To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to monitor the service provision level (a) in rural areas and (b) on Sundays and at off-peak times.

I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He is chairing the Transport Council in Luxembourg today.

Does the Minister accept that, as we forecast when the Transport Act 1985 went through, because local authorities do not have enough money for subsidised services there is a rapidly declining off-peak service on some days and in rural areas? The same will happen on the railways because of privatisation unless the Government recognise the social need for a public transport service.

The hon. Gentleman asks about railway privatisation. I can confirm that central funding will be applied to the subsidisation of socially necessary rail services. Through the franchising authority, the state will provide sufficient funding to ensure the running of socially necessary services.

As the Minister well knows, the deterioration in off-peak services was predicted, was bound to happen, and has happened. Has the Minister attempted to monitor the mergers in the bus industry and is he anxious about increasing monopolisation in the industry?

It is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading to monitor the bus industry and, where appropriate, action is taken by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is not the responsibility of the Department of Transport to take action, but the Department monitors the performance of the industry. The recent Transport Research Laboratory report about which I spoke refers to service patterns in four rural areas and concludes that in recent years there has been no significant change in the provision of services.

I am stunned at the lack of concern among Conservative Members about the effects of bus deregulation on rural transport. In view of what the Minister has said, why is he not prepared to recommend that subsidies for standard spending assessments should be ring fenced? We are worried about the way in which bus journeys have decreased by as much as 18 per cent. since bus deregulation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said, no matter what assurances the Minister gives about central funding for British Rail privatisation, there will not be the same concern to ring fence rural services following rail privatisation.

The Government have no proposals to ring fence specific provision through the revenue support grant and standard spending assessments, either for subsidising socially necessary bus services or for concessionary bus fares. It is for local authorities to determine their own priorities. I accept that those choices are difficult, but local authorities must make them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about a railway link southwards from Manchester airport.

This is a matter for British Rail, in consultation with the local authorities and the airport company. I understand that a working party has been set up to consider the case for a southern link.

The Minister will be aware that people in Greater Manchester are delighted about the progress that has been made to establish the railway station at the airport and at the fact that from next May there will be a first-class rail service from the north of England to the airport. Does he agree that it is tragic that for the want of approximately a 100-yard curve, the airport will not be linked to the whole of the midlands? Is it not rather odd that although the Government can produce large sums for transport in London, they cannot find sufficient to set up 100 yards of track to enable the airport to be linked both north and south?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the fact that the northern link is due to be commissioned in May 1993 and that it will provide direct and excellent access from Manchester to the airport. He asked about further possible links and I will draw his remarks to the attention of British Rail, which will have ultimate responsibility for that matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the Settle-Carlisle route.

This is a matter for British Rail in the immediate future. In the longer term, the line, like all others, will be franchised and subsidy for socially necessary services will continue.

Beyond saying that the Carlisle to Settle railway will extend to Finchley, will the Minister kindly assure the House—moving from rural to urban regeneration—that in future urban regeneration schemes, infrastructure and particularly rail infrastructure will be thought about and put in place at the formative stages?

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in this sector. As he knows, we have substantial interest and investment in the Sheffield and Manchester schemes and we recognise that those schemes can do a great deal for urban communities. As to the Settle to Carlisle route, since British Rail was refused consent for this to close in 1989 there has been great success with the scheme, and substantial investment has been made. I am glad to tell the House that work on the famous Ribblehead viaduct has been completed, stations have been improved and platforms extended. This will provide a corridor for substantial investment in this beautiful part of our country.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable amount of work done by the supporters of the line to promote it, and that this involved surveys of local businesses? Will he take into account the fact that this line is predominantly for social and recreational use, so that any subsidy purely for travelling to work and other similar purposes will not go a long way to subsidising the line?

I realise how much loved the line is, and that is one reason why it survived attacks in previous years. I believe that it has a future not only for social and recreational reasons but because of the service that it can give to the general community. It is supported by a whole range of people. It is interesting to note that the standing conference consists not only of the local authority but of the tourist board, the Rural Development Commission, voluntary groups and the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority. The recent report, "Settle to Carlisle: Opportunities for Development", offers the real way forward for this famous line.

Is the Minister aware that there could be a hidden agenda here? When I see the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) tabling questions about the Settle to Carlisle railway and the Minister giving a positive reply, I begin to put two or three things together. Is it conceivable in this hidden agenda that the hon. Member for Finchley is thinking about getting a job there, running the show on the Settle to Carlisle line, and vacating his seat at Finchley so that the queen across the water—Lady Thatcher—can inherit it? If so, I have a good suggestion: the line can be renamed the Chiltern Hundreds.

The hon. Gentleman would see not only a hidden agenda but a plot under every support of the Ribblehead viaduct.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of London Underground to discuss improvements to the underground train service.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairman of London Underground regularly to discuss a variety of issues, including improvements to the underground train service.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the new Westminster and Chelsea hospital opens in April next year. The hospital is badly served by London Underground and if Professor Tomlinson's proposals for London's health services are implemented, communications with the hospital will be even more vital. In the planning for the Chelsea-Hackney route, will my hon. Friend consider the proposals to put a station near that hospital to serve the patients? Will he also consider the possibility of speeding up construction of the route, which will be even more important in the future than it has been in the past?

I know of my hon. Friend's considerable concern about rail services in his constituency. The Government have safeguarded the route of the Chelsea-Hackney line and thus demonstrated their confidence in the viability of the project. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand when I tell him that I cannot give any assurances on when construction might commence.

Does the Minister recognise that the underground service provides no stations in the London borough of Greenwich? That is why there is particular concern about progress on the Jubilee line. When will the Minister be able to make an announcement, and will that announcement be positive, that the Government will proceed to build the Jubilee line extension?

I wish that I could give the hon. Gentleman a full and complete answer to that question. He will have to satisfy himself with the response that he knows that I am obliged to make, which is that the matter is not one on which I can deliberate at this stage. He is right about the benefits that the line will bring to his constituency and to others that it will serve.

May I endorse the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington)? Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that among those seeking to reach the excellent new hospital facility will be my constituents from south of the river? It is important that the Chelsea-Hackney line comes in soon and continues south of the river into Wandsworth.

I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said about possible options for the route of the Chelsea-Hackney line at the southern end. It is right that several options are available which have not yet been fully explored. I shall be happy to take his suggestions on board.

Has the Minister seen today the survey produced by the Association of London Authorities, which shows that fares in London are four times higher than in Paris, six times higher than in Rome and Madrid and eight times higher than in Athens? At the same time, the underground system has not had investment to match fare rises. Does the Minister agree that in those circumstances there is no case for further fare rises? Will he come down from his ivory tower and admit that the price is not right?

Someone has to pay for the operation of the rail service—and that means either the taxpayer or the user. I am convinced that it is right that users should pay enough to cover at least the majority of the operating costs of London Underground. I am sure that the hon.

Would my hon. Friend care to recollect his journey on the Northern line with me? Does he agree that existing services on that line are Victorian and need to be brought up to date? Does he agree also that it would be quite illogical to appoint a Minister with responsibilities for transport in London and then to cut or cancel expenditure on the London Underground system?

I remember my journey on the underground with my hon. Friend with particular piquancy. It was an interesting and illustrative experience. In all seriousness, he knows that London Underground fully appreciates the extent of the need to modernise the Northern line service. He will know of the considerable programme of modernisation on the Central line, which is worth about £800 million. He will know also that London Underground currently proposes to follow on from that work to the Northern line.

I call Mr. Peter Snape—[Interruption.] Mr. Tony Banks.

I do not know who should be more offended, Madam Speaker.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. As he suggested, he has made more come backs than Frank Sinatra. I hope that this one will prove enduring, as I am sure that our exchanges will be enjoyable.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has had to the White Paper "New Opportunities for the Railways".

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's plans to privatise British Rail.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a number of responses following publication in July of the Government's proposals for privatisation of British Rail. We plan to introduce this autumn the main legislation, to enable our proposals to be implemented. On 12 October, we published a detailed consultation document on franchising. I look forward to the responses, especially those from firms interested in taking on franchises.

I again draw attention of my hon. Friend to a problem of which I know he is aware from our previous discussions. I refer to the withdrawal of the last remaining direct InterCity services to my constituency from London and Glasgow. I thank my hon. Friend for the attention that he has paid to that matter in the past, and ask him to take full account of the views of no fewer than 11,000 people who signed a petition asking British Rail to reinstate those through services. Will my hon. Friend comment on the scope for the introduction of through direct services from London and Glasgow to Blackpool as a result of the Government's plans for privatisation?

Currently, decisions about rail services are for British Rail. Although it suspended the direct service to which my hon. Friend referred, a connecting service is available from London and Glasgow. As to the future, I envisage that when the new regime is in place after full parliamentary debate and discussion, private sector operators will want to run specific services, with the agreement of the regulator, on a train path. It may be that Blackpool-Euston will be such a service; and if it can be run viably and a train path is available, I will welcome that.

Will the Minister comment on the collapse of Charterail and on the end of the StageCoach service to Aberdeen—two pilot private operations—and say whether the Select Committee on Transport will have a chance to report before the privatisation Bill comes before the House?

I regret the demise of Charterail, but that had more to do with the recession and the company's optimistic plans than the charging regime, which is currently not in place but is operated ad hoc by British Rail. I do not believe that we can fault British Rail for Charterail's demise. Under the present regime—not the new track-charging regime which will be in place on privatisation—StageCoach reached agreement with British Rail. That company also was clearly too ambitious, as not enough tickets were sold. However, I am pleased that services will continue, and that StageCoach will sell tickets to London not only from Aberdeen and Edinburgh but from Glasgow. I repeat that it is the Government's intention to publish a Bill next month.

May I put it to my hon. Friend—quietly and, I hope, thoughtfully—that his proposals are novel, complex, controversial and untried? Would not the Government be better off listening to all the issues and debating them thoroughly before producing a Bill? My hon. Friend has referred to the franchising White Paper. As the document contains no information about charges, should not that fundamental issue be explored before we rush into introducing a Bill?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that there should be thorough discussion of the Government's proposals. We are trying to meet the timetable, and it seems to us that the publication of a Bill will help the process. Detailed examination of the Bill will take up much of 1993 and the Select Committee hearings will provide a valuable forum for the Government and, indeed, others to comment on the proposals.

Does the Minister agree that, on the whole, it is better to take evidence before making a decision than to take it after that decision has been made? Would not the Minister benefit from an opportunity for the Government to find out a bit about the subject, before they have to reverse their views too publicly?

I am sure that the Select Committee's deliberations, which will go into great detail, will be very valuable to the Bill's Committee stages in both Houses. I do not accept that the principles of our privatisation proposals, which we have set out very clearly, cannot be debated in the House. The debate that will take place on Thursday will provide us with an ample opportunity to consider the broad principles. Of course we are prepared to listen to discussion of the details: that is why we published a franchise document a short time ago.

In the interests of my constituents in north-west Kent, may I urge my hon. Friend to refuse to listen to those who counsel for delay? Does my hon. Friend agree that British Rail managers, or those who succeed them, are bound to welcome the privatisation plans because they will place full responsibility, control and accountability where they belong—with those who run the railway system?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. There is no doubt that our proposals have received a very positive reaction—not only from some 50 companies in the private sector which have expressed an interest in the principle of franchising the passenger rail services and the sale of freight service, but from British Rail management and staff. Our proposals are certainly gradualist, and they will be thought out, argued and presented in great detail. The process will not be rushed, and it will work.

The House will note that the Minister has given the first indications of another U-turn in Government policy: no longer are we promised a full-blooded rail privatisation Bill—the Government are now talking of what is basically an enabling Bill.

"Knowledge of public transport not essential"?

The appointment has not yet been made. The appointment of someone to fulfil the responsibilities of regulator cannot be made until the Houses of Parliament have approved this measure and it receives Royal Assent. In the interim, there is a job to be done in 1993: to regulate the provisions of international access under the European Community directive of 1991. We are looking for a regulator with understanding and intelligence of regulation and of the operation of public services and the protection of consumer interests.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take in 1993 to reduce the aircraft noise around Heathrow.

Heathrow will continue to benefit in 1993 from the replacement of older, noisier, chapter 2 aircraft with modern, quieter chapter 3 types.

Although the Government have an excellent record on aircraft noise, including the decision to refuse planning permission for a fifth terminal at Heathrow in the 1980s, and the removal of the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link, is my hon. Friend aware that hundreds of thousands of people living around Heathrow, where there are 1,000 flights a day, find aircraft noise a curse and a pestilence which spoils their enjoyment of their homes? Apart from emergencies, should not night flights be banned altogether?

The whole House knows that my hon. Friend has been a doughty fighter on behalf of his constituents against noise pollution. I congratulate him on this latest effort. My hon. Friend knows that the night-flying restrictions are due for review and that we intend to introduce new ones in the winter season of 1993. That process will involve wide public consultation, during which I know that my hon. Friend's views and those of his constituents will be heard. As for any application that might be made to expand services at Heathrow, my hon. Friend will appreciate that no planning application has formally been made at this point. However, when it is made, the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have to consider all the issues involved in deciding whether to grant permission.

Will the Minister apply his attention to a particularly nasty form of aircraft, the helicopter, which, as he knows, is being put to increasing use, particularly along the river? Can he tell us why his Department is being so secretive about ferreting around trying to find new heliport sites along the river? Can he tell us why he will not now make public the sites that his Department is looking at so that the people who live in those areas can make their views known? I am sure that he knows what they will want to say.

I know of no hit list of secret sites for helicopter sites on the Thames. However, I do not believe that the Battersea heliport is adequate. A major city such as London ought to have a heliport that is much closer to the financial centre. I should welcome the proposal for a heliport in such a position as it would enhance the economic life of our city. There has been a great deal of Nimbyism about previous proposals to find such a site, but I trust that when it is identified—I have not had one put to me yet—the hon. Lady will join me in supporting something that will do a great deal to enhance London's reputation as a financial centre.

When my hon. Friend comes to review night movements at Heathrow, or any other proposal affecting air transport services to or from that airport, will he bear it in mind that it is the premier gateway to Europe, an invaluable source of foreign exchange and a vital source of employment for tens of thousands of local residents? Will he also remember that the noise footprints around the airport have been considerably reduced over the years because of the quieter aircraft that have come into service and that the really important aim is to get into service the high-speed surface transport link to Paddington? Can he help on that matter, too?

I acknowledge that my hon. Friend's sentiments about the importance of Heathrow are widely shared. When it comes to night-flying restrictions, the British Airports Authority has to balance the commercial needs of airlines against the environmental impact of those airlines' operations. It is perfectly proper that consideration of these matters should involve public consultation. My hon. Friend knows that the Heathrow express proposal is being taken forward by the BAA and British Rail. I look forward to there being some progress so that the link can be provided as soon as possible.

As Dan-Air has become the latest victim of the recession, does the Minister think that British Airways' replacement aircraft will lead to a reduction in aircraft noise and, indeed, a reduction in noise from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who I notice is not with us now? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he is."] I am sorry; he is skulking. Will the Minister confirm that Virgin and British Midland were offered the same deal as that accepted by British Airways, but preferred to wait for Dan-Air's collapse to pick up its routes and slots without having to save jobs or meet redundancy payments to its former employees?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the chapter 3 requirements on noise extend to new aircraft being manufactured, which will gradually lead to improvements in noise levels at Heathrow and elsewhere. He knows that the commercial criteria of the Dan-Air transaction are for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who will consider all aspects of it in considering whether to take further action.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken to monitor the performance of Network SouthEast in its West Anglia division.

I receive reports on British Rail's performance against its charter standards every four weeks and pursue any points of concern as necessary. I am pleased to say that for the year so far West Anglia has exceeded its charter targets.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is insufficient margin of spare rolling stock to cover when units have to be taken out of service for repair, which sometimes leads to drastic reductions in capacity on some services? Will he see whether improvements can be made in maintenance in the West Anglia division to ensure that sufficient rolling stock is always available?

Yes, I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I shall certainly pursue his point with British Rail. With the franchising of British Rail services, we expect a vigorous leasing market for investment in new rolling stock to develop naturally, which will permit private sector franchises and those who provide and run rail freight services to place orders and, with the assistance of the City of London, to lease rolling stock in the same way as ships, vessels, trucks, taxis and buses are leased.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed with the chairman of the Tyne and Wear public transport authority the extension of the Tyneside metro to Sunderland.

I know that Tyne and Wear is considering the feasibility of extending the metro to Sunderland. It has not yet made any formal approach to me.

As the closure of the pits will almost certainly mean the closure of the rail line between Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough because it is heavily dependent on coal, and as the Government urgently need to find some capital projects to get the economy off its knees, would not it make sense, from everybody's point of view, to proceed with the extension of the metro to Sunderland as soon as possible?

The hon. Gentleman's point is speculative, but every approach that is made by the local authority and operators of services will be carefully considered and assessed in competition with some attractive projects that are being proposed. It may be of some comfort, however, for the hon. Gentleman to know that we give substantial support to such projects. I am delighted, for example, that we are giving substantial support to the Manchester light railway and the South Yorkshire super tram, which are costing about £135 million and £240 million respectively.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for improving direct rail services between Grimsby and London.

It is for British Rail to bring forward proposals for improving rail services, not for Ministers.

In the past the Minister has given the impression that he has no powers to stop British Rail closing the service. Now that the North Eastern Transport Users Consultative Committee has put him right on the law and has not only told him that he has the powers, but has asked him to use them to stop the closure of the service, and now that Steer Davis and Gleave, the management consultants employed by Grimsby, have shown that British Rail's financial case for closing the service is almost total rubbish, will the Minister use the powers he has and keep a service that is vital to Grimsby and Cleethorpes?

No. I will not direct British Rail to withdraw its proposals. I do not believe that that is either legally and statutorily appropriate or in the best interest of British Rail's finances. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will meet any potential private sector operator of a through service from Grimsby, through Lincoln and Newark into King's Cross, or any consortium including local authorities that wishes either to subsidise the service or to run it. The reopening of a direct service on that line may be appropriate, but it is for British Rail to deploy its present assets as efficiently as it considers possible.

To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the guidelines on which a decision to prosecute is based.

The code for Crown prosecutors is kept under review by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The most recent edition, published in January this year, emphasised the interests of the victim, and gave guidance on racial motivation as an aggravating feature and on the approach to be adopted in cases of mentally disordered persons alleged to have committed offences.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people believe that the Crown prosecution service should be more tightly reviewed? Many people whom one meets in victim support schemes have been victims of a crime, yet never see the people concerned come to court because the Crown prosecution service believes that there will be reasonable doubt for the magistrates or for the jury. On the other hand, other people have to come to court. The cases are adjourned and adjourned again, and they suffer months of sheer agony while they wait for their cases to be called. Sometimes no evidence is submitted to the bench in the end. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House that he will review the system far more tightly, because there is a trial within a trial by the Crown prosecution service?

My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that the position of the victim is extremely important. The Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear that she recognises that. That said, it is important that the power to prosecute should be exercised independently. There is a powerful system of review within the service right up to the Director and through the Director to me. I superintend her and I am answerable to the House.

Will the Attorney-General confirm that when, just over a week ago, British Coal gave short notice of redundancy, a criminal offence was committed under section 105 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, and that that was a criminal offence which was counselled and procured by the President of the Board of Trade, as well as being an action that laid the Government open to prosecution by the European Commission for breach of the mass redundancies directive? What guidelines and advice did the Attorney-General give to his Cabinet colleagues about those blatant breaches of employment and European law, or was his opinion not asked for at all?

The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he will not get an answer to most of his question. However, it is right to say that the matter in principle is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. To expand on the first part of my answser, the hon. Gentleman knows that legal advice given by Law Officers is never disclosed.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that more cases in which the Crown prosecution service has some doubt in its mind about whether there is a likely success of prosecution would come to court if the whole process of getting cases into court were speeded up?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The working group on pre-trial issues, in which the Crown prosecution service has played a leading part, has produced some very constructive proposals to achieve the speeding up for which my hon. Friend rightly calls.

To ask the Attorney-General what new proposals he has to reduce crimes of fraud.

The Serious Fraud Office welcomes the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill to give the courts of England and Wales a wider jurisdiction over international fraud. It will also give its full support to the new machinery to strengthen co-operation between supervisors and other relevant authorities announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Thursday.

Does the Solicitor-General agree that the greatest crime of fraud perpetrated against the British people was the lies and deception used by the Conservative party at the general election? Now that the Government have lost all respect and authority with the Prime Minister at war with his own party, is it not time that the Government went to the country—and went now?

The Government are concerned to prevent fraud and that is why we have introduced the Serious Fraud Office, the fraud investigation group and the Criminal Justice Bill. That is the answer to the question that the hon. Gentleman should have asked.

Will my hon. and learned Friend seek to simplify the trial procedures in fraud cases which currently make it very difficult to secure convictions? Many fraud cases collapse after long and expensive trials and that can scarcely be a deterrent to further fraud.

Following the result of the Blue Arrow trial in the summer, the Lord Chancellor announced in July that the Government would publish a consultation paper seeking ways to limit the length of such trials and canvassing solutions as to how that should be achieved. I expect that the paper will be produced shortly. However, we do not just have long trials in fraud cases. There are long trials in child abuse cases and in cases of armed robbery. At a recent seminar held by the Bar which I attended, there was virtual unanimity about the fact that legislation is now required in that area and that that was the only solution.

To ask the Attorney-General when he expects Sir John May to complete his inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich bombings.

So as not to prejudice the trial of the Surrey police officers, Sir John May has decided to adopt a modified procedure in order to complete his inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich bombings in time to report his findings to the Royal Commission on criminal justice of which he is a member. The royal commission is due to report in June 1993.

Is not it the truth that Sir John May's inquiry has been nobbled? Three years have passed since the inquiry was commissioned and he has yet to begin to address the Guildford and Woolwich convictions. Has not his inquiry been nobbled because he was not willing to participate in a whitewash that would preserve the reputations of a number of extremely distinguished people such as the late Lord Havers, Sir Peter Imbert, Mr. Michael Hill QC and others who were involved in achieving those convictions?

I do not think that there is any truth in that at all.

To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy on the prosecution of persons involved in company fraud.

It is the policy of both the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown prosecution service, acting through its fraud investigation group and specialist prosecutors in each of its areas, to prosecute company fraud, wherever it is detected, in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors.

If Department of Trade and Industry inspectors produce a report indicating actions bordering on fraud or irregularities by prominent Conservatives, surely in those circumstances it is quite improper for the DTI to secure an injunction to prevent Channel 4 from publishing information from those reports in last night's programme "The Greed and the Glory".

The hon. Gentleman is muddling two concepts. If there is evidence of wrong-doing of that type by anyone, no matter who he or she may be, it should be properly investigated—in such a case, by the Serious Fraud Office. However, the confidentiality of the reports carried out by the DTI is a matter of public interest which is for the courts to decide if an application for an injunction is made.

To ask the Attorney-General what response he intends to make to the report of the national inter-agency working party on domestic violence.

The report's wide-ranging conclusions and recommendations, represent a valuable and constructive contribution to finding more effective ways of tackling domestic violence.

Will my hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the fact that Kiranjit Ahluwalia, who was subjected to appalling domestic violence and was imprisoned for life, has now been retried and freed? Does he welcome the recent decision of the New Zealand Government to review the laws on provocation so that women, who often retaliate at a later stage after being badly beaten, will have a much better chance of being able to plead manslaughter? Will he also take note of the recent book written by the distinguished woman QC, Helena Kennedy, which points out that the ingrained attitudes of the male-dominated legal profession often lead to women being more severely punished than men for similar crimes?

As my hon. Friend knows, any change to the substantive law is the responsibility of the Home Secretary, but I understand her concern about the matter. In his answer to my hon. Friend on 23 January this year the Home Secretary acknowledged that concern. He said that he believed that the arguments were finely balanced, that before we rushed into change we should be very sure that the changes did not do more harm than good, and that we did not want to introduce changes that would, in fact, sanction revenge killings.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will consider further increasing know-how fund resources to help with problems in the developing world.

An important part of our aid programme to developing countries is know-how in the form of training and technical co-operation. We shall continue to treat this form of aid as particularly important.

Does the Foreign Secretary understand that many hon. Members will not be satisfied with his reply, bearing in mind that the fragile democracies and economies of central Europe as well as Commonwealth countries are desperate for assistance from western Europe? Will he assure the House that in any review of the Government's budget the know-how funds for both central and eastern Europe and Commonwealth countries will be guaranteed? Will he tell the Heads of Government from Poland and elsewhere at the summit in London this week that the United Kingdom will increase its budget this year to assist them in developing, protecting and enhancing their fragile democracies and economies?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the British know-how funds in central and eastern Europe have been a marked success. They have succeeded not only because of the substantial sums allotted to them—£36 million last year—but because they are precisely targeted at the aims and objectives of those countries. I am sure that we will discuss this matter at the summit in London on Wednesday. Obviously, I cannot anticipate what funds will be available in the future.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that many Conservative Members do not expect the know-how funds or other parts of the aid budget to be cut and will take a serious view of any such cut?

I note my hon. Friend's remarks. But he will not expect me to anticipate the autumn statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been given to African countries in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

Gross bilateral aid flows to Africa were £514 million in 1989; £389 million in 1990; and £521 million in 1991.

Does my hon. Friend accept that aid to Africa can he good only in developing the enormous resources of that vast and important continent? Is it not essential to ensure that Africa's resources, including food, are developed as a means of discouraging and stopping that appalling carnage and war that have taken place there, causing people to go west and to leave Africa in such large numbers?

Aid to Africa will remain a priority for the overseas aid programme. However, economic reform is the key to Africa's sustainable development. In accordance with our aid programme, we are encouraging economic reform in all African countries. The African countries that have taken up reform have prospered more.

Can the Under-Secretary confirm that the Government are planning a 15 per cent. cut in the Overseas Development Administration budget, which amounts to nearly £300 million a year? If so, is that not a denial of common humanity, when there are an unprecedented 40 million people facing death from drought and famine in Africa, who need more help and not less? If the cut is made will it not be the most immoral act yet of a deeply immoral Government, who have already cut the aid budget in half as a share of national income and—perhaps most importantly for this Government—is it not against our interests, when a rising aid budget is the most cost-effective means of increasing demand for Britain's exports, thus creating jobs and growth at home?

I confirm no such thing and I reject the hon. Gentleman's allegations. We have a substantial aid programme for Africa—40 per cent. of all British bilateral aid goes to Africa, which is a higher proportion than is warranted by its population. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have the fifth largest aid programme in the world. If he had had his way—the increases that he had demanded in all the Departments that he has shadowed—the country would have been bankrupt long ago.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain has done much to assist the African countries with education? Is that not an area in which there is much to be done, and is not this country perhaps the most suited in the world to assist with it?

We consider all aspects of a country when deciding what to assist in the aid programme, including education and other aspects, such as economic management, human rights, the rule of law, accountability and transparency of government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the relief of debt owed by developing countries to multilateral lending institutions.

The multilateral lending institutions do not reschedule debt because to do so would threaten their ability to provide new loans to developing countries.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a result of the policies that he has described, the poverty-stricken countries of sub-Saharan Africa sent back to the International Monetary Fund $2.2 billion more than they received in new loans during the past eight years? Is he also aware that last year the IMF received $400 million more in debt repayments than it paid out in new loans? Does he accept that that is completely unacceptable for poverty-stricken countries, that the policies that he has outlined are not working, and that they are denying poverty-stricken countries the money that they need to recover? Will he pledge the Government to work within the IMF to change the disastrous policies that he has advocated?

No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. While the multilateral institutions do not reschedule debt, there are opportunities whereby the World bank and the IMF make new loan agreements with concessionary terms, which often help those countries. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his allegation that the developing world paid back more in 1990 than it received in assistance in the form of aid. Under the Trinidad terms, which the hon. Gentleman might well study for his own benefit, aid debt was written off for many countries. Under the accounting procedures that I have explained before to the House, that appears as a write-off, when it is merely a rescheduling and a forgiveness of the debt by the lending country.

Following my hon. Friend's comments about the Trinidad terms, which were a welcome initiative by the Prime Minister, is there any possibility of extending them?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. So far, eight countries have benefited from the Trinidad terms—six are in Africa, and we have been discussing it this afternoon. The Paris Club is meeting this week and there might be two more beneficiaries by the end of the week —Mali and/or Honduras. My hon. Friend is right to point out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister initiated the terms, which have been of such benefit to the developing world.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will increase the level of aid allocated to southern Africa in the current year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to review the level of aid allocated to southern Africa in the current year.

Southern Africa must be a high priority for us, particularly because so many countries there need our support for their economic reform programmes and because we must help them cope with the effects of the grievous drought. So we keep our help to that region continuously under review.

The Conservative party manifesto in April said that next year's aid budget, excluding aid for eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, would reach £1,800 million. Will the 1993–94 aid budget in real terms meet that manifesto promise and will the proportion going to southern Africa be the same as in the current financial year?

As I have said before, I cannot anticipate the results of the public spending review, which is going on now and on which no decisions have so far been taken. We shall continue to have an energetic role in relation to the tragedies in Africa, whether they concern Somalia, dealing with the drought in Zimbabwe, or projects that, for a comparatively modest expenditure, produce enormous benefits to townships in South Africa.

Surely the House cannot have too much confidence in such assurances given the Government's track record on overseas aid. It was cut by 27 per cent. in just 11 years so what confidence can we have that the Government will ever reach the agreed target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product devoted to overseas aid? Is it not obscene that the Government should even consider cutting back on overseas aid when a child dies of starvation every 2.4 seconds?

Obviously, the amount that we spend on aid is part of the Government's general public spending programme. That has been so under all Governments. What has happened in the history of this Government is that reductions in the beginning were followed by a substantial expansion, so that in 1991–92 we spent 3 per cent. more in real terms than in the year before. Since 1987–88 the aid programme has risen in real terms—not fallen as the hon. Gentleman suggested—by 8 per cent., which is a substantial increase.