To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet representatives of local authorities and others regarding midland line electrification; and if he will make a statement.

I am meeting representatives of Northamptonshire county council shortly to discuss the report which the local authorities have commissioned on electrification of the midland main line. It is for British Rail to consider whether there is a commercial case for electrification, and I hope that the local authorities will discuss their plans with British Rail.

Is the Minister aware that nearly every local authority in the east midlands—Labour and Tory—agrees with the midland line electrification programme? They have been demanding it for years—for the whole time that the Government have been in power. They cannot understand why, when more passengers are using the line, it has occasionally been under threat and why the Government cannot provide the local authorities with a morale boost by giving money to British Rail to get the job done. Why are the Government so concerned about roads? Is it because the road lobby companies line the pockets of the Tory party?

I am well aware that there is considerable support among the local authorities affected by the midland line electrification. The Government welcome sensible electrification proposals on both this line and others.

Give them the money then.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would not be sensible for the Government to spend taxpayers' money unless there were a sound commercial case for electrification. There are two facts that I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the local authorities will bear in mind. First, the rolling stock on the line has another 10 years of useful life. I am sure that, when the rolling stock has to be replaced, British Rail will look carefully at the future of the line. Secondly, straightening the line to increase the average speed of trains could be more productive than electrification.

When my hon. Friend meets his local authority colleagues in Northamptonshire, will he also consider the freight operations on the midland line? Many of us are anxious that the channel tunnel should help all areas in the midlands and the north. Therefore, it is essential to have freight depots in the right place. I know that that is very much a matter for the Minister. I hope that he will consider it in the near future.

British Rail will shortly be deciding where to locate the terminals for collecting freight for onward shipment through the channel tunnel. It is to announce the location of the terminals during the next six months. Before the end of the year its plans will be fully unfurled. Electrification of the line is not relevant to freight services through the channel tunnel. Freight can and will be collected at various terminals and, if necessary, assembled for forwarding on through-trains in London. However, I understand the significance of freight to the railway industry so that it can capitalise on the channel tunnel.

Is the Minister aware that York is 50 miles north of Sheffield and that trains get there faster from London and that Leeds is 35 miles north of Sheffield and that trains from London get there in the same journey time? How on earth does he expect business men to invest in coalfields and steelworks areas and in places of high unemployment in the north midlands when it takes an hour to travel 35 miles to Manchester because there is no InterCity service? Railway connections throughout the area are backward and should have been updated many years ago.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the electrification of the east coast main line, and that is an excellent service. British Rail has plans, yet to be submitted to the Government, for improving speeds on the west coast main line. We welcome those forward-looking plans. As for the midland main line, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Electrification will not significantly increase running speeds. Widening bridges and straightening the curves on the midland main line would do more than electrification for average speeds.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the new Dartford-Thurrock crossing will be opened.

Construction of the new Dartford to Thurrock bridge is progressing well. The main pier pylons were erected at the end of last month. The project is on target for completion by summer 1991.

My constituents and those in north-west Kent will warmly welcome the prospects of the speeding up of the crossing by the M25 of the River Thames and of getting rid of the immense traffic congestion that we suffer in that part of the world. But can my right hon. Friend assure us that the infrastructure of roads feeding up to the bridge will be up to the job?

Yes. Part of the plan is to turn the approach roads to the tunnel and the bridge into dualled four-lane roads, so there will be four lanes going north and four travelling south.

For the benefit of hon. Members who represent constituences on each side of the bridge, and given the critical importance of the crossing not just for personal use but for international freight, can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the contractors would be subject to financial penalties were they to finish late?

The big incentive that the contractors have is that their concession runs for only 20 years, and if they are late in completing the project, they will be late in starting to collect the revenue. That means that they have a real financial incentive to complete the bridge on time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to dual the A69 west of Hexham; and if he will make a statement.

There are no plans to dual the A69 west of Hexham. The Brampton bypass, now under construction in Cumbria, is to be a single carriageway. This will also be the case for the improvement at Haltwhistle in Northumberland.

Will my right hon. Friend note that everybody in the north-east is extremely grateful for his decision to upgrade the A1 to a motorway as far as Newcastle, but that that means that in future years the A69 will fall between two major motorways—the new A1 and the M6—which will increase flows on that road? In the light of the excellent news that my right hon. Friend announced last week, may I ask him to give us some more good news as soon as possible?

Yes. We will monitor developments on the A69 after the A1 to Newcastle has been turned into a motorway, but, as my hon. Friend knows, traffic flows west of Hexham are very light indeed by comparison with those east of Hexham. That is why the road is dualled as far as Hexham but not beyond. Nevertheless, we shall look at the matter very carefully.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take fresh initiatives to reduce the lateral spray caused by heavy goods vehicles on motorways in adverse weather conditions.

Since 1985, all United Kingdom heavy goods vehicles have been required to have anti-spray devices fitted. These are the most stringent requirements in Europe and we are keen to see the rest of Europe come up to our standard.

I thank the Minister for that reply and I share his wish that the requirements should be stringent. But has he had the experience that I have had when driving up the M4? Has he found that there is a massive variation in the amount of spray produced by different heavy goods vehicles, some of which produce little lateral spray while others produce an enormous and dangerous amount? Does not that suggest that we need greater controls—either through regulations or through their enforcement—to minimise the considerable danger to motorists that is caused when their vision is obscured in this way?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether he was referring to different amounts of spray being produced on the same sort of day, as the amount of spray can depend on the wind. I often drive up the M1 and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I suffer from exactly the same experience. That is why the Government are keen to see our requirements matched by the rest of Europe and why we are pursuing the matter with urgency.

Is not most of the lateral spray caused by buses, and is not it time that we prevented buses from travelling in the fast lane of motorways?

I do not know the exact answer to that, although my experience is that given the right conditions, lorries and buses both cause tremendous amounts of spray. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that we are keen to ensure that all vehicles are fitted with anti-spray devices as quickly as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to improve road safety for children.

A wide range of measures to improve road safety have been taken under the umbrella of our "Safety on the Move" campaign. Britain has a good record on road safety. An area of great concern is that of child safety, especially child pedestrians, where there is particular scope for improvement. A sustained programme of measures on child safety was launched in May, including proposals to enable local authorities to make residential streets safer. We will be launching a further phase of that campaign concentrating on child pedestrian safety shortly.

Are not my hon. Friend and his Department to be congratulated on the recent initiative, particularly in view of its co-ordinating measures? In pursuing that, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the great importance of using parent-teacher associations in schools to promote road safety? They marry the interests of parents in looking after children and the interests of schools. Those are the two principal ways of promoting road safety for children and those avenues have been well explored and used in my constituency. Parent-teacher associations can make a most important contribution. Will my hon. Friend ensure that they are included as the programme evolves?

In any campaign of this kind, we must do as much as we can to draw to the attention of PTAs, parents and everyone involved in supervising children the importance of ensuring that children are fully aware of the dangers that they can face on our roads. Those accidents can be prevented and I know that all hon. Members would want to see as much as possible done on that subject.

Is the Minister aware that although "Children crossing" signs are much in evidence, in many such areas local authorities still allow 40 mph speed limits? Will he recommend to local authorities that that limit should be reduced to 30 mph?

A number of initiatives that were outlined earlier will do much to meet the hon. Gentleman's requirement. However, perhaps too much emphasis is placed on the reduction of speed to wipe out those accidents. A number of factors lead to those accidents and we must ensure that people are more aware of the dangers on our roads. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

Is my hon. Friend aware that children have been among the victims of drunken driving? Is he aware also that recent press reports have suggested that he is considering whether different levels of alcohol in the blood should be considered, depending on the age of the driver? That would be a very bad thing to introduce because it would give the impression that drunken driving at one age is more or less dangerous than drunken driving at another. Clearly the same level of alcohol should be considered whatever the age of the driver.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments and he referred to ideas that are out for consultation at the moment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, drinking and driving accounts for 900 deaths a year on our roads. It is the biggest single cause of road accidents and anything that can be done to make people more aware of the danger in which they put others when they drink and drive can only be helpful.

Does the Minister agree that many of his proposals place an onus on local authorities to take more action? Bearing in mind that many of those initiatives, which are admirable in their way, will cost a great deal of money, the present restrictions on local authorities mean that unless more money is made available, the carnage and injury to our children will continue. It is important that when highlighting, quite rightly, what is happening with children and road safety—and the report is clear about that—money is made available to the local authorities. At the moment they are under such severe restrictions that many of them are saying that they cannot implement many of the recommendations.

It is perhaps not surprising that the Labour party has brought into play the question of money for local authorities. Those of us with extreme local authorities could point to several ways in which they could make savings and divert their money to areas where it could be used better and more effectively. It is not just the local authorities which should take the lead in this matter; parents and all those involved in educating children should also play a part. I totally and absolutely reject the idea that local authorities are short of money for that vital provision. However, it is not surprising to hear that claim from the Opposition.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss plans for denationalisation.

My right hon. Friend will discuss privatisation, when appropriate at his regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he appreciate the frustration in great railway cities such as York which have seen the denationalisation of Sealink, Travellers Fare on-station catering, and British Rail Engineering Ltd., but not of the core business of British Rail? Would not it be more productive and better for those who actually use rail services if he were to call for denationalisation plans? That could be an opportunity for those who work in that great industry to have a share in its success, which my hon. Friend is frustrating at present.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to achieve a better deal for the consumer—the passenger on British Rail. Therefore, the recent reorganisation plans that were announced by British Rail and which are based on the business sectors of British Rail—freight, international, InterCity, provincial and Network SouthEast—are to be welcomed because they focus management's effort and attention on improving the service that is available to consumers. That reorganisation is not inconsistent with privatisation, but that is not a matter for this Parliament.

Will the Minister explain to his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) that the chairman of British Rail recently gave evidence to the Select Committee on Transport that, although the financial targets that had been set by the Government were being met, there was no question of the quality of service being met? That has a great deal more to do with the comfort of passengers than all the nonsense that is talked about trying to sell off an unprofitable business.

There is no prospect in this Parliament of any proposals for denationalising British railways. I was not present to hear the evidence that was given by Sir Bob Reid, but I assure the hon. Lady that the financial target that was set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and the quality targets are achievable by British Rail. I shall shortly be having a meeting with the chairman of British Rail and the chairman of London Regional Transport to monitor what progress has been made on those quality objectives and to work with those two undertakings to make sure that they are achieved.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that if Japan, America, France and Germany find a need to subsidise railways as a public service, it cannot be a sound policy to keep on pushing up InterCity and commuter fares in the vain hope of selling off something which, if it is to be profitable, will leave us with three private lines? Will the Minister accept that railways are a necessary part of the infrastructure of this country and that spending £600 million on the A1 is not as important as spending £600 million on railways?

My hon. Friend will be delighted to learn that, over the next three years, road investment in this country, paid for by the taxpayer, will be about £6 billion and investment in rail schemes by British Rail and London Regional Transport will also be £6 billion. A significant proportion of that railway investment will be paid by the public sector, either in subsidy for Network SouthEast or provincial railways, or by borrowing from the national loans fund. We have the proportion of investment in roads and railways right. If my hon. Friend looks at the experience of Germany and France, he will see that there are pressures there to reduce the losses and the subsidies that they are suffering and that they wish to emulate British Rail and the experience of this public sector.

Are the Minister and the Secretary of State aware of the conclusion of two recent reports by the European Commission and the chartered accountants' institute that British Rail is seriously disadvantaged in being prevented from raising private capital to finance a high-speed rail link, as in France and Germany, simply because of Treasury rules and the financial targets that have been imposed on British Rail by all Governments? Will he press for changes so that a publicly owned British Rail can raise private capital on its own to finance a new high-speed rail link this century rather than next century?

I must first correct the hon. Gentleman—the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales did not produce that report. The body that produced the report is not part of the institute—I happen to know that because I belong to it. The Hundred Group of chartered accountants is not part of the profession.

Did the Minister read the report?

Yes, I did. I not only participated in the production of the 1981 report, but carefully read the 1989 update.

I understand that there is an agreement to take question No. 9 at the end. We therefore move to question No. 10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons were directly assisted in 1989–90 by Her Majesty's Coastguard's civil maritime search and rescue service.

Provisional figures for 1989 show that from 6,837 incidents co-ordinated by the coastguards, more than 11,500 persons were assisted by a combination of Coastguard helicopters, vehicles and rescue equipment; Ministry of Defence helicopters, Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats and other vessels.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Solent is the busiest coastal area in the United Kingdom? Will he add his tribute to mine to the coastguards for their excellent work in looking after our seafarers—both professional and amateur—365 days a year, and especially during the round the island race, which is probably the world's largest yacht race? Will he confirm that there will be no reduction in the provision of military search and rescue helicopters following the defence debate? Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the comments of the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties which condemned the manpower levels of the Coastguard service, when this Government have provided so much investment in new equipment and technology to ensure that our coastguards are the best in the world?

My hon. Friend is correct that the Solent is the busiest part of our coast. There were 851 incidents in that area in 1989, in which more than 1,600 persons were assisted. That was an increase of 18 per cent. over the previous year. There are carefully laid down criteria for the helicopter cover that is required along our coastline. No reduction in that will be contemplated and any necessary changes will be made. My hon. Friend is also right to note that although the Opposition constantly tell us about all the cuts, we have, in fact, increased expenditure on the Coastguard service substantially. Compared with the 1983 figure, expenditure has now doubled to £28 million. The coastguards provide an excellent service. As we are approaching the time when most people take their holidays, it is perhaps worth reminding everyone that it is up to each person to take the proper precautions when at the coast.

All of us who represent maritime constitutencies very much appreciate the work of the Coastguard service. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there will be adequate night cover, following the removal of helicopters from night duty at Leuchars and Fife, which are so important for air-sea rescue searches?

As I said earlier, we are satisfied that there is sufficient helicopter cover around our coastline. However, I shall certainly investigate the specific case that the hon. Lady has raised and write to her about it.

I commend the fantastic work carried out by the coastguards around our coastal waters, but will my hon. Friend confirm that there is still much room for improvement in the general public's understanding of the different sectors that offer search and rescue facilities? We have a tripartite organisational problem with the RNLI, the coastguards and other organisations that provide search and rescue cover. Will my hon. Friend assure me that once the new committee that he has endorsed—a local advisory body to help with the north Devon coastline—has proved its worth, he will replicate it throughout the United Kingdom so that all our coastlines will have a local group that can question and learn from local search and rescue services?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She rightly refers to an idea that she sponsored and which has been taken on board. I shall look closely at the results arrived at by the consultation body. If I find that the idea is worth while I shall consider expanding it to the rest of the United Kingdom.

In the light of the figures that the Minister has given and the Prime Minister's recent high-profile excursion in a lifeboat, will the Minister tell the House just how many Coastguard stations he has closed? Is not he worried about the closure of the Hartland Coastguard station? Can he confirm that the bridging loans made available to members of staff who were relocated totalled about £200,000, and that for that sum it would have been possible to keep that important Coastguard station open?

The number of incidents in the area round the Hartland Coastguard station has declined since the station was closed. I stand by the fact that we have doubled expenditure on the Coastguard service from £14 million in 1983 to approximately £28 million and that the service is currently involved in a four-year programme to modernise its communications and provide computerised data handling equipment. If the Opposition believe that a Coastguard service can be maintained without giving it proper equipment with which to operate, the Government do not agree. The Government propose to give coastguards the right, modern, effective communications equipment that they need to carry out their jobs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total investment in the electrification of the Leeds-London inter-city service.

British Rail puts the total expenditure on electrification of the Leeds-London inter-city service at £164.4 million at 1989–90 prices.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great success of electrification in improving customer service? Will he give sympathetic consideration this October to the application by the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive to invest its own resources in electrifying the Leeds-Bradford railway, as well as the Airedale and Wharfedale lines, especially as the investment will produce a positive return above the 8 per cent. criterion required for such schemes?

I am aware that my hon. Friend is a strong supporter of that proposal, along with several other hon. Members on both sides of the House. I intend to visit the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive and authority in September. We shall give the matter careful consideration. I am glad to note that today British Rail has added an option clause to its agreement for the purchase of rolling stock for the Birmingham cross-city service. That will safeguard about 14 trains by under-option for possible use on the extra electrified line.

As the Minister's predecessor, in a meeting earlier this year, gave every impression of being extremely sympathetic to electrification of the Bradford-Leeds line, and as there are no doubts about its economic viability, will the Minister pull his finger out and approve the loan to the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority so that it can get on with the work? All sections of the community in Bradford have been pressing for the work to be done for the past six years.

The hon. Gentleman's language is colourful, but I understand the strength of his feeling. He will recall that my predecessor said that a decision would be made once the autumn statement settlement had been announced. I also give him that assurance. I am well aware that the West Yorkshire PTE is seeking only credit approval, not section 56 grant. The scheme appears to be viable, so I give the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members the assurance that the proposal will be considered at the appropriate time when we have the new public expenditure survey settlement.

As my hon. Friend was criticised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) for investing too much in the A1, a much-needed transport link for the north and north-east, instead of investing in the railways, does my hon. Friend agree that the electrification of the east coast main line and the electrification scheme for the Leeds-Bradford line are two of 10 major schemes which amount to the largest-ever investment in British Rail?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that over the next three years British Rail investment will be 75 per cent. up in real terms on that for the past three years. London Regional Transport investment will be about double in real terms. There is a substantial increase in investment which is significantly financed by the public sector through grants and borrowings.

Will the Minister explain slowly, for the benefit of his more stupid and innumerate Back Benchers, that the £164 million for the electrification of the London-Leeds railway line is paid for almost exclusively by farepayers in almost the highest rail fares in Europe, while the £600 million for the upgrading of the A1 trunk road is paid for exclusively by taxpayers? As a colourful accountant, can the Minister explain that discrepancy in the Government's transport policy?

Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures. The £3.7 billion investment in British Rail over the next three years is financed in four ways: £0.2 billion comes from its cash flow, before depreciation; £1.6 billion comes from grants, not only from central Government, but from passenger transport executives—

You bet.

The hon. Gentleman says, "You bet", but only about £200 million of that £1.6 billion comes from local authorities. One billion pounds comes from loans and £0.9 billion comes from the sale of assets which belong to the taxpayer. I repeat that the vast majority of British Rail investment, which is the largest for 25 years and represents a 75 per cent. increase in real terms, comes from the public sector.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to review the criteria for the registration of fishing vessels.

We will review the criteria for the registration of fishing vessels should it become necessary when the outcome is known of the litigation covering part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 before the European Court of Justice.

I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the great concern among Cornish fishermen in particular, following the recent United Kingdom cheating on quota and, more specifically, the problems with the Spanish vessels. May I hope that the Government will resist any review and fight on behalf of those fishermen to protect the quota system? After all, it makes no sense to have a national quota system if quota-hopping is allowed.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the European Court of Justice decided that our courts could issue interim injunctions suspending an Act of Parliament. It did not decide that the courts had to do so. Therefore, the Government will argue before our courts that, although they have the discretion, they should not use it and we shall argue strongly the major case that our registration arrangements should be allowed under European law. We shall fight both cases hard.

Although I congratulate the Government on the way in which they are fighting these cases, both the short-term one in the House of Lords and the long-term one in the European Court of Justice, does my right hon. Friend accept that 31 of those former Spanish vessels are back on our register through what is widely regarded as a loophole in the present registration procedure—they appear to be financed through loans or mortgages from Spain? Will he look at that problem and give an assurance that the Government will do everything in their power to deal once and for all with the scourge of quota-hopping?

As my hon. Friend knows, originally more than 85 vessels applied for registration. Several have been registered, although I do not think that it is as many as 31. My figure is 26. Nevertheless, I shall look at the matter again. We are examining each case carefully and we are determined that only properly owned vessels should be allowed to appear on our register.

I see that the Attorney-General is on the Front Bench. After the hearing that is taking place now in another place, may we have a statement from him about the judgment because it is of major interest both constitutionally and to our fishermen? Might one of the implications of the judgment be the end of national quotas and the allocation of quotas being determined in Brussels by European Commission officials?

We should look only at the two issues. The issue before the House of Lords is the narrow one of whether it wishes to use a power that the European Court of Justice says it has. The major case about our registration requirements has still to be heard and I understand that there will be no decision on that until the end of the year. The hearing in the House of Lords is about a technical matter, an interim measure, and I am advised that the full hearing will not take place until the end of the year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to publish the preliminary studies being undertaken by his Department into the feasibility of introducing electronic road pricing in parts of the United Kingdom.

My Department is not currently undertaking such studies. We are, however, continuing to keep a close watch on the use of road pricing in other countries and on the development of the relevant technology.

As the cost to business of road congestion in and around London is about £15 billion a year, at the risk of being skinned alive by my constituents in Esher, may I ask the Secretary of State seriously to consider throwing a road-pricing ring round the old Greater London council boundary? We must overcome the problem of congestion in our capital city, and some of us must make the sacrifice. Technology appears to work in other countries, and it is worth bringing it in here.

I should be glad to hear from my hon. Friend in which countries the technology works. As far as I know, Singapore is the only one. There are toll booths in Norway, but they are designed not for road pricing, but for revenue raising. They are not intended to discourage people from using roads. In recent weeks the Dutch, who had been leading the way, abandoned their experiment and the Swedes have voted—if I may coin a phrase—not to go down that road. Road pricing, although intellectually attractive, is incredibly complicated to implement, would be unfair and is not a readily available option.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case with (a) Lord Lane and (b) Lord Donaldson.

Any discussion which I might have with the judiciary as a Law Officer would be confidential and not disclosed.

Is the Attorney-General aware that for some time a number of senior judges have been going round quietly saying that the Guildford Four and the Maguire family had their convictions quashed only on a technicality and were guilty all along? Does he agree that that brings the judicial process further into disrepute? It is about time that we had a resignation or two so that those gentleman can say out loud what they can say at the moment only in the privacy of their clubs.

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no, Sir. The remainder of the question does not arise.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that nothing could be more deplorable than for the Crown's principal Law Officer to go round discussing with judges cases that may appear before the courts again? Is not it essential that there should be proper separation between the judicial and Executive functions, even those that exist for my right hon. and learned Friend? Will he ensure that he never speaks about any live case to any judge in his official capacity?

No, Sir. My responsibilities for controlling the administration of sectors of the criminal and civil law would, on occasion, make discussion with the judiciary appropriate.

Would not it be wrong for the Attorney-General to discuss matters of this controversial nature with the judges? Is not the right way to go about it—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has views on it—to make a submission to the May inquiry, because it is equally clear that unless Ludovic Kennedy or my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) writes a book, the BBC makes a programme, and a police force holds an inquiry, some miscarriages of justice will not be put right? Is not it time the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave evidence to the inquiry?

No, Sir, I set up the inquiry with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I await Sir John May's report of the first phase with great interest. He has promised it as soon as possible.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for one lawyer to represent clients in criminal cases on legal aid.

On 19 June Standing Committee D, with Government support, added a new clause to the Courts and Legal Services Bill under which the Lord Chancellor would be unable to say that a defendant in criminal proceedings should have only one lawyer to represent him. The Government hope to be able to extend this provision to include cases in the High Court and the Court of Appeal when the House considers the Bill on Report.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the concern that has been expressed by the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Consumers Association about this provision. I hope that he will influence the Committee to ensure that the public have a proper choice and that enough lawyers are available to represent defendants in court cases.

The Government have made it clear that there is no intention to use the power to fix fees under the legal aid scheme to require that any litigant shall be represented by only one legal representative. That will become clear when we reach Report stage.

Why is not the Attorney-General saying that this is a case of restrictive practices and overmanning and that the Government will weed out those elements? Instead, he says exactly the opposite. If it had been a trade union, the boot would have been on the other foot.

I shall not discuss with the hon. Gentleman where he puts his boot—[ Interruption.] It is generally in his mouth. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to his feet if one of his trade union members had not been permitted the legal representative of his choice because the Lord Chancellor of the day had decided—[Interruption.] Just for once, will the hon. Gentleman listen to an answer so that others can hear it? Let us suppose that one of his trade union members had been denied the representative of his choice because the Lord Chancellor of the time—perhaps even a Conservative one—had decreed that he should have only one. I wonder what he would say then.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is nearly always necessary for there to be someone arranging for witnesses and trying to organise the times when they can come, and someone taking a note of the evidence? The Opposition would be the first to complain if they were involved in any sort of criminal trial that had to be delayed day after day merely because there was no one there to help the barrister on his feet.

I thought that I had expressed the same thought, perhaps rather less amply.

To ask the Attorney-General when the application for legal aid by Mr. McCready, of 5 Botsham house, Newcomen street, London SE1 will be dealt with.

A number of regrettable errors in the handling of Mr. McCready's application for legal aid delayed considerably the issue of a certificate. But I am pleased to say that an unlimited legal aid certificate was issued on 28 June.

Does the Attorney-General agree that justice delayed is justice denied? Is the delay in this case—a delay, as he well knows, of more than a year—typical of the legal aid administration? Is he aware that solicitors are fed up with the delay and that many people just cannot get an answer? It is only because I have written to the Lord Chancellor about this case that there appears to be any movement at all.

No, it is regrettable but it is certainly not typical. The Legal Aid Board has already increased from 50 to 63 per cent. the number of legal aid applications that are processed within six weeks of receipt, and it has set itself tough targets for the immediate future.

To ask the Attorney-General how many and what percentage of Government documents are lost each year (a) unaccountably, (b) as a result of fire or water damage, or (c) otherwise; and if he will make a statement.

No information is held centrally about this. To comply with their duties under the Public Records Act 1958, Departments are obliged to ensure that their documentary records are properly preserved.

Does the Attorney-General agree that the majority of documents which disappear, shall we say, do so because of Government secrecy? For example, does he know that only 5 per cent. of Department of Trade and Industry documents reach his office and that 90 per cent. are destroyed?

No. What the hon. Gentleman describes as the Government's policy of secrecy certainly does not lead to the loss of any documents. By framing his question in that way the hon. Gentleman has proceeded, by fire and water, to a rather expensive platform for denying justice to a Government who have so notably liberalised the Official Secrets Act, for example.

While on the subject of documents going astray, will the Attorney-General look into the question of the documents that appear to be going astray at the headquarters of the National Union of Mineworkers? It has been reported that there will be a private investigation at the NUM before the police are called in. As that did not apply to Guinness or Barlow Clowes why is it applying at the NUM?

I have no responsibility for what is taking place or what has taken place at the National Union of Mineworkers. I certainly do not wish to emulate its representative in the House, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), by straying into areas that are outside my responsibility.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his policy on the establishment of an independent Supreme Court of Appeal.

My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to change the present structure of the appellate courts.

The Attorney-General will be aware, as are most hon. Members, that the people who are in prison for the Birmingham bombings are probably or very likely innocent. He is in an embarrassing position because he does not know how to get those people out of gaol. Would not it be better to have a totally independent and further Court of Appeal, so that the incarceration of innocent people could be dealt with without giving rise to the embarrassment which the Government obviously feel at keeping those people in prison?

Without making any comment on the assertions with which the hon. Gentleman began his question, I must observe that any change of the sort that he envisages is a matter for the Lord Chancellor or, conceivably, for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but not for me. Any judicial process depends upon the evidential material that is presented to it and upon the limits of its jurisdiction. The remit of Sir John May's inquiry is broad enough to consider whether it is desirable to change the way in which our courts deal with what are treated as appeals on referral from the Home Secretary. That is as far as I can take the matter at the moment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to send aid to Peru in respect of the recent earthquake and drought.

Following an appeal from the United Nations Secretary-General last month, we are making a bilateral contribution of $250,000 for immediate relief, channelled through the United Nations Disaster Relief Office which is co-ordinating donors' responses. This is on top of 0.120 million ecu, or £86,000, emergency assistance for earthquake victims, and 5.88 million ecu, or £4.2 million, of emergency food aid being provided from the European Community programme.

Will the Minister confirm reports that about 3.5 million of the poorest farmers in that part of the world have lost their crops as a result of this catastrophe? What are her Department's long-term plans for assisting such farmers, especially in preparation for next year's crop and thereafter?

I cannot yet confirm the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave, but obviously we wait anxiously for news of what is going on. I think that he realises that Peru is a middle-income country and therefore has not figured largely in our aid programme, although we give help through technical co-operation and do much in terms of training, some of it in agriculture. When we know the position better, I can examine it again.

What difficulties are being encountered in getting our emergency aid through to the areas that have suffered from the earthquakes, especially bearing in mind the difficulties of the newly elected Government of Peru in exercising their democratic mandate in those areas, owing to the activity of the Maoist terrorists of Sendero Luminoso?

We are well aware of the difficulties that Sendero Luminoso and other terrorists make for the Government in that country. I am not aware of specific difficulties in getting the aid through, but the new Government—under president-elect Fujimori—have a great deal to do, including sorting out a debt of $1.5 billion: those are substantial arrears.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have now been made available by his Department to help combat the spread of AIDS in developing countries.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 18 June, which noted a number of financial commitments totalling £29.39 million. Since then a further £250,000 has been committed to support another national programme.

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of reading an article in The Sunday Times of 1 July which outlined the effect of AIDS on African leaders, and the need to combat AIDS where there are such cultural traditions among the poor as farmers exchanging their wives and daughters for fertiliser? As the AIDS epidemic has such a serious effect on the tiny percentage of African leaders who have had a formal education, and now that aid agencies throughout the world are turning their attention to the eastern bloc countries, what can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that Africa avoids that double jeopardy?

I have seen the article to which my hon. Friend referred. However willing we are—and we are very willing—to do more to try to curb the HIV epidemic, we can do nothing without the commitment of Heads of Government and people at every level of life in those countries. A much wider use of condoms is necessary everywhere. In countries that already have high levels of HIV, the spread is bound to be far greater than any that we may have anticipated some years ago. It is no good simply asking for fidelity; we must persuade people to take effective practical action.

What requests has the Minister received from African countries for resources to combat the spead of AIDS? Does she accept that the amount of money that she spoke about is minuscule, given the plague-like proportion of the spread of AIDS, especially in east Africa?

We are already helping Botswana, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zaire and Zimbabwe, and we are delighted to note the positive contribution being made in Zimbabwe by Dr. Stamp, the new Minister of Health, in increasing public awareness and action. It is not simply a question of money, although we have greatly increased the amounts that we are spending, and will continue to do so. We are also working with advisers in those countries to ensure that they get their programmes right and that their publicity is fearless in putting over to everyone just what a problem this is. It is not the supply of condoms that is a problem; it is getting people to use them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some figures show that 45 per cent. of the adult population in cities and towns is sub-Saharan Africa have AIDS? If that is the case, what discussions has she had with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary concerning health screening for people who come to Britain from those countries?

My responsibilities are not only to try to help to prevent the spread of AIDS but to educate, through our overseas aid programmes. The unique TASO project has started in Uganda—The Aids Support Organisation project—which is counselling people. That is the way forward. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is supporting action taken by my Department in those countries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of his inquiries about the effect of the changes in the natural history museum on research work of importance to his Department.

I believe that the changes at the natural history museum should have no serious impact on the ODA's programmes, including our research work. The ODA's natural resources institute, which has close links with the museum and will continue to need its collaboration, will be keeping this matter under review. So will I.

After her welcome visit in September, when she will see some of the 25.5 million specimens in spirits, some collected by Captain Cook, will the right hon. Lady require of the museum that it makes no changes in curatorial arrangements, in the light of the many letters from throughout the world from experts concerned with global changes in climate and other such matters?

I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see that nothing irrevocable is done. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts and I between us will approach any changes that take place in the natural history museum in that spirit. It is important that the museum concentrates its efforts on the six scientific programmes that I shall be visiting in September. I was glad to talk to the associate director, Mr. Peake, abou this and about what it is aiming to do. As the museum accepts, it cannot do everything at all times. Therefore, we must get its research efforts concentrated on these vital issues.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the overseas aid programme provides support for adult education for women in developing countries.

Yes, we provide such support in a variety of ways: as component parts of ODA projects, through in-country training and training on courses in British institutions, through distance learning, and in joint ventures with non-governmental organisations and in our contribution to the United Nations development fund for women, UNIFEM.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in too many parts of the world, opportunities for women are fewer because of their inadequate education? Therefore, the reason for adult education of women is that much stronger. Has the world conference on education for all, held in Thailand earlier this year, led to any advances, and can we support such projects?

The education for all conference in Thailand was valuable because it called on Governments to give a higher priority to basic education. That should enable us, and other donor Governments, to support adult literacy for women to a greater extent. We have to consider overseas Government priorities because without their support, we cannot proceed, and it is hard to persuade them to give full education to women in their teens, so that we do not have to catch up with adult education, which will be needed for the next 20 years.

Will the Minister give us the number and percentage of women participating in ODA training programmes in developing countries? Is she ready to encourage those Governments who are reluctant to nominate women to support a quota system so that 20 to 30 per cent. of awards from the ODA are allocated to women?

Like the hon. Lady, I want a higher proportion of women to come forward, and that is why I have been encouraging overseas Governments to nominate more women. Some 20 per cent. of the nominations for awards go to women, which is an improvement, and the number of women receiving training under the technical co-operation training programme is improving all the time.