To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much British Rail has invested since 1979.

The British Railways Board's investment in railways has been £3·7 billion at today's prices since 1979.

As British Rail seems to be unwilling or unable to prepare adequately and speedily for the opening of the Channel link, will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will do all he can to speed up private sector investment to do the job for British Rail to ensure that it is completed in time, which he has already said he is prepared to encourage?

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, British Rail is planning to choose the preferred route option by early next year. I welcome that speeding up of the original timetable, which will reduce the effects of blight in Kent. I believe that by early next year BR will also know the result of its approaches to potential private sector partners. Therefore, a lot is going on at the present time.

Does the Secretary of State accept that commuters in Greater Manchester are fed up to the back teeth with the poor service that they are receiving from British Rail? The introduction of the sprinter train has been disastrous. When will the Government ensure that some money is spent in Greater Manchester on improving the services for commuters rather than those for mainline passengers travelling from one part of the country to another? In particular, when will we get the link to the airport?

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I still want to see considerable improvements in quality in British Rail in general, but British Rail is moving in the right direction in a number of sectors, including punctuality, cancellations and service to customers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take up the matter of commuter services with British Rail, or, failing that, perhaps he will write to me.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much British Rail is investing in stations, because it is no good having good railways if the buildings that passengers must use are not adequate? Is he aware that the roof of Filey station has had to be removed and that at present British Rail is not prepared to replace it because of costs? Therefore, that fine Victorian building will be lost to coming generations.

I am sorry to learn about Filey station. I hope that my hon. Friend has taken up the matter with British Rail. The total investment of British Rail during the next five years will be some £3·8 billion, with more than £600 million being spent on stations.

If the private capital that the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on is likely to be attracted to British Rail projects because they make money, why, apart from ideological obsession, does he not encourage British Rail to go on with these investments, instead of being so restrictive by his criteria?

I do not think that is at all fair. If the hon. Gentleman looks at railway investment in the country at present, which the Opposition continually misrepresent, he will see that ever since 1970 the highest figure for rail investment is that for the present year, and it will be higher in the future.

It is not.

It most certainly is. In real terms, it is the highest figure since 1970 and it is increasing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to develop the road infrastructure of the north-east region.

The £12 million national contribution of transport supplementary grant is for local authority roads of more than local importance. Spending this year on national schemes will be £50 million. The 18 northern region national schemes will cost £170 million.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he aware of the continuing concern, especially among industrialists, about the state of the A1, which is the major link to the east coast area? With the coming of 1992 and what we shall be discussing later today, it will be even more crucial. The delays on the road are very bad, but, having lived through those delays, we will still end up with a road which it is acknowledged is not adequate to carry the traffic. It will be much overladen, as we shall have nothing more than a two-lane dual carriageway when it is finished. Will the hon. Gentleman give us some hope that there will be more investment and we will have a proper motorway?

Yes, and on my next visit I shall try to spell it out more plainly.

Will my hon. Friend thank the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) for becoming a late convert to the Conservative pledge of action on the A1? Is that not in stark contrast to the attitude of the Labour-controlled Cleveland county council, which has refused to put money into a private programme to see whether it is feasible to have a proper motorway to the north-east of England? That council is the backwoodsman which is driving industry away from the north of England. It is the Conservatives who have been after this motorway for a long time. We look to you to do it.

If I may answer on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, yes, and I do not know.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives his Department is taking to ensure sufficient availability of driving tests for trainees at transport training centres (a) nationally and (b) at the transport training centre, Llay, Clwyd.

All requests for block bookings at Llay are being met. The number of HGV-PSV examiners nationally is being increased by 20 per cent.

Does the Minister accept that the work at Llay is extremely important to the economy of north-east Wales? Will he always ensure that there are enough examiners at the right time?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his first point and I shall try to meet his request.

Apart from the availability of driving tests, is my hon. Friend satisfied with the standard of the training at the centres? My observation, particularly on the M11 and M 25, is that the standard of HGV driving is not improving and is, in many cases, deteriorating.

We are satisfied with the standard of the test. We are not satisfied, however, with the number of failures, especially car examinees, 50 per cent. of whom fail their tests. I believe that if 20 per cent. of them could hold back and receive proper training it would make it much easier to cut the waiting times and achieve greater safety on our roads. I pay tribute to our examiners who go out with drivers, half of whom they know, in advance, will not be qualified to drive safely.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for improvements to the A13 and A127 during the next three years.

Four schemes on the trunked part of the A13 and two on the A127 are planned to start in the period.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the hostile reaction from road users on the overcrowded A 13 and A127 to his recent comments that money spent on roads in the south-east represents poor value for money because the roads will be used only for commuting into London? Bearing in mind the excessive development that is taking place in the south-east and the large amount of road tax that has been paid over the years by people in that region, does he accept that improvements to the roads that I have mentioned are urgently required?

The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is obviously yes, because I want my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) to be happy.

I wish to congratulate the Minister on what I thought was his outstanding cheek when he arrived 40 minutes late for a meeting and suggested that traffic congestion was a sign of economic success. If one applies that criteria, one must therefore assume that Calcutta—

Order. The question is about the A13.

This is all to do with traffic congestion. The A13 goes right through the London borough of Newham, which I have the honour to represent. I merely wish to point out to the Minister that if congestion on the A13 and elsewhere is a sign of economic success, one can only assume that the homelessness in Newham is a sign of the success of the Government's housing policy and that people waiting for a hospital bed demonstrate that the Government's health policy is a great success. Where does the Minister stand in respect of road construction in London? He knows that extensive road construction in London is extremely unpopular.

I thought that the one part of London in which it was not controversial to build better roads was the east end, where people have been looking for better jobs and environmental relief from through traffic for many years. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman is keenly interested he should change the habits of the past few years and ask to come to see me, when I shall go through the matter with him in person.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the European Community Commissioner with responsibility for transport; and what matters were discussed.

Last Thursday, 20 October, when we discussed aviation matters.

In view of the growing importance of the A5 as a major route linking Ireland to Europe and of the fact that the European Commission is more likely to consider joint approaches for funding, will the Secretary of State consider meeting his Irish counterpart to see whether a joint approach could be made to the Commission to improve the A5 through north Wales and parts of north-west England, to link into the M54 and the motorway network?

That is an ingenious proposal, and I shall consider it. As it happens, I am seeing the Irish Minister on Wednesday next. Of course, the terms of any new infrastructure spending on roads in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are not yet settled. An application to the European regional development fund is also possible, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman and his council have that in mind.

As my right hon. Friend discussed aviation with the Commissioner, can he tell us what progress there has been towards a greater liberalisation of European air services and, particularly, towards a reduction of European air fares, which are much too high?

A specific question on air fares appears later on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may deal with the matter then.

Will the Minister receive a report of the sinking of the cruise ship Jupiter? Is he aware that the missing teacher, Mr. Bernard Butt, had taught at a school in my constituency—T. P. Riley—since 1970, and that all the reports suggest that he was far more interested in saving as many pupils as possible than in saving his own life? Our deepest sympathy goes to the relatives of Mr. Butt and to the parents of the child who is missing, Vivenne Barley.

Order. I know that this is a tragic matter, but it must be related to the European Community Commissioner.

When the right hon. Gentleman has discussions with the EEC Ministers, will he take up the issue of ships' safety? It appears that the Jupiter was 27 years old and not as safe as it should have been. That is apparently to be discussed by the sea authorities. Will the right hon. Gentleman be getting a report on it as quickly as possible?

Although this matter will not arise at the meeting with the European Commissioner, I am sure that the whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman. Our deepest sympathies go out to the families of all involved, British and Greek, especially to the families of Miss Barley and Mr. Butt, whose loved ones are still unaccounted for.

Is there any pressure on my right hon. Friend, or any desire on his part, in view of the general moves towards harmonisation throughout Europe, to increase maximum permitted lorry weights in this country?

There is certainly no desire on my part to do so. Whether the Commission will show any desire to do so remains to he seen. I hope that my hon. Friend, with his usual vigilance, will remain closely in touch with me.

Will the Secretary of State raise with the Commissioner the stability of the class of ferry to which the Jupiter belonged? Will he also raise with him the fact that if the Jupiter had been a roll-on roll-off ferry the number of deaths would almost certainly have been massively higher? Will he also ensure that access to proper representation at any inquiry held in Greece is given to the bereaved families and to those who survived the accident?

None of those issues is likely to arise at my meeting with the European Commissioner, but the important points made by the hon. Gentleman about the safety of ships will be considered by the Greek inquiry. As I told the House, I shall remain closely in touch with events. Appearances at inquiries will be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Office will do all that it can wthin its consular authority, and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in introducing computer-controlled traffic systems.

Thirty towns and cities in Britain use SCOOT—split cycle and offset optimisation technique —which responds to changing traffic. Other British systems are being used and developed on motorways and elsewhere in the interests of safety, the environment and easing congestion.

My hon. Frend may be aware that at the time of the abolition of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council I expressed the desire that its important pioneering work in the computer control of traffic should be continued and developed. I am delighted to hear thar the work is spreading. Will he confirm and bring to the attention of local authorities the dramatic improvements that can be made to traffic flow in cities that introduce effective computer control of traffic?

Yes. This is an area in which Britain leads the world. Our system is being used from Canada to China, and I hope that it will be used even more widely in Britain. It is spreading quite quickly.

Will the Minister confirm that if computer control techniques had been used the shaking of the Severn bridge into early senility would not have taken place? Can he confirm what the Secretary of State said, namely, that regardless of future traffic predictions the second Severn crossing will be built in the mid-1990s?

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware of the position. He should have welcomed my right hon. Friend's statement before the summer recess, which provided the opportunity for the private sector to come forward with proposals. The hon. Gentleman gives the impression of damning the present bridge with faint praise. In terms of axle weights and numbers of vehicles, the bridge carried much more than was expected. It was a great success, and when it has been strengthened it will be even more successful. The whole House looks forward to the opportunity for extra crossing capacity, especially if it can be provided earlier by the private sector.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent action he has taken to bring about a further reduction of air fares between London and other European centres.

We are using the provisions of the European Community fares directive to support United Kingdom airlines in their efforts to introduce lower fares. We have already achieved significant reductions in fares to a number of European destinations, the latest of which is Paris.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success, but does he realise that even the reduced fares are some of the most expensive per passenger mile in the world? One can fly across America for the same price as a ticket to Brussels. That must be nonsense. Is there any support that the House, Committees of the House, the public or institutions can give to my right hon. Friend in asking the Commission to consider the restrictive practices in the pricing policy of European airlines, which it has put off doing for some time?

The more pressure there is from passengers throughout the Community, the better. With the help of several other Governments, the United Kingdom Government have been doing their best to persuade European Governments of the advantages of liberalisation. We shall continue to press them, although we have not succeeded in all cases in convincing them. But there have been some encouraging signs, especially in fares to Ireland, Holland and France. We have a long way to go, and we are determined to make progress in this area.

Will the Secretary of State remember that not all European centres lie on the other side of the English Channel, and that there are some north of London? In that context, will he examine the fares policy operating within the United Kingdom? Is he aware that landing charges at Scottish airports are so high that one could have a cheap package holiday for a fortnight in Majorca for the price of the air fare between London and some airports in Scotland? Will he use his powers under the Airports Act 1986 to remedy that?

On domestic fares, as opposed to fares to other parts of the Community, of course I cannot force airlines to use their existing rights, but there is competition and there is the prospect of lower fares. I welcome the initiative of the airlines which propose to reduce fares, and I hope that people will press for that to continue. I shall consider the hon. Lady's point about landing charges.

My right hon. Friend mentioned liberalisation. The package introduced in 1983 for the liberalisation of inter-regional air services was welcome, but will he see what can be done to remove the 70-seat, 30-tonne limit on aircraft for those inter-regional services? Encouraging more services must be one way of reducing prices.

My hon. Friend has put his finger on an extremely important point, which is under discussion at the moment. Talks are going on about liberalising the regional air services agreement and the question of the weight limit is one of the most important matters being considered. I shall bear in mind what he has said. I hope that we shall be able to persuade our European partners to agree with us on that matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings his Department has had with outside bodies in the last six months with regard to customs arrangements for the Channel tunnel.

The Department has been in regular contact with the other Departments concerned with frontier controls for the Channel tunnel, with the corresponding authorities of the French Government, and with Eurotunnel and British Rail.

Does the Minister understand that those who use the high-tech tunnel will expect matching facilities from Customs and Excise? Will he confirm that on-board customs would improve the present inadequate vigilance at ports of entry for drugs, explosives and weapons and would cut journey time?

The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the controls that will have to remain in place. I emphasise that section 12 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 requires on-train controls for services to points north of London, provided that British Rail can provide acceptable facilities.

Will my hon. Friend accept that Customs and Excise controls are ineradicably linked with immigration controls and that both take place in much the same situation? Will he confirm to the House that immigration controls in this country are at the frontier, that we do not have internal immigration controls as other Community countries do, and that therefore it is vital that we have a proper and adequate scheme of immigration control at the frontier, whatever other European countries may feel?

My hon. Friend is right to say that there are major differences between the systems of different countries. Our controls exist basically at the borders and are not internal controls based on identity cards. Community Governments have adopted a declaration that the Single European Act should not affect the rights of member states to take such measures as they consider necessary to control, among other things, traffic in drugs. There is no difficulty on these matters.

Does the Minister accept that the worst possible thing would be a clogging up of trade in the vicinity of the entry to the tunnel, and that not only are on-train facilities needed, but that the provision of bonded warehousing away from south-east England and through traffic from the Irish Republic through Wales and England to the tunnel and Europe must be considered? Can he assure the House that all those aspects are being considered?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman about that. He will know that, under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act, British Rail is obliged to consult the regions on what facilities should be provided for through services. Those consultations are under way and working groups have been established in each region, one for passengers and one for freight. The result of those deliberations will be made known towards the end of next year.

Will the Minister confirm that on-train customs and immigration facilities are customary between countries such as East and West Germany, France and Switzerland and, most remarkably, between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? As those facilities are so widely available, will the Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport do what they can to overcome the Prime Minister's xenophobia and not allow themselves to be distracted by the similar xenophobia of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? Let us have proper facilities for passengers using the tunnel.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made the pertinent point that we have different systems. The balance of probability would seem to be that there will be frontier controls at Waterloo for trains terminating in London and on-train controls for trains going further than London. That has yet to be confirmed, because discussions on that subject are continuing.

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

My hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the chairman of British Rail on 5 October. A variety of railway matters were discussed, including the Government's approval of investment in new rolling stock.

Does my hon. Friend agree that British Rail's cost-efficiency programme appears to have been achieved mainly at the expense of consumers, which is evidenced by poor timekeeping, overcrowding and dirty carriages? In view of that, the deficit that British Rail enjoys and will continue to enjoy, and the fact that British Rail is incapable of providing a decent link between Humberside and London and almost every other part of the United Kingdom, will my hon. Friend tell us when he will bring forward a privatisation programme, because it seems to me that a privatised British Rail could hardly be worse than the one we have?

My hon. Friend is a well-known defender of the interests of his constituents, but he should pursue some of those matters with British Rail. The Government have set quality of service targets for punctuality, reliability and cleanliness and InterCity is close to achieving all those objectives. In reply to the last question that he asked, he will know that my right hon. Friend has confirmed that privatisation is an option that we are actively studying.

Given the front page report in The Times today about the five different options which are being considered and which will possibly be outlined by the Secretary of State later this week—or some combination thereof—may I ask whether any discussions have taken place with the chairman of British Rail in advance of that with a view to being able to offer any degree of security to the railway lines in the north and Highlands of Scotland, because many of us with local knowledge find it hard to believe that any system of privatisation would lead to the future security of those vital rail links?

We have given undertakings that we are not looking at a large proposal for the closure of railway lines. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1988–89 £609 million was provided in PSO grant, of which £434 million was for provincial services. In 1989–90 the figure will be £533 million, of which £383 million will be for provincial services. The hon. Gentleman is being hasty in jumping to the conclusion that there are any implications in the privatisation discussions for the matter with which he is concerned.

Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the chairman of British Rail the urgent need for something to be done to stop the disgraceful scenes that have taken place on many evenings at Liverpool street station, where City lager louts are terrorising commuters travelling to Chelmsford and Southend.?

I know that the chairman is extremely concerned about that because he wishes to provide a secure and safe environment for his passengers. It is as well to pay tribute to the British Transport police, who play an important part in controlling such situations at stations.

Does the Minister agree that British Rail provides an excellent service from Doncaster to London and that privatisation could not improve that service? Will he mention that to the knockers behind him?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who finds satisfaction with the service, will inform the chairman of British Rail of that, because he receives a lot of complaints and I am sure that he will be pleased to hear that praise.

Are there any plans to discuss with the chairman of British Rail, and more particularly with the chairman of London Regional Transport, the worrying development of the arrival of the vigilante group, the Guardian Angels? Does my hon. Friend agree with British Transport police that that is a potentially dangerous development and that it would be far better to devote increased resources to the British Transport police, who continue to perform valuable work?

I have already paid tribute to the British Transport police and feel sure that if they feel that there is any constraint on their resources they will find a way of letting the Government know.

Does the Minister understand that constant references to privatisation threaten the integrity of the British Rail system and raise apprehensions about railway lines other than the most profitable? Does he further understand that leaks to the press do nothing for the morale of British Rail and that he is putting a blight on all initiatives from British Rail? If the Minister is to discuss those matters, what about discussing them with the House of Commons instead of with Lobby correspondents?

The hon. Gentleman could no doubt use an Opposition day to discuss those matters if he wishes. I have every confidence that British Rail is not finding it difficult to pursue its programmes. The management of British Rail has been extremely entrepreneurial, forward-looking and effective, and I have been impressed by it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the making of a harbour revision order for the Manchester ship canal company; and if he will make a statement.

Objections to the proposed order have been made by trade union interests and by a group of shareholders. Since the objections have not been withdrawn, a public inquiry will be held, as required by the Harbours Act.

Will this be an opportunity for the public to obtain guarantees that the intended owners of the Manchester ship canal company will pay more regard to the environment than the current owners of the company, Manchester city council?

My hon. Friend will know that there is no effect on the ownership of the Manchester ship canal company, although there is a proposal that there should be changes in the board of directors. The effect of the order on the company's policies and activities is likely to be raised at the public inquiry. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand when I tell him that it would therefore be wrong for me to comment on that in detail.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on improving road links between Hull and Teesside; and if he will make a statement.

A number primarily seeking an east coast motorway, which is not planned. Schemes in the programme are designed to meet future north-south traffic needs in north-east England.

While I note my hon. Friend's comment that a motorway on the east coast is not planned, does he not agree that such resources as might be available would be better channelled towards improving existing roads throughout north Yorkshire? It is 50 miles from the A1 to the east coast and the continuing growth of housing, commerce, industry and tourism in north Yorkshire demands that the A19 and the north outer ring road at York be improved and dualled.

Yes, as long as my hon. Friend the Member of Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is not listening.

In considering the technicalities of improving road links, has my hon. Friend given any thought to the representations that he has received from many of my constituents about the newly completed road link between Emsworth and Chichester—

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that the question is about road links between Hull and Teesside.

Let me say briefly that we shall do the best that we can to make all our roads as effective and quiet as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority; and what was discussed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of (a) the Civil Aviation Authority and (b) British Airports Authority plc; and what subjects were discussed.

I meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and British Airports Authority plc from time to time to discuss matters of mutual interest.

As it appears that both BAA plc and CAA are now agreed that there is a likelihood that there will be a need for additional runway capacity before the turn of the century, can my right hon. Friend give me any idea whether there is also an agreement between BAA and CAA on whether such additional runway capacity should be situated north or south of the Thames?

I should not like to comment now on the views of BAA or CAA on the issue because, as my hon. Friend knows, I am awaiting a report from the CAA on this specific topic, which is extremely important. I hope to receive it in a few months' time. It is important that we look at the future airport and runway needs of the south-east of England. That will be reported to me. As to where and if a new runway should be provided, the one thing that I should say to my hon. Friend is that the one place where it cannot happen is Gatwick.

When the Minister meets the chairmen of BAA and CAA, does he spin them the same old rubbish that he gave the House earlier this afternoon about domestic air fares having nothing to do with him and competition being the force that somehow controls them? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the return air fare between Glasgow—incidentally, the European city of culture, so cultured that there is not a single Tory Member of Parliament—and London is £152? That is after the privatisation of British Airways and the supposed introduction of competition on that route. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the free market, or the cartel, is working on such routes?

What I accept is that there is continuing need for competition on domestic and, indeed, foreign routes. I am sure that, in the long term, competition will lead to a better service for passengers and that it is more likely that lower fares will be achieved.

Will my right hon. Friend tell both the CAA and BAA that, around Heathrow, there is deep hostility to any increase whatever in airport facilities?

My hon. Friend does not astonish me by his views. I shall bear them in mind. Indeed, they are extremely important. I know the views of my hon. Friend and his colleagues.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, will he remind him that two undertakings given by the builders of London City airport about new radar installations and the system of instrument landing were not complied with when the airport was built? Will he get from the chairman of the CAA an undertaking that proper evidence will be taken about short take-off and landing regulations throughout the world and that this evidence will be given to a forthcoming inquiry on an application for the use of jet aircraft?

I had better make no comment on a forthcoming application, which will be decided in due course. Of course I shall discuss with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority the first of the hon. Gentleman's allegations, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has already done that on many occasions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made within the central London rail study which he set up on 25 March; whether the study includes an appraisal of the service on the Metropolitan line serving Uxbridge; and if he will make a statement.

We hope to receive a report from the central London rail study and announce the main findings towards the end of the year. The options being considered include the improvement of Metropolitan line services.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the service on the Metropolitan line to Uxbridge has deteriorated very considerably in recent years because of the very heavy usage of the service? That has necessitated some trains being taken off to allow the signalling procedures to operate properly. Will he look carefuly at this matter and consider what additional resources and facilities can be devoted to rail travel between Uxbridge and central London, as this is of great importance to people living in the area?

I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend's problems. He has put his finger on the matter of new investment, which may be the key. This year £230 million was invested in London Underground and he will draw considerable comfort from that. That investment is 50 per cent. up on the last year of the GLC.

To ask the Attorney-General whether he has received any further representations concerning the office of the Social Security Commissioner for Wales in Cardiff.

Since 1 January 1988 my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I have received 22 representations about the closure in August 1986 of this office, of which none have been from appellants.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that there is a strong feeling in Wales that this office should not have been closed? For the sake of convenience, and for hearing cases in the medium of the Welsh language, there should be such a facility in the capital city of Wales because there is such a facility in the capital city of Scotland and, I understand, in Northern Ireland. Will he look at this again, because we had this facility until 1986 and should certainly have it in future?

I understand the feeling, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that since 1986 nobody has asked for a Welsh-speaking commissioner. Only two or three of the four days available each month have been taken up with oral hearings. Most of the hearings are written, and from representations made to the commissioners many Welsh people in the north seem to find Liverpool or London more convenient than Cardiff.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

I last met the Director of Public Prosecutions on Friday 21 October. We discussed matters relating to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Having regard to the Government's epic, disgraceful and disastrous mishandling of the "Spycatcher" affair, has the learned Attorney-General discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions whether there are to be prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act arising out of this or similar matters? If he has discussed that with the director, what are the results, who is to be prosecuted and what was considered? If he has not discussed those matters, why not?

The answer to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is no; the second part of the question does not arise; and the answer to the third part is that prosecution decisions are taken in the light of available evidence.

rose—

Order. May I draw to the attention of the House that the next question is specifically about "Spycatcher"?

When the Attorney-General last spoke to the Director of Public Prosecutions, did he draw his attention to the recent report in The Northern Echo to the effect that the defendants pleading not guilty on Teesside have to wait up to 20 weeks for their cases to come before the courts and that this is due to a shortage of magistrates and prosecutors? Did the Attorney-General ask the director when he last spoke to him whether anything would be done to increase the supply of prosecutors in the north-east or to put in a stipendiary magistrate in Teesside?

I did not raise the matter with the director when I saw him last on Friday. The availability of magistrates is a matter for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, as is the administration of the courts, but as to the availability of prosecutors, I should be surprised if a shortage of prosecutors was responsible for delay in bringing cases to court of anything like the order that my hon. Friend mentioned. However, I shall look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend.

Has the Attorney-General any plans to prosecute or investigate those involved in the attempt by the intelligence services to overthrow the elected Government, or am I being naive in asking this?

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps being engagingly harsh upon himself, and I should not wish to criticise him. However, I draw his attention to a statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in May of last year, in which she drew attention to the fact that, over four months, the director general of the security service had investigated the allegations to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and had concluded that there was no evidence to support them, and that, accordingly, no further action was being taken in that regard.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in the recent correspondence that I have had with the Home Office, it has become clear that large bookmakers, every day, induce people to bet and break the law, and that the Government, through the DPP, have never brought a prosecution against any of these major bookmakers, who daily flout the law of the land? Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to speak to the DPP about this scandalous state of affairs?

I must gently correct my hon. Friend, who complained that the Government, through the prosecution service, have never brought a prosecution. The Government do not bring prosecutions in these circumstances. This is a matter for the independent prosecution service. I am not familiar with the correspondence to which my hon. Friend refers, but I shall look at it, and, if it seems appropriate to do so—I expect that it is, since my hon. Friend asked me to do so—I shall draw it to the attention of the DPP.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding legal action in the case involving the book "Spycatcher".

On 13 October the House of Lords refused permanent injunctions against the relevant newspapers. The Law Lords made it clear that this was solely due to wide publication of the book abroad, constituting, in the words of Lord Keith, the senior Law Lord, heinous treachery by Mr. Wright which would have been restrained by the courts in this country. Holding that a life-long duty of confidentiality bound all members and former members of the security services, and that, save in very exceptional circumstances, newspapers are not free to publish confidential material, the House of Lords established unequivocally the very principles of law for which the Government have always contended, and accordingly entirely vindicated the Government's determined stance.

Is the Attorney-General aware that a victory by the newspapers over the Government in this case is a victory for press freedom and civil liberties? Is any further legal action to be taken against the book being published here? Has not enough money—over £1 million—been wasted in this case? Is it not the case that, under the Government's proposals for changing the Official Secrets Act, it will be virtually impossible for newspapers to give or publish details of alleged wrongdoings and abuses in the security services? Have not newspapers in an open, democratic society a duty and responsibility to reveal such abuses? Are not the Government far more concerned about covering up abuses than about allowing newspapers the freedom that we all cherish?

The speeches of the Law Lords about future publication and distribution are publicly available, and it is for all concerned to take their own legal advice. As to the expenditure of public money, it is disgraceful that Mr. Wright's treachery made the expenditure necessary. In this new area for the application of the law relating to confidentiality, important principles, for which the Government have contended, have been established and we shall implacably seek their enforcement and application in any future case. Therefore, it is money well spent.

I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend conceded that the Government had lost the case. Is he aware that Lord Goff said that this was a misuse of the injunctory procedure? Does that mean that the Government will take on board two of the contentions mentioned in the course of proceedings, the first by Lord Griffiths about the public interest defence and, secondly, the judgments in respect of prior publication? Does that have an implication for the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, as postulated by the Government in their White Paper?

Of course, I and the Government will take on board—to use my hon. Friend' words—every aspect of every speech in this case and will not seek to put a gloss on them, but, in view of my hon. Friend's implicit criticism, I should draw his attention to the concluding remarks of Lord Keith, the Senior Law Lord. He said:

"In the first place I regard this case as having established that members and former members of the Security Service do have a life-long obligation of confidence owed to the Crown. Those who breach it, such as Mr. Wright, are guilty of treachery just as heinous as that of some of the spies he excoriates in his book. The case has also served a useful purpose in bringing to light the problems which arise when the obligation of confidence is breached by publication abroad."

Will the Attorney-General confirm that it was only because of his inability to prosecute Wright in this country that fruitless and expensive actions in Australia and New Zealand were commenced? Would the advice be the same if the need arose in the future for the same kind of action to be commenced in foreign jurisdictions? Was it because of, or in spite of, the Law Officers' advice that the Wright case was continued right to the bitter end? Once the issue of principle was lost in Australia, why was there the need to continue to try to gag the British press right up to the House of Lords? Is it not time for proper and independent machinery to be set up to supervise the security services—machinery in which we can have confidence—to ensure that, whatever actions Wright and his colleagues took, such an incident will never be repeated?

I will answer the questions for which I hold some ministerial responsibility. The absence of Mr. Wright from this jurisdiction made it impossible to bring any prosecution. As to any future publication outside this jurisdiction, the Law Lords have drawn attention to the fact that we cannot look to foreign courts to protect even the publication of very serious secrets. At the end of Lord Keith's judgment he said:

"There is no reason to expect that secrets concerned with matters of great current importance would receive any different treatment"

"Consideration should be given to the possibility of some international agreement aimed at reducing the risks to collective security involved in the present state of affairs."

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made in his allocations of aid to countries in sub-Saharan Africa of the impact of negative growth in the economically active sections of the populations of those countries consequent upon the AIDS epidemic.

We have made major financial contributions to help support programmes aimed at combating AIDS. We are providing £5·63 million over five years in support of the World Health Organisation's co-ordinated national AIDS programmes in five African countries. We have contributed £7·75 million to the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS, which is working with over 150 countries, including 44 in Africa. In addition, we are supporting research into the long-term demographic, social and economic support of the disease.

Does my hon. Friend agree that sub-Saharan African countries should be completely open about the scale of the problems that they face when they make their applications to him?

Fortunately, we have found that we have been able to conduct an increasingly open dialogue with sub-Saharan African countries about this problem, which is a global problem, not just one for Africa. We have been helped considerably by operating principally through the World Health Organisation and its admirable special programme on AIDS. I went to Geneva last week to discuss it with the WHO and am extremely impressed by the progress that it has been making.

What steps are the Government taking to try to get a greater international follow-up to the initiative taken and the work started by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year to alleviate the debt burden of the sub-Saharan African countries?

My right hon. Friend is correct to imply that many of the countries most affected by AIDS are also most afflicted by the burden of debt. I am delighted to say that progress has been made since the Toronto economic summit towards implementing the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems that the first reschedulings under the Paris club should start this month. I am sure that the whole House will want to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of the initiative.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to review the role of the British Council in the administration of Britain's overseas aid programme; and if he will make a statement.

The Overseas Development Administration is currently reviewing arrangements for paying the British Council for the services it provides in administering the aid programme. Reference was made to the plans for this review in the Treasury minute on the 23rd report of the Public Accounts Committee, Session 1987–88.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the role of the British Council in helping with the overseas aid programme is not sufficiently recognised? Will the review include the books presentation programme and technical co-operation training programme?

The review will include those two programmes as well as schemes for providing English language teaching staff, for overseas education seminars and for parts of our technical co-operation projects. I agree with my hon. Friend about the skill of the British Council in administering our programme. I have been most impressed by what I have seen of its operations around the world, but I am sure that there is still scope for making its work even more efficient, effective and economical.

Given the impending visit of Prince Sihanouk to the Prime Minister, does the Minister think that the British Council might be a vehicle through which the Government could assist voluntary agencies such as Oxfam, which is supplying the entire water supply to the city of Phnom Pen?

That supplementary question demonstrates considerable ingenuity. I shall be making an announcement tomorrow about the development of the joint funding scheme so that humanitarian work by non-governmental organisations in Cambodia can be carried forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what development assistance he is giving to Mauritius; and if he will make a statement.

Gross British bilateral aid to Mauritius in 1987 amounted to some £8 million. As I saw for myself in May, Mauritius makes excellent use of it

As trading interests are more important than aid for Mauritius and other ACP countries, will my hon. Friend ensure that the interests of these countries are properly looked after in the renegotiation of the Lome convention?

We have been pressing during the discussions on the renegotiations of the Lomé convention for more openness in the trading regime under that convention. It is obviously especially important when export earnings from trade are so much more important to ACP countries than aid flows. We are pressing particularly for the greater liberalisation of trade arangements for items such as sugar, which would be of especial importance to Mauritius.

Having regard to the needs of Mauritius, to the excellent relations between the United Kingdom and the island, and perhaps even to its strategic importance, will the Minister give the House an assurance that aid will be increased during 1988?

That will depend on a number of issues. First, it will depend on whether we are successful in winning one or two more contracts under the aid and trade provision; secondly, it will depend on the progress that we make in two sectors in discussions with the Mauritian Government—first, in doing more in the environmental sector with them; secondly, in further strengthening our arrangements for helping them with their water supply. There are excellent twinning arrangements with the Severn-Trent water authority, which I wish to see strengthened.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many aid and trade provision agreements have been signed in the most recent year for which figures are available; how much aid and trade provision was made available; and what was the total export value.

In 1987–88, 38 aid and trade provision agreements were signed, involving commitments of £149 million in support of United Kingdom export business worth £429 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for those encouraging figures. Bearing in mind the future importance of China and its development in relation to our trade, do the ATP and soft loans agreements help the Chinese economy, and in what other ways are we helping the Chinese through my hon. Friend's Department?

I am delighted to say that we have almost committed all the £300 million soft loan agreement with China that was first signed in 1986. I have just signed a further £300 million soft loan agreement with China, which I think will be more flexible than its predecessor. It will enable us to choose between supporting developmentally sound projects through mixed credits or by through soft loans, and it will help us, I hope, further to strengthen our economic partnership with China.

Given the criticism from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which called for ATP to be withdrawn from the aid programme and transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry, will the Minister reconsider his Department's refusal to act on that advice? If not, will he at least ensure that the amount is strictly limited to the 5 per cent. as it was under the Labour Government?

I think that one needs to be rather flexible about the amount, particularly—and I hope that this will continue to be the case—as more countries become creditworthy while still remaining too poor. In response to the first point, when we responded to the FAC report we made it clear that we did not agree with it about the departmental responsibility for ATP. It is no criticism of my right hon. and Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry to say that if the House is concerned about the developmental soundness of projects supported under ATP, it is not a bad idea to leave responsibility for that programme with the ODA.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing to help the large numbers of Mozambican refugees who have fled to Malawi and neighbouring countries.

So far in 1988 we have provided over £4 million for Mozambican refugees in neighbouring countries, of whom there are currently more than 900,000, £3·6 million has been channelled through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and £550,000 given to voluntary agencies for the purchase of blankets, clothing and other relief goods.

That is an excellent and humane response, but how many refugees have entered Malawi? What help are we giving to that beleagured country with its problems?

The last count of the number of refugees in Malawi carried out in July suggested that there were 630,000 in Malawi, although refugees were still arriving at the rate of about 15,000 a month. So far we have made £2·6 million available to the UNHCR for programmes in Malawi and nearly £500,000 to provide relief goods for new arrivals. The Government of Malawi deserve our thanks and congratulations on the way in which they have responded to what is a particularly difficult situation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total British bilateral aid given to the whole of sub-Saharan Africa in 1979, and in the latest year for which figures are available, in constant prices.

British bilateral aid to sub-Saharan Africa was £386 million in 1979 and £284 million in 1987 in constant 1987 prices. On the same basis British aid to sub-Saharan Africa channelled through multilateral institutions rose from £161 million in 1980 to £209 million in 1986.

Does the Minister accept that, given the scale of problems in sub-Saharan Africa—where the position deteriorated considerably over those years—the reduction in real terms in aid—and that is what we are talking about—from the British Government is absolutely outrageous? What does the Minister intend to do about that?

There are more than two views on whether the problems have increased in severity in sub-Saharan Africa over that period. Happily, more and more sub-Saharan African countries are embarking on economic reform programmes, with substantial assistance from this country. We have contributed £2·25 billion to aid programmes in sub-Saharan Africa over the past five years. I would envisage an increasing part of our growing aid programme going to support economic reform in sub-Saharan Africa.