To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been undertaken in the last two years into measures to reduce pedestrian casualties.

A lot. This is one of our highest priorities.

I thank my hon. Friend for that full answer to my question. When looking at pedestrian casualties, has my hon. Friend taken into account the important part that can be played in preventing casualties by using speed humps to slow down vehicles? Does he agree that it is almost impossible for a local authority to institute speed humps, because the road either has too much or too little traffic and never seems to be quite right?

I may arrange to have more detailed information placed in the Official Report. This year we are spending £1·5 million as part of a £5 million pedestrian-related safety programme.

The Minister will be aware that the North report on road traffic law has been published, and he will have a copy. When will that report be brought before the House in the form of legislation, especially to avoid pedestrians being killed by reckless driving or—under the North recommendations—the new offence of "bad" driving?

The House will know that my right hon. Friend has promised a preliminary report before the end of this Session—the rest will follow on. I look forward to the time when heavy goods vehicles will stop intimidating and crashing into cars; cars will stop crashing into motor cycles; motor cyclists will leave cyclists alone; cyclists will leave pedestrians alone; and pedestrians will not get so drunk and kill so many of themselves. We all need to recognise the importance of co-operation on our roads.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the answer to pedestrian safety lies in education? What discussions have he and his departmental colleagues had with the Department of Education and Science about pedestrian safety tuition being included in the core curriculum for all schoolchildren?

It is not so much a question of incorporating that into the core curriculum, as of trying to go from one school out of five knowing what it is doing about road safety training to five out of five. The Department of Transport, the Department of Education and Science and local education authorities have a responsibility to ensure that any parent, teacher or governor can work through a checklist so that more can be done to provide safety for the children in their school.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce the density of private motor traffic within central London.

I aim to promote measures to help the existing traffic to flow more freely. The measures that we are taking are improving trunk roads to take traffic round, rather than through, London; promoting the use of new technology to improve traffic management; encouraging more effective parking controls; and working with British Rail and London Regional Transport to improve the quality of the rail and Underground systems.

Does the Minister have a view on the report in the press today that four private consultant firms consider that London should have a network of new toll roads? Would it not be much better for the public to use public transport? How will he encourage them to use it much more?

On the first part of the hon. Lady's question, that is an extremely unlikely idea. She is referring to a progress report by consultants who have been working on the project for two years and have another year to go. None of the suggestions has had the blessing of the Government. They are merely progress reports to be considered by the relevant people.

In view of the congestion in the Westminster area, will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department is looking at proposals to build a tunnel under the Thames to take through traffic well away from Westminster?

Westminster city council and the Government have commissioned a consultants' report to examine that matter. We await the report.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to tell the House and the public at large that the report in The Guardian today is accurate, that he condemns the plans to demolish 5,000 homes in London and introduce toll roads in London, that he will call a halt to all major road building in London, and that instead he will put far more resources into public transport and diverting traffic around London? Is he aware that when the GLC was controlled by Labour the use of public transport increased significantly and that road traffic in London was reduced because London's transport policy was directed towards the needs of the people of London rather than towards the minority of car commuters and heavy goods vehicles traversing London?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the use of public transport is increasing a great deal faster now than it was when the GLC was in existence. Investment in the Underground is 60 per cent. higher in real terms than it was under the GLC, which starved the Underground of investment.

Oh, come on.

Well, I shall give the figures to the House. Today, investment is running at £365 million a year. That is 60 per cent. higher in real terms than when the GLC had control of the Underground. As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have already made it clear that these are progress reports of studies that were announced two years ago. The sensational story in The Guardian today merely repeats an answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport gave to the House on 27 June and information that was placed in the Library over two weeks ago.

But is not the time coming when my right hon. Friend will have to consider radical remedies, such as charging people extra for driving regularly into London and restricting deliveries by goods vehicles to the hours of darkness?

I should be very reluctant to charge people for travelling into London by road. It would allow only those who could afford it to come into London by car. It would be very difficult and bureaucratic to operate and would lead to many unfairnesses. My hon. Friend may be right. One day somebody may have to do that, but it is a deeply unattractive option which I am not at all keen to pursue.

Will the Secretary of State, in what might be described as a moment of glasnostian candour, admit that his Department does not have a clue what about to do about getting cars off the roads of London? His response to his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) illustrates that fact. Does the Secretary of State admit that on the Kensington-Fulham border, where four years ago the Government refused to allow the GLC to invest £25 million to improve the rail system, the Government are now talking about an investment of £150 million to build two miles of road, which would mean pulling down houses and bringing further traffic on to an already too dense traffic system?

I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman should show this sudden interest in Kensington. So far as I know, he has never before asked a question about Kensington and I suspect that he will never again. I repeat that we have no new proposals for changing the road system in Kensington.

Why is not more use made of the River Thames and other waterways in London, which would take traffic off the roads? Will my right hon. Friend take a trip to Venice and see the effectiveness of the water buses there and introduce them on the Thames?

I cannot imagine anything nicer than a trip to Venice. My hon. Friend is on to a good point. In the past we have neglected the Thames far too much. I hope that commercial services will start very shortly. Such a service already exists between, more or less, this House and docklands. I hope that it will be extended to Chelsea. It will play a useful part in carrying a proportion of the traffic that wants to come into the centre of London.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take in the light of the Audit Commission report on local authority maintained roads; and if he will make a statement.

The main action is for local authorities. I have already urged them to implement the commission's recommendations for spending up to their provision on maintenance, and for improving the efficiency of their arrangements. I repeated this message at a meeting with them only last week.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has welcomed the bulk of the Audit Commission's report, but obviously some matters still cause it concern. Over the 10 years to 1986 traffic on urban roads increased by more than 20 per cent., but spending fell by 10 per cent. Deregulation has put more traffic on the roads, and revenue support for public transport fell from £512 million to £249 million between 1982 and 1987. As a consequence, and as has already been said this afternoon, there is a major crisis in road maintenance and traffic management. Does the Secretary of State have any positive proposals rather than encouraging local authorities to spend more and then penalising them when they do so?

I am not doing the latter, as the hon. Member knows. I have provided local authorities with nearly £150 million for 1988–89 above their estimated expenditure. If only local authorities will get on and spend that money, local roads will be considerably improved. That is the action I am urging them to take.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that people living in our larger cities, such as Nottingham, hold their district council responsible, when it is the county council that holds the purse strings. Will he re-examine that aspect and either insist that counties spend their full allocation, or make the money available to districts, so that they can deliver what the public demand of them?

I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, although I suspect that it might turn out to be mildly controversial. The important point is that the relevant authorities have had the money and they must spend it, or our local urban roads will deteriorate, and then the cure will be very much more expensive.

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

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairman of British Rail on 24 May. They discussed a variety of railway matters.

In view of the announcement that is expected this week about new investment schemes for the Channel tunnel project., can the Minister give a preliminary indication that British Rail will be allowed to invest in Wales, Scotland and the north of England, and that there will not be just another bonanza for south-east England? Will the Minister bear in mind that the port of Calais is a relatively deprived area, but stands to gain considerably from the Channel tunnel project?

British Rail expects to publish its study on Thursday. The hon. Gentleman will know that British Rail is planning to invest about £3,800 million over the next five years. Moreover, whatever area of the country may be the subject of viable British Rail proposals for investment, I shall consider them sympathetically.

My hon. Friend has been instrumental in securing improved road transport facilities for north-east Kent. When he last met the chairman of British Rail, did he impress upon him the need for a rail service to replace the rather mediocre one from which we suffer at present, which, in these days of high-speed trains, transports passengers at an average speed of 40 mph?

As to Kent passenger services, part of the reason for the study being published on Thursday is to ensure that British Rail can cope with Channel Tunnel traffic without damaging commuter services.

Does the Minister agree that it is vital that investment in the so-called regions of the United Kingdom be increased? Is he aware of the high demand for increased electrification of the east coast line north of Edinburgh, and of continuing demand for a rail crossing at Dornoch Firth? Both are of vital importance if we are not to be disadvantaged when the Channel tunnel comes on stream.

Investment in British Rail is designed to meet the volume of passenger or freight demand. In the further regions of Scotland the passenger volume is a great deal less than it is in some other parts, but wherever British Rail has a viable business project to bring forward for investment purposes we shall look at it very carefully.

When my hon. Friend saw the British Railways Board, did he stress that when the board brings forward proposals for privatisation it will not be thought acceptable for British Rail merely to be transferred to a private monopoly? What Conservative Members want is competition.

These are very early days in our plans for the longer-term future of British Rail, with privatisation as an option, but I shall of course keep my hon. Friend's point in mind.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the board, Sir Robert Reid, will he impress on him the need for proper facilities for both passenger and freight traffic arising from the Channel tunnel development? Those facilities are necessary across the provinces and regions, and particularly in the west midlands.

I shall of course ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments about proper facilities for Channel traffic are conveyed to the chairman. Substantial consultation is taking place about the services, particularly freight services, that should be provided from north of London and throughout the country to maximise the benefits from the Channel tunnel.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy on providing equestrian, cycling or pedestrian bridges across, or tunnels under, major roads, and what criteria are laid down for such projects.

We consider suggestions and proposals on their merits.

Will my right hon. Friend look sympathetically at the need for a combined equestrian, pedestrian and cyclists' crossing on the section of the A1 between South Mimms and Stirling corner, not only because it is effectively of motorway standard, but because of the volume and velocity of the traffic on the road? For example, 800 horses are stabled in that corridor of that part of north London.

My hon. Friend has raised this difficult matter assiduously on behalf of his constituents. As he says, the Al is a very large road with a great deal of traffic, which makes it very difficult to cure the problem of horses crossing it. What my hon. Friend suggests would cost a good deal and I shall have to consider it carefully, but it is an important point and I shall certainly look into it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received seeking a bypass for Crowlas on the A30.

Penwith district council, the A30 Action Group, the Crowlas A30 Action Group, Ludgvan parish council and the Ludgvan conservation society have supported my hon. Friend in pressing for the inclusion in the national roads programme of a bypass for Crowlas.

My hon. Friend will know from letters that he has received from the bodies that he has listed of the strong and entirely justifiable feeling of residents of those communities, whose lives are made a misery by the amount of traffic on the existing road that masquerades as the A30. Will he give an undertaking that the long-awaited bypass will be included in the programme to be announced, presumably, next spring?

Without prejudging decisions to be made then, I can say that it will certainly be considered.

Although I am sympathetic to the problems of the A30, is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulties facing my constituents because junction 1 on the M69 goes only in a northerly direction? Will he consider pressing his Department to answer the requests made three years ago for an inquiry into why that is, and take express measures to get the southern link built?

The Department will consider what my hon. Friend has said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines and advice he has given recently on wheel clamping and the circumstances in which it should be used; and if he will make a statement.

Requests for wheel clamping areas may be made by local highway authorities to my right hon. Friend. We issued a guidance note on selection criteria in May 1987. Responsibility for operational matters rests with the police.

Does my hon. Friend agree that wheel clamping should be reserved primarily for deterring motorists from parking in no-parking areas, and that clamping motor cars parked in residential areas without permits or at parking meters after the clock has run out is an inappropriate use of clamps which should have low priority?

Most people will agree that what is important is that when a car should not be parked in a certain place an effective deterrent is needed—clamping is certainly that. The other matters are rather more operational and I shall make sure that they are considered in the appropriate places.

May we have an inquiry into how a back-street garage in Brighton managed to secure the contract for removing vehicles from the streets of Brighton?

I do not have a clue.

While, in general, wheel clamps seem to waste an enormous amount of police time and slow down traffic even more than would have happened if the vehicles were not clamped, will my hon. Friend consider putting massive wheel clamps on coaches on Westminster bridge which discharge their passengers into the centre of the road and are likely sooner or later to cause a serious accident?

Hear, hear.

The House notes my right hon. Friend's persistence in this matter. It would be appropriate if the Department encouraged the relevant authorities to get together to try to solve the problem before there is a serious accident.

Is the Minister aware that the low level of enforceability of parking restrictions in London is a matter of massive concern to hon. Members and Londoners generally? What does he think about the proposal that local authorities should take over responsibility for the traffic warden system? If we could decriminalise parking in London, the fines that could be levied by the local authority run traffic warden system could go direct to paying for the cost of the system, in which case we could perhaps get somewhere with enforcing parking restrictions in London.

The hon. Gentleman is good at encouraging us to suck eggs. The important part of this question and the answers to it is that the privatisation of wheel clamping and towing away has led to a higher degree of deterrence, which is to be welcomed. I know that the hon. Gentleman is against the privatisation or contracting out of anything——

Why does the Minister not answer the question? He is so stupid and smug.

Order.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further measures are being taken to improve the quality of driving instructors.

Targeting and extension of check testing; widening the syllabus and introducing a banding system in the written examination; and limiting failures in the practical tests.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although those actions will go a long way towards increasing the quality and standard of driving instructors, it might also be a good idea to publish league tables showing how successful individual driving instructors and schools are?

It is certainly true that for a market to work effectively one needs not only competition but information. The point my hon. Friend makes is being considered and discussed with the associations of driving instructors. There are problems, especially those of identifying a candidate with a particular instructor, but we shall report to the House when we have come to a conclusion on these matters.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking to aid the regeneration of inner city areas.

We have under construction or in our plans, road schemes worth £2 billion to assist inner city areas. Transport supplementary grant is assisting local roads costing £600 million in these areas. The London Docklands light railway has shown how innovative public transport can help to attract private sector development.

In welcoming my right hon. Friend's excellent answer, may I ask whether he would care to amplify it by saying what contribution he is encouraging from private finance to increase the transport systems in inner city areas?

We are working very closely with the private sector to try to bring enterprise back to inner city areas. The best known example is Canary wharf, where the developers are jointly funding the Docklands light railway extension. Another example is the Meadowhall development in the Don valley, to which my Department will contribute 30 per cent. of the cost of the access roads. I am sure that there is scope for further extending this process.

Who will have responsibility in the UDC areas that the Government have set up for the planning of roads?

Local highway authorities will have that responsibility.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he expects to announce a major initiative to improve public transport in London.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a study into the overcrowding problems on British Rail and London Underground services in central London in March this year. It is too early to say what proposals may emerge from it.

May my hon. Friend tell the House when he expects this study to be concluded? May we have an assurance that a major factor in the study will be the proposals that have been put forward to improve the capacity on the Northern line, which has been described by the chairman of London Regional Transport as "an abomination"?

We expect the central London rail study to report shortly to Ministers. We shall have to consider it before we can come to any conclusions on it. Investment for improvements to the London Underground is running at the rate of £1 million a day, and that is nearly 60 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1984–85.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to say something about the shameful chaos at London's airports? Why are the Government failing to carry out the investment programme that is required to bring air traffic control in the south of England up to the standard that ought to be required?

That is a somewhat different question, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the problem lies, not in the airports, but in congestion in the air space.

Can my hon. Friend confirm the report in Private Eye that London Buses Ltd. is thinking again about the introduction of one-person operated buses in central London?

London Buses Ltd. identifies appropriate services for the introduction of one-man operation. It is not the intention of London Buses Ltd. to operate such buses throughout the system. It is a question of considering the matter route by route and forming a judgment about the best method for each route.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are taken to ensure that existing procedures avoid any risk of double counting by his inspectors of crew numbers on ferries.

Some 118 inspections of cross-Channel ferries carried out in the last six months have revealed no evidence of double counting of crew.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that all inspections of the ferries are done by prior arrangement with the ferry operator? Would he care to comment on what steps his Department took to examine the allegation that appeared recently in the press to the effect that crew members were being shifted from ferry to ferry in order to make up the crewing complements?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The inspections are not all done by prior arrangement. I have checked carefully and repeat that some are not done by prior arrangement. My marine surveyors have found no evidence to support the allegation in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm not only that the Government have implemented many of the proposals of the Sheen inquiry about ferry safety, but that all the people who work on our ferries are now working on ferries that are far safer than they have ever been in the history of Britain's ferry transport?

We have carefully implemented a great many of the recommendations of the Sheen report. We may have to consider more. I confirm what my hon. Friend says about the immense amount of work that has been done and the immense amount of work being caried out by my surveyors to make sure that ferries are sailing safely.

In the past few months there have been several major accidents and lack of safety has been central to almost every one of them. Those accidents were at Zebrugge, King's Cross and now in the North sea. In the light of that, would it not make sense for the Government, instead of taking the side of Jeffrey Sterling and P and O, to institute a proper inquiry into all the complaints about lack of proper inspection on the ferries? Would it not make sense to get on with the job and carry out an impartial investigation instead of siding with the management?

I do no such thing, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. I treat his remarks with contempt. We investigate carefully any allegations that are made, from whatever source they come.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of his discussions in June with the Bus and Coach Council on improvements in coach safety.

The outcome of the discussion was that the Bus and Coach Council agreed to make progress on the safety of power doors and the need to fit seat belts.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as his Department's figures show that bus passengers are three times more likely to be injured than, for example, rail passengers, the cost of £1,000 to £1,500 to give seat belts to all passengers in a 57-seater bus is cheap at the price?

It is worth remembering that we need to go step by step. The House passed the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts By Children) Bill 1988. We are requiring seat belts in the exposed front seats of coaches, but is has not yet been made mandatory. I prefer to see coach operators fit seat belts voluntarily and then see whether passengers are willing to use them. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to continue to try to improve safety in all forms of transport, but travelling by coach is substantially safer than travelling by car. Perhaps we should turn our attention to car safety, even more than to coach safety.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the greatest contributions that could be made to safety in coaches would be to stop them going too fast in the wrong lane on motorways, too close behind other vehicles? Is he aware that, in Japan, heavy goods vehicles are fitted with lights which show when they are exceeding the speed limit and that it is perfectly possible to have a system which shows when they are too close behind another vehicle? When will he do something along that line?

Very shortly. Legal speed limiters on coaches are coming in, and that is greatly welcomed. The excessive speeds of coaches have been reduced dramatically. Speeding by HGVs and by cars has come down, although not speeding by motor cycles. We should pay attention to my hon. Friend's point about automatic visibility signs on speeding vehicles. In Singapore, for example, light vehicles flash a yellow light when they are going too fast and the police just wave them in.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of services in England outside London are now operated by minibuses.

Information is not available in the form requested. Deregulation has encouraged operators to introduce minibuses on their services and they now represent about 10 to15 per cent. of all PSVs used on local services. Passengers in over 400 areas are benefiting from this flexible form of transport.

With respect, does that answer not show that the Minister does not really know what has happened as a result of the Transport Act 1985? Should the Government not do more to survey the congestion that arises in some areas, as well as boasting about the improvements achieved? Many people have suffered a deterioration of service. Why does the Minister not analyse the situation and give a full report to the House?

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the latest research shows an increase from 400 minibuses operating in 40 places throughout the country before deregulation to no fewer than 5,600 in over 400 places. The big advantage of the minibus is that it reaches those parts that bigger buses cannot reach.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I, like the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), come from Lancashire and that, in the rural parts of Lancashire that I represent, there are more minibuses than ever before, which are reaching far more customers in those areas and are greatly appreciated by the communities there?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling attention to one of the most phenomenally successful aspects of deregulation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact on the trunk roads network in Merseyside of increased heavy vehicle movements consequent upon the importation of American waste for dumping in Warrington.

None.

Will my hon. Friend now proceed to such an assessment, given that 600 22-tonne lorry movements will be involved every day from Liverpool to Warrington for five years, bringing in 7½ million tonnes of rubbish to my constituency? Does he not think that that is an unacceptable strain on the road network in the area?

My hon. Friend would be on stronger ground if he were to refer the House, as I will, to the clear statement made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 30 June. I imagine that some cases involve a Department of Transport interest, but it is worth noting that those issues are mainly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, with some important aspects for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Social Services.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motorway and trunk road bridges are currently in need of repair.

Between 5 and 10 per cent. of the department's 8,500 or so bridges need structural maintenance each year.

Does the Minister accept that that is quite a high figure and that those of us who use the motorways and the north-west trunk road bridges realise that, apart from avoiding accidents, there are opportunities to provide jobs in the construction industry?

We can no longer say that the country has a major problem with jobs in the construction industry. Some of us consider that in some parts of the country the position is slightly the reverse. Programmes of maintenance have kept pace with the need for general repairs, and the special needs of older bridges in particular are being tackled under a 15-year strengthening and upgrading programme.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss the investigation by City of London police into telephone calls made by Dr. Frank Skuse during his appearance as a witness at the Old Bailey in the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings.

On Friday 8 July 1988.

Has Sergeant Paton been asked when he was last in touch with Dr. Skuse, and if so, what was his reply? If the Attorney-General cannot answer that question now, will he undertake to supply an answer later?

I will undertake to remind the hon. Gentleman of the course that the inquiry has taken. On 17 March he made the assertion that Dr. Skuse had been in touch with the former Detective Sergeant Paton in the course of his evidence at the Court of Appeal hearing. My hon. Friend the Minister of State advised the hon. Gentleman to place any evidence he might have of any possible irregularity before the police. It was not until 3 June, in response to a request made on 9 May from the Commissioner of the City of London police for the source of the information, that the hon. Gentleman identified the source of his information. That turned out to be somebody who, in turn, had it from somebody else, anti he has refused to identify that person. Therefore, the inquiries have come to an end.

What is the value to IRA fund raisers in America of the campaign by subversives and muddleheaded Opposition Members to undermine the credibility of British justice? What is the cost in United Kingdom lives?

On 20 June, when I Last answered questions on these matters, I said that I deprecated as being very harmful, determined attempts, as they are seen to be, to undermine confidence in the administration of justice. I reiterate that opinion today in response to my hon. Friend.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss the further police inquiry into telephone calls made by Dr. Frank Skuse during the Birmingham pub bombings appeal.

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

Is the Attorney-General aware that during the previous police inquiry carried out by the Devon and Cornwall police, Sergeant Paton changed his statement to make it fit in with Dr. Skuse's version of events? Has he been asked why he did that?

I recall that the Court of Appeal, in its judgment delivered in February, had this to say about the scientific evidence to which much of the inquiry and the fresh evidence had related. I shall cite what was said by the Court of Appeal:

"We repeat the question which we posed for ourselves before considering the impact of the fresh evidence and answer it without any hesitation as follows: nothing has emerged from this mass of material which causes us to doubt that the scientific evidence proves that one or more of these appellants had been in recent contact with explosives."

"As has happened before in References by the Home Secretary to this Court under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the longer the hearing has gone on, the more convinced the court has become that the verdict of the jury was correct.

We have no doubt that these convictions were both safe and satisfactory."

Is not the fact of this case that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary exercised his powers to refer the case to the Court of Appeal? Having heard all the evidence that the men's legal representatives wanted to put before the Court of Appeal, the court decided that the convictions were safe and that there was no reason to interfere with them. Having regard to the length of time that the Court of Appeal took in hearing the case, is it not now time to say, once and for all, that there is absolutely no reason why those convictions should in any way be questioned or interfered with?

It is very important to remind ourselves that every opportunity was given to those who take the view of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), that there was something unsafe in the original convictions, to call fresh evidence and review the previous evidence before the Court of Appeal. I have read, because I thought that it would be helpful to do so, the opinion of the Court of Appeal on that fresh evidence. Accordingly, to keep on and on seeking to undermine the reliability of the conclusion of the Court of Appeal without further evidence is very harmful to public confidence.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the implications for his general policy on initiating litigation of the costs of legal actions relating to the book "Spycatcher".

To enforce the duty of confidentiality owed to the Crown I shall, on behalf of Ministers collectively, continue to take such steps by way of civil proceedings as appear to the Government to be appropriate.

Does the Attorney-General accept that where there is a serious criminal seditious conspiracy, it is a civil servant's duty to expose that conspiracy, and that an attempt to bring down the 1974 Labour Government is set out in Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher"? Is it not shocking that the Attorney-General should spend in excess of £1 million trying to suppress that book, which no Government officer has tried to contradict, when those people in MI5—Tory supporters—who tried to organise the downfall of the democratically elected Government of the day are getting away with it scot-free? What is the Attorney-General going to do about law and order and maintaining the reputation of British justice if he lets those Tory people in MI5 get away with it?

The litigation that has been conducted on behalf of the Government in these courts and in courts elsewhere in the world has resulted in an affirmation of the duty of confidentiality that is owed by those who have served in the security services. It is extremely important that, where there is reliable evidence of criminal activity, that should be investigated. The Director of Public Prosecutions has expressed his conclusions with regard to the assertions that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has in mind. It is equally important that the duty of confidentiality owed by former members of the security services should be enforced. If any Government were to shrink from enforcing that duty, the cost would soon be paid, not in money, but in lives.

Is it not typical of Opposition Members to attach such a low financial price to the upholding of a principle so important for a free society as the confidentiality of those secret service agents who are sworn to protect the nation's secrets?

This is yet another example of the wide gulf between the opinions of all our constituents on the one hand and the opinions of certain Opposition Members on the other.

To ask the Attorney-General what studies the Lord Chancellor is currently undertaking into the law relating to landlord and tenant, in the light of recent reports from the Law Commission.

The Government have under current consideration three recent reports of the Law Commission relating to different aspects of landlord and tenant law.

During his canvassing in north Kensington, has the Solicitor-General been struck by the unanswerable case for leasehold reform for flats? Since the report of the Law Commission into strata title makes it immensely easier to have a framework for enfranchisement, will the Government announce that they are now as in favour in principle of leasehold enfranchisement for flats as for houses?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Law Commission's most recent report is an agenda for consultation.

To ask the Attorney-General what further consideration he has given to the implications for prosecuting policy of the North report on road traffic law.

The implications for prosecution policy of the report of the road traffic law review will not become apparent until the detailed scrutiny of its recommendations now under way is complete, and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Home Department have made such legislative proposals as they may then think fit.

The Attorney-General may not be aware that in Transport Questions one of his colleagues said that the North report recommendations might come before the House before the summer recess—[Interruption.] He said a lot else besides. If the Under-Secretary of State for Transport wants to contribute, he will have to wait. Does the Attorney-General—[Interruption.]

Order. These are questions for the Attorney-General.

Well, I hope that we get further than we did with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. Does the Attorney-General agree with the Solicitor-General that the courts will have the power in future to extend sentences relating to "bad driving" should the "bad driving" offence, which is one of the recommendations of the North report, be agreed by the House? Does the Attorney-General endorse that view?

That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, as I am always anxious to express an opinion on something that interests me, the style of drafting recommended, by the North report when referring to "bad driving" or "really bad driving" is very much to be commended as everybody understands what that means. It is a welcome suggestion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of overseas aid from Britain is directed towards education in the recipient countries.

In 1987 almost a fifth of the bilateral programme—some £140 million—was spent on aid for education and training.

I am delighted with my hon. Friend's reply. However, does he agree that to spend money on education aid to Third world countries is one of the best ways of priming the pump? Bearing in mind the many excellent education hooks in English, does he agree that it is vital that there should be a supply of English language teachers, and is he giving that sufficient priority?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of English language teaching as part of our aid programme. We are expanding English language teaching and 275 English language teachers are now working in developing countries with the support of our aid programme. I am pleased that we have recently managed to increase our English language teaching programme in Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and China. I should like to pay a particular tribute to the British Council, which acts as our agent and does the job with considerable distinction.

Is it not a shameful indictment of the Government that when the British people have shown unbounded generosity towards charitable works at home as well as abroad, the Government have halved overseas aid as a percentage of GNP? Will he match the generosity of the people who elected the Government by pledging the Government to support the 0·7 per cent. campaign to make that proportion of GNP the measure of our overseas aid?

The premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is wrong. It is important and valuable that we are now increasing our aid programme in real terms.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which organisations receive grant assistance from his Department under the joint funding scheme; and what criteria are applied to applications from organisations seeking assistance under this scheme.

During the 1987–88 financial year my Department provided grants under the joint funding scheme to 53 non-governmental organisations. I shall arrange for a list to be published in the Official Report.

Will my hon. Friend draw public attention, not only to the substantial increase in public funds forthis important scheme, but to the clearly targeted developmental work that it does? In particular, will he note that the sum available from public funds has quadrupled during the past six years and that it goes on a pound-for-pound basis to match the work that major national charities are doing in this important area?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the work of non-governmental organisations. They can often operate at a level that is more difficult for Government-to-Government programmes. That is why this year we have increased by 75 per cent. on the original allocation for last year the sum that is going to the joint funding scheme, which is supporting about 800 projects throughout the world.

In considering the non-governmental projects, many of which concern tropical rain forests, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology has sufficient time for its projects on tree cloning to come to fruition?

It may well take tropical forests slightly longer to come to fruition than I am likely to be standing at this Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether I am lucky or unlucky in making that observation. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of forestry as part of our aid programme and that is why we have increased the funds available to it. One of the areas in which non-governmental organisations can work most valuably is in environmental protection and enhancement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the average percentage of gross national product given in aid in 1987 by donor nations, excluding the United Kingdom, that are members of (a) the Group of Seven leading industrialised nations, (b) the European Community, and (c) the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the average percentage of gross national product given in aid in 1987 by donor nations, excluding the United Kingdom that are members of (a) the Group of Seven leading industrialised nations, (b) the European Community, and (c) the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

In 1987 net aid as a percentage of GNP, excluding the United Kingdom, averaged 0·32 per cent. for the Group of Seven; 0·5 per cent. for those members of the European Community for which the development assistance committee has published figures; and 0·34 per cent. for all development assistance committee members.

Does the Minister accept that, of the 18 OECD major industrialised countries, we now come 14th compared with 12th in 1979? Does he further accept that we are below the average on every percentage that he read out? In 1979, when the Labour Government were in office, 0·52 per cent. of our GNP went towards the 0·7 per cent. target that was set by the United Nations 20 years ago. Now only 0·28 per cent. of our GNP is spent on that. Does the Minister understand that it is no good saying that the figures are better than last year's? We are trying to cure the evil of the wrong distribution of wealth throughout the world and we can do that only by aiming for the target percentage of our GNP, not by saying that we are giving more than we gave last year.

It is probably the case that most of the international financial institutions to which the hon. Gentleman may have inadvertently referred would be more encouraged if more developing countries and more countries in general followed the economic policies of this Government rather than if they continued as they are. Thanks to our economic growth our aid programme is now growing in real terms. We shall spend over £90 million more this year than last year.

In view of the appalling nature of these comparisons, will the Minister tell the House when he last had a person-to-person meeting with the Prime Minister on these matters?

I last had a person-to-person meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on these matters about a month ago, since when I have been in several countries and she may have been, too. I suspect that, unusually, the hon. Gentleman may have drafted his supplementary question before he listened to my reply.

Is it not absolutely true that my hon. Friend the Minister is to be congratulated on the considerable progress that he has made towards achieving many of the objectives of the aid programme that were manifestly not met when the Labour party was in power? Is it not also true that there is still a large gap between rich and poor countries and that it is to all our benefit if we in richer countries share a larger proportion of our income with poorer countries?

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have to continue giving a lead on issues such as the further liberalisation of trade and debt. I am delighted that the Toronto economic summit reached the conclusion that it did, which is a great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that this week the Paris Club will make a good deal of progress in implementing the terms of the Toronto economic summit communiqué.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is much better to give an increasing amount of aid? Rather than merely considering a higher percentage of a low gross domestic product, is it not better to have perhaps a slightly smaller percentage of a GDP which is now very much greater?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said before, the effects of the Labour party's policies on our economic growth rate would ensure, without anything being done to the amount being spent on aid, that our aid as a proportion of GNP went up rapidly, and soon.

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is a distinction between an intellectually attractive presentation of a policy and the reality of a performance? If he continues to argue that what is important is not the proportion of GNP but the amount that he has contributed, unless that amount goes up as a proportion of GNP it follows that the gap between the countries that we are supposed to be assisting and the richer countries will widen. That is why the United Nations had a target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP. so that when GNP went up the proportion to the developing countries would also go up. That is where the Minister is failing the Third world.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what I think began as a compliment. [Interruption.] Perhaps I misjudged her. I apologise for that. It is important that our aid programme should go up in real terms, which it is doing. It is also important that our economic growth rate is now sufficiently rapid and based on sufficiently secure foundations to make sure that we can play the leading role in the international financial institutions and in issues of trade and debt that a country of our history should be able to play. Alas, under our predecessors, we were on the way to becoming a developing country.