To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the comparative costs of road development in London and the proposed public financing of rail developments.

As the House may know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is attending a meeting abroad today and has asked me to give his apologies to the House.

Is the Minister not concerned that the road assessment studies for London propose the expenditure of £3·5 billion and the destruction of 6,000 homes, and that all of that would be borne by the public purse and taxpayers, who would pay for the whole road development? Yet a much smaller cost of £2 billion for the central London rail study would largely be borne by the fare-paying public, either through interest charges to private investment being put into the rail system or by increased fares for those who wish to use the central London rail system when it is developed. Does the Minister not think that it is time that the majority of people who travel by public transport benefited from public expenditure and the minority of commuter motorists who drive in and out of London were forced to pay for the destruction that they are causing our city and the exorbitant cost of the road development that is planned to appease them?

The position is not as the hon. Gentleman has represented it. The assessment studies are consultants' studies, not departmental ideas and the consultants are still looking at ways of minimising the effect. All the options will have to be considered in a framework that takes full account of the environmental impact. On the central London rail study, no decision has been taken on how the funding will be achieved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that major road developments in central London cause enormous environmental damage and often do little for traffic congestion? They simply encourage more people to use cars. Will he confirm that such environmental arid other externalised costs are taken into account in deciding levels of public subsidy for other forms of public transport?

My hon. Friend is right. In answer to the previous question, I stressed that the environmental impact was most important and that we would not support any schemes that did more harm than good. My hon. Friend is also right to say that when proposals are made for investment the Department can look at any external benefits that there may be to non-users.

The Minister will be aware of the enormous concern among my constituents and others in north London about the likely impact of the east London assessment study proposals. He will be further aware of the growing concern at the extension of the private consultants' studies to the King's Cross area. Have any costings been done of any of the proposals that were drafted last year and which may come forward later this year from the study? Would it not be better if the Department of Transport scrapped the whole idea now?

It would be better if people did not misrepresent what is going on. The important point is that we are looking at ideas from consultants which have not yet been finalised. They will be brought forward in the course of the summer and at that time we shall be able to judge the value of those ideas, to reject those that are not very useful and to proceed on those that have a promising future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in assessing road versus rail costs in London or elsewhere it is important to be both sensible and honest? Does he agree, for example, that all the police costs connected with motoring must be taken into account as part of the costs of motoring? Is he aware that, despite lengthy efforts, I have failed to obtain from the Metropolitan police or the Home Office any idea of the amount of police time involved in policing London's motorists? Will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure that that information is available and is taken into account?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is one of our principles that we expect those who use the roads to pay their full track costs, which would cover not only the cost of building the road but of maintaining it and, importantly, policing it.

Will the Minister explain why his Department banned the use of a computer model developed by the transport and road research laboratory and designed to evaluate the merits of different traffic policies for London? Will he confirm that the Government's policy of building more roads in London and cutting public transport subsidies scored lowest in that evaluation, and that a policy of investing in public transport scored highest? Despite his obvious embarrassment, will he now lift the ban so that the TRRL can get on with its work?

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position, and I hope that she will be very happy in it.

I make a plea for brief supplementaries today to enable us to get more quickly down the Order Paper.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on new motorway construction in each of the past four years, at constant prices.

In 1987–88 prices, £385 million, £298 million, £204 million and £176 million last year. The reduction reflects the completion of the M25 and more spending on trunk roads, bypasses and increased maintenance.

Given the amount of congestion on motorways at present, which is often caused by the sheer volume of traffic, does my hon. Friend realise that the figures are completely inadequate and that much more needs to be spent on motorway construction if British industry is to be competitive and if the frustration experienced by many motorists is to be reduced?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an increase in spending of between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. over the next three years. That is a welcome increase following the reductions under the Labour Government. It is true that we need roads which are longer, wider and stronger.

Although spending on motorways is insufficient, does the Minister agree that there must be a balance between spending on motorways and spending on other roads? Does he know of the death of my constituent, Kerry Allen, aged eight, on New Parks estate? The county council had approved a pelican crossing but said that it did not have the money to install it. How long are we to have insufficient money for road safety? Is not the present position intolerable, unreasonable and totally insupportable?

The whole House would wish to join every family in grieving over a road death. There are 14 road deaths per day in this country. The nation rises to mourn when there are group deaths, but when 5,000 people a year die on the roads in this country, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, we must obviously go on reducing the toll as fast as we possibly can.

In view of my hon. Friend's last remarks, is it not clear that we need more motorways so as to reduce the road accident rate further? What plans does he have to provide alternative routes for such as the M1 and M3 which are now so terribly congested?

Dealing with congestion is one point, but the point that my hon. Friend picked up from the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is that three quarters of deaths and injuries take place in built-up areas. Motorways are not the answer in built-up areas. Bypasses or relief roads may be an answer, but the normal answer is traffic management and traffic calming so that where there are many pedestrians—[Interruption.]

Order.

If I may finish, Mr. Speaker. Where there are many pedestrians, pedestrians get more priority and motorists get slightly less.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve communications between Scotland and the south-east, in preparation for the opening of the Channel tunnel.

British Rail is required by section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to publish a plan by the end of this year setting out its proposals for the dispersal of passenger and freight trains within the United Kingdom. The impact of the Channel tunnel is one of the many factors taken into account in planning the forward trunk road programme.

Will the Minister confirm a report in the "Politics Today" column of the Financial Times on Friday that a study that was prepared for the Prime Minister shows clearly that unless there is a major improvement in the road and rail network between Scotland and the south-east, Scotland will not benefit in any degree from the opening of the Channel tunnel? If that is so, why is the Minister cutting investment to British Rail by £300 million in the latest public expenditure White Paper and why are there no plans in the White Paper to improve the road and rail networks between Scotland and the south-east to enable Scotland to benefit from the economic activity of the Channel tunnel?

There has been no cut in the investment of British Rail. Indeed, it has been rising sharply and will be £3·5 billion in coming years. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is becoming confused with subsidies, which is a quite different matter and has nothing to do with how much is being invested.

I heard the Minister's reply with delight. Does he agree that since Liverpool has excellent port facilities it makes admirable sense to improve the links between there and the Channel tunnel as it would prove an ideal through-port for goods from America to the continent?

My hon. Friend refers to a most interesting idea. When we last had questions on this subject I referred to a study being conducted into that very matter. We are happy to co-operate with that study in any way.

Will the Minister therefore confirm that when the study for the landbridge concept for the port of Liverpool is completed and suggests that it is a feasible option the Government will look favourably on that proposal?

We shall always look favourably at any commercial proposition put to us by British Rail. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) implied a moment ago, the port and road facilities at Liverpool already look as though they have plenty of capacity for that plan.

When my lion. Friend discusses these matters with the chairman of British Rail, will he bear in mind that there is still an important link from the whole of the west of country to the tunnel without going through London? All that my hon. Friend needs to do is to put some investment into the flyover at Redhill. That will then provide long routes and freight links all the way to the tunnel from the north-west, the south-west, Wales and Scotland and will definitely benefit the country as a whole.

The important thing is that there should be through freight links between the regions and the Channel tunnel. That is British Rail's ambition and that is why it is working on its plan now. The exact route is a matter for British Rail. I am happy to mention the point to the chairman when I next see him but I am bound to tell my hon. Friend that he has made his case effectively on a number of occasions already.

The Minister will appreciate that the rail links between the highlands of Scotland and the south and from there to the Channel tunnel suffered a severe setback last week when the rail bridge in the town of Inverness was washed away in the flooding that occurred. Will the Minister give an undertaking that all available finance will be made available to British Rail and ScotRail to ensure that that bridge is reconstructed as fast as possible because the great worry in the north now is that if it takes up to a year—

Order. This question is about the Channel tunnel, but the hon. Gentleman's question is wide of it.

Without the bridge, there is no rail link to the Channel tunnel from Inverness.

The safety point is well made and. I shall bring it to British Rail's attention. I know that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland have been in touch with each other about the bridge. We do not yet know anything about the costs that would be involved, but we shall stay closely in touch with the hon. Gentleman on this matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with London riparian borough councils and the Port of London Authority concerning barge traffic on the Thames.

The recent incident at Battersea is being investigated by a Department of Transport marine surveyor who has had discussions with the Port of London Authority. The authority is now restricting the number of barges that may be towed up river under Battersea bridge to one per tug, and I have asked the PLA to inform me of any other new measures that it proposes to take.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that two such measures might well relate to the competence of pilotage on the Thames and the use of the tides? I understand that in this instance the pilot came up too late on the tide and the barge was too close to the bridge structure. Will my hon. Friend further confirm whether the Department has contingency plans against the day when another such incident occurs and the bridge perhaps being completely destroyed?

The marine surveyor will have to consider whether there was a culpable failure and make recommendations arising from that. The PLA has already said that tow barges should come up river as early as possible on the flood tide. In the unlikely event of the bridge collapsing, the PLA would need to take emergency action and it is well aware of that.

Does the Minister agree that to come up early on the tide is navigationally impractical and that the best advantage is in coming up near the top of it? Does he further agree that, pending protective measures to bridges such as Battersea, which is relatively narrow, such accidents on the Thames are rare and when they occur they cause headlines, which illustrates the safety of water transport by barge on the Thames in general?

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Battersea bridge had been damaged on six occasions this century before the 1988 accident, so it is a fairly rare occurrence. I am not competent to comment on the hon. Gentleman's first point beyond saying that it is the PLA which recommended that tugs should come upstream as early as possible on the flood tide.

In addition to echoing the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), may I ask my hon. Friend if he will further confirm that it is in everyone's interest that we continue to send domestic refuse down river by barge, rather than attempting to bring it back on to the roads and increase the already impossible congestion?

That is a good point. The barges keep a large number of lorries off the roads, which is welcome to residents of the area.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to press for modification of the European Community requirement for minibus drivers to hold vocational entitlement under the proposed harmonised driver licensing system.

We have pressed the European Commission at every level to avoid placing restrictions on the use of minibuses by the many voluntary groups, including those working with the disabled, who depend so heavily on them. We shall continue to do so and we aim to protect our present arrangements in the negotiations in the Council of Ministers.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to press this matter. Will he confirm that minibuses are just about the safest form of transport and that we tend to use them more than other Community countries? The Commission's regulations will cause special hardship to charities for the elderly. That is just not good enough. Will my hon. Friend make that point forcefully to the Commission? Will he also arrange to put in the Library recent correspondence with the Commission on this matter?

Yes. My hon. Friend speaks for hon. Members on both sides of the House. Minibuses, often with six to 10 voluntary drivers, do a great deal of good for the elderly, the handicapped and the young. The letter which the previous Commissioner for Transport made public on 14 December was probably an aberration. His successor, the present Commissioner for Transport, will look with a fresh eye to see whether safety and mobility for the handicapped and others can be maintained and enhanced. I will put the exchange in the Library.

Will my hon. Friend stress in Europe that harmonisation for its own sake is extremely damaging to the Community as a whole? Can he say whether the eventual decision on this will be by majority vote or unanimous decision?

The decision would be by majority vote if it came to that, but I have every confidence that on road safety grounds the Commission, Parliament and the whole of Europe will look to Britain, which has the best safety record. If the rest of the Community had our road safety record, 40 per cent. fewer people would have died last year. In other countries, the casualty rate is rising, not falling as it is in Britain, so we have something to contribute. On aid for the handicapped and others, we have learnt some lessons which others may want to copy. We do not know everything, but in this area we are the experts, we have the experience and we are right.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the Channel tunnel high-speed rail link; and if he will make a statement.

This question comes up at the regular meetings which Ministers have with the chairman from time to time. I am also in regular contact with the BR board member responsible for the development of this proposal.

In view of the continuing anxiety and uncertainty on this matter, is it not high time that we were given a firm date for British Rail's announcement of the chosen route? As soon as that route is known, will my hon. Friend do all that he can—if necessary, by urgent amendment and uprating of the Land Compensation Act 1973—to facilitate speedy and generous compensation to those whose homes will have been blighted?

In answer to my hon. Friend's first point, I agree that an urgent decision is required. There will be an announcement at the beginning of March. On the second point, it is extremely important—I impress this upon British Rail—that there should be an announcement of compensation terms at the same time as the announcement of the proposed route for the line.

Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the submission made by Kent county council on behalf of all residents of Kent? May I have his assurance that he will instruct British Rail that whatever proposal it puts forward it should comply at least in minimal terms with the criteria in that submission?

I and British Rail are looking forward to the Kent county council meeting of 23 February, at which I believe that it will confirm or amend the criteria that it is putting forward. Of course, I take those criteria seriously. Environmental protection for the people of Kent under any proposal is most important, and I have no reason to believe that British Rail is is any doubt about that.

Is the Minister aware that 16 per cent. of the total cost of the TGV north route has been earmarked for environmental impact work? Will he ensure that there is a similar investment in this country to protect the people of Kent and elsewhere from the environmental impact of the route?

I have no idea how those calculations were done in France. Of course, environmental protection will be included in the proposal, but it is only when British Rail makes a firm proposal that we shall know how much it has to spend on environmental protection over and above the cost of the basic line.

Would it not be far more appropriate to have a public inquiry into the route through Kent and, indeed, the location of the second London terminal? This is far too important a matter to be left to British Rail. Has the Minister studied route 5 to see whether it would be environmentally less damaging than the other options being considered?

I cannot accept that the matter is too important to be left to Parliament, which is what we are doing. This will be a matter for a private Bill, which is the appropriate means of settling it. I, too, believe that the people of Kent have suffered enough uncertainty already. The important thing is to bring the uncertainty to a conclusion. That will be done when British Rail makes a firm proposal in March. Discussions will continue thereafter, and then a private Bill will be introduced into Parliament for full discussion here.

Although I recognise the importance of proper links between the Channel tunnel and the rest of the country, does my hon. Friend recognise that proposals to run heavy freight and high speed passenger trains at speeds above 100 mph along embankments, viaducts and bridges, and over the homes, houses and heads of my constituents, are unacceptable and that they will be opposed vigorously in the House? If there is any lesson to be learnt from the dreadful tragedy at Clapham, it is that such a risk cannot be taken.

My hon. Friend puts me in a difficult position, because we do not yet have a firm proposal on the table from British Rail, but I note his point. My hon. Friend asked about freight. It is proposed that the new line should be for passenger trains. One reason is that only passenger trains can move at high speeds. Freight trains cannot move at those speeds. One effect of putting only passenger trains on the new line will be to allow more room on existing lines for freight trains, which may mean fewer freight lorries on the roads of Kent.

Will the Minister confirm that these expansive environmental safeguards for the rail link will have to be financed out of British Rail revenue? Will that not inevitably mean a low-cost solution that rides roughshod over the concerns of the people of Kent and south London? Such a major decision should not be left solely to British Rail. Is the hon. Gentleman giving serious consideration to the inquiry that I suggested, which may assist the House in making a decision about that route?

It is not strictly true to say that the safeguards would have to be financed out of British Rail revenue. If British Rail were to propose building the line, it would have to be a commercial proposition that provided an acceptable rate of return. The House and Parliament will decide on what line is acceptable. Once that has been decided, we shall see whether it is commercial. That is the way it will be. The other possibility is that it will be built in the private sector with British Rail paying a toll to run across it. That again would not require British Rail finding money from its own resources.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to when the new Networker trains will be in use; and on which lines they will operate.

My right hon. Friend approved the purchase of the first Networkers—77 diesel vehicles for lines out of Marylebone—last Tuesday. These units will enter service in 1990. British Rail hopes to begin operating the first electric Networkers by 1991 in south-east London and north-west Kent.

Does my hon. Friend accept that my constituents would be relieved finally to get a decision on the introduction of Networker trains on the north Kent line? Does he appreciate that they are well and truly fed-up with the dreadful conditions on commuter trains in north Kent?

I look forward to a proposal from British Rail for the Networkers, but I have told my hon. Friend what the position is.

When considering these new Networker trains, and bearing in mind the increase in crime to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) referred, will my hon. Friend take immediate steps to ensure that train drivers can be kept in permanent contact by telephone with the stations along their route and the emergency services? In this age of modern sophisticated telecommunications equipment, it is ridiculous that we cannot have this obvious safeguard for passengers and crew.

It is certainly British Rail policy to equip new trains with radio communications for drivers and to fit that equipment to some existing trains. The Bedford to King's Cross train involved in the incident was equipped with a radio. The driver was able to radio ahead and the police were then able to meet the train at King's Cross station.

In respect of the new Networker multiple unit electric trains, will the hon. Gentleman speak to his right hon. Friend about the future standards of seating? Is he aware that some of the new trains from other London termini, though they are faster and perhaps smoother than the stock which they are replacing, have less seating room and are less comfortable for travellers? Is that not a step backwards? Will the hon. Gentleman look into the seating design of the proposed Networker stock?

I will look into that matter, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman is being a little grudging. We are talking about a major reinvestment, which will constitute a major improvement in the travelling circumstances of many thousands of people coming into London in the rush hour.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister bear in mind that security is the most important aspect for people travelling from Bedford? They will not use the line at all if their lives are not secure. Will my hon. Friend assure us that British Rail intends to adopt some innovative measures? Whether British Rail accepts the idea of Guardian Angels on the trains or considers any other method, will my hon. Friend assure us that some method is adopted?

My hon. Friend will agree that it is most important that criminals should believe that they are likely to be apprehended. I am sure that he will welcome the news that progress is being made with the investigation. My hon. Friend will be aware that the line has not had a record of serious crime hitherto, so the incident took the police by surprise. Nonetheless, they have reacted with great swiftness to an extremely serious incident.

Will the new Networker trains have guards? That was the element which was so obviously missing in the deplorable Bedford line incident at the weekend. Does he accept that the cuts in staff and police levels have contributed to encouraging an increase in violence on our railway system, with the result that the steamer gangs see our rail system as a soft touch? Will the Minister now tell British Rail that it will forgo the £200 million cut in public subsidies this year? Will he ensure that the moneys are redirected to increasing staffing levels and safety standards to improve security on our railway system, thus making an increase in safety standards a higher priority than the saving of money?

The Networkers will be one-man operated. They will be associated with the new radio equipment I have mentioned, which is extremely important in combating crime. There is no evidence that there is more crime on one-person operated trains than on other trains. When I took the opinion of a senior police officer this morning on whether any difference would have been made if there had been a guard on the train, his reply was, "The guard would have taken a serious beating."

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Networker type of train has sliding electrically operated doors. The same type of doors contributed to an accident that resulted in the death of an elderly lady at St. Anne's railway station. Will my hon. Friend undertake that he will consider carefully the representations that I have made to him for a full railway inspectorate inquiry into that matter and into other safety matters that involve sliding doors?

I am taking extremely seriously the matter on which my hon. Friend has corresponded with me. I am discussing it with the railway inspectorate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the Settle-Carlisle line.

Not yet. We are still considering British Rail's closure proposal and related matters.

Is the Minister aware that those who are involved in the holiday business in the area, as well as those who use the line daily, are having a blight cast upon their work because of continuing uncertainty? Tour operators have lost bookings because they cannot guarantee that the line will be open from May to October. The continuing uncertainty is not helped by press speculation that the Minister has found a solution about which he will not tell the House. Will the Minister reveal whether the speculation is sourced from his Department and when an announcement will be made?

I am not responsible for the speculation which has appeared in the newspapers. I am sorry to hear about blight. The hon. Gentleman will know that I had to give the most serious undertakings that I would consider all the evidence that is put before me, and there is voluminous evidence. It would be wrong for me to reach a decision until I have gone through the evidence carefully.

Although it seems unlikely now that a single operator could take over the Settle-Carlisle line and run it, will my hon. Friend have close discussions with bodies such as the passenger transport authorities, the county councils and the tourist boards to ascertain whether they can come together, with the support of the Government, to find a way of saving what is, by any standards, an important part of the British heritage?

Yes. The first thing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to do is to reach a decision on the application that has been made by British Rail to suspend its services. A number of people have been in touch with us, including the West Yorkshire PTA.

In the voluminous evidence, what is the notional figure for the annual maintenance of the Ribblehead viaduct?

I am not prepared to reveal one part of the evidence in isolation from the rest. British Rail's closure proposal has been published. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read that, he will find some of the figures for which he may be looking.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding a high-speed rail link from the Channel tunnel.

I have received a large number of representations about British Rail's proposals for rail links to the Channel tunnel.

Does my hon. Friend agree, while understanding the concern of those whose homes may be destroyed, that the national construction of a high-speed rail link offers enormous environmental benefits and improvements? It will give us a chance to transfer some traffic from road to rail, and there is the possibility that there will be fewer vehicles, including coaches, cluttering Kent's roads.

My hon. Friend has made a most interesting point. Even without the new line, rail freight is expected to more than triple. There could be 20 trains a day in each direction through the tunnel and that would mean that 1,500 fewer lorries a day would be required in Kent. With the new line there will be more room on the existing railway network for freight trains. Therefore, there will be less of a tendency for that freight to drift back on to the roads of Kent.

Does the Minister accept that it would be a travesty of justice to promote such a rail link by way of a private Bill? We need a planning inquiry. If a private Bill were used to promote the new line that would bring the procedures of this House into disrepute. Does he agree that it would be absolutely impossible to find four hon. Members to sit in a judicial capacity on the Bill who do not have an interest in the matter? Will he ensure that there is a proper planning inquiry and that the new line is not promoted through the back door route of a private Bill?

No. I absolutely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Although some proposals have been put forward by a joint committee which we will have to consider very seriously, at the moment there is no method for the promotion of a new railway line other than by a private Bill.

Is my hon. Friend aware that for the past six months British Rail has engaged in what it calls consultations, but which the rest of us would call confrontation, which has added nothing to the argument? As a consequence, when British Rail finally announces the route, it will not have gained any more information or taken any notice, as far as I can see, of what anyone else is saying. Will my hon. Friend, in those circumstances, ensure that British Rail considers other routes, such as, route 5, which has been carefully designed, before it takes its decision?

British Rail should consider its route very carefully including any alternatives which are put forward. However, my hon. Friend rushes to judgment when he says that British Rail has not been listening. He must wait until he sees the proposed line, and then judge for himself.

To ask the Attorney-General what steps are currently being undertaken by his Department or that of the Lord Chancellor in relation to increasing the rights which flow from cohabitation.

The Law Commission is currently reviewing the law relating to intestacy, to the occupation of the home, and to domestic violence. This review will include the question of what rights should follow from cohabitation as well as from marriage.

Will the Solicitor-General confirm that it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor's Department to increase the obligations of common law partners in the forthcoming legal aid regulations? Does he agree that inter vivos rights of common law partners should be increased. For example, a common law wife who has lived in a home owned by her common law husband for many years should have rights of security and proprietary rights in the matrimonial home as well and, so as not to be sexist, vice versa?

People in that position already have some rights and the Law Commission is considering whether they should have further rights. Such rights as they have at the moment will be taken into account appropriately when the regulations to which the hon. Gentleman referred come forward.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that whatever the rights are, it is very important that the mechanics match those rights? Is he satisfied with the work of the legal aid office in Newcastle which allegedly dictated a letter on 19 January, typed it on 1 February and which was finally delivered on 9 February after I had contacted the office by telephone? That communication related to the "tug-of-love" case between one of my constituents and a child's mother. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that case was put in jeopardy, whatever the rights may be, because of the length of time involved?

That seems a far cry from cohabitation. However, if my hon. Friend will write to me, we will look at the case.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the director of the serious fraud office; and what matters were discussed.

Today, Sir. We discussed matters of departmental interest.

Will the Attorney-General confirm whether he has discussed with the director of the serious fraud office the continuing delay in reaching a decision on his inquiries regarding the Department of Trade and Industry's report on the House of Fraser? Will he also confirm that the dilatory actions of former Ministers, Sir Alex Fletcher and the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) allowed known crooks to buy the House of Fraser? Are they now co-operating fully with the serious fraud office?

As to the less tendentious part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the matter to which he referred at the beginning featured among those that I discussed today. Police inquiries requested by the Director of Public Prosecutions are continuing.

Did my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions any need for additional staff in his Department to deal with major fraud cases? It has taken an appalling length of time to bring the Guinness scandal to trial.

No, Sir. That was not among the matters discussed, because the director of the serious fraud office has made no representation to me that he needs additional staff. The establishment of the serious fraud office has vindicated the legislation that permitted it, because matters that are now the subject of prosecution—including the prosecution arising out of the Guinness affair—would not have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions under the previous arrangements.

What is happening in the case of Mr. Kunwar Chander Jeet Singh, who ran Ravendale Group plc and City Investment Centres, and who, in the over-the-counter market and in other share dealings, defrauded thousands of people of their money? When will that fraudster be prosecuted?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask a question about a specific case, it will be to my advantage and, I suspect, to that of the House, if he addressed his question directly to that case.

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

Today, Sir. We discussed a variety of matters of departmental interest.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether one of those matters was bringing back to this country Mr. James Draper, to serve the two-year prison sentence that was imposed upon him for contempt of court, after he and others defrauded many people in this country?

Yes, Sir. That matter was discussed today. For the assistance of my hon. Friend, I can say that the Vice-Chancellor made an order committing Mr. Draper, in his absence, to prison for two years for civil contempt of court. Extradition cannot be ordered from any country for civil contempt, even if it results in an order of imprisonment. The Vice-Chancellor's judgment and a separate report by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors into the affairs of two companies, known as Milbury plc and Westminster Property Group, which covered similar ground, have been studied by counsel, who concluded that a police investigation should not be commenced, nor extradition sought, in respect of alleged criminal offences committed by Draper. The Crown prosecution service agrees with that view.

Is the Attorney-General aware that London Labour right hon. and hon. Members today met Sir Peter Imbert, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who acknowledged that to tackle racial harassment effectively, a much stronger policy is needed from the Director of Public Prosecutions, so that more of those people who perpetrate racial harassment will be prosecuted?

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has not yet reported that meeting to me, nor any opinions such as that which the hon. Gentleman identifies. I look forward to reading any communication from the commissioner.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the great courtesy that he showed me, when we met to discuss the case of my constituent, Mrs. Christine Sellers, and the possibility of bringing a criminal prosecution against the surgeon, Mr. Cook? My right hon. and learned Friend's advice was that she should bring a civil case against him. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the case has now been heard, and that judgment is expected later this week? If Mrs. Sellers wins, will my right hon. and learned Friend be willing again to see me, as was anticipated in the first place?

I am always willing and anxious to see my hon. Friend. It is a labour of love to extend courtesy to him.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland; and what matters were discussed.

On Thursday, 29 September 1988. As I stated in my answer of 23 January 1989 to the hon. Gentleman, we had a constructive meeting in regard to matters of concern to our respective responsibilities—in particular, extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has possibly had a telephone conversation this morning with the Irish Attorney-General, what message does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have for lawyers and solicitors in Northern Ireland in the light of last night's tragedy?

Last night's tragedy should and does arouse disgust throughout the civilised community. It is, of course, most deeply felt among lawyers but also, I would judge, widely shared throughout the Province.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend able to take any steps to bring Mr. Ryan to justice through a trial, either in the Irish Republic or in this country?

The Irish Attorney-General has had the papers concerning Mr. Ryan since last month. Those papers were sent with a view to his prosecution being considered by the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions.

Arising from what the Attorney-General has just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), does he agree that the murder last night of a solicitor is a new escalation of the murderous violence in the Province? Does he also agree that those who practise law in Northern Ireland have a duty and a responsibility to their clients? Are not those responsible for the murder demonstrating once again that, whether the violence comes from the Republican or the Loyalist side, these murderers have no respect for the rule of law?

The hon. Gentleman's last remark was quite correct. However, I do not know whether the murder was an escalation of the violence that has beset the Province for so many years. It is certainly an example of violence on a disgusting and totally unacceptable scale, which right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House wish to do all that they can to suppress, consistent with the rule of law.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Malawi; and if he will make a statement.

I visited Malawi at the end of last month. I saw a range of British-financed development projects and technical projects and technical experts, and confirmed to Malawian Ministers our continuing commitment to help Malawi's development programme. British aid to Malawi, including help for Mozambican refugees, amounted to £25 million in 1987, the latest year for which full figures are available.

Is not one of the biggest problems facing Malawi its need to improve transport links to the coast? Is there anything that the British Government can do to assist in that matter?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I saw for myself the importance to Malawi's economy of improving transport links. That is why we intend to spend just over £13 million on the northern transport corridor linking Malawi to Dar-es-Salaam. We have also made a contribution to the rehabilitation of the Nacala line, and will probably be able to do more to support that project as well.

My hon. Friend will know all our aid is directed on a bilateral basis where it is most needed. Why does the European Community, particularly in the case of black South African townships, insist on feeding its aid through a third party, which then has the power to direct where the aid should go? Would not our approach be more satisfactory?

We are pressing, both through our own bilateral contributions to projects in South Africa and through the European Community, to ensure that that aid goes to education and social projects where it is most needed. We shall, as my hon. Friend suggested, be spending on our own substantial programme and we have already committed about £25 million to bilateral projects in South Africa in the five years to 1992.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current progress in negotiations on Lomé IV.

Negotiations on a successor to the third Lomé convention, which expires in February 1990, were opened formally in October last year. The first European Community—African Caribbean Pacific ministerial negotiating meeting, which I shall be attending, is in Brazzaville later this week.

When the Minister attends the meeting, will he press the European Commission to consider carefully the implications of the 1992 single market and its impact on African, Caribbean and Pacific countries? Will he ensure that those Third world countries do not lose out in the single market? Does he recognise the grave danger that the fat cats of Europe will get the cream and milk while the Third world countries will be left with only a cracked saucer?

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said. We have to make absolutely certain that 1992 does not create a fortress Europe, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear. We have to do all that we can in the re-negotiation of the Lomé convention to ensure that we liberalise the existing trade arrangements where we can. We have set out our thoughts on that, and in particular we have made clear our views on bananas and the importance of guaranteeing the position of our traditional suppliers in 1992 and thereafter.

While the hon. Gentleman is in the mood to agree with my hon. Friend, may I ask whether he has had time to look at the charter for Lomé IV produced by the world development movement? Two of the points in that charter may well be in line with what he is thinking, and I should welcome his comments. First, the Economic Community, in discussing 1992, should publish a report on the anticipated costs and benefits to African Caribbean Pacific states and fully compensate those that are adversely affected, and secondly that the Economic Community should abolish all remaining tariffs and non-tariff barriers on processed products from ACP states. As the Minister shares the Opposition's concern about the move towards 1992, I should welcome his co-operation on those matters.

I agree with a good deal of the world development movement's charter on the Lomé renegotiations. In regard to tariffs, as I said earlier, we are pressing for further liberalisation. For example, we are pressing for rum to be treated like other industrial products. It seems inconceivable that after 1992 we could continue with a quota on rum and with compartmentalisation. I have mentioned the importance of liberalising the arrangements. The hon. Lady also mentioned an economic assessment of the consequences of 1992. We have argued with ACP countries that they should benefit from a larger and more dynamic market after 1992. The European Community has to help them develop their own processing and manufacturing capacity, for example, by simplifying the existing rules of origin.

May I say how much I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the effects of 1992? Will he pay particular attention to the Madrid appeal—the document produced by the 22 countries of the Council of Europe in their campaign for greater public awareness in the North-South campaign?

That was a very useful campaign, particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) played a part in drawing up that declaration. We were pleased to be able to make a small contribution to that campaign, which quite properly accomplished its objectives.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take in the light of the World Bank's report on the growth of international debt.

We shall continue to play our full part in implementing the internationally-agreed strategy on debt. We will maintain support through the aid programme for important initiatives recently adopted for the poorest debtors, in which Britain took a leading role.

That is some strategy. The Minister will be aware that that World Bank report showed that the poorer nations paid the richer nations some $43 billion last year and because of compound interest they were still $39 billion further in debt. The Government's strategy is to export privatisation, to soak the resources of those countries and leave them even further in debt. Is that not a recipe for poverty capitalism, rather than popular capitalism?

Unusually, the hon. Gentleman is a little wide of the mark. The figures which he quoted are certainly misleading as they take no account of grant aid or of the ability of better off developing countries to repay their debts. The net capital flows to sub-Saharan African countries were strongly positive throughout the 1980s. Even after deducting interest payments they amounted to $15 billion in 1987, the last year for which we have figures. These days very few people would agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of market forces. His views seem to be more in line with those of Mr. Ligachev than with those of President Gorbachev.

The House owes my hon. Friend a great debt of gratitude for the initiative that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have taken to put on the international scene the initiative on sub-Saharan debt, which has been taken a step further at Toronto. Does my hon. Friend believe that the time is now ripe for a further initiative in that area, and that we should extend the initiative on sub-Saharan debt to other countries, such as Guyana in South America? Can he make a statement about that? Is he prepared to take any steps in relation to the debts owed to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund?

It is important to distinguish between the poorest and the most indebted countries and those which are rather better off. It is also important to distinguish between debts that are owed to Governments and international organisations and those which are owed to commercial banks. Whatever happens, I would not endorse the transfer of risks from banks to taxpayers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current progress in negotiations for the replenishment of the International Development Association.

Negotiations will start in Washington later this month. We hope that they will be successfully concluded by the autumn.

I wish the Minister all success in the negotiations and hope that they are successful for the association. Is the Minister aware that, in 1979, we contributed 10 per cent. of this fund and that, in the early 1980s, we reduced that contribution to 6·7 per cent. because we had a weak economy? Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the economy is the strongest it has ever been. Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor? If so, will he renegotiate a 10 per cent. contribution in the next round of negotiations?

Of course I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the strength of the economy. I also agree with what he told the IMF-World Bank development committee recently. He said that we

"believe a substantial replenishment is justified to maintain the Bank's concessional lending to its very poorest members, especially in Africa".