehicles in use have a tread depth below 1·6 mm; and if he will make a statement.

This information is not available.

I am slightly surprised by my hon. Friend's comment. Should not the United Kingdom be moving towards a minimum tyre depth of 1·6mm, which has been adopted in a number of countries and proposed as a minimum tyre tread depth for the European Community, bearing in mind that Government car tyres must be changed when they reach a tread depth of 2mm? My hon. Friend is treating United Kingdom citizens with rather less grace than those who travel in Government cars. Further, will he consider the whole width of the tyre tread, rather than a proportion of it? Will we continue to put lives at risk?

My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that we are not putting lives at risk. He knows perfectly well also, as does the tyre industry, that in this country we have safer tyres than most other European countries, as the MOT test detects not only defective but worn tyres. It is not true that the Government car service replaces tyres when the tread reaches a depth of 2mm. Research shows that the present tyre regulations produce the required safety standards.

The Minister may want to reconsider his answer. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) is right to say that it is necessary to take into account the whole width of the tyre tread. to improve safety standards. Why will the Minister not come clean with the House and accept the overwhelming case for moving to a minimum tyre depth of 1mm across the whole of the tyre?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman meets me to discuss in detail the discussions that I had with the tyre industry about 18 months ago, during which we considered research evidence about cars' cornering ability in addition to the information that we already had about cars' breaking ability. I think that the hon. Gentleman's fears would then be set aside.

Will my hon. Friend resist attempts to force conformity upon us, when it has been shown clearly that spending extra money and imposing extra costs on motorists will not bring commensurate benefits in road safety?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We should concentrate our efforts on aspects of the vehicle, as well as driver and road safety, that produce results. That is how we achieved the lowest death rate since 1954. It is one reason why our safety standards are the highest in the European Community. It is right that we should continue doing what works rather than just what is asked for in the House of Commons or meets a ministerial prejudice.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss plans for further rail electrification.

My right hon. Friend is always happy to discuss electrification if the chairman so wishes, but I understand that British Rail has no current plans for further major route electrification.

Will the Minister arrange an early meeting with the chairman of British Rail and drop some heavy hints that if the chairman submits an application to electrify the Bradford to Leeds line the Minister will smile upon it? Does the Minister agree that failure to electrify that line would represent economic insanity? Does he understand that many people in Bradford note that insanity, especially as they were recently told that if the line was not electrified shiny new electric engines would be brought into Bradford behind diesel locos? Will the Minister tell the chairman of British Rail that the retention of the Wortley curve and electrification would give the Bradford people, at long last, the opportunity of a fast, efficient, safe and comfortable rail service from Bradford to the rest of the country?

I understand that British Rail has already examined the case for electrification of the line from Leeds to Bradford and concluded that the costs far outweighed potential benefits.

Is not the reason why BR has not come forward with any further major electrification proposals the fact that it cannot meet the Government's extremely tight investment criteria? Will my hon. Friend consider that point? Will he confirm that under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 the Secretary of State has ample powers to authorise additional electrification programmes in connection with the Channel tunnel? Will my hon. Friend confirm that it remains the Government's priority to provide the distant regions in particular with the best modern rail links to that system?

It is pointless, if an equally good service can be provided by diesels at lower cost, to go for electrification en principe. As for section 40 and Channel tunnel expenditure, I remind my hon. Friend that the Act requires that expenditure to be wholly commercial and not subsidised.

Will the Minister admit that it is clear nonsense that the Bradford to Leeds line should not be electrified under the present scheme, and similarly that it is nonsense that services to cities such as Chester and Wrexham should be not be electrified to the west coast main line at Crewe and that the Blackpool line should not be electrified to the west coast line at Preston? Will the Minister get British Rail to consider producing a detailed analysis of the schemes in terms of investment and its estimate of the extra revenue and extra passengers so that we, the public, and the House, can judge?

British Rail proposes electrification when it sees it as worth while. I do not have in my head all the cases listed by the hon. Gentleman, but I recall that the Blackpool to Manchester proposal would have cost £12 million—I think that is the correct figure—and the saving would have been one minute on a journey. The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise just how efficient the modern diesels are, especially the Sprinter services which British Rail is introducing.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be a direct and efficient rail link between the Channel tunnel and the north of England so that we get some of the benefit of that huge investment?

The linkage between the Channel tunnel and north of London on the east and west coast main lines has always featured as part of British Rail's proposals.

Is the Minister aware that Leicestershire county council has commissioned a report on the electrification of the London to Leicester line? Is he further aware that Leicestershire county council, Leicester city council, Nottinghamshire county council, Derby city council and Sheffield city council all support the idea of an electrified line between London and Leicester? What advice does he propose to give to those local authorities and commuters, who wish the line to be electrified as a matter of urgency?

The hon. Gentleman should not assume that there are automatic substantial benefits from electrification. I remind him that his line, with its HST-125s, is faster than the west coast main line, which has been electrified.

Does the Minister not understand that the electrification of the lines between, for example, Bradford and Leeds, and for that matter, Glasgow and Edinburgh, which is demanded by my hon. Friends and others, is being held up because the schemes fail to meet the criteria laid down by the Department? They fail to meet those criteria because all the schemes are treated in isolation instead of being treated as part of a national rail network. The hon. Gentleman made a comment about the £12 million cost of electrifying the line between Manchester and Blackpool. Can he tell the House how much the M55 motorway between the M6 and Blackpool cost, and whether it was built in isolation or as part of a national motorway network?

British Rail runs a national network and it is up to British Rail to decide what form of locomotion it uses to operate most effectively. I know that the hon. Gentleman would like British Rail to go out on a spending spree, like a drunken sailor, but I remind him that when his Government were in office the average annual spend in real terms was £41 million, whereas under the Conservatives it has been £72 million.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding the operation of the London City airport.

None, Sir.

The Minister has answered earlier questions about the increased congestion of the skies over London and the dangers associated with that, which were certainly not promised when the City airport was being praised by the Government. Furthermore, regional links that were promised, such as the link to Newquay and the now abandoned Plymouth link, have not been given their proper value. Does the Minister agree that not only does the City airport appear to have failed to fulfil its promises, but that efforts should now be turned to promoting regional airports in the different areas of this country?

I cannot imagine why the hon. Gentleman should want to knock the London City airport. I am in favour of developing both regional airports and the London City airport. As I understand it from the operator of the line, the reason why the service to Plymouth is not in operation is that it has not been a commercial success. A great many other services can be operated from London City airport. It is a safe airport and I hope that it will flourish.

Will my right hon. Friend advise the House of the planning situation with regard to the operation of the only jet aeroplane which, to my knowledge, is capable of operating from the STOLport in Docklands, namely, the BAe 146? If those inhibitions were removed, would not the commercial potential of this fine airport be very much greater?

I had better not comment on that, because such an application would possibly come to me for approval. Any suggestion of a change to allow jet aeroplanes to fly from the airport would require a variation of the existing planning approval.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates are available to him of the effect which the introduction of the Travelcard and Capitalcard has had on the volume of traffic and level of congestion in London.

No reliable estimates are available, but Travelcard and Capitalcard are believed to have been significant in increasing the use of public transport in London and can be expected to have released capacity on the road network.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I believe that Capitalcard and Travelcard must, indeed, have assisted in removing congestion. We Londoners very much appreciate that and are therefore extremely worried about the possibility that Travelcard and Capitalcard may no longer exist if bus deregulation comes into force. Will the Minister guarantee that Capitalcard and Travelcard will continue if bus deregulation should occur in London?

When we bring forward detailed proposals for bus deregulation in London, there will be ample opportunities for substantial debate. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want me to pre-empt her opportunities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 7 March, Official Report column 98, what further measures he intends to introduce to improve safety for coach users.

We intend to require new coaches to meet European standards for the flammability of coach interiors, the strength of coach seats, and anti-lock braking.

Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend has said, does he agree that even after 1 October, in a roll-over, most coach passengers will be unrestrained and will be injured by broken glass from the side windows? If the Consumers' Association is correct in saying that the provision of restraints for all passengers would add 1·7 per cent. to the cost of the coach, does he agree that that would be money well spent and that the Government should encourage it?

I shall be happy to discuss that with the British Coach Council. The important point is to try always to deal with the most likely causes of crashes. While pursuing greater coach safety, it is worth remembering that travelling by coach is much safer than travelling in one's car.

To ask the Attorney-General when he next intends to visit Teesside Crown courts.

I have no present plans to do so.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a visit from him is long overdue, because in Teesside Crown court the victims of crimes have to wait in the same waiting area as those who may have attacked or assaulted them? I should be grateful if he could find time to come to Teesside and put forward some proposals to improve the situation.

I sympathise with my hon. Friend and I think that I have some good news for him. New Crown courts are currently under construction in Teesside and are due for completion early in 1991. These will provide 12 new courtrooms with 28 witness and consultation rooms and, particularly pertinent to what he said, a separate witness waiting suite with its own toilet facilities.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that despite his good news for Teesside, which I welcome, another problem that will remain in Teesside and in many other courts is the absence of dock officers? When a custodial sentence has to be passed, the presiding officer has to send a message to his clerk to ensure that a dock officer is present. A similar situation pertains in magistrates' courts when there are no policemen present. Unhappily, one of these days a great tragedy will occur because no one will be present to search even a defendant on bail before he is arraigned. That is a real problem in our courts.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his welcome for the substantial new court building programme that is in train. I recognise the problem to which he refers and, of course, it is in part unfortunately exacerbated by the industrial action in the prison service. Attention is being given to that.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will visit the east midlands regional office of the Crown Prosecution Service.

I next plan to visit the offices of the Nottinghamshire area of the CPS next month. There is as yet no east midlands regional office.

When the Atorney-General visits the office, when it is in existence either in Lincoln or in Nottingham, will he pass on congratulations from his Department on the excellent service that it provides in the area? Will he learn from the prosecuting solicitor service that preceded it and re-examine the salary scales for people in the Crown Prosecution Service so that they can be brought up to the standards in that area? Will he ensure that there is no further extension of the acquittal rate by the Crown Prosecution Service because it is stretched and cannot prepare its cases properly, and often insufficient evidence is presented when the case comes to court?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said at the outset of his supplementary question. Last month I paid a short and informal visit to the Nottinghamshire office and I wholly endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about its standards. I can tell him that the Treasury has recently made an offer to the unions representing the great majority of lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service that would secure a substantial rise in pay with immediate effect. I am confident that this will lead to a marked improvement in recruitment to the service and will better reward those who have worked with such commitment, including those in the hon. Gentleman's area, since the creation of the service.

My right hon. and learned Friend's comments on the improvement in remuneration for staff are greatly appreciated. What long-term effect does he envisage that improvement will have on recruitment and morale in the Crown Prosecution Service? Many Conservative Members are concerned about that.

I think that everyone understands that there is a shortage of lawyers generally— [Interruption.] It may be thought that there are too many lawyers in the House, but there is a shortage generally. The Crown Prosecution Service must compete in that environment. I have visited about half the CPS areas, spending a whole day in each. The increased pay now on offer from the Treasury will have an encouraging effect on recruitment and, just as important, on retention.

Does the Attorney-General agree that one way to solve the crisis in the Leicestershire Crown Prosecution Service would be to split it from the Northamptonshire CPS, so that each operates separately and recruits separately to fill the existing vacancies?

Those two counties will benefit as much as any other area from the increased reumuneration that I have just announced. One problem has been that one of those two counties had no county prosecuting solicitors' department before the CPS was introduced, while the other did. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has visited those areas. and I am confident that the problem will be overcome.

To ask the Attorney-General how many members of the security services have been prosecuted for espionage (a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully, in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

In the past 10 years two members of the security and intelligence services have been prosecuted—Prime in 1982 and Bettany in 1984. Both were convicted.

Is this, or is this not, the unseen tip—the tip of an unseen iceberg—[Interruption.] Well, they sometimes turn over and the tip goes under. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that any person guilty of betraying his country should be vigorously brought to book?

I have no reason to think that it is the tip of an iceberg or that members of the security and intelligence services are anything other than loyal and dedicated public servants. However, my hon. Friend will recall that Bettany and Prime, who were brought to book and prosecuted, received total sentences of 23 and 35 years respectively.

No foreign intelligence service with any sense would ever recruit the hon. Member for Ealing., North (Mr. Greenway) as a spy. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Attorney-General took seriously the allegations of subversion by some members of the security forces against an elected Government in the 1970s? Is it not essential that the truth be known, whether or not Wright lied?

I have nothing to add to the statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

To ask the Attorney-General how many decisions relating to prosecutions he has taken in the last three months.

Too many to enumerate accurately.

Will the Government, as a matter of urgency, review the law as set out in the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985 following the case of Mr. Brian Fisher, who was brought before the courts but cleared of the charge of illlegally trading in the shares of Thomson T-Line? Does the Attorney-General understand that this is an important area that needs urgent reform? If no action is taken, many of those involved in the criminal offence of insider dealing will go to court and get off. Is he aware of the cases on the desk of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry relating to Matthew Brown shares? Should, not action be taken in the courts against those people? We demand a prosecution, because they are all guilty.

If the hon. Gentleman is so sure that they are all guilty, one is rather surprised that he troubles with the prosecution. The Government have an unsurpassed record on the introduction of legislation designed to ensure high standards and conformity with proper standards in the matter to which his question refers. I have seen a report of the case to which he referred. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Home Secretary consider the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commowealth Affairs what requests for assistance he has received for programmes to combat AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.

The World Health Organisation is moblising the external assistance needed for AIDS control programmes in developing countries. Subject to parliamentary approval, we shall contribute £4·5 million to support its work this year. In addition, we have taken part in donor meetings, arranged by the World Health Organisation, in four African countries and have pledged a total of £4·6 million over five years towards their national AIDS programmes.

My hon. Friend may be aware that the South African Government have sent about 1,000 migrant workers back to Malawi because they are AIDS positive. Has he received any request for help from Malawi?

I have had no official report on the matter that my hon. Friend has mentioned; nor, as far as I know, has the World Health Organisation. We have received no requests for assistance from the Malawi Government.

The Minister will be aware that quite considerable success has been achieved by various public health information campaigns on the issue of AIDS in the sub-Saharan region. The spread of the virus is made infinitely worse by the collapse of the, economic infrastructures of many of the most severely affected countries. Does he recognise that, as part of the campaign against AIDS, the time has come to re-evaluate our policy on sub-Saharan debt and to take new initiatives to create in such regions an economic climate that is more likely to enable and enhance, rather than hinder, the combating of AIDS?

I take it that, like, for example, the Commonwealth Finance Ministers last year, the hon. Gentleman is endorsing the Chancellor of the Exchequer's debt initiative. Again, last week, the Chancellor made a speech at the spring meetings of the international financial institutions in Washington. We hope that decisions can be taken by the autumn meetings. It is time that we acted, and acted decisively, on African debt.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes he has made in United Kingdom aid to Kampuchean refugees on the Thai-Cambodia border.

No recent changes have been made. We continue to provide substantial aid to Cambodians seeking refuge in the border camps, in cash through international relief agencies, and in kind through our embassy in Bangkok. In 1987 such assistance totalled £1·37 million.

Is the Minister aware of a report that was published recently by Tony Jackson, of Oxfam, suggesting that some of our food aid is finding its way into the hands of the Khmer Rouge? In the light of that, does he not think that a new look should he taken into where aid is going? As he knows, every year at the United Nations we vote for the Khmer Rouge, but I am sure he will agree that it is shameful for his Department to provide it with food as well.

We do not vote every year in the United Nations in favour of Khmer Rouge. With 116 other countries we vote in favour of the withdrawal of foreign forces from Cambodia and in favour of free elections under United Nations supervision. I am surprised to hear Opposition Members attacking that United Nations resolution in such robust terms. Our aid does not go to the Khmer Rouge, and we have received assurances from the relevant United Nations agencies that that is the case.

Does the Minister accept that the Thai Government attach considerable importance to aid being given in cash terms—so that they can pay farmers to grow crops—rather than their being sent food of any sort? Regrettably, if they cannot pay farmers to grow legitimate crops, they will grow poppies.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the relationship between the support given to farmers in the region and the importance of preventing an increase in the cultivation of poppies. We have one or two programmes which are attempting to eradicate drugs, and they depend very much on giving the right incentives to farmers.

The hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man—something that distinguishes him from many of his own party. Therefore, knowing what we all know now about the unspeakable horrors of year zero under the Khmer Rouge in Kampuchea, why do the Minister and the Government continue to hide behind this 116-nation resolution and vote in the Credentials Committee of the United Nations to recognise the coalition that includes the perpetrators of the barbarism that occurred so many years ago and as a consequence deny, out of expediency, the valuable aid that the people of that country so desperately need today?

I shall not damage the hon. Gentleman's career by paying him a similar compliment in return. I would point out, once again, that what we are voting for in the United Nations is free elections under United Nations supervision and for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Cambodia. Those are entirely legitimate objectives. At the same time, we provide humanitarian assistance for refugees on the borders of Cambodia, and will continue to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he proposes any new aid for Nepal; and if he will make a statement.

During my recent visit to Nepal I announced a new British grant of £20 million for development aid.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are few countries with closer links to Britain than Nepal? Does he also agree that there are few countries more grateful for the aid that Britain gives than Nepal? Is he aware of the need of funds in Nepal for reafforestation? Is he hopeful that some of the welcome £20 million that he has just mentioned will be spent in that direction?

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said about relations between Britain and Nepal. He is also right to point to the importance of afforestation schemes in that country. When I recently visited Nepal I was pleased to visit the Forestry Institute, the new buildings of which have been erected with assistance from this country. I met the Forestry Minister and discussed the further help that we could provide to that sector in his country. I also visited the first-class agricultural research station at Pakrabhas, which is also doing a good deal of work in that sector.

If the Minister consults his Front-Bench colleagues, he will discover that a constituent of mine was treated in a deplorable manner by the Nepalese authorities, in breach of both Nepalese and international law. Will the Minister make the aid conditional on those authorities improving their human rights record?

We have drawn the attention of the Nepal Government to some of the cases raised by Amnesty International.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the anxiety about the future of the Gurkha hospital? Will his Department be able to assist that excellent institution?

We are discussing with the Nepal Government the conversion of Dharan. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the value of the hospital at that base, and that is something that we shall have to take into account in the next few years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing for measures to prevent soil erosion in areas bordering the Sahara.

Through our contributions to the European development fund we are playing a significant. part in supporting measures to combat desertification in countries bordering the Sahara. Projects costing some £123 million have been approved so far under the sixth European development fund; our share of this amounts to about £20 million. In addition, we are providing assistance in the Sudan from our bilateral programme aimed at halting desert encroachment and reducing environmental decline.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the United Nations environmental programme forecasts the loss of good land in Africa because of desertification? Is he also aware of the estimates from the European Commission of how much of central, east and west Africa will be lost by the same process? Following his helpful reply, does the Minister agree that preventing the loss of agricultural land in Africa should be one of our main priorities for our overseas aid development programme?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of halting desertification. The Sahara is moving an inexorable 4 m per year towards the Nile. That is why we have some good projects in Sudan; for example, the western savannah project, and the northern region irrigation rehabilitation programme, which I saw for myself. That is why we support the work of SOS Sahel, which is one of the best non-governmental organisations working in the area.

Is my hon. Friend aware that investment in the provision of deep concrete-lined wells in villages abutting the Sahara would benefit this cause to a far greater extent than similar developments elsewhere?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of wells in the area. We have several projects to rehabilitate those that already exist and to build new ones.