To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much central Government are making available to councils for the building of bypasses; and what is the comparable figure for the last three years.

The transport supplementary grant settlement announced on 17 December will make £207 million available to local authorities in 1991–92 for the building of bypasses. The equivalent figures for the past three years were £139 million, £157 million and £202 million respectively.

Since this is the first Question Time of 1991, I hope that it is in order to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and your staff a happy new year, in which I catch your eye many times.

I am well aware of the strong efforts that my hon. Friend has made to bring forward the date of that bypass. As he will appreciate, it is very much a matter for Nottinghamshire county council to decide whether to include that project in its programme. If it decides to do so, the project would be considered for TSG support at the appropriate time.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend on behalf of my constituents in Suffolk, as their grant this year is being more than doubled, which will be greatly appreciated. I also hope that the extra money will speed up the arrival of a bypass that is much needed in the villages of Rickinghall and Botesdale, where villagers have waited many a long year for such a bypass to be built. I appreciate that this is a matter for the county council, but the villagers hope, as I do, that the bypass will soon be built.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I attach considerable importance to bypasses, which not only help the flow of traffic, but bring major environmental benefits to those who live in the towns and villages that are bypassed. The contribution of bypasses is increasingly important, given the pressures placed on local communities by the huge increase in the volume of traffic in recent years.

Will the announcement include bypasses in the county of Derbyshire such as that at Glapwell in my constituency? Is it not a fact that money has not been allocated to Derbyshire because the standard spending assessment there is too low compared with those of Wandsworth and Westminster and if Derbyshire county council had as much money it could have gone forward with bypasses at Glapwell and other places in the county? Will the Secretary of State have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that we receive the money next year?

If the hon. Gentleman had a word with his local authority it might reduce its spending to benefit community charge payers in the constituency. The transport supplementary grant settlement will enable many worthwhile projects around the country to go forward in a way that would not otherwise be possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress in upgrading the M25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to begin on the measures contained in his Department's action plan to improve the operation of the M25 motorway.

I announced on 3 December that the M25 is to be widened to four lanes, with better lighting and signalling including variable message signs, and that its junctions are to be improved to speed up traffic flows. The design work has now been started.

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to the Department of Transport, which proves that there is life after the Scottish Office. Many of us hope that England's roads will become as uncongested as Scotland's roads were under his leadership. Does he agree that the M25's history has been bedevilled by timid planning and inaccurate forecasts? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a six-lane highway or a second M25 is needed?

I thank my hon. Friend for his first comments, which I greatly appreciate.

I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement just before Christmas on improvements to the M25. Have adequate funds been made available for this purpose? What is the likely starting date?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the programme, which will take a number of years to implement, will be given a high priority in the spending resources of the Department.

Given the scandalous chaos that surrounds the whole M25, what assurance can the Minister give that the planners will get it right this time when they got it so badly wrong the time before? Surely, the more one increases the number of lanes on motorways the more traffic is attracted to them. Would not one of the best ways of dealing with the problems of the M25 be to close it down?

Those who live in the south-east will learn with considerable interest of the view of Labour Members that we should redirect the huge number of vehicles that use the M25 back into London. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents would not be grateful for that. One hundred and sixty thousand vehicles a day use the busiest section of the M25 and if it were not available the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be very unimpressed by his suggestion.

The Secretary of State must know that by the time the fourth lane is completed traffic will have increased by 33 per cent. It cannot be beyond his imagination to accept that neither he nor his Department can provide sufficient road space to meet the increasing demand that his Department predicts. Does he agree with us that the time has come to look at the possibility of new orbital links on the railways around London to try to deal with the growth of traffic?

For a number of years now there have been substantial increases in investment in the railways. I have no doubt that the rail network will provide part of the solution to the transport needs of this part of the country, but the majority of the public will wish to continue using their own means of transport and it will be a responsibility of whichever party is in government to ensure that the road network can help to meet these requirements.

While a general welcome has been given to the decision to provide lighting along most of the length of the M25, will the Secretary of State explain why it was decided not to provide lighting on the part of the M25 that goes through north-west Kent in general and Dartford in particular?

So far as I recollect, the only part of the M25 that is not to be provided with lighting is the part that has the lowest volume of traffic and where lighting was not thought to be necessary. However, I will happily look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last visited the north-west of England by rail.

Although my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has not yet had the opportunity to visit the north-west by rail, his ministerial colleagues at the Department have done so on several occasions.

Should the requirement for British Rail InterCity services to make a profit have precedence over the duty placed on BR to provide a full public service? If quality of service has priority, why is the frequency of service between London and the route centre of Penrith to be reduced to the disadvantage of the travelling public? That has given rise to some anger in the county.

In our judgment there is nothing inconsistent between asking InterCity to make a profit—to earn revenue in excess of operating costs; it is one of the few railway systems in the world to achieve that—and the provision of a quality service. Of course that is not possible for regional railways and is currently not possible for Network SouthEast. However, it is possible for InterCity.

When the Minister visits the north-west will he please look at the Burscough curves? Will he look at it with a view to opening up the south-west of Lancashire and especially my resort of Southport? The route was closed many years ago under the Beeching cuts and if it were reinstated it would open up the whole of south-west Lancashire and bring rail traffic from Scotland and the north.

I shall certainly look at that when I next visit the north-west. The hon. Gentleman may care to note that when an investment proposition for regional railways is considered by British Rail and put to Ministers, approval does not necessarily hinge upon meeting an 8 per cent. financial rate of return. Where necessary, other criteria, including non-user benefits such as road decongestion, economic regeneration and other economic and social benefits, are taken into account.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the criticisms that are levelled against the Government about lack of investment in the north-west. However, I am sure that he is aware of the major investment that is taking place on the north-west main line from London to our major cities. The problems facing north-west travellers are to be found on the rural and minor urban lines, especially those between Liverpool and Preston where train frequency has been reduced. On his next visit to the north-west will he look into that matter as well?

I assume that my hon. Friend refers to services on the west coast main line. I again confirm that British Rail still plans to upgrade the west coast main line at a cost of some £750 million to provide a two-hour service from London to Manchester. That is still firmly in the rail programme. In terms of improvements to services in the north-west, we recently approved the electrification of the line between Hooton and Chester and I am sure that that is greatly welcomed not only on Merseyside but by Cheshire county council. We will look at all sensible propositions put forward by British Rail for improving services in the north-west.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a public statement about transport in Greater Manchester.

Today British Rail introduces class 158 vehicles to the transpennine route which links Manchester with Liverpool and Leeds and Newcastle. The rail link to the airport will open in 1993. The Metrolink light rail scheme is under construction and will open in about 12 months.

Could the Minister explain to my constituents who, during 1988 and 1989, suffered a great deal every time they entered Manchester Piccadilly station because British Rail was carrying out so-called improvements to that station, why, even after those improvements, they are still suffering because of a poor service? Is he aware that the centre of Manchester was snarled up on several occasions before Christmas because of the large number of people using the roads there? They used those roads because they have totally lost confidence in British Rail's ability efficiently to run local services in and out of Manchester Piccadilly.

I am aware of the discussions between the passenger transport authority and British Rail about section 20 support under the Transport Act 1968 for suburban services in Manchester. I understand that regional railways are seeking to resolve the reliability problems, particularly with older rolling stock such as the pacers and the older diesel units. As to the congestion in the centre of Manchester, I hope that the introduction of Metrolink, for which the taxpayer is providing a cash grant in excess of £50 million, will help congestion, particularly for those who travel from a south-westerly or northerly direction into Manchester. Let us hope that, in due course, it will be possible to extend the Metrolink to include and benefit the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Is it not a fact that Manchester airport is the third largest in the United Kingdom and that the second terminal will double its capacity from 9 million to 18 million? Is it not also a fact that, of the £87 million that the Government earmarked for borrowing approvals, a lion's share has gone to Manchester international airport? Does not this speak volumes for Members of Parliament representing the north-west and for the Government, who have listened to what we have had to say?

It speaks volumes for my hon. Friend and his colleagues who have strongly pressed the Government to support the expansion plans for the airport. My hon. Friend is correct to say that the new terminal at Manchester will permit a 50 per cent. increase in the number of passengers using it. The rail link from the centre of Manchester to the airport is well under way and will open in 1993, as I said to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Further to that, there will be a road link to the airport. All will help the future growth and prosperity of Manchester.

At this late hour, the House hopes that there will not be conflict in the Gulf, but great play has been made in the media of the fact that Manchester airport will be used to receive many of the casualties that may occur if there is a war.

Order. The question is about transport in Greater Manchester.

That is what my supplementary is about.

I note the seriousness of what the hon. Gentleman says. He would not wish me to comment in detail, but I undertake on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend to get the answer to that question and to write to the hon. Gentleman.

As the Minister has made clear, Manchester airport will be subjected to the new security measures introduced because of the Gulf crisis. Will he give us some idea of what those measures will be? Will they include inspection of all luggage that goes into the hold —a move against which the Government have set their face in the past—and the levy that is necessary to finance the machinery for that? Will he consider the economic regulations imposed by his Department on the airports that prevent them from raising the extra money to finance that essential part of security checking?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have heard the hon. Gentleman's question. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not expect me or any of my ministerial colleagues to comment on specific security measures at British airports or on advice to British airlines in the coming rather tense period. As to the examination of luggage going both to the hold and into the cabins of aircraft, my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation will ensure that, in the coming troubled days and weeks, all necessary steps are taken to ensure that not only British travellers but those passengers visiting our shores can travel as safely as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the dualling of the A69 west of Hexham.

We are continuing to make improvements to the A69, but traffic flows to the west of Hexham are light and not sufficient to justify dualling.

Given the Government's welcome decision to upgrade the Al to motorway standard and to build the Prudhoe and Haltwhistle bypasses and the Ponteland relief road, the A69 is now the strategic east-west link road with the north of England. To get the A69 dualled, would my hon. Friend consider changing the relevant criteria so that they take account of vehicle movements, the nature of the road—it is narrow and hilly—and usage, bearing n mind that the road is used by many slow-moving, heavy vehicles, including lorries and caravans? On the stretch of road to which I am referring, there have been 300 accidents in the past three years. It is the worst accident black spot in the north-east of England.

I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that the number of vehicles using a road is not the only criterion when we consider whether to construct a dual carriageway. We take into account the physical characteristics of the road and the number of heavy goods vehicles that use it, for example. Where there is evidence of accident black spots, the Government will be equipped to take specific remedial action.

May I stress to the Minister that his words will be a considerable disappointment to those in the Tyne and Wear conurbation? If the A69 were of better quality, it would provide a good link to the M5 and the rest of the country. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the last thing that we want for the A69 is the lethal mixture of dual and single carriageways which characterises the Al north of Newcastle?

The Government have to set priorities for investment in the road infrastructure and I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that the north of England has done well. We are spending about £130 million on road infrastructure in the north of England—that is this year and last year—and there are programmes for about a further £110 million of investment. I am sure that the hon. Lady would wish that investment to be put forward on the most cost-effective basis.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives he has to announce to improve road safety.

The first 20 mph speed limit zones will come into effect on 21 January—the first of many road safety initiatives that are planned for implementation this year.

Does the Minister agree that the most serious accident that could take place would involve a collision of lorries carrying toxic waste or liquefied gases? To avoid such an accident, and accidents generally, will the hon. Gentleman try to implement the two certain savers of accidents, which are daylight saving—that would avoid the deaths of up to 700 persons a year—and the introduction or wider use of speed retarders, which the Department's research has shown would reduce accidents by 15 per cent. on roads in general and by as much as 50 per cent. at specific sites? These measures would result in a great saving of life and reduce the dreadful level of injuries that are suffered on our roads. What is the hon. Gentleman doing about them?

Daylight saving is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, while speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles are very much the responsibility of the Department of Transport. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are examining carefully and closely whether we would be justified in introducing speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles. There is increasing concern about the intimidation that such vehicles present to many ordinary motorists. There is plenty of evidence that heavy goods vehicles are often driven at speeds far in excess of the limit that applies to them and that they are not driven as we would wish. That is why the Government are examining seriously the introduction of speed limiters, which we have already introduced for coaches.

When the Government decide that the best improvement to road safety in a local area would be made by constructing a bypass, and grant money to a county council to be used to construct the bypass, will the Minister look into instances where county councils delay construction, including that of the Thornaby bypass where the county council is delaying for up to eight years implementation of the policy which the Government have approved and funded, when the road could be constructed over two or three years?

I share my hon. Friend's frustration at the shortcomings of Cleveland county council. There are too many examples of county councils and other highway authorities being given resources and then choosing not to spend them in the way that local Members and local communities would wish.

Does the Minister accept that far more priority should be given to local schemes, as opposed to major schemes, when transport supplementary grant is being settled? Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), does the Minister agree that in view of the many hazardous loads carried by road, which are set to increase as a result of the proposals to transport as many as 500,000 tonnes of toxic waste for incineration, more safety regulations need to be put into effect? When will the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committee publish its findings on the sub-committee on dangerous substances report? Will the Department accept those recommendations in full, and will the Minister consider what more can be done in respect of local road safety?

As to local investment in safety schemes, in the coming financial year the Government will, for the first time, give transport supplementary grant for local safety schemes amounting to £30 million, which is in line with the amount recommended by the parliamentary advisory committee on transport safety. Next year's standard spending assessments for local authority road maintenance will increase by some 19 per cent., which means that some £1.75 billion will be available to local authorities to spend on their roads.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one cause of accidents is the speed at which vehicles approach schools? Will he give serious consideration to the placing of speed humps at the sides of roads approaching schools, and the provision of additional flashing lights at a greater distance from the school than is done at present? If my hon. Friend needs to look further for an example, perhaps he could run an experiment in north Yorkshire.

The new speed hump regulations give local authorities flexibility to put forward the kind of scheme that my hon. Friend favours.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed with the chairman of British Rail plans for a direct rail link between the channel tunnel and the north of England; and if he will make a statement.

I last met Sir Bob Reid on 12 December, when we discussed, among other things, rail links between the tunnel and the north.

Does the Secretary of State agree that only a dedicated European-gauge track between the tunnel and north-east England and Scotland will reduce the divide between north and south and that failure to provide one will exacerbate that divide? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take whatever steps are necessary to provide such a track?

I do not believe that there is any need for a dedicated track at present. If one were provided, it would divert substantial resources from other, more pressing railway requirements. It is important to ensure that demand for services from the channel tunnel can be fully met, but British Rail believes that that will be possible using the existing track, at least for the first few years.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend contemplate the incongruity and inequality as between road and rail in the answers given regarding the north of England at Question Time today? Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the Minister for Roads and Traffic saying a few minutes ago that the Al to the north of England is to be converted to a motorway, and that £130 million is to be provided for local roads in the north of England? Will the Secretary of State seriously review the criteria applied by the Department for investment in roads compared with those for investment in railways?

I read with interest the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) made in the House last March, when he referred to that particular aspect. I am always prepared to consider any argument that there is unfairness or inconsistency in the way in which investment projects are appraised. We make a genuine attempt to assess them on a fair and equitable basis, but we will consider carefully any suggestions to improve our procedures.

Does the Secretary of State accept that not only will the north of England fail to receive through passenger trains when the channel tunnel opens, but that, with the proposed withdrawal of much of the Speedlink network, the north will also have fewer through freight trains? Is not that a further setback both for the railway industry and for the environment? Is the Secretary of State happy at the prospect of an additional 100,000 or more lorry movements on Britain's roads?

British Rail has said that there will be some delay with regard to through passenger services, not for reasons of resources but because the manufacturers have not yet been able to deliver a firm date and price for the modified rolling stock. Services will be available from day one, although they will involve some changes for passengers, probably at Waterloo. In relation to freight, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the implications of the Speedlink decision for the channel tunnel. That decision arose out of the massive losses which British Rail was making on its existing Speedlink services. The hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as I am that about half the freight carried by Speedlink is to be retained by the rail network through new contracts with relevant customers.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the need to ensure that the benefits of the channel tunnel are shared by all regions of the United Kingdom? In that context, has he seen the report recently published by the Transport Users Consultative Committee for western England which draws attention to the need for a direct link to the south-west through Swindon?

Order. Unfortunately, the question is about the north-east.

I accept what my hon. Friend said—there is bound to be legitimate interest in various parts of the kingdom in having the benefits of the channel services. Essentially, it is for British Rail to decide whether there will be a demand such as to justify providing that service. I hope that it will consider carefully the points made by my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a visit to Newham way at Canning Town to discuss the building of a footbridge to enable pedestrians to cross that road without use of a subway.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport visited Canning Town on 2 January, in the company of the hon. Member.

I thank the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) for promptly accepting that, invitation. Does the Minister agree that, as safety factors are involved, and when millions of pounds are being spent to allow more traffic to travel more quickly through the area, the case is even stronger than that made at the time?

Certainly, I am considering the points put to me by my hon. Friend arising out of his visit. One has to have regard to the fact that there are existing subway crossings under that road, and obviously that has to be taken into account when considering the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring of the effect of red routes is planned by his Department.

There will be a full programme of monitoring for the pilot red route scheme.

A happy new year to you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not agree at all with what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, a letter in The Times today confirms that some of the principal beneficiaries of red routes are buses and their passengers. When I visited the red routes last Wednesday, there was certainly evidence that traffic was flowing much more freely. So far, the red routes seem to have been generally well received and when Islington council has got its act together and completed the red route, I am sure that they will be even better received.

As red routes are an excellent idea, and as experience in Paris shows that they will improve the traffic flow, will my hon. Friend get on with it and not have too full a programme of monitoring?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extra encouragement. We shall do our best to get the Road Traffic Bill enacted as quickly as possible.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the red routes will prove of great value to people in London, not least to people who are currently plagued by rat runs? Does he also agree that red routes should not be seen as a single item, but as part of a package with improved public transport—which we hope will come shortly in the London assessment study announcement—and with greater park-and-ride facilities on the edges of London?

I very much agree with the points that my hon. Friend has made. The red routes are at heart a very comprehensive transport strategy for London.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the quality of services on Network SouthEast.

We have regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail, at which we discuss a wide range of issues.

Does the Minister understand that last week's tragedy at Cannon Street station has merely reinforced the fear felt by many commuters from south-east London and Kent that they are being forced to accept a second-class service? Welcome though the new Networker trains will undoubtedly be, they will not automatically bring relief from sudden cancellations, late running, dirty carriages, unhelpful staff and unmanned stations. When will British Rail give those captive commuters a quality of service that would justify the ever-rising fares?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement in due course about the tragic accident at Cannon Street station.

To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

The Court of Appeal has fixed 25 February 1991 for the commencement of the substantive hearing. It also proposes to hold a further preliminary hearing in early February. I will not make a statement; the case is sub judice.

Who authorised the suppression of documents relating to forensic tests carried out on passengers on a ferry between Liverpool and Belfast on 21 November?

Order. The whole House has heard what the Attorney-General said about the matter. The case has been set down for trial, and it is sub judice.

And why were those documents not available at the original trial, or at the appeal—

Order. The whole House knows the rules that apply to such matters.

It is not sub judice. It is a matter of record.

Order. I call Mr. Tony Banks.

Is the Attorney-General aware of newspaper reports to the effect that the Director of Public Prosecutions said at his new year party that the forensic evidence was to be dropped? Is that so? And if it is so, why have defence counsel not been told about it?

I am not aware of any of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As for the stance that the Director of Public Prosecutions takes on the hearing of the substantive appeal, that must rest with the Director—who, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the holder of an independent statutory office. I can add nothing more to that.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this whole unhappy affair, which stretches back some years and in which so many innocent people were killed, should be settled once and for all? Her Majesty's Government have served the sense of justice well —there have been two trials already. When the appeal comes up, however, can we settle the whole matter once and for all? The Birmingham people do not seek vengeance; they seek justice. Someone, somewhere was guilty—and the least guilty people are not just those in prison but the many who suffered and died on that dreadful night.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the desirability of the matter's being settled, as he puts it, once and for all. Perhaps the House will permit me to cite what was said by Lord Justice Lloyd at the preliminary hearing on 17 December:

"We have to balance the imperative need for expedition in this appeal which we wholeheartedly accept with the equally imperative need that on this occasion the decision of the court should be taken on the basis not only of the material now available but also on such further material as will become available when the inquiry of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary has been completed."

Like the whole House, I wish to avoid any infringement of the sub judice rule. Therefore, I couch my question in this form: once the appeal is heard, will the Attorney-General lay before the House a full statement, in the form of a paper, on the general implementation of the Attorney-General's guidelines on the disclosure of unused material in prosecutions, the extent to which they have not been implemented in prosecutions in recent years, and whether any requests for the full disclosure of documents have been turned down when inquiries have been made by other police forces?

I shall, of course, consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request, but I do not give any commitment.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that six of the 10 questions to him on the Order Paper today are about the Birmingham Six and that they are identical?

You do not care.

The hon. Gentleman says that I do not care, but am I being mischievous in suggesting that this has more to do with the large Irish vote in those Members' constituencies and less to do with the sincerity of their case?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

What is it?

The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) questions the sincerity of hon. Members. Normally, that is unacceptable. I would certainly suggest—

Order. I do not think that the integrity of hon. Members is in question.

It is.

Such comments do not help us, but I do not think that that particular question was out of order.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I happen to be one of those hon. Members who tabled a question. I tabled it because of my considerable concern about a miscarriage of justice. It has nothing to do with my own constituents or their backgrounds. It seems to me, therefore, that you should require the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth to withdraw what he said.

I have heard many rougher things said in the House.

rose—

No, No!

I was going to withdraw what I said, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman had better get up and do it, then.

In order to assist the Chair and any hon. Members whom I might have offended, I withdraw my remark about their sincerity.

Very well. Let us move on.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest position on Crown prosecution service staffing levels.

Recruitment in the Crown prosecution service has improved during 1990. Lawyers in post are now 1,686 against an increased total requirement of 2,053. As to administrative staff and law clerks, against a total requirement of 3,670, 3,636 are in post.

Can the Solicitor-General tell us anything about the workload of the Crown prosecution service? Does it not have enough to do without hundreds of hours of Crown prosecution service time being frittered away in seeking to sustain the conviction of the Birmingham Six and save the face and pride of Lord Lane?

That is a backdoor way of getting in on a previous question about a matter which is entirely sub judice. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would accept that in this country we have an open and careful system of justice. That is what the Court of Appeal will administer.

The Solicitor-General has confirmed, by his own admission to the House, that the Crown prosecution service is still grossly understaffed. It is one fifth down on the staff that it requires. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General accept the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and give the CPS the resources that it so desperately needs?

There were many good things in the recommendations of the Select Committee. It is true that the Crown prosecution service is still only about 80 per cent. staffed, compared with its complement, but it is also true that in its four years of existence it has managed to increase its complement by more than one third. It is making very considerable improvements, just as it did throughout the past year.

To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

Will the Attorney-General confirm that senior judges are saying that the Guildford Four were guilty, despite the fact that they were released by the court? What hope is there for a genuinely fair trial for the Birmingham Six when, apparently, senior members of the judiciary do not accept the findings of the Court of Appeal in relation to the Guildford Four?

I confirm nothing of the kind.

To ask the Attorney-General what steps are taken to encourage the use of representative actions where a substantial number of persons seek legal aid for actions arising out of substantially similar facts.

In cases involving a number of parties and substantially similar facts, applications for legal aid are all referred to the same legal aid area office. Decisions on the grant of legal aid are made in such a way as to encourage representative procedures where appropriate.

Is the Solicitor-General aware of the number of cases that have recently been commenced in the High Court in Belfast against the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? All those cases involve the possibility of information on terrrorist suspects getting into the hands of rival paramilitary organisations, and those suspects have commenced action. I understand that there are more than 50 such actions, with virtually consecutive writ numbers and the same firm of solicitors, but all are being routinely processed for legal aid. Does the Solicitor-General agree that a single action would be sufficient to establish what merits, if any, there may be and that it is a considerable waste of public money for all 50 actions to be individually granted legal aid?

I am aware of the general fact that such actions have been commenced, but I do not know the detail. If they are as the hon. Gentleman says, I am sure that the legal aid authority in Northern Ireland —the Law Society—will consider carefully the points that he has made to see whether such representative action might be appropriate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce a programme of ecological aid to the littoral countries of the Persian Gulf.

No. We seek to concentrate our development aid on the poorest countries, not richer ones like those in the Gulf.

What contingency plans have been made to cope with the problems of photochemical smog and the excessive release of hydrocarbons, which Paul Crutzen, atmospheric physicist at the Max Planck Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Maine—the leading authority in the world on these matters—says may be the major problem? If the object is to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, rather than a war that will end God knows where, why has not thought been given to diverting the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates in Syria and Turkey?

The Meteorological Office, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence are working on possible scenarios, but the best way of avoiding ecological damage in the Gulf—

Is not war.

It is for Saddam Hussein to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait today.

In the event of a Gulf war, which we must all hope does not occur, and the likely increase in oil prices that will result from it, will my right hon. Friend consider increasing aid to third-world countries which are dependent on oil for their energy resources and which will be severely hit by their inability to pay the new high prices?

My hon. Friend may already be aware that we have been working with the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to see what additional help can be given. The European Community agreed a package of 1,500 mecu for Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, which is exactly the way in which we should be helping. We are well aware of the pressures on developing countries and we shall consider the matter as time rolls by. We hope very much that there will be a withdrawal from Kuwait, which will end the extra pressure on the developing countries.

Does the Minister accept that, as I have seen for myself in the past few days, Jordan's greater and urgent need is for further help in dealing with the problem of transit refugees through the country? Will she acknowledge that Jordan has done a magnificent job but is still out of pocket?

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have already helped Jordan through the various international agencies, which I saw when I was there in September. We are in touch with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Geneva-based agencies this morning issued an appeal. We are working on a contingency plan and when I have more details I may be able to respond to the right hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to assist with the distribution of food within the Soviet Union and other former eastern bloc countries.

We believe that economic reform in the Soviet Union is essential if a prosperous and democratic society is to emerge. Reform of food distribution systems is a priority under the know-how fund. However, we deplore the Soviet army's action in Lithuania and we are discussing the whole issue with our EC partners in Brussels today.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I had lunch with President Landsbergis in the House just two months ago. Even then, he was fearful that his country would be taken over by the red army. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is crucial in the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc is not so much the production and supply of food as its distribution? Does she have any proposals to improve the distribution of food within those countries and is she doing anything to assist studies on that aspect?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no famine in the USSR, which had a record grain harvest—better than the predicted vegetable harvest. The problem is distribution. That is why I am glad that British expertise from private companies has been used in an attempt to determine what can be done to improve food distribution. The Anderson Consulting firm has examined the Soviet bread consortium, and the British Food Consortium has carried out a study of the food chain around Kiev. Major steps can be taken, but, of course, we wish to help the people and any further use of force by the Soviet Government could jeopardise western aid to the Soviet Union greatly.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that we all wish to see genuine assistance given to the emergent democracies and, indeed, the ordinary citizens of the Soviet Union? Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office issue a clear condemnation of the behaviour of President Gorbachev and the Soviet troops in Lithuania and of the continuing threat to the Baltic states, both of which are in clear contradiction to United Nations article 1? We want a clear statement of condemnation from the west at this stage.

That is why in my initial reply I condemned the action of the Soviet army. The matter is being discussed within the European Community today. We shall have Foreign and Commonwealth diplomatic questions on Wednesday, when I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have a lot more to say on the matter.

While I imagine that everyone in the House supports the idea of giving food or any other type of aid to the hard-pressed countries of eastern Europe, is not it untimely and even a little indecent to suggest that we should give aid to the Soviet Union at a moment when it is reverting to type and sending armed troops into Lithuania, which, like the other two Baltic states, was forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union and deserves its freedom?

As my right hon. Friend knows full well, I agree with him entirely. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, there is a real danger that the Soviet Union will go back into its Stalinist shell. The freedom of the Baltic states is important and we sincerely hope that the measures put into force some months ago will be allowed to continue to help the Soviet people by the Government of the Soviet Union and its president seeing the sense of stopping the abominable behaviour that we saw over the weekend in Lithuania.

The right hon. Lady is surely right to call it abominable behaviour. Does she agree that it is also wrong to continue giving credit to the Soviet Union and transfering high technology, both of which should be stopped instantly by the European Community and the western democracies?

I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman's points are being discussed at this very moment in Brussels. We telephoned Brussels before we came to the House to answer questions today. I cannot: given the right hon. Gentleman an answer as to what has happened there, but we hope to do so as soon as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the problems that might arise in central European countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia if there are refugees from the Baltic states? More food aid may well need to be directed to Poland and Czechoslovakia to cope with the terrible problems provoked by the Soviet Union's aggression towards its own people.

I can assure my hon. Friend that, if Poland or any of the other states needs help to cope with refugees from the Soviet Union, we shall be ready to help. It is most important that diplomatic pressure from all over the world should have its effect on the Government of the Soviet Union so that this deplorable behaviour ceases forthwith in the Baltic states and everywhere else.

We all share the great concern about repression in Lithuania. Does the Minister agree that there is plenty of evidence that the Soviet people wish to see a further development of glasnost and perestroika? Given that today she has said that it is important to help those people, may we have her assurance that she will honour the pledges made by the European Community to give emergency food aid to help Soviet citizens weather the winter?

The hon. Lady knows full well that when the Foreign Ministers of the European Community sit together in Brussels and discuss this very issue I cannot give any undertaking about what they may have decided. I take her point that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) who raised the question said, the food problem in the Soviet Union is not famine, but distribution. If we can help the Soviet Union to tackle that problem, we shall be making a long-term investment to help the Soviet people make the best of their production.