To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will obtain a copy of the National Economic Research Association's report on the quality of rail services for his departmental library.

It already has one.

I hope that the Secretary of State has a copy of the report sitting on a shelf at home and that he has had an opportunity to read it. If he has, he will be aware that it highlights fewer seats on trains, despite more traffic on the railways and the sort of overcrowding that I experienced travelling from Cornwall to London last night. Many people had to stand from well before Plymouth until they reached London. I experienced, together with many other people, the difficulties of travelling on British Rail at a time when it is underfunded. The report highlights all those problems and calls on the Government to invest in rail, get traffic off the roads, reduce lorry traffic through towns and villages and do something about congestion. Will the Minister act on the report and proceed quickly to ensure safe public transport in this country?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had a difficult journey, and I understand the problems that he raised. Not only do I have a copy of the report at home but I have read it with care and have had a meeting with the trade unions about it. It contains much good stuff; I do not agree with all of it, but I agree with much of it. We are acting on many of the report's recommendations. The hon. Gentleman mentioned overcrowding, which I accept sometimes is a problem on some InterCity lines. He will be pleased to learn that I have today approved investment by InterCity in 31 extra mark IV coaches, at a cost of £8·5 million, which will allow electrified trains to run on the east coast main line with more coaches, which will relieve congestion and cascade on to other lines.

As the report to which the question refers relates investment to service, and as we have just finished praying, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the following matters? The statement that he made a few days ago in the House has given road builders a bonanza, with the minimum of research, while British Rail must climb a high hurdle every time it wants to present proposals to my right hon. Friend. Will he consider the fact that France builds railways in the prospect of doing business, whereas British Rail must prove in advance—sometimes against all the odds—that it can do the business before it is given investment approval?

Although I have had many talks with my hon. Friend, I have yet to convince him that, whatever the height of the hurdle, British Rail always manages to climb it. [Interruption.] I am looking forward to debating the amount of investment made in British Rail, which we shall deal with in a later question, when I shall show that in real terms investment is considerably larger than at any time under a Labour Government.

If progress is to be made, is it not important that those who take the key decisions have personal experience of the quality of British Rail? It is said that over the past decade the Prime Minister has travelled on it only once—and only for a short distance. Will the Secretary of State therefore try to persuade her to use British Rail from time to time?

That is all very well. The Prime Minister is keen to support British Rail and has supported its investment programmes, as have the Government collectively. In contrast to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), I had an excellent journey on British Rail this morning.

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

On Thursday 8 June, at a meeting of my London passenger transport group, which discussed the central and east London rail studies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the long-suffering commuters of London will have no sympathy for a strike over the retention of a promotion system based on Buggins' turn rather than ability? Does he agree that a wage claim of £3,000 a year is quite extraordinary and unjustified? Does he agree that common sense rather than greed and avarice should be the guiding light of London Transport?

I agree that prolonged industrial troubles on the London Underground are extremely damaging to travellers. They will not help to resolve the problems, and the House should urge that there should not be such industrial action.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a sad lack of common sense is being displayed by the management of London Underground, who seem to believe that the way to improve the service is to price as many passengers off it as possible? Is that sensible or far-seeing management? What plans does the Secretary of State have to encourage management to improve the service?

The hon. Lady knows that a question on the central London rail study has been tabled, and we shall deal with it soon.

That is nothing to do with it.

The hon. Gentleman says that it has nothing to do with it. I am about to answer the hon. Lady's question.

Get on with it, then.

It is not easy with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) sitting there. I have received no proposals on fares from LRT. I understand that it is concerned, rightly, about safety and congestion. I have already approved more than £200 million investment in safety measures and £700 million investment to improve the Central and Northern lines. I would have to hear convincing arguments from LUL before I agreed to pricing people off the Underground.

Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the chairman of London Regional Transport about the way in which traffic cones seem to be breeding in central London as well as on motorways? Yesterday, they were fouling up the approaches to the A40. Will my right hon. Friend open a hotline so that members of the public can point out where traffic cones have been left in places unnecessarily, simply because someone has been too lazy to move them out of the way?

I shall certainly consider my right hon. Friend's comment. I am not sure that it is a matter for the chairman of London Regional Transport, but I shall certainly get in touch with my right hon. Friend about those cones.

Does the Secretary of State accept, as no doubt the chief secretary will do in the future, that the fare increases on the Underground system, which, since 1980, have been three times higher than inflation, result directly from his policy that all costs should be covered by fares? That is the opposite of the position in Europe which, with a public subsidy system, has produced the better quality service and cheaper fares that are so different from the London system, which is a shame to us.

I do not agree with anything that the hon. Gentleman said. Investment in London Underground is increasing continually and is running at historically high levels—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]. I am entitled to answer in the way that I want. I do not agree that the fares are higher in real terms than they were some years ago. The hon. Gentleman's question is based upon a misapprehension.

The majority of people in London believe that the answer to London's traffic problems lies mainly in improved services, and the Underground plays a large part in that. In his discussions with the chairman of London Regional Transport, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, because of the great demand on services, London Underground will provide more and longer trains as soon as possible?

I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said. He will be extremely pleased to know of the enormous increase in investment in London Underground, which is running, in 1988–89 prices, at £284 million a year. When the Labour party and the GLC had control of it, investment was less than half that level.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement about ticket barriers on the London Underground system.

I understand that a report from the independent consultants on the working of the Underground ticketing system is expected shortly.

Will the young and up-and-coming Minister please explain to me how London Underground Limited can carry on installing ticket gates when virtually no one in London approves of them? Has the hon. Gentleman seen the chaos at, for example, Westminster Underground station, where the authorities have to lock the gates open because of the pressure of people? Will he please call in London Underground to tell it to stop this ridiculous scheme which, I remind him, would never have been allowed under the good old GLC?

I have considered the problems of congestion in a number of our stations. I do not think that the ticketing system is the main contributor. There are other reasons for the congestion. The railway inspectorate and the fire brigade have looked at the gates. We have asked consultants to look at them, and their report will be available shortly. The hon. Gentleman often urges us to adopt the systems that operate abroad. I point out that gates at exits are to be found in Hong Kong, Singapore, Washington, San Francisco, Seoul, Philadelphia, Illinois, Tokyo, Osaka and on the Paris RER.

Will my hon. Friend undertake not to return to the old days of the GLC, which doubled the fares and doubled the rates in 1981? Will he give Londoners an assurance on the effect of these gates in a fire?

That has been the subject of the study by the railway inspectorate and the London fire brigade. Emergency buttons are positioned in various places where the staff can operate them, so that all the gates fly open. Recently, the Underground has checked that in the event of a power failure—even a single-phase power failure—the gates would open automatically. That is the basis on which the railway inspectorate and the London fire brigade have felt confident in approving those systems.

Will the Minister look a the chaos that all too frequently occurs at Gatwick airport, where passengers from airlines find it almost impossible to purchase a ticket? Is the Minister aware that late at night, only one window out of eight—

Does the hon. Lady mean Gatwick underground?

I am talking about passengers attempting to get on to the Underground from the airlines.

Order. This is very wide of the question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made a decision about the options contained in the central London rail study; and if he will make a statement.

Not yet, but I hope to do so later in the year.

The Secretary of State expressed regret that the rail study did not make reference to the north London line, a vital part of the London transport network. Will he exert whatever pressure he can on British Rail to prevent the closure of Primrose Hill station, which will throw further pressure on to London Transport because it is British Rail's clear intention now to reduce the number of trains running on the Watford line to Liverpool Street, from live an hour to one an hour? How can the Secretary of State justify that, given the present congestion on the Tube?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we are considering carefully all the options contained in the central London rail study, which presents some imaginative and important proposals for improving London's transport in the future. The question of the north London line is being considered carefully, as it relates also to the east London rail study. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's later points. In general, we are now engaged in some of the most important and radical suggestions to try to solve London's traffic and Underground problems over the next couple of decades.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these massive plans will be vulnerable to excessive delays because of their complexity? Will he reassure the House that we shall proceed rapidly with the proposals, because we could have endless arguments about all the different options? Can we get digging as soon as possible?

I note my hon. Friend's support for the proposals. My aim is to come to conclusions in the very near future—or nearish future—and to come to the House, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), with definite proposals later this year.

May we assume from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, therefore, that he is denying the reports which have already appeared in the press that he has made decisions? Will he tell the House about the shape and finance of London's new rail links? Will he tell us whether he has authorised British Rail and LRT to prepare a private Bill? Most important of all, will he give us some idea of the cost of the Paddington to Liverpool Street line and the level of fares increases that will be necessary if he continues to insist that the passengers must pay?

As I have told the House on a number of occasions, no decisions have been taken. It will be very nice if it is possible—and I hope that it will be—to have a Bill in November dealing with one of the solutions to the problem, although it is impossible to be certain at this stage. No decisions have been taken, so I cannot instruct people on these matters. The hon. Lady mentioned fares. The question of financing whatever proposals come forward has to be studied. Fares will have to play their part. There is also the option of Government grants and of contributions from developers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has for tackling the problem of drinking and driving.

We have today launched a new campaign, with the help and co-operation of the medical services, the police, the insurance industry and the brewers and retailers. Two new television commercials will be shown. New posters and publicity material are available for use by road safety officers throughout the country. The basic message continues to be that drinking and driving wrecks lives and that it is unnecessary and unacceptable.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that if other insurance companies follow the line recently taken by Pearl Assurance, motorists who insist on continuing to drink before they drive will find that they are likely to face a nasty financial shock, even if they do not kill or disable somebody?

My hon. Friend has a good point. At the moment an insurance company does not need to pay out for those who drive unroadworthy vehicles. Pearl Assurance has simply applied the same principle to those who are not roadworthy drivers. The company will not necessarily pay out to mend such a driver's car and may claim back any third party payments that it has to make. I do not see any reason why the 19 out of 20 of us who do not drink and drive should have to continue to subsidise those who do. We are sufficiently at risk of our lives as innocent victims and I do not see why we should pay out money as well.

While every sensible person must he against drinking and driving, is it not correct that we have a good record compared with other European countries, thanks largely to the efforts of my hon. Friend's Department?

It is certainly true that the campaigns initiated over the years by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have paid off tremendously in saving lives. The death trend in Britain is very much better than, for example, in Finland or even New South Wales, which go in for other strategies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to improve the system of transport public inquiries.

The public inquiry system is kept under review. All suggestions for change are given careful consideration. We are satisfied that for the great majority of road proposals the present inquiry system works well. We need to safeguard the rights of those affected by our proposals.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am somewhat disappointed by that reply because, as my hon. Friend must be aware, it took some 30 years from Ernest Marples promising that the Banbury bypass would be built as a matter of priority for substantial construction on the M40 to begin? Will my hon. Friend take a Genghis Khan approach to the public inquiry system to simplify it substantially, to shorten it and to shut up those professional objectors who are in the vanguard in calling for infrastructure investment in general but who seem to oppose every infrastructure investment in particular?

The answer is that I am not sure. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we need to save time before we get to the inquiry stage. Three quarters of inquiries take two weeks or less and consider people's legitimate interests. However, time is wasted by the Department in trying to find an acceptable route. Where there is controversy—with the exception of Worthing—perhaps one way would be for people to decide whether they want the bypass—if there is to be one—to run east, west, north or south before the Department commits too much time to fighting fruitless battles. We need to fight for people's interests in a safer environment, with safer roads, and better industrial access. Perhaps then, as my hon. Friend wants, we could save a great deal of time.

What is the Minister's view on the circumventing of public inquiries into major transport matters by the use of the private Bill procedure in this House? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friends to ensure that in future all major transport issues are examined publicly so that all witnesses can give the evidence that they feel is appropriate?

It is odd that the hon. Gentleman has suggested that having a matter considered by the House of Commons is in some way to get away from a public inquiry. That is the way in which most of the railways have been built in this country and it is the way in which most people would like them to continue to be built.

Does the White Paper on roads take account of the expenditure implications of any delays in the construction of bypasses caused by lengthy controversial public inquiries, because every month of delay has an inflationary effect on the final bill?

It should not, as inflation comes down again. The important point is that we do not want to lose any time unnecessarily. Each pound spent on the roads brings a £2 return and we are getting a return of about £160 million per year from the present road programme in road casualty reductions alone. Therefore, as my hon. Friend has said, it is important that we get on with the programme.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government are seriously considering replacing roads public inquiries by the private Bill procedure of this House to avoid giving people the opportunity of having their views heard? As the Minister is concerned about delays, will he confirm that the Birmingham northern relief road has now been delayed directly because of the Green Paper on private financing and that, instead of getting their road, the people of that area now face the possibility of a toll road?

The answers to the two specific questions on the inquiry are no, and not necessarily. The only person who has suggested the use of Bills for a large number of road schemes is the director of Friends of the Earth. I was not persuaded by him and I am not persuaded by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).

My hon. Friend's announcement later this week of alternative proposals for the Hastings, western and Bexhill bypass will be a welcome sign of further progress on the Dover to Honiton trunk road link. However, if a public inquiry follows the eventual publication of draft orders, when does my hon. Friend imagine the road will be complete?

The answer to that is NIMTOO—not in my term of office—although we want to make as much progress as we can.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of a rail link to Manchester airport.

We expect to receive a formal investment proposal from British Rail shortly.

Will the Minister confirm that there appears to have been a last-minute financial hiccup in the negotiations between the Department and the Greater Manchester transport authority in the past couple of weeks? Can he confirm that the problems have now been smoothed out and that there is nothing to stop the construction of the rail link going ahead later this year?

I must wait and see what British Rail's investment case is. The hon. Gentleman may have been referring to the question of resource allocation for the PTA share of the cost in the next financial year. I am happy to agree in principle that the allocation should be covered. The hon. Gentleman asked about timing. I am well aware that if the rail link is to be built, it should be phased in carefully with the new terminal, which is due to open in April 1993.

May I impress on the Minister the fact that Manchester airport has been applying for the rail link for the past 10 years? I hope that the Minister will make it clear to British Rail that we want no more unnecessary delays. Given the money that has been spent on Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow, is it not about time that the north-west had its share of expenditure?

I do not think that the time spent in establishing the case has been wasted in any way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can take comfort from what I have said—that it is well understood that the important factor in the timing of the rail link is that it should fit in with the new terminal planned for April 1993. If Ministers receive the investment proposal shortly, we shall be in good time to phase the link in with that.

Is the Minister aware that the car park at Manchester airport is now immensely expensive, especially for the holiday traveller? Does he agree that a rail link would be a great boon to those who save up to go on holiday once a year?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting additional point. I think that the investment case made to me by British Rail will be made in the light of all the circumstances, and of all the extra traffic that can be attracted. I look forward to seeing that proposal shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss an investment plan for the electrification of the midland main line.

It is for British Rail to propose those electrification schemes which it believes to be worth while.

Is the Minister aware that people who travel on the line through the east midlands to Nottingham are heartily cheesed off at the Government's attitude to the electrification of the east midlands line? It is a scandal that the Government are prepared to find perhaps£1/2 billion for environmental improvements where they see electoral advantage and yet cannot allow or encourage British Rail to spend a mere £100 million to electrify the line through the east midlands. Will the Minister look again at the rate of return that he has demanded that British Rail should make on its capital and make it more feasible for British Rail to electrify the line? The east midlands needs the line. It needs electrification. Without that, we shall become an economic backwater. It is not good enough for the Government to keep washing their hands of the issue.

I take it that what the hon. Gentleman really wants is an improved service to Nottingham and Sheffield. We have just had announced an improvement of 10 minutes in the journey time to Nottingham and an increased frequency of service. There is a new 7·30 am train which will doubtless be useful to the hon. Gentleman personally. Following the announcement by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the east coast main line, it may now be possible to transfer trains from that line to the east midlands line to give Nottingham and Sheffield an hourly service.

My hon. Friend will recall that a long debate on this matter was initiated last year by my hon. Friends the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and myself and that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) was notably absent from it. We spoke then of the need for electrification in view of the great changes that had taken place, particularly the Toyota plant. Will my hon. Friend undertake to ask the chairman of British Rail to look again at this matter, in the light of the facts that more investment is being made in the east midlands and there is a crying need for investment to provide a direct link via the Channel to France to bring prosperity to the midlands?

The chairman of British Rail is well aware of my hon. Friend's opinion and those of many of my hon. Friends who have spoken so strongly in favour of electrification. The quality of service is important, not electrification per se. I hope that my hon. Friend is pleased both with the current improvements and with those that I announced today, which are the result of my right hon. Friend's statement about additional rolling stock.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail about privatisation proposals for British Rail.

Privatisation is one of the topics that I discuss from time to time with Sir Robert Reid.

That was a terrific answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after years of running the railways on a Government-sponsored shoestring, to tell British Rail management that privatisation is the only answer to its problems is creating massive uncertainty within the industry? Is not talk of a return to the large regional railway companies simply nostalgic nonsense? Does not the United Kingdom, like other advanced industrialised nations, need a publicly owned, properly funded national railway system?

As I have told the House on many occasions, we have not decided about privatisation. I welcome British Rail's recent impressive performance, as do many hon. Members, and privatisation could reinforce that. However, I shall pursue that only if I am convinced that it will lead to an improved service to the customer. That is why I have given the hon. Gentleman this answer, I note his views about large regional companies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a pent-up feeling that British Rail should be privatised for the benefit of both rail users and British Rail employees? Would not the employees welcome the opportunity of a share option scheme, something that has been consistently denied to them by the Opposition, and especially those working on the east coast main line? They will be delighted with today's announcement of 31 new coaches, which will mean even greater improvements. The sooner they have them, the better.

My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a great deal of interest in and support for privatisation. There is no evidence from British Rail's performance to support the view that any uncertainty over that issue is causing any damage—

That is why I asked the question.

The hon. Gentleman did make that point.

What does Sir Robert Reid say from time to time about the technical feasibility of privatisation?

Sir Robert Reid, not I, should speak for himself on these matters. British Rail is co-operating fully with the work in hand and the board has taken no formal position on privatisation.

When considering privatisation, will my right hon. Friend take into account the need to make the railways more enterprising and more responsive to growth opportunities? I am thinking especially of the Earley power station site development in my constituency, where a nationalised industry appears to be reluctant to install a station that is much needed. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the ability to go for growth and for new passengers is written into the privatisation proposals?

I shall study what my hon. Friend has said. Most hon. Members, certainly Conservative Members, know that privatisation in a large number of areas has released the initiative and enterprise of many state industries, has provided growth opportunities and is heartily to be desired.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate the general trend in road casualty figures.

Casualties in road accidents reached a post-war peak of over 397,000 in 1965. Since then, the trend has generally been downwards. In 1987, the latest year for which full details are available, there were 311,500 casualties. During the same period, the trend for deaths in road accidents has also been downwards, falling from 7,950 in 1965 to 5,125 in 1987.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many families will be eternally grateful to him for his success in bringing down the number of road deaths, although, naturally, there is still some concern about road casualties? What action is my right hon. Friend taking in respect of the various organisations that have an interest in making representations on his response to the North report?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. My predecessors, my colleagues in the Department and the Department itself have done an immense amount of work on this important topic. In July 1987, I set the target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000. Traffic is increasing considerably. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the North report. Naturally, we shall carefully consider any representation that has been made to us. We have already received a large number, and we are considering them carefully. We have already been able to take some action about high risk offenders.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that one way of combating the road casualty figures is to make sure that motor vehicles are roadworthy. Would he care to comment on the European meeting of Ministers, at which a new tyre directive was devised, and tell us when it is proposed to be introduced?

I thought that my hon. Friend would be pleased about the new tyre directive. I read his powerful speech a few days before the European Council meeting. I am not sure whether I am in total agreement with him about the matter, but I think that he will be pleased about the new 1·6 mm tyre tread directive which will come into force in the middle of 1990. If I have that detail wrong, I will write to my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from British Rail about the need for a second Channel tunnel rail terminal at Waterloo in addition to that at King's Cross; and if he will make a statement.

British Rail has been planning for some years to locate its London terminal for Channel tunnel passenger trains at Waterloo and for it to be in operation by 1993. Powers for that were granted in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. It is now proposing to locate a second London international passenger station at King's Cross.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only reason for such a grandiose arrangement at Waterloo is to accommodate the passport and immigration controls and for the convenience of Customs clearance? Is it not time that the authorities brought their procedures into line with those on the continent, where Customs, passport and immigration controls are done on the train? There would then be no need to have such a grand, expensive development at Waterloo.

I do not think that my hon. Friend is entirely right in saying that that is the only reason. A large numberof passengers will use the services, and that is why British Rail is having to think about two termini to cope with more than 15 million passengers a year. The Customs clearance matters are not settled. They are still being discussed within the Government. I recognise the force of the argument that, for the convenience of customers, it is much the easiest thing to have the same sort of arrangement as we have at airports, whereby people would carry their suitcases through Customs and clear quickly after they have left their trains.

Have the Government not made a complete mess of the matter? Is it a fact that British Rail representatives told the Select Commitee that they did not need another terminal other than at Waterloo? We now need one at King's Cross and, apparently, a third one at Waterloo. Is it not time that the Government had a complete strategic survey of the matter to include other sites such as Stratford and show the country that they mean what they say about the planning and transport inquiries on which a question was answered earlier this afternoon?

I am rather confused by the hon. Gentleman's reference to a third terminal at Waterloo. My understanding is that there is to be a terminal at Waterloo. That is covered in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. The proposal is now for a second terminal at King's Cross. There is no proposal for a third terminal. It is for British Rail to demonstrate whether it should be at King's Cross or at Stratford. During the debates on the King's Cross Bill there will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and others to consider the important arguments that have been made in favour of King's Cross as against Stratford.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department is spending on drink-drive advertising in the current year.

About £2 million is being spent on new television commercials, air time, new publicity materials, and support for local road safety officer campaigns. That relatively small sum is multiplied many times by the coverage of the subject in the media, including thoughful television coverage, such as the recent BBC "Horizon" programme, and by reporting of drink-drive cases. The campaign is being heavily supported by material produced by the Brewers Society, by individual brewers and by the club movement.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a vast amount of public money? While I am sure that we would all agree that that is absolutely necessary, does he agree that it is hardly logical? Surely the media in their news bulletins should give as much attention to lives lost through drink-driving as they do to any rail or aeroplane disaster.

It is true that, if between 800 and 900 people lost their lives in the air, at sea or on the railways, the media would be concentrating all the time on why and how that happened. If I had had the courage I would have announced this morning that no public money was to be spent on advertising, because then every television programme and newspaper would have to be explaining why drink-driving is so dangerous. I have not such courage.

To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his oral reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North on 8 May, Official Report, column 553, what assessment he had made of the implications for the treatment of documents containing his advice to Ministers and others of the recently revised Cabinet Office guidance on Government information.

None.

As one who sat on this Bench and heard Jack Profumo make statements to the House, does the Attorney agree with Harold Macmillan that it is rather important to our system of government that Ministers do not tell lies to the House? In those circumstances, as a major Law Officer of the Crown, what did he think when he heard that Sir Leon Brittan had said that the most intimate advisers to the Prime Minister, Mr. Powell and Mr. Ingham, had absolutely abused his letter raising question on the Prime Minister's behaviour? Is the senior Law Officer entirely happy in that rather bad company?

As the question began with a premise that I most certainly do not accept, I have nothing that I can usefully add in response to it.

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

On 7 June. We discussed a variety of matters of Departmental interest.

Did the Minister discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions the inability of the law to deal with cases of incitement to racial violence and the likelihood of greater danger as a result of the Rushdie affair? Does he agree that the law is not capable of dealing adequately with such public order offences and that it should be strengthened? Are the Government considering such strengthening?

Policy is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but basically, no, I do not agree with the premise of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I do not believe that anything that he has put in his question has made it out.

Will my hon. and learned Friend please discuss with the DPP the implications of the case of Gooch, who was convicted at the Old Bailey of the manslaughter of his wife, my constituent, where the judge said that there was no justification for accepting the plea to manslaughter rather than the charge for which he was brought before the court, namely murder? In cases of that kind, would it not be better for the CPS to clear a reduction from the charge of murder with the trial judge privately beforehand and thus avoid giving the impression in court that the reduction in the charge had been done at the convenience of the CPS?

I shall certainly look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend. It may be useful to say that, against an open question, it would be helpful if my hon. Friend could either write a letter or put down a specific question.

Can the Solicitor-General help us on the question of prior publicity and prosecutions? Does he recall that in December the Attorney-General told the House, in the Father Ryan case, that juries have a "scrupulous disregard" of what they see and hear elsewhere and that the risk of publicity affecting their ability to try a case fairly does not exist? Can he say, first, whether those remarks and those of the Prime Minister applied only to the Ryan case or are they general? Secondly, can he say that there is no doctrine applied by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the effect that the prior publication of reports, such as the King's Cross report or a Department of Trade and Industry inspector's report, acts as a debarment to a subsequent prosecution? Thirdly, can he tell us why the consideration by the Director of DTI reports is taking so long?

It would be in rare cases that prior publication became a debarment to prosecution but one must look at each case on its merits. The House will have in mind particular cases in recent weeks, which would obviously have a very different effect from other cases that we have discussed.

To ask the Attorney-General whether he has any plans to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding City fraud; and if he will make a statement.

I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions for discussions frequently, and plan to continue to do so. Subjects include the handling of fraud cases, whether arising in the City or elewhere. Some cases of serious and complex fraud, however, are now handled by the serious fraud office.

I wonder whether the Attorney-General or the DPP have a quiet little chuckle to themselves when they meet and discuss things such as City fraud as opposed to laws affecting trade unions? Is it not rather odd that in our society people such as Peter Cameron-Webb and Peter Dixon—city fraudsters who got away with £40 million—are not extradited now that five years has elapsed and yet when workers go before the courts, the judges find the appropriate sentences in some old or new law book in order to hammer the railwaymen, the miners, the seafarers and now the dockers? Surely the truth of the matter is that in our society, run by the Tory Government, there is one law for the bosses and City crooks and one for the workers.

I am afraid that, yet again, the wish has been the father to the thought. The confusion in the question lies between the ability to extradite from the United States in which we are bound by⁁

You let them go.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question as well as making a long speech and I am giving him the credit of expecting an answer to it, which I am trying to give.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he and his fellow Law Officers take such offences extremely seriously? Will he also confirm that they are being dealt with as quickly as they can by the police, because that does not always appear to be the case?

I confirm each of those questions, but the police, of course, are outside my ministerial responsibility. I suggest that the attitude of this Government to serious fraud may be judged by the fact that we have invited Parliament to legislate to introduce the serious fraud office, with unique powers, which have led to cases bring brought to court months and sometimes years earlier than would otherwise have been possible. The House need not accept my word on that, but take the word of the Commissioner of Police for the City of London in his most recently published report, in which he paid great tribute to the serious fraud office at the end of its first year of operations.

To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy in respect of the prosecution of diplomats.

Individuals enjoying diplomatic immunity may not by law be prosecuted unless there is a waiver of that immunity on behalf of the diplomat's own state. Whether it is appropriate to seek such a waiver is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Is the Attorney-General aware of the scandal of unpaid parking fines that a number of embassies have been running up? Is it not about time that he asked his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to go for a waiver of diplomatic immunity against those individuals who are persistent offenders? If he cannot obtain a waiver, he should declare them persona non grata, because it is about time that some stern action was taken against those people.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is great public resentment about those who abuse diplomatic status in the way that he has described. Whether a waiver should be applied for has to be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary who, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, will be made aware of the hon. Gentleman's feelings.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish a paper outlining the rights of access to United Kingdom courts for individuals and companies which have fines imposed on them by the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. National courts have no power to review the legality of fines imposed by the European Commission. Individuals and companies who wish to test the legality of such fines, may institute proceedings against the Commission in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Could my hon. and learned Friend say whether, as one who believes in justice, he is worried that, under the mergers directive, the European Community can appoint inspectors who can walk into any British company that they think might be affected, obtain access to its premises, demand to see its papers, ask for information on the spot, and if they are not satisfied with the information, impose immediate fines of many tens of thousands of pounds, even per day? Is it not an outrage that, in a country which elieves in democracy and the rule of law, individuals can be fined massive sums, and their only recourse is to go to the European Court, which might actually increase the fines? Are not the Government willing to take seriously the fact that the basis of British law, that one should have access to the courts before fines are imposed, is totally undermined both by this directive and one other that preceded it?

I read my hon. Friend's speech in the recent debate and the answer given on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry. From a legal aspect, any such company has a right of recourse to the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg.—

Three years later.

Whether or not the fine is valid must be decided by the European Court of Justice, to which companies have access. However, the policy matters, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, were those raised in the debate and answered on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Nigeria.

My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to visit Nigeria for the next round of United Kingdom-Nigeria bilateral talks. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs my right hon. Friend for Wallasey (Mr. Chalker) will be visiting Nigeria from 25 to 27 June to open an oil and gas seminar.

In considering further our bilateral aid programme will my right hon. Friend consider giving priority to increasing the number of training places for Nigerians at United Kingdom educational institutions, including the Thames Valley college in my constituency, which has longstanding connections with Nigeria?

I know how distinguished a record the institution has in providing training for people from other countries. This year, in the United Kingdom, we shall be training about 480 students from Nigeria in one discipline or another, with the help of taxpayers' funds. We hope to increase that figure to 600, or more.

When the visit to Nigeria takes place, will the British position on current events in China be explained? Will the Minister explain to the Nigerian Government our deep concern over the way in which British citizens involved in the media are being roughed up and subjected to brutal treatment by security thugs in China?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he introduced that extremely important question on to the Floor of the House. Of course, we make clear our concern about those issues to everyone, and I am sure that the Nigerians are as concerned about them as others. Since I was in China last month, in Tiananmen square at the beginning of the demonstrations and hoped, like the rest of the House, for a different outcome, I very much share the concern of the hon. Gentleman.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are no elephants in Nigeria but that, if there were, he should tell the Nigerian Government that although this Government have taken dramatic and important steps to ban the import of ivory, they have left out one important thing: ivory can be stained by smoking, so the clause that forbids the import of all new ivory should be extended to cover the import of all ivory.

There are many places in which one would not find the elephant, including my hon. Friend's constituency. However, he raises a point of considerable importance. He was right to draw attention to the intitiative taken by my noble Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my noble Friend.

I hope that the House will agree that we should not go wide of the question. To do so is to the detriment of those who have questions lower down the Order Paper.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the annual meeting of the African development bank in Abuja.

I attended, as governor for the United Kingdom, the recent annual meetings of the African development bank and fund in Abuja, Nigeria. The meeting also marked the 25th anniversary of the bank's establishment. We reviewed the bank's policies and programmes and we affirmed the importance of using its resources effectively particularly in view of the difficult challenges facing many African countries. I was asked to give a keynote speech on behalf of the non-regional member countries.

Will my hon. Friend also confirm that, in addition to helping the bank to support structural development, he will try to persuade it to do more to protect the African environment?

I very much share my hon. Friend's point of view. In one of the two speeches I made at the bank's meeting I set out our concern about environmental issues. The threat posed to marginal land by population pressure and by environmental degradation is well understood. We know the impact of tropical deforestation. We have therefore launched a significant forestry initiative under the aegis of the tropical forestry action plan, and eight countries in Africa are participating in it.

Since there are some elephants left in east and central Africa, will the Minister, when he goes to the meeting, encourage the making of loans to the African countries which are doing their best to try to protect their remaining herds of elephants? What can the hon. Gentleman's Department do to support African countries which are taking a highly responsible attitude to the conservation of elephants?

As I said in reply to an earlier question on this subject, we are already providing funds in grant form to help other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, to strengthen their conservation departments, so that not only elephant but other wildlife can be preserved. In Kenya, we have a large programme which we are considering increasing, not least by the provision of capital equipment such as radios and trucks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the proportion of gross national product given in overseas aid in 1979 and in 1988 or the latest available year; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the proportion of gross national product given in overseas aid in 1979 and in 1988 or the latest available year.

The proportion of GNP given in net official development assistance in 1979 was 0·51 per cent. In 1988 it is provisionally estimated at 0·32 per cent.

Those are abysmal figures. At a time when the Government have been able to pay back more than £14 billion of Britain's national debt in the past financial year it would have made much more sense if the figures the Minister gave had been at last comparable to the United Nations 0·7 per cent of GNP. That, on top of giving aid to some of these countries to pay off their debts, would have been a much more worthwhile gesture from one of the most developed countries—ours—even though it is run by a Tory Government. Why does not the Minister make amends this time? The Chancellor will tell him that there will be another massive pay-off of the national debt this year. Why does not the Minister ask him for a large proportion of that—say £1 billion—to help Third world countries?

Last year the hon. Gentleman and others criticised me when I announced that our aid/GNP figure had fallen. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so reticent with his congratulations now that I have announced that it increased by 14 per cent. in 1988 over 1987. The House will know that, for me, the vital figure is the one for the total volume of our aid programme. I am pleased to say that that is increasing this year over the planned figure for last year by 12 per cent. in cash terms or 7 per cent. in real terms.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the principal problems for the ratio is the rapid growth in our GNP, and that the figure that developing countries are looking for is the absolute amount that has been put into their countries and on what it is being spent?

Of course my hon. Friend is right. This year we shall spend about £165 million more on our aid programme than was planned to be spent last year. If there were to be a Labour Government—perish the thought—I am sure that they would be able rapidly to increase the aid/GNP proportion because the growth rate would fall like a stone.

If the Minister is looking for some sort of praise, I shall say to him that I am glad that pressure from the Opposition and from the aid lobby in particular has enabled him to make the announcement of the small increase in the amount of GNP devoted to aid. However, it is extremely small and he is well aware that the figure is well below the average for members of the European Community, for which the last figure given was .50 per cent. of GNP. Does he not agree that it is deplorable that not only are we well below standards in the EEC on the provision of clean water, and on consumer protection and employment protection rights, but we are below standard on the provision of aid to the Third world? When will he come to the House and announce a timetable for reaching the UN target of 0·7 per cent.?

I thank the hon. Lady for what I take to have been a bouquet in the earlier part of the question. I am not sure whether the latter part of her question will have ignited the European election campaign to the fever pitch that we all expect by Thursday. Once again I say to the hon. Lady that the figure that I announced for our aid/GNP proportion represents a 14 per cent. increase in 1988 over 1987. It is not without significance that our aid programme this year is 7 per cent. higher in real terms and 12 per cent. higher in cash terms than last year.