To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to how many European Community states conform with the draft directive for a minimum tread depth for tyres; and if he will make a statement.

First, I present the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is at an important meeting of Transport Ministers in Europe.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful information. How much longer are we going to wait before we agree to the EEC draft directive? Does it not make a shambles of the Government's policy of being seriously concerned about road safety when all the organisations concerned with road safety have said that a minimum tyre depth of 2 mm is appropriate—yet we shelter behind this lower figure? When will my hon. Friend take their representations into account?

I apologise to my hon. Friend for the way in which I answered him the last time that we debated this issue. If any of these organisations want to send the safety case to me, we shall of course consider it.

Many of my constituents work in Uniroyal. What is the cost of the Government's review of the safety regulations? What figures does the Minister have?

The cost is estimated at about £70 million a year. The real question is what the benefit is. All the research has demonstrated that this may make a marginal difference at more than 50 miles an hour on roads with smooth surfaces; other than that, there is no safety advantage in having a lower or higher tread depth.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not the case that many of the countries that have deeper tread depth requirements also have, as a representative truth, far more days of snow a year that we do? Is that not a major consideration, and is not tread pattern in many cases of great importance, too—not just tread depth?

There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says. It is important to realise that a Government of any political persuasion in this country would want to do what is effective. Going for higher tread depth in this country would not be particularly effective. I have told my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) that if one of the tyre manufacturers wants to put forward a serious safety case we shall, of course, consider it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards quantifying the relative environmental, energy and safety advantages of rail transport and road transport in formulating transport policy.

The Government's policy is to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness by increasing choice and competition and by removing distortions between transport modes so far as possible.

Is the Minister aware that some local authorities are now conducting studies to bring back rail links that were cut in the Beeching era? They include West Lancashire, Sefton and Lancashire county councils. If the hon. Gentleman is aware that they are endeavouring to carry out such studies, will the Government help with these initiatives, and if so, how?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Burscough curves, which are the subject of a report that has been commissioned by the Lancashire county council from British Rail. The first part of that report has been delivered and the balance will be delivered early next month. It is a matter between British Rail and Lancashire county council.

Does my hon. Friend recall telling me some time ago that he was satisfied that the investment criteria for rail were the same in this country as in France'? May I assume that he has studied article 14 of chapter 3 of the French Internal Transport Act 1982, with its stress on social and environmental issues as major factors in decisions on rail investment? How does he square his statement with that legislation?

If my hon. Friend looks carefully, he will see that on that occasion I was referring to the TGV line which is proposed from Paris to the Channel tunnel mouth and to the Belgian border. It is a requirement of the French Government that it should be a commercially viable proposition.

Does the Minister agree that the advantages of rail depend upon long hauls without transhipment and without delay? In that respect, why does he not commit himself to through travel from the north of England to Europe via the Channel tunnel with customs clearance en route for both freight and people?

That is a requirement of the Act for people and it will be implemented in due course. Under section 40 of the Act, British Rail has embarked on a series of consultations designed to discover the best places for assembling freight for the very purpose about which the hon. Gentleman speaks.

Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the complex decision-making processes of investment in British Rail, such as apply to the line from Waterloo to Exeter via Salisbury? Is he aware that I and some of my hon. Friends discussed this matter with British Rail and were astonished to discover that when considering matters such as double tracking British Rail is not required to undergo any kind of cost-benefit analysis for investment criteria?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, I have a constituency interest in the circumstances affecting that line, which is below the standard that British Rail wishes to achieve. I am assured that an investment proposal will be put to me later this year. I look forward to it and hope that it will arrive as quickly as possible.

Does the Minister accept that if environmental, energy and safety advantages of rail transport were accepted we would have a railway system as well financed as that in the rest of Europe? As our railways suffer from a supine and incompetent management, and a sponsoring Department that is largely indifferent to rail's advantages, the Minister's Department will continue to squander billions of pounds on supposed road improvements which will have the effect of moving a traffic jam a few miles further up the road.

The hon. Gentleman alleges that the environmental benefits are not recognised by the Government. They are recognised through section 8 freight facilities grants. Rail transport can bring substantial environmental benefits, and section 8 is designed to get regular flows of unsuitable goods off the roads. Since 1983 there have been 62 grants worth over £26 million, and they have removed about 1 million lorry journeys a year off the roads. That is worth while and is an example of our recognition.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what efforts his Department takes to ensure that new roads are designed to be environmentally sensitive.

We minimise the impact of new roads on the environment by careful design. We fit schemes into the landscape, plant tress and screen traffic. We take special measures to protect wildlife.

My hon. Friend will know of the laudable financial commitment of Kent county council, Gillingham borough council, the city council of Rochester and Medway, English Estates and the Rochester bridge trust to a new relief road running round the north side of the Medway towns. When his Department considers this proposal, will he recognise that the environmentally sensitive answer to crossing the Medway is a tunnel rather than a high-level bridge? Will he commit his Department to such a crossing, even if it is more expensive initially?

I hope that we will get a touch of private funding for the Medway crossing. That has been a tradition in the past. Of course, we shall take environmental considerations strongly into account. As today is the birthday of Professor Bell of Kew, of Professor Southwood the zoologist, and of my hon. Friend the Minister of State who leads the Department in "Transport and the Environment", we will take that very much to heart.

The Minister recently had a deputation about the urgency of the need to improve road communications between Manchester and Sheffield. Is there anything that he can say about action to be taken on an issue of so much importance to both cities and to the north's gateway airport in Manchester?

As I said to the right hon. Gentleman at our meeting, we want to improve the top road, and there are great worries about any proposals in the national park.

In expressing my gratitude to my hon. Friend for his original answer, and for the birthday greeting to my excellent constituent, Professor Bell, may I also mention a serious matter to him? The surface that is eventually put on the roads, especially motorways, in Britain, has a great bearing on the subsequent noise emissions from those roads. Does he insist on the quietest possible road surface, or does money come into the argument?

No, and yes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations and individuals who expressed interest in buying the Settle to Carlisle railway line prior to 16 May.

No, Sir. Such information is commercially confidential. However, British Rail has adopted a positive attitude and has now appointed Mr. Chris Lewin to interface with those in the private sector who are interested.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure he will be aware of how many hon. Members are seriously disturbed about the proposals to privatise that line and the effects not only on the people but on tourism in the area, and the possible knock-on effects on other lines used for tourism. May I remind him that on 26 May my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) asked whether the consultation period on the timetable could be extended for a year? Will he now consider that proposal?

I wish to make two points to the hon. Lady. First, the period from now until, at the latest, November is for the Secretary of State's further consideration as to whether there is new evidence. After that there will be a further four months, so there is a long period.

My hon. Friend should be congratulated on the personal and positive commitment that he showed on Saturday in travelling on that line with me and many other people. Given that that line is very different in its nature and scale from other privately run railways, will he confirm that any private operator who came forward would not be required to conform with the slow running requirements involved in a light rail order?

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting question. There are three alternative ways in which it will be possible for a private operator to operate. British Rail could set up a subsidiary for disposal to the private sector and the powers to operate the line could he transferred to that subsidiary. It could be transferred by a private Act, by order of the Secretary of State under the Transport Act 1981, or by a light rail order made by the Secretary of State. The 25 mph restriction to which my hon. Friend referred applies to the last of those three.

Does the Minister accept that more than 22,000 objectors to the closure were deeply offended by the Minister's original comments when he made the deplorable announcement? They do not want to see a toy-town railway or someone playing with trains to amuse himself. That line forms an integral part of the transportation needs of an isolated part of the country and its closure will mean that many people will be deprived of any method of transportation for much of the year.

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is referred to as a secondary line going north. It is a duplicate line. British Rail does not have duplicate lines for most of the network, and it does not need one here.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in taking action against overloaded foreign heavy vehicles entering the United Kingdom.

During the present financial year the Department's traffic examiners will weigh nearly 50 per cent. more foreign lorries than last year. In addition, we propose during the next few months to install automatic screening equipment at the major ferry ports.

I welcome that development. However, will my hon. Friend confirm that it still means that fewer than 5 per cent. of such lorries are weighed? Given that a recent survey showed that more than one in five are found to be overweight, would not the best deterrent be, not only more screening and weighbridge facilities, but for the courts to impose much more severe fines for what are serious and dangerous offences?

Yes. It is worth recognising that most foreign lorries are regular visitors, so, even though the one in 20 figure is low, the chances of a regular visitor who overloads being caught are fairly high.

How far does the action that the Minister will take follow the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General's report? Will the automatic weighing be for every vehicle and every axle, even if it is a coarse weight? Would it not be better to do that, and is it not sensible to weigh every axle as it comes off the boat?

That is obviously true. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is contained in the reply from the Department to the Committee.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new screening devices, which I am glad to hear he proposes to introduce, will weigh the vehicles in motion as they pass through the ports, so avoiding congestion?

That is the point of screening.

Is not the administration involved in the screening and checking of on-road vehicles, which hon. Members on both sides of the House will endorse, an enormous expense? Would not the Government be better off spending money and effort in transferring road weights to rail, to make sure that the freight goes on rail in preference, and, in so doing, helping to keep railways, such as the Settle-Carlisle line, open? That is a magnificent main line route to the north and it can carry——

Order. I did not call the hon. Gentleman to ask a supplementary on the previous question.

We recognise that the hon. Gentleman would have liked to get in on the previous question. In answer to this question— [Interruption.] The hooligan tendency is putting on a lot of pressure. The answer is that between the section 8 grants and the Channel tunnel there is more encouragement for heavy freight to use the railways for longer journeys, and that is to be welcomed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans have been made to limit the extent of motorway road works during the August bank holiday weekend 1988.

Wherever possible, roadworks involving lane closures are suspended during bank holidays and other peak holiday periods. Some roadworks are unavoidable at these times. Sometimes temporary removal of a large contraflow can be more disruptive than leaving it in place.

Is my hon. Friend aware that certain parts of the country, including my constituency, have local economies that are largely dependent on tourism? In granting further contracts for motorway repair and maintenance, will my hon. Friend bear that in mind?

We shall go on doing the best that we can, and we hope that that will be better than previously.

Does the Minister understand the anger and frustration of hundreds of thousands of motorists caught in traffic jams over all holiday periods, not just the August bank holiday? People have complained to me about the incompetence of a Department that simply cannot get roadworks done in such a schedule as to allow holiday traffic to go to and fro at the busiest time of the year.

Yes, but we have two advantages. First, we are spending money on doing some of this reconstruction. Secondly, we do not have the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) saying that he wants all the money for some other mode of transport. We go for an effective balance.

Does the answer that my hon. Friend has just given refer to the replacement of central barriers as well as lane repairs? I believe that the lane rental procedure does not operate for central barrier repairs, which are therefore taking a great deal longer.

I should like to see reward and penalty extended to most aspects of work on roads, all the way from potholes through to major motorway reconstruction.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet received the report from the safety advisory committee about the construction of the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

My Department has formally received two annual reports, but no reports on specific questions. Reports from the safety authority can be made to the Government. In general, they have been made and will continue to be made to the Intergovernmental Commission.

Has my hon. Friend read the extraordinary report by Dr. Richard Haworth of the geological survey about the potential serious seismic risk which could affect the viability and safety of the Channel tunnel? Will he assure me that the safety advisory committee will examine the report? Secondly, will he assure us that the House will be told of the results of the inquiries?

I have not read the report, although I have read some accounts of it. The authority will be considering this matter. If there is anything untoward that arises from it, I shall ensure that it is reported to the House.

Question No. 7 was not taken, but will the Minister tell me whether there will be any facilities for toads and hedgehogs to go down the Channel tunnel and cross the Channel safely?

There are 150 toad crossings on various roads in Britain. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman about the Channel tunnel, where special steps will be taken to ensure that rabid toads are not able to cross.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in any discussions on safety within the advisory committee he will not be consulting Mr. James Sherwood or Sir Jeffrey Sterling?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the machinery for consultation on safety, which was set out in the Channel Tunnel Bill, which was subsequently approved as an Act in this place, is being adhered to closely.

Does the Minister recollect that way back in 1830— [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was a Minister then. Does he recall that in that year Dr. Dionysus warned that anyone travelling through a tunnel at more than 30 mph would be asphyxiated? Will he assure the House that Dr. Dionysus is alive and well and is representing English nationalism in Southend, albeit through an imported view from Glasgow?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The belief that passengers passing through Brunel's tunnels to the west country would be made deaf were proved to be wrong, and fears about safety will be proved wrong in this instance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amount of room the various statutory authorities will need reserved for their purposes in an international train using the Channel tunnel; and whether this will have any implications for rolling stock construction.

Customs and Immigration authorities are currently discussing their requirements with British Rail. Any agreed on-train requirements will be taken into account in the specification for the Channel tunnel rolling stock.

Will the Minister give the House an assurance that there will be on-board inspection on all trains using the Channel tunnel? Will he confirm, or deny, unconfirmed reports that Customs and Excise and immigration authorities require the equivalent of two carriages for their various tea rooms, searching rooms and interview rooms? Will he persuade them to conduct inter-frontier controls in the way in which they take place between France, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and other continental countries, where their equivalents of Customs and Excise and immigration have about 35 places, not 150?

It is a requirement that there should be facilities for searches on trains travelling to the north of London, subject to agreement between British Rail and the authorities concerned. It has been our view until now that the appropriate way of proceeding with trains travelling south through Waterloo would be to provide the necessary facilities at Waterloo itself.

Will my hon. Friend explain to the Customs and Excise and immigration authorities that there is no need to make passengers disembark to be checked? If on-board checking works perfectly well on the continent, surely it can be made to work equally well for our purposes.

I note what my hon. Friend says.

If there is any real difficulty, will the Minister explain to Customs and Excise that one way in which it can facilitate movement is by creating customs posts elsewhere, particularly in the north-west? I suggest that Crewe would be an excellent site.

For freight, British Rail is in the process of consulting about bases in the north which would be suitable for inland clearance depots and for the collection of freight for shipment through the tunnel. I hope that the hon. Lady will take some encouragement from that.

Will my hon. Friend explain to Customs and Excise that there is now a Common Market, that there is a Single European Act, which comes into effect in 1992, that it is time it woke up to that fact and started to behave as we expect to be treated in other countries, and that it should start to be sensible about these things?

Some controls will still be needed after 1992 to counter drug smuggling, terrorism and things of that sort.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from British Rail on facilities for incoming travellers on trains using the Channel tunnel, or at the Waterloo station Channel tunnel station, or at terminals for Channel tunnel trains at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham and Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

The chairman of British Rail has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggesting that the Government should consider the case for having on-train customs and immigration controls on those trains that will terminate at Waterloo, as well as arrangements as provided for in the Channel Tunnel Act on those trains serving destiations to the north of London. We are currently considering the matter in more detail with British Rail.

Is the Minister aware that when the NUR group of Labour Members were the guests of the chairman of British Rail he produced an unanswerable case for the contents of that letter? Is it not the fact that, on this issue, Transport Ministers are foreseeing, prudent, wise, imaginative and understand the problems, and that the stick in the mud Home Office is being very unreasonable, but the Home Office is the senior Department and carries more clout than the Department of Transport?

I cannot accept that description of the Home Office, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to. Having said that, I must say that I have noted the consensus in the House for more progress to be made more quickly on how on-train operations will be mounted.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the privatisation of British Rail.

Three letters. I am making it clear to correspondents that I have no plans at present, but I am considering long-term options for the future, and the possibilities of privatisation are not ruled out.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind the recent privatisation of the Japanese state railway, which means that it now joins the other 11 private companies in Japan that are run by free enterprise? If that is going too far, will my hon. Friend consider establishing some form of track authority, so that we can at least have some private competition back on British Rail?

I am sure that experience in Japan will be taken into account, but there is a property feature, which is somewhat unique, in that case which may not be appropriate to British Rail. The possibility of having a track authority will be examined with British Rail if we decide to go down that line.

What negotiations is the Minister having about the possible impact of privatisation on rural communities, which are still suffering from the cuts made by the Beeching axe? Is he aware that we will refuse to accept any further cuts?

There has not been any suggestion that the subsidy provided for the provincial network, including Scotland, should be at risk in any way. There have been substantial improvements in rural services, many of which now use modern, fast sprinter trains. When I travelled on some Scottish routes recently I found ScotRail's morale much higher than it was a few years ago and that the standard of service provided for the customer is much better. ScotRail is looking much better than it used to.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the urgent need is for British Rail to get out and sell the privatisation of the Settle-Carlisle line? Does he also agree that one chap sitting in an office hoping that somebody will turn up, knock on the door and ask whether he happens to have a railway to sell is not a substantial marketing effort? Will my hon. Friend ensure that BR sets out to succeed, bearing in mind that BR is in a heads-we-win tails-you-lose situation, because if the line is not privatised there is a risk of its being closed?

I understand that British Rail intends to market and shortly to advertise for those interested to come forward. There are two potential ways forward. First, if the Secretary of State is minded to confirm his announcement, what I call in shorthand a "Mr. Big" might come along and develop the whole line commercially as a tourist project. Secondly, there might be some co-operative local effort to ensure the future operation of the line. If what I have characterised as a Mr. Big appears, it would be highly desirable for him to make his presence known as soon as possible, preferably within the next month.

Does the Secretary of State suspect that the prospect of privatisation is the reason why new seats have been placed on British Rail's main line stations from London to the north-east? Is he aware that all the seats are red, except at Grantham, where they are blue? Will he explain that phenomenon? If it is because of the Prime Minister's connection with that town, does he not feel that her attachment to the railway system is so meagre that it does not deserve consideration?

The Prime Minister told me how much she enjoyed her journey on British Rail on one particular occasion. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the improvement at stations along the east coast main line. I travelled along that line on Sunday and I was impressed by the smartening up of the stations and the general improvements.

When considering privatisation, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the tremendous success during the last few years of the Government's investment in British Rail, especially in the sprinter services and the electrification of lines? Will he also bear in mind that there is a need for a dramatic increase in investment and that perhaps only a private entity could provide the level of funds required?

My hon. Friend is being a little unfair to the Government. I have approved every investment proposal that British Rail has put to me since 1983. It is true that I had to send one back because I was not satisfied with it, but after British Rail reworked the arrangements for the operation of the Royston to Cambridge line I approved the proposal. Therefore, no proposals from British Rail for investment have not been approved. I do not believe that the private sector could have provided better investment. Of course, it is only by sucking it that we shall find out.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there have been any discussions between his Department and British Rail staff concerning the possible sale of British Rail.

I have no plans for the privatisation of British Rail, but my Department is discussing long-term options with British Rail, including the possibilities of privatisation, and having regard to the need for systems of regulation and subsidy to loss-making services.

Is the Minister aware that there is anxiety in the midlands about the future of the east coast line and fears that it may be privatised now that it has been electrified, which may lead to the midland line becoming defunct? Will he reassure all the people in Leicester, Loughborough, Nottingham and elsewhere that the line to St. Pancras has a long-term future into the next century?

I have no reason to believe that British Rail has any plans to downgrade the midland main line. The hon. Gentleman will know that that line has had substantial investment in resignalling and that the current HST service runs as fast as the track will allow. Electrification would not make it any faster.

Although, in the past, many people may have believed that British Rail should remain in public ownership for all time, is my hon. Friend aware that the climate of opinion and the experience of recent years have transformed that belief? Is he further aware that many people would welcome the privatisation of British Rail? Will he bring forward a measure to that effect in the next Parliament?

As I said earlier, we are examining long-term options for British Rail. Those options include the possibility of privatisation, but I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he seeks until the options have been properly and thoroughly investigated, and I certainly could not do so this week.

When considering the long-term future of British Rail, will the Minister join me in praising the efforts of the catering staff on trains? They are working in very difficult circumstances, often with a shortage of manpower, food and many things that customers want. The responsibility lies with the Government, because they are cutting back on the cash that enables British Rail to provide a proper service. It is unfair that the people at the sharp end are the catering staff, who are answerable for the Government, when they should not be.

I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in referring to the improvements that have taken place, not only in British Rail catering, but through the introduction of private-sector trolley operations on many British Rail routes. Both give a good standard of service, substantially higher than it used to be. I made use of those services over the weekend and was much impressed by the facilities available at York station, on which I compliment British Rail.

To ask the Attorney-General what action the Director of Public Prosecutions has taken following the completion of the investigations by the City of London police into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings: and if he will make a statement.

As a result of information that came to his attention the Director wrote on 30 March to the Commissioner of Police for the City of London to ask him to make inquiries into two matters connected with the appeal of William Power and others, heard at the Central Criminal Court last November and December.

Will the Attorney-General tell the House what explanation Dr. Skuse and Mr. Reade have offered for the two long telephone conversations that took place between them on the night of 17 November, very shortly after Dr. Skuse left the witness box? Does he agree that it is very unusual for the two principal Crown witnesses in a case of this magnitude to be liaising with each other?

I can answer the hon. Gentleman to this extent. I understand that Dr. Skuse has said that the only matter relevant to the trial that was discussed on those two occasions was the whereabouts of papers that he had mislaid and later believed to have been stolen. It is normal for a witness, before he has finished his evidence, to be directed not to discuss the case if any substantial matter is involved. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that Dr. Skuse had completed his evidence on 17 November and was not subsequently recalled. It was a few minutes before midnight on that day that he made the first of the two telephone calls.

The Attorney-General says that there is no evidence of criminal conduct. If the telephone calls had been made to another witness, in breach of an injunction by the court not to discuss the matter before giving evidence, that would, as I understand it, be contempt of court, and hence a matter that ought to be referred back to the Court of Appeal. Is that correct?

The question is hypothetical in the light of the facts that have been established. Whether anything said in breach of an order made by a court would constitute contempt would depend on all the circumstances of the case, including what was said and the stage that the proceedings in question had reached.

To ask the Attorney-General what were the terms of reference given by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the City of London police when asking them to inquire into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the recent appeal hearing of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 17 June 1988, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether he is satisfied with the way in which those terms of reference have been discharged? Does he agree that it is a tragedy that the commendable vigour and energy that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has put into pursuing the truth in this matter do not appear to have been equalled by those charged with the responsibility for conducting those inquiries? Will he tell the House specifically why the police did not interview the ITN journalist, Chris Jameson, who reported having seen Dr. Skuse and Superintendent Reade together? Does not this whole matter still leave profoundly important questions unanswered? Should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to publish a detailed account of the inquiries that have been undertaken and the reasons why no prosecutions have been made?

The Director of Public Prosecutions is satisfied with the way in which the investigations by the police into potentially criminal conduct have been carried out. I see no reason to dissent from the view formed by him. I reject the assertion that the inquiries have not been carried out with proper vigour. That is about as far as I need to go in answer to the question. I shall not dilate on the attitude of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South to the appeal hearing that was conducted over six or seven weeks in November of last year.

To ask the Attorney-General what recent information he has about the cost of introducing an integrated family court.

I understand that the Lord Chancellor will shortly be receiving a copy of the report commissioned by the Family Courts Campaign examining the cost of a family court.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the needless costs of our present system is that it frequently exacerbates the human misery and difficulties associated with divorce and family break-up? Can he confirm that the preliminary findings of the report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for the Family Courts Campaign show that substantial savings are to be made overall by the introduction of an integrated family court—largely in terms of legal aid and matrimonial care orders? More than that, will my hon. and learned Friend say when his Department will come forward with its costings, to show that it is serious in its intention to move towards an integrated family court?

As my hon. Friend knows, conciliation is currently the subject of research by Newcastle university, and studies are also in progress in the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department into the requirements for staffing, resources and welfare expertise in relation to wardship and care proceedings at each court level. The report of the Cleveland inquiry is expected shortly and, following a study of that, the Government hope to come forward with further announcements on the development of a family court.

Is my understanding wrong? Did not the then Lord Chancellor, now Lord Havers, suggest last year that his Department hoped to produce conclusions on the prospective costs of the various options for a family court system? Was it not hoped that that report would be brought out by the beginning of the year? What has happened to that report, or has it already been produced?

I think that my hon. Friend has not really had an opportunity to keep up with developments. The Lord Chancellor made it clear that the first priority was to get the child care law right, but a number of studies have been in progress and he hopes to come forward with further announcements on the development of the family court following the receipt and study of the Cleveland inquiry report.

To ask the Attorney-General for what reasons the Director of Public Prosecutions asked the Commissioner of the City of London police to establish an inquiry into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the recent appeal by those found guilty of the Birmingham pub bombings.

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I have given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer. Further to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), is the Attorney-General aware that the case is beginning to stain the entire fabric of our judicial system? Would it not be better for him to admit that British justice would be better served if he faced that fact and honestly admitted that something has gone seriously wrong in the Birmingham bombings case?

I have dealt with the questions that I have been asked, save that I did not answer part of the last question on why, in the first instance, inquiries were not made in relation to Police Sergeant Paton. The reason is that the immediate source of that information to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was disclosed to the police only recently.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many of us supported the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in the appeal procedure? It was the longest appeal in the history of this country. Is anything to be gained by trying to disparage and discredit British justice? No one had a fairer trial. No one had a fairer appeal. Is it not time that the Opposition looked at the IRA, instead of being its greatest supporters.

I regret efforts to undermine confidence in the outcome of an appeal that was conducted with all the qualities to which my hon. Friend referred.

To ask the Attorney General what were the grounds for the Director of Public Prosecution's decision to ask the Commissioner of the City of London police for an inquiry into contacts between the two principal Crown witnesses at the recent appeal on the Birmingham pub bombings trial.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I have just given the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, another question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and he did not answer it. It relates to why the witness to alleged collusion between two witnesses during the trial was not interviewed by the police. Will he assure the House that that witness will be interviewed? Do not the amply-sized nostrils of the Attorney-General's office even now begin to detect a whiff of scandal associated with the case? Is this not the fourth police inquiry into various aspects of the case without due result? Will the Attorney-General ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to publish the details of the investigations, so that Parliament and the public can be satisfied that British justice has been done in this case?

There has been no witness—to use the hon. Gentleman's expression—to collusion between witnesses in this case. The immediate source of the information to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has drawn attention was identified recently. He has been away on holiday. He was interviewed today on his immediate return. That is why I said that investigations into the matter are continuing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the value in current prices of Her Majesty's Government's overseas aid in 1979 and 1987.

Gross public expenditure on overseas aid, at current prices, amounted to £939 million in 1979, and £1,283 million in 1987.

Will the Minister confirm that, in real terms, every year since 1979 the amount of aid has been below the 1979 level? Will he confirm that last year, at 0·28 per cent. of gross national product, the figure hit an all-time low? Why was that?

If the hon. Gentleman had tabled a different question asking about constant rather than current prices, I should have given him the figures that he wanted. As it happens, I am pleased to confirm that the aid programme is increasing in real terms by 3·4 per cent. this year.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that this week, in addition to those figures, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the structural facility of the IMF loan, in which Britain has given a sixth of the capital and has been the first to provide it? Will he further confirm that in the discussions of the Group of Seven conference any solution to Third world debt problems will be in addition to the aid programme?

First, there is a difference between the position now and that of the late 1970s. In those days we were a main beneficiary from the IMF, whereas nowadays we are a main contributor to its programmes to help the most indebted countries. I confirm that the costs of our debt initiative would represent a net addition to the aid programme. I am delighted that we appear to be making good progress in Toronto, although we shall want to see the programme implemented in full as soon as possible. Nevertheless, progress seems to be good.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a great deal of credit from both sides of the House for his initiative on this matter. Nevertheless, will the Minister assure us that this is not simply the Government facing up to writing off bad debt, but is an earnest of their intent to change the direction of their policy and to contribute more in future towards overseas aid than they have done to date?

As I have confirmed now and previously, the costs of the extremely important debt initiative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the most indebted countries in Africa will represent a net addition to the aid programme. We have made it clear again and again that there is no point in initiatives to deal with African debt unless one spends more money. The initiative that my right hon. Friend has launched, and for which he has deserved credit, covers re-scheduling and writing off aid loans, which we have already done to the tune of £260 million for 14 African countries. It also covers a cut in the interest rate for countries pursuing sensible economic policies. I hope that we can reach agreement on an initiative along those lines at Toronto, or at the latest by the autumn.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the increase in the overseas development budget that he has managed to get from the Government. May I hope that he will redouble his efforts this year to ensure that we maintain that progress? Can he tell us how much of that increased budget he has allocated to Africa? In particular, can he say what difficulties he is experiencing in disbursing that increased aid, especially to countries such as Ethiopia?

In answer to my hon. Friend's question before that on Ethiopia, I can tell him that we shall be spending most of our increase in aid this year on enhancing our programmes in Africa, particularly our support for structural adjustment and economic policy reform. Our major assistance to Ethiopia has been for the emergency, on which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has recently produced such a good report. In the past 18 months we have committed £45 million on that operation. I fear that the long-term weather forecasts suggest that we may have to spend a good deal more.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to reach the Pearson target for overseas aid and expenditure.

Her Majesty's Government accept in principle the United Nations' target for aid of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product, but, like previous Administrations, have not set a date for reaching it.

It is not very good for those in desperate need that the Government accept the target in principle. Before the Government get lyrical about this year's so-called increase, had they not better accept that that increase is on a record low and that they inherited a proportion in excess of 0·5 per cent. of gross domestic product, and rising? When the Minister next meets the Prime Minister—he will recall his predecessor's complaint on leaving office that he never met her—will he gently remind her that when she next gives a sermon in Scotland, or elsewhere, she might remember that loving one's neighbour includes one's neighbour in the Third world?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am bound to say that confidence in the ability of a Labour Government to run the economy in a way that would enable them to support a large aid programme is not widespread. I am not sure whether such confidence is widespread on the Opposition Benches. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am delighted that this year we shall be spending about £95 million more than the likely outturn of our aid programme last year.

As the direction and use of overseas aid are as valuable as the percentage, may I have my hon. Friend's assurance that part of it will be directed towards the burden shouldered by women in the developing countries?

I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend said. Not only must we do all that we can to ensure that we support the role of women in development, but we must continue to support the poorest countries through our aid programme. As my hon. Friend will know, last year's OECD report commended us for spending more than the average spent by OECD countries on helping the poorest.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Countries' aid budget as a percentage of gross national product exceeds the figure of 0·28 per cent. in 1987, or in the latest available year.

In 1986, the latest year for which official estimates have been published, the net official development assistance of the following member countries of the OECD's development assistance committee represented more than 0·28 per cent. of their GNPs: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the speed with which he read out the list of names, but I remind him that the figure of 0·28 per cent. is only slightly more than half the proportion of GNP spent on aid by the Labour Government, who left office in 1979. The Minister talks about the amount having been increased, but he omits to mention how that amount has fallen as a proportion of GNP. As Britain is now 15th or 16th in the list of OECD countries, and as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeatedly stand at the Dispatch Box and say how well off the country is, could we not expect more of that wealth to go to the Third world? Instead, the amount is declining at a time when the countries that we visited are in desperate need.

I am delighted that our economy is growing strongly enough to enable us to increase our aid programme in real terms. I am also delighted that our economy is sufficiently strong for us to make such a major contribution to the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility and for us to have taken the lead in dealing with the debt problems of the poorest African countries. W hen the Labour party was in government we borrowed money from the IMF, rather than lent it money to give to others.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate to measure aid in terms of percentage of GNP, because a British Government who produced a low GNP would inevitably create a higher figure?

I have no doubt that, without increasing the aid programme, if the Labour party were in government there would be an increase in the percentage of GNP devoted to aid, since the growth rate would fall rapidly.