To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve marine safety, particularly so far as fishing boat losses are concerned.

The United Kingdom has developed domestic legislation and regularly consults the fishing industry safety group about possible improvements. I expect shortly to receive reports from the marine accident investigation branch of a number of recent fishing vessel accidents. They will be studied carefully and I can assure the House that any necessary measures that are brought to our attention will be given very careful consideration.

I welcome that assurance, but does my hon. Friend accept that there is already a tremendous amount of evidence about some of the things that are clearly wrong with maritime safety? Is he aware that I have been carrying out my own investigations, including a trip through the channel? I have received a number of letters on the subject, and most people who are knowledgeable about the subject tell me—and I am sure that they are right—that the root cause is bad watchkeeping, mainly by merchant vessels but also occasionally by fishermen. Will my hon. Friend try to bring both sides together nationally—as is happening locally in Devon and Cornwall—to try to make some progress on this central issue, as well as pursuing the matter internationally?

I am grateful for the constructive way in which my hon. Friend is addressing the problem. He rightly draws attention to the fact that it is not necessarily always one side that sometimes breaches the watchkeeping agreements and regulations. We want to consider those matters, and I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's points in mind. I am about to meet him to discuss his recent trip and see whether any lessons can be learnt from it.

I know that the Minister has no direct responsibility for Ministry of Defence vessels sailing too close to fishing vessels, but may I remind him that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and I raised with the Ministry of Defence the recent incident in which a nuclear submarine surfaced within 1,000 yd of a fishing vessel, despite the promises given in the aftermath of the sinking of the Antares? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that we ensured that no United Kingdom registered vessel puts out to sea without carrying on board immersion suits for each and every crew member?

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, the matter is being evaluated and examined. I do not think that immersion suits are necessarily the answer to all the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred—indeed, they could create mobility problems for fishermen on board vessels. I understand that the Ministry of Defence is renewing guidance to commanders of submarines in transit and exercise areas.

On the wider issue of marine safety generally, is the Minister fully satisfied with the safety of the older types of roll on/roll off ferry?

We need to ensure that all ferries come up to the standards expected under the safety of life at sea conventions.

Does the Minister agree that we return to the whole issue of ship safety at every Question Time, and that the only difference between this time and last time is that we now have recourse to information from the National Audit Office, which confirms many of the concerns which we have been expressing about ship safety, especially as it affects fishing vessels? Does the Minister agree that the time has come to take responsibility for inspections away from the Department of Transport and to place it with an independent body in which we can have confidence—the Health and Safety Executive? Is not that the only way to learn the lessons of all the tragedies that we have experienced?

It is certainly true that the National Audit Office report was interesting. It was compiled largely with the help of the surveyor general's department which repeated a number of points and the NAO went through its files and noted them. We will respond in due course to the NAO report. However, it is worth quoting Lloyd's List, which does not always say how virtuous the Department of Transport is. It states:

"But after reading the NAO report, it would be hard to get oneself worked up into a lather about either marine safety, or the Department of Transport's handling of it. One hopes that this does not promote complacency."

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the future development of rail services in the north-west region.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I regularly meet the chairman to discuss current issues. I attended a meeting on 9 December last year of the north-west local authorities to discuss transport issues in the north-west.

Will the Minister of State confirm today the Government's unwillingness to provide the £800 million necessary to upgrade the north-west main line link to ensure through trains to the channel tunnel and the continent, as requested by business men in the north-west? If he can confirm that, is he prepared to allow British Rail an arrangement similar to that agreed last December with the TGV for a leasing arrangement so that British Rail can get on with upgrading track and machinery to ensure that the north-west can take advantage of the channel tunnel link?

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that all three types of channel tunnel trains have been ordered—the inter-capital trains between London, Paris and Brussels; the night trains that will run up through the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and the day trains north of London. They are being purchased for cash—

They are leased.

That is because the purchase is being made with other countries. British Rail is leasing the deep-sea container wagons.

I am delighted to know how many trains have been ordered. However, it seems to me sometimes that discussions with British Rail are like the chicken-and-egg when it comes to places like Lancaster. British Rail wants us to prove that there are passengers before the trains are run. How on earth can we plan ahead if we do not know whether trains will be there? I hope that BR will have a little faith in the rapidly expanding business in the north-west—we are doing remarkably well up there—and show that faith by allowing more trains to stop at Lancaster.

My hon. Friend will know that BR has plans to re-equip the InterCity service on the west coast main line. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on the Opposition Front Bench would share the view that InterCity services are commercial and should remain unsubsidised.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss the fact that BR is about to reduce the InterCity service by 30 per cent? Cutting the trains by 30 per cent. will have a disastrous effect on the north-west. Does he agree that industry, and in particular the tourist industry, will suffer if that happens? Does he also agree that the resort of Southport along with Preston and Liverpool may suffer because of that?

The exact timing of InterCity services is a matter for BR and not for Ministers. However. BR's investment programme under this Government has been significant. Investment is up 85 per cent. BR's investment programme is the highest for 30 years. Under Labour, BR's investment fell between 1964 and 1970 and rose by only a very small percentage between 1974 and 1979.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate all those involved with the east Lancashire railway which, with the help of £1 million worth of derelict land grant from the Government, recently concluded a deal with BR to ensure a link between its own successful enterprise and the main rail network? With the anticipated completion of the metro light rapid transit link to Bury, does he agree that the future for rail lovers and rail transport services in my constituency is very good indeed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government have provided section 56 grant and credit approval cover to the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority for completion of the Manchester metrolink. That is solid evidence of the Government's support for urban transport schemes.

Is the Minister aware that unless the Government take action before the general election it is likely that France will have a very large transit point on its side of the channel while on the British side there will be very little planning either for modernised rail services from London to the north-west or around London, which is vital for the north-west? If there is even further privatisation, the north-west will be left with an inferior service and very little advantage to the channel tunnel.

British Rail's plans for channel tunnel services when they open in late summer of next year are totally financed and well advanced. If the hon. Lady's colleagues were to form the Government after the next election, the first step that they would take would be to postpone the decision on the channel tunnel rail link by setting up a commission to take six months to review a decision that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already taken.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce measures to require the Civil Aviation Authority to pay compensation for airline passengers whose planes are delayed for over 10 minutes after the scheduled arrival time as a result of delays caused by air traffic control.

I have no plans to do so.

What about the airlines? Should not they get compensation if planes are delayed because of the restrictive practices of air traffic controllers? Is not one way to get a greater quantity and quality of slots to separate the Civil Aviation Authority from National Air Traffic Services and make it an independent public utility, thereby separating the poacher-cum gamekeeper role of the Civil Aviation Authority, much as the National Rivers Authority and the water authorities are separate? Would not that be a better solution for the customer—the airline passenger—and for the airlines themselves?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, obviously when aircraft are late there can be a number of reasons. It may, for example, be the action of air traffic controllers overseas that resulted in the late departure of an aircraft, for which air traffic control authorities in this country could hardly be held responsible.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in 1990, at Heathrow. Gatwick, Stansted and Luton airports, more than 26 million passengers arrived more than 15 minutes late? If the Secretary of State were even to consider paying a small compensation of £10, it would be the equivalent of £250 million, doubling the CAA's debt to the Government—that is, its borrowing requirement. Do the Government accept some responsibility in this matter, because they laid down the corporate plan in 1983 that instructed the CAA to reduce the number of air traffic controllers by more than 100 or 8 per cent., which has contributed to those people arriving late at our airports?

It was not clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks whether he was pledging a future Labour Government to impose such a financial obligation on the Civil Aviation Authority. I note that he is rather coy about giving his view on that matter. He should be aware that the air traffic control system in the United Kingdom not only has the best record in Europe but has available to it massive investment which will lead to a substantial increase in the available capacity. The requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority with regard to new investment have indeed been fully met by the present Government.

While I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the plans for increased spending on air traffic control in this country, is satisfied with the political control of Eurocontrol? Is he able to tell the House when that is liable to come on stream, bearing in mind that that excellent plan will make a great difference to the convenience and safety of the travelling public?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important matter. Of course, at a European level it is desirable to achieve better harmonisation and co-ordination of air traffic control. However, I should warn the House that I do not believe that it is appropriate to try to move towards a single air traffic control organisation. There have been too many examples of poor industrial relations, especially in France, which have led to all air traffic being cancelled. I should not like those matters to be in the control of a small number of people, who could switch off air traffic throughout Europe because of some industrial dispute. Our air traffic controllers have a superb record of service to the country. We want better harmonisation and co-ordination, but not a single uniform organisation.

We appreciate the Secretary of State's responses, but I am a little concerned that he is still thinking of considering that in the future. There are still too many delayed flights, especially from Scotland and Northern Ireland, because—we are told—of air traffic control delays. May I press the Minister to reconsider the issue—or is there a cosy relationship between the airlines and some hotels, to try to get us to stay overnight in London?

The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point. It was precisely because of the undoubted congestion at Heathrow and, to a lesser extent, at Gatwick that some years ago the Government approved major investment for the CAA. Steps which are currently under way and the new investment which is being provided will in the near future allow for a substantial increase in overall air capacity in the south-east, which will help to relieve that type of congestion, to the benefit of the travelling public.

In rejecting the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), has my right hon. and learned Friend borne in mind the repercussions of the reasons that he gave for his rejection a moment ago—that someone else might be responsible? Bearing in mind that the proposals in the citizens charter for British Rail could also be subject to the same propositions—perhaps a suicide on the line or a hoax telephone call—how confident is my right hon. and learned Friend that the citizens charter will provide cast iron guidelines which will not end up in a lawyers' paradise?

I have always made it clear that British Rail is entitled, and indeed correct, to point out that late arrivals of trains can be due to acts of vandalism or other acts beyond its control. That is being taken into account in the preparations for the passengers charter by British Rail.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the size and scope of the 1992–93 major highway programme in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne.

The size and scope of the 1992–93 major highway progamme in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne are matters for the city council.

The Minister well knows that the package that Newcastle put up is good for jobs and good for people. Why then did he not give the money to enable the scheme that local people had worked out for Cradlewell in Newcastle to go ahead? There are would have been no dizzy walkways, no murky subways. An urban village centre would have been created next to a local beauty spot, preventing an important local historic monument—the Armstrong bridge—from falling down. Why did the Minister specifically pull out the money for that scheme from Newcastle's road programme?

Because the city of Newcastle council asked us to. Last year we substituted the Scotswood road improvement for the Cradlewell bypass scheme. That was supported by the city council. The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for jobs and prosperity in Newcastle. The best way to bring those about is to ensure first-class road communications to Newcastle. His party is proposing to put in jeopardy our upgrading of the A1 to motorway standard.

Does my hon. Friend accept that since 1979 the Government have spent and planned to spend nearly £600 million on road construction and maintenance in the north-east? The north-east has done very well out of the Government, although we need to dual the A69 west of Hexham. Does he not accept that the demands of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) for more road building sit oddly with those of his Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who would put a moratorium on all new road building?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are committed to further investment in the road infrastructure in the north-east. Indeed, we have a trans-Pennine study on links between the north-east and north-west. The outcome of that study will inform further investment decisions in the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to meet Bedfordshire county council to discuss the future development of transport in the county; and if he will make a statement.

I met representatives of Bedfordshire county council on 29 January to discuss proposals for the future use of the Luton to Dunstable corridor.

My hon. Friend will be aware that great progress has been made on bypass construction since 1979. Will my hon. Friend's Department give full support to keeping the Bedford to Bletchley line open, reopening the Luton to Dunstable line and to creating a new terminus south of Luton so that Bedfordshire can benefit when the channel tunnel is opened?

First, I know of no plans to close the Bedford to Bletchley line. The rolling stock is aging, and British Rail is considering the introduction of modern rolling stock on that line. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in promoting a scheme to reuse the Luton-Dunstable line and I very much hope that that scheme comes to fruition. A diesel shuttle service from Luton to Dunstable would run on a track that is currently not used and that service would bring great benefits. As to the channel tunnel terminal, British Rail has no plans to have other than King's Cross as its London terminus. Services on the midlands and the east coast main lines would depend upon electrification, but I know that British Rail will seriously consider running channel tunnel services when there is proper demand.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's estimate of the number of uninsured drivers.

In 1989 there were 208,010 convictions in England and Wales for uninsured driving. It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the total number of offences committed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the failure of some motorists to have any insurance cover results in higher premiums being paid by other motorists who abide by the law? Does he agree that the compulsory display of insurance discs on vehicle windscreens would help to reduce evasion in this country, as it has done in others?

Certainly, driving without insurance is a serious offence and others end up having to pay for the wrong-doers. That is why the Government have increased, by legislation, the maximum penalty from £1,000 to £5,000. The courts can also order disqualification. My hon. Friend's suggestion might result in less evasion, but there are 140,000 convictions each year for failing to display the road fund licence. If we proceed along the lines my hon. Friend suggests we would need the support and encouragement of the insurance industry. I intend to meet representatives of that industry to discuss my hon. Friend's suggestion.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he assure the House that he will have urgent discussions with the Lord Chancellor not only about the derisory fines that magistrates can impose, but about the fact that, in the past two years, many magistrates, not least in York, have never imposed the maximum fine on those who have been caught for not insuring their vehicles? Such an urgent meeting is called for, if we are to have safety on the roads.

There are regular meetings between my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and the Magistrates Association. The subject could be brought up at the next meeting.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representation and correspondence he has received from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers on the sinking of MV Derbyshire.

I have received two written representations from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers on the sinking of MV Derbyshire. I will be responding to those representations shortly.

The Minister will be aware that the information gathered by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers confirmed the long-held view that there is a structural fault in the design of bulk carriers? Is he aware that the lives of more than 300 seafarers have been lost in the past two years because of the loss of 21 bulk carriers? When will the Government face up to their responsibility? How many more lives will be lost before the Government recognise that the Secretary of State should use his discretionary powers to reopen an inquiry into the Derbyshire and the wider implications of its loss?

Structural failure was fully investigated and examined by the formal investigation which was ordered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The formal investigation for which the hon. Gentleman is pressing has been held, but, because he is unhappy with the answers that that inquiry came up with, he wants another.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will pay an official visit to Chelmsford using the rail service provided from Liverpool Street station to Chelmsford.

My hon. Friend will recall that I visited Chelmsford with him just over a year ago. The line to Chelmsford is benefiting from a continuing programme of investment which has recently included new trains and the splendid refurbishment of Liverpool Street station. Future investment will include major resignalling works, including works in my hon. Friend's constituency.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. My constituents welcome the fact that £1 million a day is being invested in Network SouthEast, but they are still concerned about the punctuality and cleanliness of trains. Will my hon. Friend use his influence to ensure that the citizens charter allows compensation for rail users who do not get a good service, apart from when vandals or adverse weather conditions affect that service? So far, British Rail has not been capable of issuing its own scheme, and getting compensation out of British Rail is like getting blood out of a stone.

I can confirm that British Rail will publish its rail passengers charter shortly. Performance targets will be set for all 15 Network SouthEast lines, including the Great Eastern line, and those targets include punctuality and reliability. Although a comprehensive scheme of compensation will be set up, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the targets should be there primarily as an incentive to British Rail to perform well, given the investment that it has made, rather than to provide, automatically and at great cost, compensation to passengers, particularly as the money would have to come out of British Rail's pocket.

Does the Minister remember the Adjournment debate on 7 June last year, when I pointed out that at the key junction of Stratford, at this very line, it is not just Great Eastern that will be responsible for the trains? There will also be the north-west region of Network SouthEast, Regional Railways, InterCity, Train Load Freight, Freightliner, International Ferry and Freight, the docklands light railway and London Underground. At the moment, there are also plans, through crossrail, to have trains coming from the Thames valley, the Chilterns and the channel tunnel. Will not all these profit centres and ownerships of coaches and wagons mean that even the fattest of fat controllers will not be able to sort out the quarrels over profits and that these bodies will be quarrelling all the way to Marsham street?

I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism. He did not mention what will be possibly the most important project over the next few years to affect Stratford—the Jubilee line. I hope that the relevant Bill will receive approval in another place shortly and then Royal Assent. Stratford will indeed be an important terminal, but British Rail has plans to modernise the station and in the 21st century it will become one of the most important rail terminals in western Europe.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were employed by British Rail in (a) 1979 and (b) 1991.

The total number of British Railway Board employees at 31 March 1991 was 136,277. The number employed at 31 March 1979 was 244,084.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that greater efficiency and more taxpayers' money still produce a rotten service? When will the taxpayer and the paying public get better value for that money? When will the Secretary of State sack the chairman of British Rail and his management for incompetence? The nation wants to know and, frankly, so do I.

British Rail has improved the quality of its performance over the years in many ways, but at the same time other parts of the railway network require considerable further improvement. I have full confidence in Sir Bob Reid as chairman of British Rail. He has an enormously difficult task to do, to turn around an organisation that, over the years, has been bureaucratic and not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of the travelling public. The reforms that he has introduced and the further reforms that the Government will bring forward will transform our railways. I am delighted that, even in recent years, it has been possible to say, once again, that the railways of the United Kingdom are expanding, contrary to the experience under a Labour Government.

Does the Minister accept that the figures that he has given to the incoherent hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) amount to a reduction in staff of 28 per cent? The key factor on which he should concentrate is that British Rail's external financing limit has been reduced under this Administration by 32 per cent. since 1979. The only area in which there has been an increase since the Conservatives were elected, other than productivity is that of fares, where there has been an increase in real terms of 18 per cent. I ask the Secretary of State to assure the House that he has no plans to offer the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield a job as a station announcer at any railway station in the area which I represent.

If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about investment in our railways, he will hear today, and again and again, the following figures. Between 1951 and 1964, under a Conservative Government, rail investment increased by 29 per cent. Between 1964 and 1970, under a Labour Government it fell by 57 per cent. Between 1970 and 1974, under a Conservative Government, it rose by 48 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979, under a Labour Government it rose by only 13 per cent. Under this Government it has risen by no less than 85 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement as to the effect of the citizens charter on British Rail's operations.

The citizens charter is about raising standards and making public services more responsive to their customers. The British Rail passengers charter will set out a number of initiatives to give greater impetus to the efforts that BR has already made in this direction.

For passengers from Carlisle to London, is not the reality of the passengers charter likely to be that rail fares will increase, that journeys set out on the timetable will be cancelled and that some journeys will be lengthened, all this being part of a desperate attempt by British Rail to claw back the £40 million that they will probably need to pay compensation to passengers? Given the way that the charter has been presented to Parliament, is not it a political gimick?

As for £40 million, that is the hon. Gentleman's figure. British Rail paid out between £6 million and £7 million last year in compensation. We have no plans to be associated with any scheme that involves significant costs. That would not be sensible. It is sensible to have performance targets that British Rail will strive to meet, and there will be proper compensation where those targets are not met. The hon. Gentleman adopts a negative approach to improving the quality of service that is provided by British Rail. Indeed, there have been no positive proposals from the Opposition about improving the quality of British Rail services.

Is not it indicative of British Rail's problem of being too producer-oriented that it confronts the problem of compensation by floating the idea that it will have to increase fares rather than increase efficiency?

Quite right. We want British Rail to take very much further some of the initiatives on which it has already embarked in trying to be more responsive to customer demand. It should be not a producer or engineer-led industry but one that is responsive to what passengers want in terms of price and time of service.

Is the Minister aware that British Rail's charter was promised by the Prime Minister in August for December, and that it is now two months late? The Government are hardly setting a good example for British Rail. Will he confirm that the definition of lateness adopted by British Rail and the Government, which was changed from five minutes to 10 minutes in the 1980s, is already being considered and that compensation will be paid only to those whose trains are over one hour late? As the Government have made it clear that compensation will be available only to season ticket holders and those who book their seats, six out of 10 passengers on a train will have no entitlement to compensation. That shows that there will be first-class and second-class compensation schemes. Surely it would have been better to use the compensation moneys—the Government have pinched another idea of ours, leasing trains—and lease the 40-year-old north Kent trains, it being clear that the passengers prefer a new and reliable train rather than being paid compensation

The hon. Gentleman has not read the charter, so I am not sure how he can criticise it. The reason that the Government, together with British Rail, have taken great trouble over the passengers charter—and why, therefore, it is later than originally forecast—is that it is now better than was forecast in the White Paper last summer. The hon. Gentleman should wait and see what it says.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the public response to his recently announced Londonwide red route consultation proposals.

I announced my proposals for the composition of the red route network in London on 22 January and will be considering the responses I receive by 31 March.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the pilot scheme has been a spectacular success, with about a one third reduction in the number of accidents on the red routes compared with a 12 per cent. average reduction for Greater London? Will he assure us that he will stick robustly to the outline suggestions in the consultation paper? Will he think about the continuing problem, however, of parking abuse by private motorists on the red routes? Those cars must be clamped quickly to deter their owners from parking there.

I agree with my hon. Friend, in particular about enforcement of the red routes being crucial to their success. My hon. Friend was right to refer to the enormous improvement in safety on the red routes. During the pilot scheme, there was a fall in the number of personal injury accidents of 33 per cent., at a time when accidents elsewhere in London had also fallen, but by only 10 per cent. It is clear that the red routes are making a significant contribution to saving lives and to preventing serious injuries.

Did not the Secretary of State say that red routes would not encourage cars, but would help buses, lorries and the environment? How does he explain that the pilot scheme results show an 11 per cent. decrease in the number of heavy goods vehicles, but an overall increase in traffic of 11 per cent? There was no decrease in local traffic. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, in his proposed 300 miles of network, 30 per cent. will have no local bus services and that the Government do not intend to make any new money available for the essential traffic-calming and safety measures that need to be implemented with the red routes?

Order. Please be brief.

Will the Secretary of State now abandon that failed experiment and adopt Labour's policy, which is to turn red routes into green routes, where buses and the environment will truly have priority?

I have no intention of abandoning a policy which is already saving lives and preventing people, including children, from being injured. The hon. Lady was wrong in what she said, because the evidence suggests that more people are travelling by bus and that there has been an increase on certain routes. In addition, bus journeys are being completed considerably more quickly than before. The hon. Lady's facts are based on a misunderstanding of the position.

To ask the Attorney-General when he next intends to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss prosecution policy in the case of burglary.

I am pleased to have appointed an excellent new Director of Public Prosecutions. The Crown prosecution service policies are regularly reviewed, but it is too soon to fix an agenda for our first meeting.

Why is it that the thief Mr. David Clare, who stole thousands of pounds worth of equipment from offices in the House of Commons, was not prosecuted? Is not it true that the police caution procedure used in that case means that that person will not have a publicly available criminal record? Is that the position?

The decision to caution Mr. Clare was taken by the Metropolitan police in the exercise of its discretion. That practice has long existed as an alternative to taking criminal proceedings. The advice of the CPS was not sought and I do not know what it would have been. It is worth commenting that the CPS, in its evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice, proposed that the caution procedure be placed on a statutory basis.

Will the Attorney-General convey our good wishes to the new Director of Public Prosecutions, who is a lady with energy and independence of thought? Will he assure the House that some lessons have been learnt from the time-consuming process of her appointment, in respect of her successor? Will the new Director of Public Prosecutions be able to take up her post meantime?

I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's welcome to Mrs. Mills, which I will gladly convey to her. I thought it right that there should be an open advertisement and an open competition for that very important job, and that process proceeded as fast as possible. Mrs. Mills will remain in charge of the Serious Fraud Office until her successor in that post is appointed and that, too, will proceed as fast as possible. I hope very much that a successor will be in place by the end of March.

To ask the Attorney-General if he has plans to submit further evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

I have no plans to submit further evidence to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

I read the Attorney-General's very modest submission on a very narrow point and also the evidence given by the police and the Home Office to the royal commission, and was left with the impression that the royal commission had been established because of public concern that too many guilty people were walking free. Does the Attorney-General, with his long experience, have any thoughts about what it is that is wrong with the legal system that led to the miscarriages of justice that have occurred? If so, does he have any suggestions for doing anything?

I, too, read my modest submission to the royal commission again this afternoon. I thought that it was rather good, so perhaps it was not as modest as all that.

The Attorney-General knows that the royal commission is willing to consider remunerating legal aid practitioners in magistrates courts to avoid miscarriages of justice. Why does not the Attorney-General submit that issue to the royal commission?

The royal commission has rather a lot on its plate already.

Fly

I am anxious that the royal commission should not only fly but arrive, and in reasonable time.

To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 23 January, Official Report, column 269, how many representations he has received concerning the publication of further works of the Marquis de Sade in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Since 23 January, I have received two letters on the topic of "Juliette" from hon. Members, but none relating to any other work by the same author.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend look again at the book "Juliette"? As a member of the Bar myself, I found it difficult to understand why a book that combines the subjects of heterosexual activity with those of children, torture and violence is not considered obscene. If my right hon. and learned Friend wants an independent but much cheaper legal opinion than that which he is receiving from the Crown prosecution service, I shall be more than willing to provide him with one—to prosecute Arrow Books for publishing that work.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that offer. The Director of Public Prosecutions' decision was taken after careful consideration and with the benefit of advice of junior and senior Treasury counsel of great experience. In their view, on all the evidence—including that relating to the statutory defences, but not confined to them—there is insufficient evidence to offer a realistic prospect of conviction.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most of us who have looked at this thing find it absolutely incomprehensible that the book has not been the subject of a prosecution? If the director's decision is correct, does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the law needs re-examining?

That is not a matter for me, but it may assist my hon. Friend to know that a number of successful prosecutions are brought every month under the legislation in relation to the type of material that is more normally associated with the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

To ask the Attorney-General what are the implications for the level of staffing of the Lord Chancellor's Department after 1 April of the transfer of responsibilities in relation to finance, organisation and management of the magistrates courts.

About 50 staff will transfer from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department following the forthcoming transfer of responsibilities in relation to the magistrates courts which will take place on 1 April.

To allow those concerned to "stretch their gauzy wings", will the extra Minister involved help them to make up their minds about whether the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General are on the side of the senior officials of the Home Office and the Metropolitan police? Some of us are very concerned about Mrs. Stella Rimington's efforts to expand into entirely new areas, which have hitherto been the responsibility of the Home Office and the police—very sensitive areas of investigation for MI5. Should not Parliament know more about a lady who really was the sub-puppet mistress in relation to many of the evil things that happened, via the security forces, during the miners' strike?

The hon. Gentleman has expanded his question a good deal beyond its original ambit. Whatever the answer to that interesting point, it is unlikely that the work of the magistrates court will be stretched very much.

Following the changes that will take place on 1 April, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that any proposals to reorganise the magistrates courts are given careful consideration, so that certain schemes do not proceed—in particular, crackpot schemes such as the proposal to move the magistrates courts out of Chelmsford. the county town of Essex, and up the road? That would cause my constituents great inconvenience and difficulties.

I know that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor regards the local connection for magistrates as a very important element of their extremely important jurisdiction.

To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to widen the remit of the Serious Fraud Office.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to my Questions; I thought that I must have hurt his feelings last time. The statutory remit of the Serious Fraud Office is to investigate and prosecute suspected offences involving serious complex fraud. I do not consider any revision necessary.

The reason why we have not been in combat is that the Table Office has not been placing my questions high enough on the Order Paper.

I shall assume in the hon. Gentleman's favour, but without much confidence, that he gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester notice of that question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what elephant conservation schemes are currently being funded by his Department.

Since 1990, the Overseas Development Administration has committed almost £20 million to wildlife conservation projects in Africa, many of which contribute directly or indirectly to elephant conservation. A list of projects is available in the Library of the House.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he take this opportunity to restate the Government's continuing support for a continuing ban on the international sale of elephant ivory? Is he aware that Botswana, which receives considerable amounts from his Department in respect of wildlife conservation, is planning to set up an elephant processing factory near the Chobe national park? Is he aware that Botswana's deputy director of wildlife, Mr. Niger Hunter, advocates the sale of elephant ivory? Mr. Hunter occupies a post which is funded by the Department. Should not that be stopped now?

The Government remain fully committed to maintaining the current ban as long as it is necessary to secure the revival and recovery of the African elephant populations. The Convention on Trade in Endangered Species panel experts will be reporting on proposals that countries such as Botswana have submitted. We shall have to consider the panel's reports, but I cannot anticipate our position on reports that are not yet available.

Will my hon. Friend give examples of ways in which British financial aid helps to save elephants and other endangered species, bearing in mind the very great importance of the question raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)?

Yes. Of course the Government have a comprehensive wildlife conservation support programme in Africa. We support 27 wildlife projects in eight countries. Since 1990, that has amounted to £20 million worth of assistance to wildlife conservation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present complement of the disaster relief unit in his Department.

The current complement of the emergency aid department is 12½.

During the initial crisis when the Kurds fled into the mountains, followed by the crisis in the western Sahara and Bangladesh, the numbers in the disaster relief unit were slowly increased, following questions that were asked by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, from four to six, then to nine and then to 12. The figure now seems to be 12½ persons, according to the Minister's answer. That unit was sorely pressed. It worked beyond the call of duty with inadequate resources and lack of personnel. Has anything been learnt from those disasters so that the unit can be given the resources, personnel and status that it requires?

That organisation is now called the emergency aid department and comprises the disaster and refugee unit. The figures are broadly as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Since last year they have been maintained at the level of 12, or 12½. It is important, as every non-governmental organisation would testify, that administration of aid is kept to the minimum. What is important is not a heavyweight bureaucracy at home but the amount of money that is put into the aid itself.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the amount of money available for disaster relief has been doubled and that, unlike some other countries, we are able to get relief on to the ground very quickly indeed, because the bureaucratic delays have just been swept away?

Yes. For example, the Overseas Development Administration's work in northern Iraq was widely praised by the international community. We have committed £139 million of humanitarian aid this financial year, against the original provision of £75 million.

On the question of disaster relief for the Kurds, what action are the Government taking to break the economic embargo that has been imposed by Saddam Hussein on the Kurdish communities of northern Iraq? To what extent are the British Government involved in the initiatives being taken by the American Government, which were reported extensively in the American and the British media last weekend?

Security Council resolution 688 demanded that Iraq should end its repression against the civilian population of Iraq. We have warned the Iraqi Government that violation of the resolution would have serious consequences. It is not appropriate, however, for me to comment on intelligence matters, but we should certainly shed no tears if Saddam fell.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Sri Lanka to discuss overseas aid; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that that is a very regrettable answer? Is he aware of the urgent need for aid to Sri Lanka, but aid that is based on the upholding of human rights in that country? If no visit is proposed, will the Minister make clear to the Sri Lankan Government the deep concern of many hon. Members about the rights of the Tamil community, and most especially that we should be given assurances that food and medical supplies reach the Tamil areas in Sri Lanka, particularly in the Jaffna area?

Yes; on many, many occasions we have made known our concerns about the Tamil people. Of course we have not cut off, or completely frozen, all aid. However, we withdrew the conditional offer of £3 million worth of aid last July in order to emphasise our concern about human rights. Indeed, we imposed various measures on the Sri Lankan Government as a result of the high commissioner's expulsion last year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many cases people in other countries would not have so much need of aid if they were to stop fighting each other? The great problem about overseas aid is that those countries that receive it often use it to buy arms with which their peoples kill each other.

Of course I accept my hon. Friend's point that if there were no conflict there would be less need for aid. However, it would be going too far to suggest that the poorest countries in the world will not always need aid.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with voluntary agencies on the role of voluntary agencies in aid matters in the last four weeks.

In the last four weeks my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has met with voluntary agencies on five occasions. I have had two such meetings.

Is the Minister satisfied that, with regard to these agencies, we are doing enough? Is not it a fact that there is a critical feeling that we in the United Kingdom could do far more to help some of those voluntary agencies to provide assistance in the third world?

I think that, with seven meetings between Ministers and the voluntary agencies in the last month, we have shown our great commitment to the work that the agencies do. Of course we recognise the terrific help that they provide within our aid programme. In particular, they are able to help the poorest in many countries in a way that is not always possible with Government-to-Government aid.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether, in addition to the party-political election arguments about overseas aid, we shall, if we win the election, have discussions with the voluntary organisations? Would not it be possible to set a timetable to achieve at least a halving of the gap between our present official aid levels and the United Nations target, to whose attainment, at some unspecified time in the future, we are committed?

The 1991–92 aid budget is 10 per cent. more in cash terms, and 3 per cent. more in real terms, than that for the last year. We shall, of course, continue our discussion with the voluntary agencies and the non-governmental organisations. Indeed, a very important fact is that the theme for the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community will be the promotion of the voluntary agencies. At the moment a great deal of work and discussion is being undertaken on that initiative.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about future levels of aid to Kenya.

Our gross bilateral aid programme in 1990—the last year for which figures are available—was £44 million. The future programme will depend on further political and economic reform.

Why have not the British Government been much tougher with regard to the provision of aid—as the Americans and some of our European partners have been —to ensure that the democratic changes in Kenya towards the first free, multi-party elections genuinely take root, to ensure that there is a fair system of voter registration and an independent electoral commission and to ensure that there are international observers from the United Nations or the Commonwealth? Surely the British Government must insist upon these points as a condition of the provision of future aid?

We are not out of line with other donors. All donors have agreed that new pledges of balance of payments support should await further economic and political reform. But, as is only right, we are continuing project and technical assistance activities to help the poor. I can accept a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman says about how the election should be conducted. Of course there must be free and fair elections. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman had taken the opportunity to make those points to the Kenyan Foreign Minister. An appointment was arranged for him when he was in Kenya last December.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill says:

"Clause 1 extends the general purposes … of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 … to cover the safety, health and welfare of persons on offshore installations".

My understanding is that both the categories identified by the hon. Gentleman are included in the provisions of clause 1.

Can I take the Secretary of State back to the staffing of the new offshore inspectorate under the HSE? He will remember that the Select Committee on Energy looked at this matter last year and advised that secondment from oil companies should be only a temporary solution because of the possible conflicts of interest, and that there should be an extensive training programme to train potential recruits with wide offshore experience to widen the pool of people available to become inspectors. In their reply, the Government were brief, but said that they were sympathetic to a new training scheme. Has anything been done since the Secretary of State's reply to the Committee?

My understanding is that that training programme is in hand and it is fully recognised that there is a need to train people who will be in place as soon as possible to discharge these onerous responsibilities.

Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell me that I am wrong or that I am being unduly harsh, but discussions have been going round and round, as it were, ever since the Burgoyne report. Why has the procedure taken so long? Am I missing something or am I asking a reasonable question?

That is a reasonable question to ask and there is a simple answer. The answer is that since we have had Lord Cullen's report everything has been done and is being done to implement the recommendations as soon as practicable. The discussions and the review to which I have referred are focused on the most effective way of implementing the recommendations set out in the report. Lord Cullen recognised that it would take a considerable time before these matters were put in place. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that responsibility for taking forward the recommendations is rightly in the hands of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of the tripartite composition of the commission.

Will the Secretary of State explain why proper legislative protection against victimisation is almost the only recommendation of Lord Cullen that the Government have still not implemented?

As it happens, I am just about to deal with victimisation. The hon. Gentleman will see that his question is answered.

I think that there will be a general welcome from hon. Members on both sides of the House for my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that there will be further legislation to cover employment matters. Will the information that is made available about health and safety and the inspector be made available also on onshore, non-oil areas of employment? To take up his remarks about operators being required to finance the training of safety representatives, do the Government intend to continue their funding of the trade union movement so that trade unions can undertake some of the training themselves and give support to the non-oil related representatives at the workplace as well?

On my hon. Friend's first point, I have recently received a request from the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress for the Government to continue their grant towards its training activities. I am considering that request and I shall make my response known in due course. On his second point, I am not entirely convinced that it is necessary to have the same information available at all onshore facilities, but I shall consider the matter.

The Secretary of State says, as he has before, that the victimisation investigated and established is unacceptable to the Government. He said that there would be an amendment to employment legislation to allow the matter to go to industrial tribunals. What penalties would be available against either the operators or the oil companies that were found guilty of victimisation of workers, whether or not they were safety representatives? If the Government find victimisation so unacceptable, what penalties will be available under the changes that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing?

If, for example, a worker were dismissed because he had made a complaint to the HSE, he could bring proceedings for unfair dismissal on the basis of constructive dismissal. He could obtain considerable compensation from an industrial tribunal.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, in a sense, legislation to deal with that issue is at least as urgent as the need for the Bill? He will be aware of the case of Mr. Colin Jewell, which has been well publicised. He took his complaint about safety faults to the HSE. It was investigated and upheld, but he is now unable to find employment in the North sea. He has no compensation and no security. Because of that, many people are not prepared to make complaints about safety problems and safety design faults, even though they see them every day.

I agree that it is important that Lord Cullen's recommendation is put into effect as soon as possible—and it will be as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle is available. The Bill does not provide that vehicle. We shall ensure that the law is changed to provide the protection to which hon. Members have referred, as soon as it is possible to do so.

I apologise for interrupting the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Will he confirm that there are no procedural reasons why the issue of victimisation should not be included in the Bill? If someone is being victimised, and he is a safety representative, surely it is as important for safety reasons as for employment reasons to ensure that the matter is covered in the Bill.

The safety aspects have been considered and, as I have said, they are covered by the extent to which anonymous complaints can be made to the HSE. Therefore, the direct safety aspects are covered already. We have been advised that the matter is outside the scope of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will readily appreciate that a Bill that covers employment issues would be subject to amendment on a whole range of issues. That could delay the passage of the Bill, to which we attach considerable importance. I must make it clear that we intend to legislate to cover Lord Cullen's victimisation recommendation as soon as it is possible to do so.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply simply does not wash. He knows that both the long title and the short title of the Bill are entirely in the Government's hands and that there is no statutory reason why the Bill should not cover victimisation. I accept his point that if employment provisions were attached to the Bill that could widen its scope, but he knows that the Bill has the good will of the House and that we would not want to delay it. It was irresponsible of him to suggest that the Opposition would create procedural difficulties to delay the Bill; it was wrong to give that impression. With the agreement of the Opposition, the issue of victimisation could be dealt with here and now.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman fully understood the point that I was making. I certainly was not making any accusations about the Opposition's attitude. Employment issues arouse concern in all parts of the House, and many individual right hon. and hon. Members—regardless of the attitude taken by members of the Opposition Front Bench—might want to use employment legislation as a vehicle for changing employment law in one of a number of respects. That is clearly a possibility, in respect of which it would not be possible for members of the Opposition Front Bench to give any assurance, and it could lead to delay. We want the legislation to be on the statute book as soon as possible —and we do not want to risk delay on that account.

I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, who makes a fair point, to consider that when the employment legislation comes forward it should be made retrospective to this month. We would hate any suggestion of people in the offshore industry, or in any other, being inhibited in speaking plainly on safety matters. I will not ask my right hon. and learned Friend for an instant response, but I ask the Government to consider that aspect.

My hon. Friend was kind enough not to ask for an immediate response to his points. He sought an assurance about the retrospective effect of any such legislation. I cannot hold out any great hope of any breach in any constitutional principle and precedent to that extent. I repeat my earlier point: the safety aspects are currently covered by the arrangements for anonymous complaints to be made.

Perhaps I may disabuse the Secretary of State on the question of anonymous complaints. A number of right hon. and hon. Members represent consitutents who work in the North sea, and know very well the reality of anonymous complaints. If one rings the HSE, one is asked, "Where, when, and who?" If one cannot answer, one is bombed out and is told that as there is no proof, the complaint cannot be backed up. On one occasion, I revealed, with the consent of the person involved, the full nature of the complaint. The next time round, such an individual has it taken out on him. Life is pretty rough. The Secretary of State talks about anonymous complaints being a kind of safety valve, but that is not how it works in the North sea.

The hon. Gentleman does not give full credit to the Health and Safety Executive and its ability to investigate. If a health and safety risk, a breach of regulations or some other undesirable practice is drawn to the executive's attention, it has widespread powers to investigate, and it does so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to give the impression that it is pointless for complaints to be drawn to the attention of the Health and Safety Executive, as I believe that that would be very damaging to the cause of safety. It is not pointless, and I want to encourage the making of complaints to the HSE, so that they can be investigated properly.

If we tabled an amendment in Committee to deal with the victimisation point, and if that amendment was in order, would the Secretary of State at least undertake to accept it?

If that is possible—which I doubt—we shall of course give it careful consideration. The hon. Gentleman may conclude, however, that the legislation being presented in another place is a more promising vehicle, although I do not think that it is very satisfactory in its present state.

"nobody could underestimate the magnitude of the task which faces the Health and Safety Executive".

Will the Minister give way on clause 4?

I am just coming to clause 4, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself.