To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received from commuters about the difficulties of travelling into London.

I receive a large amount of correspondence on a variety of issues from commuters who travel into London.

I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend had an enjoyable and active recess. Does he sympathise with those in my constituency and elsewhere in the south-east who spend a great deal of time each day trying to get into and out of London and who face blocked roads and the M25 bulging at the seams?

Order. This is a rather long supplementary.

It has been a very long journey for some of my constituents, Mr. Speaker.

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's remarks. We must recognise that life is extremely difficult for commuters. The Government are seeking to do what they can to ease the position, both through the major improvements to the M25 that we have announced and through the heaviest investment programme that Network SouthEast has enjoyed for 30 years. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are other ways, which do not involve the use of resources, in which the service to the travelling public can be substantially improved.

The Secretary of State will know that the inquiry into the Clapham rail crash in 1988 recommended that there should be no more than 10 per cent. more passengers than there are seats. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Network SouthEast continually breaches that recommendation? What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do about that, in view of the safety considerations?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, safety is one of the most important considerations for British Rail and it is involved in major investment to improve safety levels both on Network SouthEast lines and lines throughout the country. Currently, a large number of passenger vehicles and other forms of rolling stock are being manufactured and they will come into service with Network SouthEast. That will make an important contribution towards solving the sort of problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that where there has been new investment, the service is acceptable, but that where new investment is still awaited, the service is often wholly unacceptable? Will he assure us that the Treasury's external financing limit will not restrain BR from pressing forward with its investment programme?

The level of the external financing limit is bound to have some effect—it all depends what level is set. The programme on which British Rail has already embarked is massive and certainly the largest since before the days of Dr. Beeching. On Network SouthEast alone, more than 800 passenger coaches and other rolling stock are with the manufacturers and when they come into operation over the next two years they will have a dramatic impact on the quality of life for the travelling public.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the annual report of the Transport Users Consultative Committee published last week showed that the number of serious complaints has doubled? Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement last week about the channel tunnel and the extra strain that it will place on Network SouthEast, will he tell the House whether it is his intention to bring some public service obligation investment to that line?

PSO grant for Network SouthEast and for other services in receipt of PSO has been substantially increased and was increased during the financial year as part of the £400 million additional package that I announced some time ago. Although the Transport Users Consultative Committee referred, quite properly, to the level of complaints, it also acknowledged that the level of investment permitted by the Government is higher than it has been for generations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about manning levels at Manchester airport; and if he will make a statement.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic mentioned manning levels in an Adjournment debate that was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) in July. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is likely to consider the issue next year, when it reviews the charging conditions that should apply to Manchester airport for the five-year period starting in April 1993.

Is my hon. Friend aware of Manchester airport's enviable growth record, now serving more United Kingdom airports than any other airport? Will he ensure future competitiveness by cutting excess manning costs of £3 million per annum, preferably by privatising.

We have received a number of representations about the privatisation of regional airports and we are carefully considering that important matter. My hon. Friend is right about the increase in passengers. In 1979, the number using Manchester airport was 3·4 million and in 1990 it was more than 10 million. That shows the growth that Manchester airport has been able to achieve because it has been allowed to compete and to attract more air services—which is good for both the airport and the people who live in that area.

Does the Minister accept that the growth of Manchester airport is due to local authority investment over many years and that the airport's success is the result of the foresight of local government in the Greater Manchester area over many years?

We could have a long debate on the reasons for the success of Manchester airport, but it would not have occurred had it not been for the competition that our aviation policy injected, which gave regional airports an opportunity to attract more flights and to serve more destinations. That is an important policy and one which we shall continue to pursue.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Manchester airport's plan to construct a second runway is causing enormous concern among my constituents, who are worried about the effect that that development would have on the environment? Can my hon. Friend say what safeguards will be provided?

It is important that Manchester airport should consider its long-term strategy and that any environmental impact assessment is fully debated. I imagine that if such a proposal were to come forward, it would be subject to the necessary planning inquiries—and I am sure that my hon. Friend would then make representations for a public inquiry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in relation to the proposed Greater Manchester northern and western relief road; and if he will make a statement.

In addition to the representation made my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), 130 written representations have been received about the M62 to M66 section of the planned relief road.

Next Monday's meeting of SWARM, the motorway action group dedicated to opposing that development, will emphasise the widespread concern felt by my constituents because the Department of Transport has still not announced whether the relief road will go ahead or what route it will take. Will my hon. Friend put my constituents out of their misery by making an early announcement about the route, or, better still, that he intends to abandon the project altogether?

The delay in introducing the scheme is an indication of the amount of care that Department of Transport officials are taking. That is particularly so in respect of the route's environmental sensitivity. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we will introduce proposals for public consultation before next year.

Although my constituents in Manchester Davyhulme do not oppose the concept of the road, as my hon. Friend will be aware they are strenously opposed to the proposed blue route. Will my hon. Friend give some sign as to when public consultation will begin? Is there to be a public inquiry?

There is no proposed route—we are still preparing for public consultation which will start next year. I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees that there is a need for some relief to the existing road because it carries about 140,000 vehicles a day. Improvements to it are a key to future prosperity in the north-west.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the countries whose Transport Ministers he has met during the year to discuss railway policy.

Railway policy was discussed at two meetings of the European Council of Transport Ministers, resulting in the adoption of an important directive to move towards ending state railway monopolies in the Community. I have also had a separate discussion about railways with the Dutch Minister of Transport.

While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him to confirm that there is an obvious difference between ending the monopoly and going for tooth and claw privatisation? Has he noticed that after 18 months' study Chancellor Kohl's government railway Commission has come out firmly against railway privatisation? On behalf of our party, will he realise that those proposing privatisation are the same people who proposed the poll tax? Please do not let us have a poll tax on wheels.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the ending of British Rail's monopoly and the future privatisation of British Rail are quite separate issues. We have demonstrated our belief and desire that, even now, British Rail should facilitate new providers of freight and passenger services to use under-utilised British Rail track. We believe that any serious desire for increased use of our railways can only benefit from the ending of that monopoly.

Has the Secretary of State also noticed that Germany has committed billions of deutschmarks to modernise railways in eastern Germany on the basis of a nationalised system? Will he make it clear to anyone who talks to the European Community that one cannot expect a railway to operate when it hears vague threats of privatisation, is given no clear management line and is expected to find an 8 per cent. return on the assets that it is investing?

The requirement for an 8 per cent. rate of return is similar to the required rate of return for French railways. As regards the European Community, the most important breakthrough has been that, for the first time in railway history, all European Community Ministers called for an ending of the state monopoly of the railway structure. It will be interesting to know whether the Opposition and the British railway unions will be the last known defenders of state rail monopoly—no one else seems to believe it desirable.

In the overcrowded south-east should not future railway policy reopen lines for passenger traffic— lines which have not been used for many years? To that end, will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage British Rail to reopen the Dunstable to Luton railway line and say that we would rather that money were spent on that than on expensive television advertising campaigns telling us how many trains run at more than 100 mph?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is desirable for railway lines to be opened or reopened where there is a demand for them. I am pleased that in the past few years under the present Government that has been happening. Throughout the United Kingdom about 17 routes have been reopened and six new lines initiated. I believe that, for the first time since the early 1960s, there is an ongoing increase in railway utilisation.

I did not hear the Secretary of State refer to Wales as one of the countries with whose Transport Ministers he has had discussions. In view of Welsh Office Ministers' passing interest in transport and of the fact that the through inter-city railway service from Holyhead to London was halved from six to three trains a day two weeks ago, will he discuss urgently with Welsh Office Ministers and British Rail the reversal of that decision?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales takes a keen interest in railways in Wales and we are already in regular contact with him. The circumstances involving routes such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred are for British Rail to determine in the first instance on the basis of the use being made of that service.

How does it help to advance the cause of railways for fundamental decisions about structure to be made in Brussels? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the residents of Southend-on-Sea have the second worst railway line in Britain—a line that has been condemned as totally unsuitable by his junior Minister—and that they are losing jobs in London solely because they have to use the Fenchurch Street line? They would be far happier if the Secretary of State concentrated on solving the problems of investment in that line, instead of trying to discuss railway structure and organisation with the EEC.

My hon. Friend's question raises two issues. He is, of course, right to mention the unsatisfactory condition of the railway line that affects his constituents and I strongly endorse the points that he made about that. His remarks about the European Community, however, suggest that he may not yet understand the nature of the decision that was announced. That decision made particular reference to railway services operating through several Community countries.

Has the Secretary of State told other Transport Ministers just how well we in this country plan our transport infrastructure? Perhaps he will tell them how much they have to learn from his handling of the channel tunnel rail link, for example. As—in the words of the chairman of the Conservative party—political considerations dictated this choice, will the Secretary of State tell his fellow Ministers that the choice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] I am asking a question, as hon. Members would know if they were listening. [Interruption.]

Order. This takes up a lot of time. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his question, please?

We are pleased to see that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is still here to ask me to do so.

First, as the House knows, I propose— subject to your leave, Mr. Speaker—to make a statement on that subject later this afternoon. Secondly, the fact that my announcement of the choice of route was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman's party makes the hon. Gentleman's current remarks seem slightly absurd.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes next to meet the chairman of British Rail; and if he will be discussing rail safety on that occasion.

My right hon. and learned Friend has regular meetings with Sir Bob Reid, the British Rail chairman, to discuss a variety of railway issues. Safety remains the top priority for both the Government and British Rail.

The Minister says that safety remains the top priority and the Government always say that it is paramount. Does he accept, however, that many people who work in the industry feel that financial pressures and lack of investment in the railway system are eroding the safety margin and that there is increasing concern in the industry about safety factors? What is needed is a major change in Government policy —or a change of Government.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to British Rail—not only the board but the staff—for making sure that safety is a top priority. Last year, British Rail spent about £140 million on safety and the board plans to spend about £200 million in the year that we are halfway through. That, in my view, places the right emphasis on safety and British Rail's objective is to ensure that that emphasis continues in the future.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not merely safety that concerns my constituents in Castle Point, who, in order to get to work, are obliged to use the worst—(Interruption.) Yes, the worst railway in the country? That railway is completely unreliable. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that the chairman of British Rail—who so far has been oblivious to all this— will be told that it must stop? Safety and reliability: that is what we want and demand.

My right hon. and learned Friend and I share my right hon. Friend's comments about the quality of service on the London-Tilbury and Southend line. It needs resignalling and reinvestment in new rolling stock. It is operated safely, but its unreliability is due to the age of its infrastructure. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are addressing those problems right now.

Does the Minister accept that the public should have the fullest confidence in the transportation of both freight and people? In that context, can he tell us what safety discussions he has held with British Rail about the transportation of nuclear waste to Dounreay from places as far afield as Iraq, Canada and Germany, as there is widespread public concern in Scotland about that? May I have the Minister's assurance that he will advise the House of the details of the routes that are to be followed and the dates and that the police forces will be informed?

The operators follow strict criteria as to the safety of their loads, whether carried by road or rail. If the hon. Lady is ignorant of that and cares to table a question, I will answer it. Prior publicity of the routes followed would not be in the best interests of the safe conduct of such material.

Will my hon. Friend arrange to see the chairman of British Rail at a different main line station each month? If the chairman fails to turn up on time, will my hon. Friend fail to renew his contract?

From my knowledge of Sir Bob Reid's interest in railways, he has visited not only all the London termini but most of the rail services in the country. He is extremely assiduous in his task. My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the chairman frequently out of the office on British Rail's network.

Will the Minister discuss the safety implications of the creeping privatisation proposals that were announced by the Secretary of State at the Tory party conference? Can he now make it clear that those proposals will not go ahead, as the Bill is unlikely to be included in the Queen's Speech?

There are two parts to that question. The Government have made it plain that any privatisation of British Rail will be a matter for the next Parliament, not for this. There is no question, therefore, of any Bill being presented to Parliament in the next Session. The Government have always made that plain. Any railway system, whether it is in the public or the private sector, has to be operated safely. The roles and responsibilities of Her Majesty's railway inspectorate will continue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much he expects to be invested in London Underground Ltd. and London Buses Ltd. during 1991–92.

The level of investment undertaken by London Underground Ltd. and London Buses Ltd. is a matter for London Transport to decide within total funds available. However, I understand that the Underground is planning to invest some £500 million this year and London Buses some £30 million.

I thank the Minister for his answer. However, does he agree with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that deficiencies in the level of service are the result of chronic under-investment in both new capacity and the replacement and renewal of existing assets? Is he aware that the chair of London Transport has said that investment must rise to £1·5 billion a year simply to maintain the existing level of service, a service that cannot even run when it rains because stations get flooded? Despite what he said today, will he acknowledge that existing investment programmes are threatened because of lack of money? Can he also confirm that rumours that crossrail will be delayed by two years?

I can confirm that British Rail and London Transport are proceeding firmly on the basis of depositing a Bill for crossrail in the next Session. It is far too early to give a commitment on the start and completion of construction. The grant of £2,500 million to be paid by the Government to London Transport over this and the next two years is double in real terms the grant that was paid in the past three years. The Opposition are not promising one penny more to London Transport over the next three years. Our record on funding London Transport is second to none.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about increased investment, but where is that investment being spent, because there is little evidence of where it is being spent?

I could give my hon. Friend one example —one of many—and I should be happy to answer a parliamentary question if he tables one. The refurbishment of the Central line is costing well over £700 million. It will involve the replacement of the rolling stock and resignalling and will lead to an improved service for all passengers.

When the Minister considers investment, will he recall that he wrote to me some time ago telling me that the lavatories on Stratford station in east London would be put in good working order in the summer of 1990? The summer of 1990 has gone, but the lavatories on Stratford station are still not working. How does he justify that to the commuters of east London?

I recently visited Stratford station with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) will he interested in the statement that is to follow on the channel tunnel rail link, which will mean big improvements for Stratford. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the public toilets.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to encourage public and private transport bodies to refund fares when their vehicles fail to run or are late; and if he will make a statement.

Arising from the citizens charter, British Rail and London Underground are preparing charters for their customers that will set out the level of service that can be expected and what compensation will be available. Private sector transport operators must decide how best to serve their customers in a competitive market.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the time has come to compensate all passengers, particularly my constituents in Ealing, North, when trains and other transport are late? Would not the charter place a discipline on British Rail and other bodies responsible for transport, as they would know that they would have to compensate passengers when trains are late or when passengers are kept sitting in sidings for hours in anticipation of an arrival? Should not something be done, and what will be done?

It is, indeed, desirable to improve compensation measures, and under the citizens charter that is what British Rail and London Transport propose to do. There is the practical question of identifying the passengers who travelled, or who wished to travel, on a train service, but once those practical aspects can be accommodated the principle of compensation will be irrefutable where the service has been grossly inadequate.

Is the Minister aware that the 7.05 am from Manchester to London was more than two hours late this morning? Does he realise that for many passengers on that train it was the second time in a month that the service had been unsatisfactory? Is he aware that although they would like some compensation for that, what they really want is a train service that runs on time? The only way to achieve that is effective investment in rail stock. When shall we get some new units on the line from Manchester to London?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, British Rail has a substantial investment programme. I travelled today on the new east coast main line service and arrived within three minutes of the scheduled time of arrival, on which BR can properly be congratulated. We should like such punctuality to apply throughout the service, and the hon. Gentleman's point is well noted.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the worst railway line is not in Essex but is the Dartford loop line, which serves my constituency? When will British Rail announce its policy to levy only small fare increases on what are deemed to be poorly served lines?

I understand that British Rail is likely to make its fare increases known in the near future. In determining what those levels should be, it is important that some account is taken of lines that are known to provide an especially bad service. There should be some connection between the two aspects, and we very much hope that British Rail will take account of that.

Did the Secretary of State read the Daily Mail story today which said that the Prime Minister had intervened in respect of British Rail fares, that those fares are no longer British Rail's responsibility and that the Government intend freezing them? How does the Secretary of State intend to provide the capital that is necessary to meet his hon. Friends' complaints about Network SouthEast and about which line is the worst? It is clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to reduce subsidies for the south-east by 1992. Does he intend to continue that silly policy?

My hon. Friends have been referring to investment in Network SouthEast lines. The hon. Gentleman should know two things—that investment in Network SouthEast is at an historically high level and that, under the last Labour Government, for three years investment was cut, not increased. It is the practice of Labour Governments, not the rhetoric of Labour spokesmen, to which the House and the country will pay attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends announcing his Department's preferred route for the A38 trunk road improvement Liskeard-Bodmin section and the proposed options for the Saltash-Trerulefoot section; and if he will make a statement.

I expect to announce the preferred route for the proposed improvement of the A38 between Liskeard and Bodmin in December. Public consultation on proposals for the Saltash to Trerulefoot section of the A38 will take place next year.

I welcome the December 1991 date for the announcement of the preferred route between Liskeard and Bodmin. Is my hon. Friend aware of the increasing worry about delays on the Saltash to Trerulefoot section of the A38? Will he confirm that much of the investigatory work was undertaken 10 to 12 years ago, when various options were published? Is not it about time that this A-class cart track was improved?

The Government intend to improve that A road substantially and as soon as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend will not miss an opportunity to explain to his constituents that only with a Conservative Government is there any prospect of that happening.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Airports Policy Consortium on London's long-term airports.

The Airports Policy Consortium has sent its report, "Europe One", to the working group which we set up to consider how south-east air traffic demand could be met in the light of the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority in its report CAP570.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the consortium's call for a more coherent airport strategy for London and the south-east in the 21st century to take account of the potential development of regional airports, such as Bournemouth Hurn in the constituency of my hon.

The group that we set up is considering all aspects of report CAP570. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is desirable to have regional airport growth. Some of our regional airports are major international airports. Reference has been made to Manchester, the third largest airport in the country. I assure my hon. Friend that all those considerations will be taken into account.

Are not the Government turning London City airport into a major airport and is not the decision to allow jets to use it part of that process? Are not the Government acting by stealth, instead of having a proper planning process whereby the people of London can be consulted?

That decision was made after an extensive inquiry, and I think that it has been welcomed by most people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he currently gives to local authorities about traffic calming measures, including speed humps.

I continue to emphasise to local authorities the importance of traffic calming measures as a means of restraining vehicle speeds and in modifying driver behaviour.

Does my hon. Friend agree that people throughout the country will welcome the fact that the number of casualties on our roads has fallen to an historically low level, despite the number of cars on the roads? Does he agree also that there is a problem in urban areas, where the number of accidents remains high? Does my hon. Friend agree that if local boroughs used their powers to introduce traffic calming measures, particularly road humps, cars would have to go slower and that such measures would contribute enormously to safety in those areas? Will my hon. Friend do what he can to persuade the boroughs to use their powers and put in road humps?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to the substantial reduction in the road casualty figures, which, as he has said, are now the lowest for about 40 years. It is clear that the major problem is to reduce road casualties in urban areas. The key to bringing about that reduction is traffic engineering measures, including road humps. I hope that local authorities will invest the moneys that they receive from their community charge payers and taxpayers in bringing about more regulations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for further extensions to the docklands light railway.

The docklands light railway has recently been extended to Bank and a second platform should open early next year. An extension to Beckton is being built and one to Greenwich and Lewisham is the subject of a Bill before the House.

Is the Minister aware that the recent approval of the east London river crossing is controversial in that it does not include an extension to the docklands light railway? Does he agree that a six-lane motorway from outer south London and Kent into the docklands including Canary wharf, will bring greatly increased traffic through Newham, with queues, accidents and conceivably death to the people of the borough? Would not it be sensible to extend the docklands light railway from Beckton across the bridge into Thamesmead and north Kent?

I am not aware of any proposals to do so. The east London rail study, stage 2, is considering, as the hon. Gentleman knows, improved access to east London by extending the docklands light railway and possibly by extending the east London line across the Thames to Woolwich. I shall draw the attention of those who are involved in the study to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

To ask the Attorney-General what recent discussions he has had with the Serious Fraud Office regarding banking and financial transactions; and if he will make a statement.

I have frequent discussions with the director of the Serious Fraud Office about matters of departmental interest. The specific subjects discussed need to remain confidential.

Have the Attorney-General and the Serious Fraud Office been discussing financial transactions to the Tory party in the form of donations by Greeks and Hong Kong business men? What special favours have been handed out to those business people by the Government? Why is it that the Tory party has taken money from Asil Nadir when that same man is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office? Will the chairman of the Tory party send the money back? If it is right to investigate the National Union of Mineworkers' finances involving money from abroad, why cannot we have the same investigation into money for the Tory party?

Who subscribes to what and to whom is not a matter for me. I shall refer matters relating to the NUM to the hon. Gentleman, who is its vicar upon earth, or at least upon the surface. It seems extremely unfair for the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Perhaps I might be allowed to intrude in the hon. Gentleman's conversation. It seems a little unfair for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that a man who is already facing 18 criminal charges brought by the Serious Fraud Office has previously sought improper favours by means of some subscription. If he reflects on that, I think that he, with his well-known fairness, will consider that it is unfair.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is nonsensical to talk about fraud as victimless crime? I have in mind those who are involved with the BCCI scandal and many other such matters. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to accept that it is not a criticism of the Serious Fraud Office to say that it would be better if it could have more staff and if there could be greater co-operation with the City regulatory bodies. So often the victim gets fleeced and the fleecer gets clear away. Is it not time that we got in quicker and made sure that those involved with finance know that they cannot get away with these crimes, which are not victimless?

They are certainly not victim-less. That is why this Government—not a Labour Government—created the Serious Fraud Office with unique powers of investigation. Nor do victims have to suffer, seeing that nobody gets away. Since the end of the past financial year, 10 trials have been brought to a conclusion. Seventeen defendants have been convicted and only two of the total have been acquitted.

To ask the Attorney-General what fresh initiatives he is taking to increase the contribution made by his Department and agencies and procedures falling under his jurisdiction to minimise delay in dealing with young people accused of criminal offences.

Minimising unnecessary delay, particularly in cases involving young people, has always been given high priority by the Crown prosection service. The new statutory time limits in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 have in practice been operated by the CPS in the juvenile courts since June 1990. The report of the working group on pre-trial issues provides further evidence of the Crown prosecution service's continuing commitment to reducing delay.

Does the Minister accept that many involved in the juvenile justice system would be suprised at his complacency? Does he accept that justice delayed is very often bad justice? Does he also accept that very often, in the juvenile system, justice delayed involves young people not being diverted away from criminal activity? Does he accept that there is a need, in our fragmented system, for a lead to be taken in bringing all agencies together to speed up the way in which crime is dealt with, both in the interests of justice and in the interests of the victims of crime? Will the Minister undertake now to take the initiative to bring together all the Departments and organisations concerned to speed up juvenile justice?

I accept that, in the juvenile system, as in the rest of the justice system, justice delayed is justice denied. But I think that people would be very surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who has considerable experience of the juvenile courts system, having once been the chairman of a juvenile court, should not be up to date with what has been going on in the past two years. The working group on pre-trial issues and the juvenile liaison panels have been working in their different ways to cut down delays and to implement strict timetables, so that once the investigation is completed, there is a maximum, if possible, of four weeks before decision. There should be only three weeks before first listing and, as soon as one has decided to prosecute, one should go ahead straight away and seek any additional evidence. All those are important initiatives in speeding up the system.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that often delay is not the main problem? In Stockton-on-Tees, for example, one young man aged 14 has this year been convicted 17 times of car theft, involving vehicles worth more than £2 million. That young man has committed a number of the offences while on bail or in the care of the local authority, and the local police tell me that, while they cannot deal with him in an effective way, about 75 per cent. of all burglaries and car thefts in the borough are committed by about 50 to 60 young people aged between 13 and 17. What is really needed is an effective way of dealing with them, not an effective way of dealing with any alleged delays in the system.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is widely recognised that, not only in Stockton-on-Tees but in other parts of the country, a substantial proportion of the crime committed involves multiple offences committed by a comparatively small number of people. Getting them brought to trial quickly, getting the cases brought together so that the courts can deal with them at once and finding sufficient secure accommodation for those who cannot be granted bail are all part of the problem.

To ask the Attorney-General how many appeals he has initiated on the grounds of possible leniency of sentence; and how many have been successful.

Since 1 February 1989, I have referred 52 cases to the Court of Appeal. Twenty nine of them have so far been determined and 24 of them resulted in sharply increased sentences. Additionally, I have referred three cases to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. Two have been determined and in each a substantially heavier sentence has resulted.

May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the use that he has made of the powers? Does he accept that the consequences go much wider than those 30 or so cases, as the Court of Appeal has established a tariff to help the judges with sentencing future criminals? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that experience underlines the sheer irresponsibility of those who opposed the introduction of the power?

I do agree with my hon. Friend and I know that he takes a great interest in these matters. The Court of Appeal has used this power, which I have had since February two years ago, to lay down guidelines for the assistance of judges. I will now be referring fewer cases because those guidelines are being acted upon and they are inducing much greater consistency. I also agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's sentence— [Interruption.] I am sorry, with the last part of his question—my hon. Friend is not known for unduly lenient sentences. The provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 were strongly opposed by the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) described them as wrong in principle and said that they had been introduced for political purposes. It would be interesting to know whether the Labour party would repeal them now.

To ask the Attorney-General if it is still intended to remove the provision of legal advice and assistance from seekers of political asylum and from immigration cases.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 2 July. Home Office Ministers are arranging discussions with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has made it quite clear that there will be no change to the present arrangements unless and until satisfactory alternative arrangements are in place.

Does it strike the Solicitor-General as very odd that a Government who pretend to the virtues of individuality and freedom should be proposing a state-funded monopoly of advice to refugees which is run by an organisation which does not want the job and to the universal condemnation of those who have commented on the matter and with the purpose of avoiding Britain's international obligations under an international convention? In view of statements by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, will the Government now drop that disgraceful proposal?

The hon. Gentleman heavily overstates his case and therefore spoils it. As up to 50,000 possible cases have to be dealt with in a year, it is widely recognised—and it is certainly recognised by UK IAS—that there is a strong case for a specialist agency in the area, whether or not it has a monopoly. Constructive discussions are in process which will help to show the way forward. To deal with such a large number of cases without building up a specialist service is unlikely to provide the best results for those who need that service.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the use of the know-how fund in eastern Europe.

The know-how fund is used to finance technical assistance projects in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslavakia, Bulgaria, Romania, the Baltic states and the Soviet Union. We spent £15 million last year and plan to double that this year. The know-how fund is admired by other donors and greatly appreciated throughout eastern Europe.

While I welcome the assistance provided under the know-how fund, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also essential to provide a market for the beleaguered economies of eastern Europe? Is it not incredibly selfish of our European partners to refuse to do that?

All eastern European countries, including the Soviet Union, need to earn foreign exchange. Therefore, they need access to markets. We have led the way to enable those countries to export to western Europe. A substantial part of the package of food aid credits for the Soviet Union which is agreed in principle is to buy food in eastern European countries for consumption in the Soviet Union. My hon. Friend is right. We have had to fight our way through a block in the Food Advisory Committee with regard to those matters and we hope that by continually pushing with our partners—as we did in negotiating the Lome agreement—to get access for east European countries to western European markets. That is essential.

While I accept that the know-how fund does very useful work, does the Minister believe that there is no overlap between the various forms of assistance being offered by different western European countries? Is there a case for co-ordination, possibly through the Council of Europe?

First, I do not think that there is much overlap because there is so much need. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, our emphasis has been on banking and finance which are a crucial part of the economic regeneration of eastern European countries. Without those services there would be no channel for private investment, nor indeed chances for small business to develop. We have not seen any signs of duplication. We have seen a growing agreement on the part of Governments and the companies that they are now forming to turn to us, and not to anywhere else, for that essential economic regeneration advice.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on population assistance through the United Kingdom aid programme.

The ODA booklet "Children by Choice not Chance", published in August, explains the developmental priority of our population initiatives. Health services must expand to meet the demands of couples to choose when to have children. At least 15 new projects are planned. The specific budget has expanded from £6·5 million in 1981 to £24 million in 1990, and will steadily expand further.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that statement is very welcome indeed, but that the underlying funding is still in considerable doubt as only 1 per cent. of our overseas aid seems to be going on that measure which must be one of the most important facing mankind? Surely we should be giving more in absolute and relative terms.

I understand my hon. Friend's desire to increase that. aid. In fact, our spending on direct population activities has more than tripled since 1980. If we add to the £24 million that we spent last year and the larger amount this year, the £91 million on other projects which actually helped in population planning, the picture will look a little different. We are taking more money from the country allocations where Governments will agree to it and through non-governmental organisations to try to increase still further population planning activities.

May I have a yes or no reply to my very simple question? Is it true that last year, as a proportion of GDP, Britain spent less than it has ever done since the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development began keeping records? Yes or no?

The answer is yes. I do not like it any more than anybody else does, but I rely on the facts. The facts are that Britain has the sixth largest aid programme. It has been growing in real terms over the past three years. It is closely targeted. We intend to ensure that the quality of it remains high. It has been repeatedly praised by the OECD. Above all, we insist on having tight evaluation procedures for everything that we are doing, and I am determined to see that that happens.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that large families are economic necessities for many in poor countries? Children provide sustenance when their parents grow older. Therefore, before we start cutting the size of families, is not it necessary to decrease infant mortality and provide a market for the goods of poor countries so that they can actually earn income to sustain families?

As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), economic growth and access to markets are vital. That will help families but it does not remove the fact that a doubling —possibly even a tripling—of the current population of 5·4 billion during the next century will eat up more environmental and economic resources that growth could ever provide or conserve. That is why population planning is not only necessary but desired by hundreds of millions of couples who cannot get it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he made to other members of the G7 concerning development in, and aid to, the third world, at the last G7 meeting.

At the July economic summit, the G7 discussed important development co-operation issues, such as debt relief, the environment, good government, trade access and the reduction of military expenditure. At the Finance Ministers' meeting in Bangkok on 12 October, the called on the Paris club to implement measures that go well beyond Toronto relief terms.

The Minister's reply did not refer specifically to what the Government are doing in terms of aid. Indeed, her answer a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was quite unsatisfactory. The fact is that the aid that is provided by this Government is on a downward spiral. The figures that were produced a fortnight ago by the development assistance committee of the OECD show an 11 per cent. drop in the period 1989–90 to a miserly 0·27 per cent. of GNP. Will the Minister reverse that shameful trend and begin to allow this country to pull its full weight in assisting the developing world?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Britain's aid figures are not on a downward spiral. Britain's average aid:GNP ratio over the past five years has remained around 0·3 per cent. As I explained to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), much of our expenditure in the last quarter of 1990 was delayed until the first quarter of 1991. That is reflected in the fact that we have a GNP planning figure of 0·31 per cent. for this financial year. I repeat that the critical points are the quality of the aid, its targeting and the fact that it is tightly evaluated. That counts for far more than merely throwing money at problems where it cannot be assimilated.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that some of her discussions will concentrate on the fact that aid should go to countries that practice good governance? Will she therefore confirm that there is no question of restoring aid to Burma and will she welcome the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi has been awarded the Nobel peace prize for standing up for democratic values?

I welcome my hon. Friend's question and confirm that there is no question of restoring aid to Burma at present. Like my hon. Friend, I very much welcome that award of the Nobel peace prize.

What measures are the G7 countries taking to deal with the abuse of aid and trade provisions that was revealed in ODA evaluation report EV470, relating to six major power projects? Will the Government tell us the truth today? Which of the two versions of the report by the highly respected academic, Andrew Barnett, is the accurate report—the original one, which criticised the lack of appraisal and monitoring of projects, the export of deficient and inappropriate technology and the breakdown of equipment without any spares back-up, or the doctored report, from which all the most critical references were removed? Is it not true that Mr. Barnett has been compromised and is the victim of a Government face-saving exercise?

I am answering a question on this tomorrow, but I think that the House would wish to know that I wrote to the hon. Lady on Friday, rebutting the wholly unfounded allegations that she has made against my officials and asking her to withdraw them. Today the hon. Lady has repeated those slurs in the House. Therefore, I am glad that tomorrow I shall be able to report—and that it will be reported inHansard—the whole of my reply which rebuts the slurs that the hon. Lady unfairly made on 19 and 20 September.