To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in improving rail services to the north-west.

British Rail is planning to upgrade Intercity west coast main line services, involving investment of some £750 million in new rolling stock, signalling and track improvements. British Rail recently invited tenders for the new trains.

What provisions will be made for direct passenger services between the north-west and the channel, given that the regional sets that British Rail was meant to produce will not be ready on time? Is there any news about the location of the freight terminals in the north-west, a decision that has been long awaited?

My hon. Friend will know that there are design problems with the trains for daytime through services. It is not a resource constraint on the Government but a problem with the manufacturers designing trains that will be able to run on the lines north of London where there is overhead electricity and a need to split the longer TGV trains witch will serve the capitals. I very much hope that those services will be in place as soon as possible. In the interim between the opening of the tunnel and those trains running, we expect that British Rail will run services into Waterloo from the north-west so that passengers can interconnect quickly. As for night services, there is no reason to believe that they will be delayed on the west coast main line.

Does the Minister agree that an overnight sleeper service is desirable from the channel tunnel to the north-west if for no other reason than that the tourism industry in the north-west and in Scotland requires such a service?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important. If he has not seen the designs of British Rail and of some of the potential suppliers of those services, perhaps he might avail himself of an opportunity to do so and comment on the quality of service that will be available on sleepers and on overnight services from Paris and Brussels, which will run non-stop through London and up the west coast main line.

Will those improvements in the rail service to the north-west, which I welcome, lead to an abandonment by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) of the proposed Greater Manchester northern and western relief road? Will the Minister have a word with him to tell him that the rail service is improving and that therefore he need not proceed with the plan, which is much resented and disapproved of by my constituents?

I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's sentiments to my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, but I am bound to say that road investment in the north-west—especially in the Greater Manchester conurbation—has been significant in recent years, although there is a great deal further to go. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will deal with the specific point that my hon. Friend has made.

May I return the Minister to the question of rail services and especially to rail safety in the north-west? Is he aware that three of the most senior operating managers on the London Midland region have been removed from their jobs at a moment's notice because they were courageous enough to speak out about the impact on safety of present financial policies? Does he accept that in the event of a serious accident on British Rail arising from those policies, we shall hold the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers responsible?

Safety is the pre-eminent concern of not only British Rail, but the Department of Transport. I am aware of the specifics of the case of the three individuals who have been named. They are not the only guardians of the quality of safety on British Rail. Responsibility rests primarily with the chairman and with the board of British Rail. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of rail safety not only in terms of resource expenditure, but in ensuring that standards on existing equipment are maintained.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to limit the speed of vehicles on leaving motorways.

It is the responsibility of every motorist to drive safely and that includes observing the speed limit. We are monitoring the use of experimental yellow bar markings on slip roads to make drivers more aware of their speed.

Will the Department erect repeater 70 mph speed limit signs on the A303 west of the M3? Is my hon. Friend aware of the number of deaths, injuries and other accidents that have occurred on that section of road, including a nine-car pile-up into the back of a farm tractor at the weekend?

I am well aware of the excessive speed at which many motorists travel on that stretch of road and of the number of accidents that have been occasioned. I know that the police take the issue of enforcement seriously. Earlier this month, they booked 59 drivers on that stretch of road; the average speed at which they were travelling was 94 mph. I do not think that the speeding is so much inadvertent as deliberate and that is why I am sceptical about the idea of putting up repeater 70 mph limit signs. I have asked the Transport and Road Research Laboratory to look at that section of road to see what can be done to increase compliance with the speed limit. Largely as a result of the pressure from my hon. Friend, we have in the roads programme a major improvement to the part of the road between Bullington Cross and Andover, where many of the serious accidents have occurred. I hope that we shall be able to implement that soon.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many United Kingdom registered fishing vessels have been lost in each of the past four years; and what was the number of fishermen drowned in such vessel losses.

Figures for 1990 are not yet available. For the years 1986 to 1989 inclusive, the numbers of United Kingdom fishing vessels lost were 19, 14, 22 and 22. The numbers of related deaths of fishermen were 11, four, 18 and 16.

Since I tabled the question, the Portsmouth trawler Wilhelmina has been lost, with its six-man crew, as the Minister will know. He and his officials need to do far more to enhance the safety of fishermen. When will he acknowledge the need for the provision of immersion suits on every fishing vessel over 10 m long? The carriage of such suits would save the lives of some fishermen. When will the Minister come to terms with that need?

The hon. Gentleman will know that an investigation is continuing into the Wilhelmina. It is always sad and unfortunate to have to record the loss of a fishing vessel. Over the past 20 years, the number of losses each year has not changed very much, although in each case it is a particular tragedy. I will look at the question of immersion suits.

My hon. Friend will recall that I raised with him last week the loss of the Wilhelmina J, a Portsmouth vessel, over Easter. There was a memorial service last week in Portsmouth, where the incident was taken very seriously. We all have sympathy for the relatives of the six people who lost their lives on board that vessel. My hon. Friend has assured me that an inquiry is proceeding as fast as it can and I do not wish to anticipate its findings. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Zulfikar, the Cypriot ship involved, was stopped off Lisbon, earlier than it was at first thought possible to do as it sailed to Egypt, and that evidence will be gathered as soon as possible? Perhaps the lessons that can be learnt are——

Order. Let us have not the lessons now, but the question to the Minister, please.

Perhaps the lessons once the inquiry has reported could be that technological devices can be improved. Should not the application of radar transponder devices and collision avoidance for smaller vessels also be covered by legislation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The whole House shares in the sympathy for those involved in the tragic accident of the Wilhelmina. It is always tragic when fishing vessels go down because they are usually from small communities and the effect on such communities is substantial.

The Minister will recall the sinking of the fishing vessel Antares, which sailed from Carradale in my constituency, in which four of the crew were lost. Does he agree that in view of the special circumstances and evidence surrounding that tragedy, the Ministry of Defence should take responsibility for funding representation for the families at the forthcoming fatal accident inquiry? If the Ministry of Defence continues to refuse to do so, will the Department of Transport consider helping those families, who have suffered a great deal already?

The inquiry into the loss of the Antares is in progress. The points that the hon. Lady makes are first and foremost for the Ministry of Defence, but I shall bear in mind her comments and consider possible solutions.

Does the Minister agree that we need a complete overhaul of safety in all aspects of shipping? In respect of the incident about which we have just heard, does he agree that the failure of the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence to get together and resolve the matter is matched by the failure to approve and test the specification for the pinger devices which could do so much to improve safety when submarines are around? Was not that research interrupted because of the Gulf war and when will the Minister reach agreement with the Ministry of Defence so that our fishermen can fish in safety?

I am fed up with the Opposition attempting to make party political points on what is a serious matter. If we are to start making party political points—I have tried to avoid doing so—we can look back and see that total losses were 37 in 1975, 35 in 1976, 37 in 1977, 38 in 1978 and 42 in 1979. Those were far greater losses than take place now. How dare the Opposition make cheap party political points?

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in the British Rail pay round, consideration has been given to a share participation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

I regret that a share participation scheme would not be possible for British Rail while it remains a nationalised industry, but this will become an attractive option once British Rail is in the private sector.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if it were possible for British Rail to be denationalised, the employees could benefit from a share option scheme? Indeed, those parts of British Rail that have been denationalised already benefit from such schemes. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, for example, that at British Rail Engineering Ltd. in York, people with the same qualifications as employees of British Rail are offered a pay differential of between 23 and 36 per cent? Does not that show the way forward for British Rail, as opposed to the old-fashioned trade union policies adopted by the trade union barons?

My hon. Friend is correct. Indeed, in 1990 BREL made a free allocation to employees of some of the 20 per cent. of shares bought by managers. Clearly, it is part of any privatisation to increase the opportunities available to employees. In previous privatisations employees have always come forward enthusiastically. That is one of the main advantages of introducing an industry to the new environment of the private sector.

Mr. David—Mr. Dennis Skinner.

That is my brother; he is younger than me.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He slipped my memory for a moment!

Is the Secretary of State aware that the employees of British Rail are not interested in share participation schemes? They are not interested in the offer that has been made by British Rail for their wages. They are not interested in what the Tories have to offer in respect of privatisation. They want the same kind of treatment as is being handed out in wages and conditions to the head of British Rail, who is picking up more than £200,000, and the other top directors who pocketed a 22·7 per cent increase last year. The Government should give the employees that treatment.

The chairman of British Rail is a man of exceptional ability. If we are to expect British Rail to achieve the progress that has been made in many other industries, it is crucial to ensure that the person who is attracted to take over responsibility for the industry is paid a salary commensurate with such ability. The current pay negotiations are primarily a matter for British Rail and I hope that British Rail employees will take into account the fact that inflation is now falling rapidly. That is increasingly recognised throughout industry as well as in the public sector.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the channel tunnel rail link.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to make an announcement on the route for the channel tunnel high-speed link.

I expect to receive British Rail's proposals for the channel tunnel rail link soon and will want to discuss them with Sir Bob Reid. The Government will reach their conclusions on the project as speedily as possible, but it is too early to say when announcements may be made.

In his discussions with Sir Bob Reid, will my right hon. and learned Friend impress upon him the benefits which will come from a route that is aligned on a junction at Stratford, as that will offer not only direct through trains from Stratford through King's Cross to the west country, but the opportunity for through trains, freight and passenger, to the whole of the United Kingdom?

Yes, I am certainly aware of the advantages that it is often suggested the Stratford connection would bring. I certainly expect British Rail fully to have considered that option with the other options in its current survey.

I call Mr. Chris Smith.

No, Mr. Speaker. I tabled Question 7, which was linked with this one.

Yes, it should be Mr. Anthony Banks first.

Thank you, Sir. You obviously had a good weekend.

Some time ago British Rail made it clear that it expected to make its recommendations to the Government this month. That may still be the case, but, obviously, that is a matter for British Rail. I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's points in the latter part of his question. Indeed, I would go further and say that British Rail's recommendations and the Government's decision on the high-speed link have potential national significance. It has implications not only for London and the south-east, but for the country as a whole. Therefore, I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only British Rail but the Government will address these matters with all the seriousness that they deserve.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hundreds of people and many institutions and firms are awaiting anxiously the announcement of the final route? When he considers the route will he bear in mind the fact that we have been waiting for many, many months? Will he confirm that when he has made his decision on the route it will be reported to the House in the first instance and will not be announced during the summer recess?

I have indicated the seriousness with which I view these matters and, clearly, it is important not only to reach a decision but to do so as expeditiously as possible. I cannot anticipate when a conclusion will be possible, but I certainly appreciate the desirability of the House's being given an opportunity fully to consider any conclusion that the Government may reach in due course.

To follow the Secretary of State's comment about national implications—this is a matter for us in Leeds, Yorkshire and the north in general—is not one of the problems to do with signalling arrangements? At the weekend I was informed of a serious problem arising from cheap, shoddy, signalling arrangements in Leeds. Will the Secretary of State consider that carefully? It is no good talking about a high-speed link, if the existing basic signalling is not up to standard.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that signalling is crucial to the smooth and acceptable operation of a railway service and I shall be happy to consider his points. I again emphasise the importance of the channel tunnel to areas north of London as well as to the south-east. Many would convincingly argue that the benefits of rail freight are all the more substantial the further north one goes, because of the longer journeys involved.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that proper consideration needs to be given to the strategic implications of a high-speed link to the channel tunnel? Does he agree that good rail links, comparable with those of the TGV in France, are generators of economic growth and prosperity? Will he give due weight to that in his deliberations?

Yes, I agree that good rail links are highly desirable. The public debate on these matters is somewhat different in north-west France, where there is great enthusiasm for any such proposed rail connections, from that in the south-east of England, which has a quite different economy and much more congestion because of the burden of population and where such matters are conducted differently. However, the basic principle remains the same; rail links are crucial to the benefits of the channel tunnel on both sides of the channel.

When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Rail will he make two essential points to him? First, it is important to ensure that there are fast and direct links from the channel tunnel to all parts of the country, not just to London. Secondly, in order to achieve that, it is not necessary to place an intolerable burden of extra congestion on King's Cross and its immediate area. Will he ensure that British Rail looks seriously and carefully at alternatives to King's Cross and does not dismiss them out of hand?

I expect the survey being undertaken by British Rail to consider the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. The implications for King's Cross and the alternative option of Stratford have been suggested by a number of quarters. British Rail's conclusions will carry additional weight if it can be seen to have considered all options fairly, objectively and responsibly.

Whereas my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent and south-east London have varying degrees of apprehension about the fast link, is not it at least as important to remember that the people of east London, north London and Essex, by and large, support the Stratford option? Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear that in mind in his consideration of the matter?

The points made today by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Members will emphasise to British Rail, if it needed reminding, that the House and the country expect that the study should look at all the options in a credible and objective fashion if British Rail's conclusions are to command the level of national support for which it hopes?

Does the Secretary of State accept that this is not a matter entirely for British Rail and that the Government have the overriding responsibility to see that there is a high-speed rail link from the tunnel not only to London but to areas beyond—the midlands, the north, Wales and Scotland? When he makes his decision, on receiving the report from British Rail, will he consider making a statement before the summer recess, or will his judgment be based on electoral considerations?

I must await British Rail's recommendations. On the routes north of London, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that, thanks to Government approval and support for British Rail, the electrification of the east coast line will be completed in the very near future. That will make a dramatic difference to rail services on the east coast. It will enable British Rail to continue to say that, apart from the networks of France and Japan, its railway network, especially inter-city, is one of the fastest in the world. That requires on-going investment of the sort that I have outlined and it is right to emphasise that British Rail today has one of the fastest rail networks in the world, other than those in France and Japan.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the transport infrastructure in south Cumbria.

The current road programme for south Cumbria includes major improvements costing some £50 million. These proposals represent a very substantial investment and should greatly improve the trunk road network in south Cumbria.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the south-west corner of Cumbria, particularly the town of Barrow, is probably one of the least accessible parts of the country. In view of the area's need to broaden its economic base following cuts in defence expenditure, will my hon. Friend give urgent priority to improving the local infrastructure, and particularly to an early commencement of a bypass at Dalton-in-Furness on the A590?

I understand my hon. Friend's point and what he said about the A590. Those matters are currently being considered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and I hope that we shall soon be able to help my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks).

Is the Minister aware that west Cumbria would be greatly assisted by rapid improvements to the west coast line, which will require a certain amount of investment over the next five years? Will he undertake to discuss with the chairman of British Rail how the state can help to improve those services?

We are always willing to consider, with the chairman of British Rail, any proposals or investment programmes that British Rail wishes to pursue.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, if the most serious and urgent problems of Barrow and the surrounding area are to be dealt with, as they must be, Ministers must apply their minds and their time to making special efforts to ensure that road communications are improved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) said, including the Lindale to Newby bridge stretch of road and the railway line to Barrow, where connections with the main line are haphazard, to say the least?

I understand my right hon. Friend's concern. As I said in my original answer, British Rail is currently considering the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for improving the A69 road between Carlisle and Hexham.

We are improving the A69. I had the pleasure of opening the A69 Brampton bypass on Thursday. The preferred route for a bypass of Haltwhistle was announced on 10 December last year and we are now proceeding towards publication of the statutory orders. Other recent improvements include the provision of climbing lanes, and more will be done as required.

Was not a political decision taken by the Minister last year to transfer responsibility from the Manchester regional office of the Department of Transport to Newcastle, and have not the consequences of that decision, which was taken without provision for extra manpower at Newcastle, been longer delays in projects to improve the A69, the Dalton bypass in the south of Cumbria and, most important to my constituents and to me, the proposed north-west bypass at Carlisle?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The transfer was made to put more resources into the major programme of road infrastructure and investment in Cumbria, amounting to £186 million. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) which of the schemes in that £186 million programme in Cumbria would be cut in the event of there being a Labour Government. I am writing to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East today to ask which of the 53 schemes that we are announcing for the coming financial year would be cut in the event of his being responsible for these matters.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the north-east has been treated fairly with regard to new road construction. If my hon. Friend considers the characteristics of and the accident record for the various types of vehicles which use the A69, especially heavy lorries and caravans, I am sure that he will agree that that stretch of road needs to be dualled urgently.

I understand my hon. Friend's point. That is one reason why I spent a lot of time last Thursday considering the A69 to see what possible further improvements could be added to the programme, in addition to the £186 million already in it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce legislation to provide for compensation for rail users on lines such as the Chelmsford-Liverpool Street line who suffer from poor quality of service.

Not at present, but the best way to improve quality of service is by investment in new rolling stock and infrastructure. That has happened for example on the Northampton route and will happen, in May, for the Chiltern route.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the light of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Conservative party central council in Southport, can my hon. Friend the Minister say how the possibility of a citizens' charter would benefit commuters on the Chelmsford-Liverpool Street line and other lines in the British Rail network?

I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's speech is relevant to British Rail in that it requires quality targets to be set and communicated to customers, and for there to be some form of redress where appropriate. It is certainly appropriate to British Rail, particularly where there are monopolies—one thinks, for instance, of Network SouthEast. British Rail is already moving towards setting fare increases directly related to the achievement of quality on individual lines—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) laughs, but he will know that there is a distinction between the service from Southend to Liverpool Street—where a real fare increase followed an improvement in the quality of service—and the service from Southend and Fenchurch Street, where there has been no real fare increase because there has been no improvement.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, as well as the plight of Chelmsford to Liverpool Street commuters, he should consider the plight of commuters in London generally? It has been revealed today that London is the most expensive commuter city in Europe—[Interruption.]

Order.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It was my fault.

We pay more in general and more for single journeys. Why should London commuters continue to pay astronomical fares for an increasingly shabby and sub-standard service?

The hon. Lady should ask the Labour party spokesmen on the subject. I suspect that they would not agree with her, and neither would I.

Come on.

If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will restrain himself, I will answer the question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the extent of achievement of the performance targets set by his Department for the operation of the Tyne Valley rail service; and if he will make a statement.

British Rail recognises that the quality of service on some lines in the north-east is lower than the customer is entitled to expect and it is taking steps to improve its performance.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he give the lie to those mischief makers in my constituency who say that the Tyne Valley line is to be closed? Will he confirm, first, that British Rail has no plans to close the line and, secondly, that when British Rail is privatised, as I hope that it soon will be, the line will continue to receive a large subsidy from the Government?

I can certainly confirm that there are no plans to close the Tyne Valley services.

rose——

The hon. Gentleman is not from the relevant part of the world.

My question is connected.

The hon. Gentleman may continue.

Does the Minister agree that part of the improvement of service on the Tyne Valley line involves the improvement of safety? Is he not alarmed at the 700 accidents that have occured, some on the Tyne Valley line where passengers have fallen from trains? There was one such accident in my constituency a fortnight ago, when a man fell from a moving train into the path of another train, and 100 passengers have been killed in such accidents. Should not the Minister press British Rail for a fresh, independent investigation into such accidents?

Any accident of that sort is serious and each one is individually dealt with by the railway inspectorate. There is no common consistency in the accidents to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek an early meeting with his continental counterparts to discuss railway policy.

I regularly see my community counter-parts at meetings of the European council of transport Ministers. Railway policy was a major item on the agenda of our last meeting in Brussels on 27 March.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that while we discuss the privatisation of our railways, Community countries—with the possible exception of one small country—carry on improving their already excellent rail systems? Has he also noticed that in our party the main proponents of railway privatisation tend to be those who delivered the poll tax to a grateful nation? Will he please ensure that we do not have a poll tax on wheels; and will he not muck about with the rail system in such a way that he has to come to the House and tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) that he cannot demand privatisation and a continuing level of subsidy at the same time? There is no sense in continuing heavily to subsidise the system if one's purpose is to privatise it. We need a transport policy that seeks deliberately to transfer traffic from road to rail.

I believe that my hon. Friend is out of touch with the mainstream of European opinion on this matter. Not only are the Dutch Government considering the privatisation of their railways, but the European Commission has expressly called for the introduction of competition to the railways. Therefore, on this—though on no other matter I disagree with my hon. Friend and prefer the views of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who was quoted in the South London Press on 12 April as saying that a privatised rail network may provide a "higher standard service".

The Secretary of State misquotes me, of course, as I made it very clear that even if privatisation could provide a higher standard of service it would also undoubtedly provide much higher fares. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets his continental counterparts, will he take advice from them on fares? He cites the Dutch Government, who intend to double the number of people travelling on public transport in the next 20 years. Surely in this capital city we should be doing the same. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really want to get people off the tube and off the railway into their private cars, thereby causing further congestion? Has he seen and does he agree with the editorial in the Evening Standard today which says that when people begin to lose confidence in their Government's ability to run a railway they will question their ability to run anything else?

The hon. Lady has some explaining to do because the South London Press directly quotes her observations on this matter, to the effect that a privatised railway network may provide a higher standard of service. I note that the hon. Lady has not withdrawn that observation.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the work of the Crown prosecution service.

Last year the Crown prosecution service completed proceedings relating to nearly 1·6 million defendants in the magistrates court and more than 140,000 defendants in the Crown court.

What success is the Crown prosecution service having in recruiting additional staff?

Over the past year recruiting has been very successful. The rate of recruitment has doubled, with a net gain of 210 lawyers in post, which means that vacancies have fallen from 23 to 15 per cent. That has been heartening to the service, and efforts are continuing, especially in areas still under stress.

Does the Solicitor-General believe that the process has speeded up as a result? Is this having any impact on the numbers of people held on remand?

I think that it is having a good effect on the efficiency of the service, on the ability of the service to carry out its review and on the ability of lawyers in post to do more of the work in court as—well as on their general reviewing work—and that is to the general benefit. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a statistical answer on speed, but if he writes to me I can send him the information.

The Solicitor-General will recall that the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which set up the Crown prosecution service, received all-party support. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I raised questions about the relationships between the heads of the services, chief constables, salary levels and the professional status of the service's employees. Obviously these were matters that would be judged over time. I remember that we asked for a review after five years and that the Attorney-General rejected our request. We now have a report from the Public Accounts Committee, which draws attention to the fact that two and a half years after its inception the objectives of the service have not yet been met and that it is costing twice as much as the previous arrangements. Those are matters for which the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are directly responsible, so it seems fair to ask the Solicitor-General what he intends to do about them.

The hon. Gentleman should remember the constructive and frequently praising remarks of the Select Committee on Home Affairs when it carried out its review nearly a year ago. The salaries, the career structure and the training scheme that have been brought into place in the past year have all had an excellent effect on morale within the service and on the recruitment that I have described to the House.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will set out his duties in relation to the conduct and aftermath of the Gulf war and observance of human rights and international law.

As the Government's principal legal adviser, I give advice to Ministers on any matter involving domestic or international legal issues.

May I ask the Attorney-General the question of which I gave his office notice this morning? What has been the Government's legal and other response to the request made by Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan on behalf of the United Nations refugees committee that sanctions should be lifted? Is not it desperately urgent, in view of the sweltering summer and the likely outbreak of hepatitis, cholera and typhoid? If we are to help the Shias and Kurds, do not we sometimes have to talk to Baghdad?

It is true that the hon. Gentleman, in his invariably courteous way, gave me notice of his question earlier today. I have to say that the matter is one of policy for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the provisions of Security Council resolution 687, which was adopted on 3 April, and especially paragraph 20, which lifts sanctions imposed by resolution 661 in respect of foodstuffs, subject only to notification to the sanctions committee.

Will any steps be taken with the relevant international bodies to ensure that those responsible for the crimes committed in Kuwait during the terror of Iraqi occupation and the crimes further committed against the Kurds will be tried by an international tribunal? As Nazi war criminals were tried in 1945–46 for crimes against humanity, why should Saddam Hussein be exempted from the same rules? There is undoubtedly a strong case that he should be tried as well.

These matters depend upon a clear understanding of all the facts when they become available. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve agreed—I think that it was last week—to work towards bringing criminals, and Mr. Saddam Hussein in particular, to justice. It is necessary, first, to have a clear understanding of the facts. The hon. Gentleman will also recall, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, that we do not have Saddam in our power.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Birmingham pub bombings case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Birmingham pub bombings case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I frequently meet the Director to discuss departmental matters, and I last did so on 18 April, but I do not disclose the particular matters discussed.

Will the Attorney-General confirm that a number of police officers who must have lied and fabricated evidence are still on duty? Are there any plans to suspend them, or may we expect business as usual in the West Midlands police force?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Devon and Cornwall police force is carrying out investigations of a criminal nature into certain police officers who were named in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. More than that it is not proper for me to say at present.

The Attorney-General will recall that the trial judge in the case said that if what the defendants were saying was true it would amount to the biggest conspiracy in the annals of criminal history. Can he assure us that he is dealing with the matter that seriously and that he will secure the prosecutions of those who organised it rather than a couple of low-level fall guys?

I do not think that the hon. Lady would expect the Director of Public Prosecutions to do more than apply the code for Crown prosecutors in this instance exactly as it is applied in other instances—that is, to look to see whether, at the conclusion of the police investigation, which is far advanced, there is enough evidence to give rise to the realistic prospect of a conviction and the public interest requires a prosecution. That is the test, and he will apply it.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend please advise the House whether the Birmingham Six were released because they could not possibly have carried out the pub bombings, because there was reasonable doubt, or because the evidence on which they were prosecuted was unsafe? That is a matter of public interest.

As the Court of Appeal made clear in the concluding words of its judgment, it held that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory on each of two specific grounds. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed. The consequence is that each of the Birmingham Six is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anybody else in the country.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the basic problem is that the IRA, like the Disloyalists, go around killing people when the answer in Northern Ireland is for people to settle their differences by discussion and disagreement rather than by murder?

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, as the whole House must agree, that that is a consummation devoutly to be wished. As soon as military and paramilitary organisations adopt that rule, we shall all be greatly satisfied and many innocent people will be relieved of the fear of death, let alone of wrongful conviction, from which they have suffered for so many years now.

To ask the Attorney-General what is the present average delay between (a) date of conviction, (b) granting of leave to appeal and (c) determination of the appeal in criminal cases in England and Wales; and if he has any plans to speed up the appeal process.

Based on a sample of cases heard by the Court of Appeal in March this year, the average time between the lodging of a notice of appeal and decision by the single judge was just over 12 weeks, and from the grant of leave to appeal to final decision by the full court was just over 20 weeks.

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. I am sure that he realises that one of the greatest causes of complaint by those who are ultimately acquitted is the length of time they are held while the various steps in the process allowing them to appeal are taken. Is there anything that he and his colleagues can do to try to make sure that if an appeal is put in it goes to the front of the queue and that the period for the intervening stages before it can be reduced, possibly by half?

The Lord Chancellor keeps the state of business in the court under constant review and the court itself tries to put cases where the sentences are shorter, and therefore there is a risk of a person serving the sentence before an appeal against conviction can be heard, to the front of the queue and so to order its affairs that cases do not result in injustice.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions the Minister for Overseas Development has had with her German opposite number on development assistance.

I met the German Minister for Co-operation, Herr Spranger, at the Anglo-German summit on 11 March. We reached agreement on a wide range of current development issues. I hope to see him early in May. In the meantime, we are in touch by telephone.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Germany's criteria for the provision of such assistance are very similar to our own? In her recent discussions with her German opposite number, did she raise the matter of how Germany could best help to solve the vast problem of Kurdish relief, bearing in mind that that country will not be sending any military personnel into the region?

The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is yes. Obviously, the answer to his second will be embodied in my statement. At this stage, I would say simply that while the Germans may not have a presence in the region, they are contributing to the relief of suffering there.

In view of the need for more international effort to provide appropriate assistance to Kurdish refugees, can the Minister explain to her German counterpart and, indeed, to this House what on earth possessed her to hand out chocolates to starving Kurdish children? Does not such a patronising gesture indicate a degree of insensitivity almost akin to Marie-Antoinette's infamous statement, "Let them eat cake."?

In a few moments, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, we shall come to a statement on this issue. In the meantime, let me say to the hon. Gentleman simply that a large number of things were donated for me to take to the children. It would have been wrong to keep those things. What ought I to have done? Should I have prevented those children from having a little joy? How can the hon. Gentleman be so mean?

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her reply to the last supplementary question. Can she tell me what progress is being made to persuade Germany and other developed countries to implement the Jamaica conditions, which were put forward by the Prime Minister with a view to reducing the indebtedness of developing countries?

At the Commonwealth Finance Minister's meeting last September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put forward what are now known not as the Jamaica conditions but as the Trinidad conditions. Last week I discussed these with the IMF and the World bank. We are hopeful that debt relief provisions—that is to say, easier terms for heavily indebted countries—will be agreed later this summer. We are working with our partners on the issue, and the Germans are particularly supportive of what we are doing.

Did the Minister discuss with her German counterpart the enormous famine facing Africa, with the threat of starvation hanging over 29 million people? What action have the Government decided to take?

I did indeed speak with my German counterpart about the tragic situation to which the hon. Lady has referred. As she has rightly said, up to 29 million people are affected. I asked the Germans to provide more assistance and to help me to make sure that European Community aid was more speedily delivered to the region, particularly the Horn of Africa. They have agreed to do so, and in my next talks with them I hope to hear more evidence of the movement that has taken place over the past six weeks. I know that the Germans are committed to taking action, their earlier problems having gone away.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase aid to South Africa consequent upon the dismantling of apartheid.

Our bilateral aid programme for black South Africans has grown rapidly in recent years to around £8 million in 1990–91. On present plans, it will rise steadily to over £10 million in 1992–93. We shall continue to play a constructive role in the development of a post-apartheid South Africa.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the system of apartheid blighted the educational and entrepreneurial opportunities of the blacks. Will British aid be directed to those two areas?

Indeed it will. In fact, this morning I met President de Klerk, and one of the matters that we discussed was how to secure the return of entrepreneurial growth that will stimulate the creation of jobs. In our programme, there is major emphasis on education and community development. By helping black South Africans to secure better education, we fit them for the jobs that we hope will come through the growth that will be achieved once South Africa is fully accepted back into the international financial community.

Does not the Minister accept that it is highly premature to talk of increasing aid while township violence increases, while black people in South Africa still do not have the vote, and while political prisoners still fill the prisons? Will she remind President de Klerk that until there is an end to the township violence, which in the past five years has claimed more victims than the number of South African soldiers killed in the second world war, he should not be wining and dining in the capital of the United Kingdom?

As a matter of fact, 400 political prisoners have been released since February 1990, and more will be released in the coming weeks. The President of South Africa has plans to deal with township violence—but not by putting more people in custody. The South African Government want to reduce violence by action within the communities and a great deal of work is being undertaken to that end. There is a firm determination among members of that Government to proceed with finalising legislation to get rid of apartheid. When they have done that, I am sure that South Africa will gradually become a better place.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the inauguration of the European bank for reconstruction and development.

The European bank for reconstruction and development was formally inaugurated in London on 15 April by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Mitterrand. That was an historic occasion, which symbolised the coming together of east and west, and gave the new bank the necessary authority to start operations to support economic reform in central and eastern Europe.

The establishment of that bank in London is greatly welcomed, as it consolidates London's position as the financial centre of Europe. The European bank for reconstruction and development has a primary role to play in consolidating the new-found freedoms of east European countries. What support are the British Government giving to it?

The United Kingdom's subscription to the capital base is £36·5 million over five years. The total subscribed capital is 10 billion ecu.

Is the Minister aware of the enormous cost of dealing with just one problem in eastern Europe—that of cleaning up pollution? Does she agree that the sums mentioned are totally inadequate? As Britain is part of the same continent, what will the British Government do to help?

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's observations, because central and eastern Europe's pollution problems are horrendous. We are devoting our know-how funds in eastern Europe to providing that know-how to which the Government in each country give priority. I am certain that they will include some environmental projects. Those Governments will be seeking environmental projects such as those that might be funded by the bank, to solve some of their pollution problems. We must ensure that those problems do not get worse, and that the clean-up starts as soon as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will ensure that the payment of aid funds by Her Majesty's Government to third world countries takes full account of the recipient's record on human rights.

Human rights is one of a number of important factors that we take fully into account in deciding aid allocations.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, with the exception of some humanitarian aid to refugees on the Thai-Burmese border, there will be no resumption of any aid to the Government of Burma until they respect the elections that were held last May in which the Opposition won 85 per cent. of the vote, release the Opposition's de facto leader who is still under house arrest, and un-ban the democratic parties that they have tried to suppress?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.