To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of discussions between the London boroughs and the transport operators regarding the London concessionary fares scheme for 1993–94.

I understand that the boroughs have reached agreement with London Transport and British Rail to continue the existing scheme for 1993–94.

Does the Minister realise that, year after year, there is anxiety about the scheme and the way in which the Government leave it to be funded in this rather ad hoc way? If we are not to pay a decent pension, we need to have a decent concessionary fares scheme that elderly people believe, with conviction, will continue and not be subject to the vagaries of local authority funding from year to year.

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the arrangement enshrined in the London Regional Transport Act 1984 allows precisely for that to happen. It provides that the boroughs agree a scheme with London Transport every year. In the event that they do not, a reserve scheme, which is in the Act, comes into effect. That means that, each year, the boroughs and London Transport, as they have done this year, reach a straightforward settlement.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of the scheme is now in excess of £120 million a year for the 32 London boroughs, that it may disproportionately be taken up by the better off and that it costs over 20 per cent. of each of the 32 London boroughs' social services budgets? Is not there a case for giving elderly people a better choice about how that money is spent?

I note what my right hon. Friend says, but he will agree that the principle that underlies the present arrangements is that the boroughs, in concert, should agree whatever scheme they believe to be appropriate. Having done so, the scheme is agreed with London Transport and the reserve scheme operates only in the event that they are unable to come to an agreement.

Is the Minister aware that questions such as that asked by the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) greatly concern people who benefit from the scheme in London? Can he ensure that, in any discussions that take place, no restriction will be placed on the way in which people can travel throughout London, irrespective of where they live, and that that right will continue?

We made it clear that we intend to give the boroughs the right to continue to operate a concessionary fares scheme. The content of that scheme is entirely a matter for the boroughs, but the hon. Gentleman will note the agreement that has been reached this year, of the details of which, as in other years, he is well aware.

Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks and congratulations of all my pensioner and disabled constituents who are delighted that the scheme is going ahead for another year? Will he also accept my regrets at the way in which every year certain groups, whose motives are to be questioned, say that the scheme is threatened, thereby worrying pensioners? Is there any chance of the scheme being agreed a little earlier in the coming year? That would be welcome.

I am sure that I do not deserve my hon. Friend's thanks, but I am grateful for gratitude from whatever quarter it comes. As for timing, the length of the negotiations is a matter for the boroughs and London Transport. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that it is the existence of the reserve scheme, which comes into effect if the boroughs fail to reach agreement, which has ensured that they reach agreement by the stated date.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve transport in London by river.

I recently announced the formation of the River Thames working group which, under my chairmanship, will study the potential for developing freight and passenger traffic on the river and identify the scope for private sector improvements.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that the river is vastly underused as a form of public transport for Londoners. Will he congratulate London Riverbus on managing to put together another deal that means that it can survive for a little longer? Does he agree that the only way in which we shall see the river used by Londoners is to bring river transport within the London travel network card?

It is precisely because I agree with the hon. Lady that we should fully exploit the potential of the Thames—not only for passengers, but for non-time sensitive bulk cargo, tourism and so on—that the working party has been established. I am glad that London Riverbus appears to have its funding in place for the rest of the year. It has, of course, always been a private sector initiative. It is supported now by private bodies because they recognise that it has marketing potential.

My hon. Friend will know that the Thames is the northern boundary of Dartford constituency. Apart from separating Kent from Essex, it is a greatly underused resource. Does he agree that if more freight and commuter traffic could be moved on to the river, congestion on the roads would be reduced enormously in south-east London?

Stand up for Essex.

To respond to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary invitation to stand up for Essex, I can say only that I can think of better uses for the Thames than keeping us in Essex away from the good people of Kent. For what it is worth, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) is entirely right. About 40 per cent. of London's domestic waste, for example, is transported down the Thames by barge. That means that every day literally dozens of heavy lorry movements do not take place, with the result that some of the congestion on our roads is relieved by river transportation. We want that potential to be exploited to the full.

Will the Minister's River Thames committee consider the proposal to have on the river a floating heliport that could move around 22 sites between Battersea and the Thames barrier? Apparently it would need no planning arrangements or agreements, so implementation would be a matter for the Minister. If he knows about the proposal to have 4,000 annual civil flights and 400 military flights, will he tell us more about the 400 military flights? Will they be by helicopter gunships to ensure that the unemployed are following up the workfare scheme?

I know of that proposal and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that several aspects of it seem bizarre to say the least. It clearly cannot be right that the facility should be provided ad hoc. It is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concern, which I assure him I share. I shall make sure that the project is fully explored by the Government before it is taken further.

My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the river service that will shortly start between Gravesend and Canary Wharf. Let us hope that it will extend further to central London and even to Speaker's Steps. Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure proper access to pontoons up the river into central London and, indeed, the provision of further pontoons because it is absurd that constituents who commute cannot use this magnificent 20-lane motorway into central London?

I welcome the new ideas that are being advanced to expand use of the Thames, especially long-range use from areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency into central London. The working party was set up to investigate access to wharves, quays and pontoons and to ensure that, where possible, the Government consider all the possibilities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the Birmingham northern relief toll road on congestion on the M6 motorway.

It is estimated by the concessionaire, Midlands Expressway, that, on opening the tolled Birmingham northern relief road, M6 flows between junctions 4 and 11 would be relieved by about 28,000 vehicles per day of through traffic.

Was not the Birmingham northern relief road originally scheduled to relieve congestion on the M6? It now seems that the Government may be considering whether to toll the M6 after the widening that is due to take place towards the end of the 1990s. Are the Government now considering a general policy whereby motorways may be tolled if they have been modernised or widened?

The Birmingham northern relief road stands on its own merits; it is a much-needed road. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are issuing a Green Paper on the financing of roads and the implications for the Birmingham northern relief road will be considered as part of the wider consultations. The new relief road to the north of Birmingham is critical for traffic not only around Birmingham but in the north-west and on local roads in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, such as the A38 and A446, which are over-congested because of crowded conditions on the M6.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made since 5 January to the International Maritime Organisation, regarding the safe routing of tankers in British coastal waters; and if he will make a statement.

Since 5 January, three meetings have been held at which International Maritime Organisation officials were present. In addition, there has been a substantial discussion at the emergency Transport and Environment Council in Brussels. We expect shortly the Commission's communication on marine safety, for which we have been urgently pressing. I hope that this will be discussed at the next two Transport Council meetings, which may lead to further representations to the IMO.

Can the Secretary of State clarify the position that emerged after last Thursday's meeting, which was chaired by his Department and involved a number of bodies involved in shipping? Can he confirm whether it is intended that the Pentland Firth and the Fair Isle Channel will become a no-go area? The Braer may have been observing the voluntary ban within a 10-mile radius from Shetland. The key is not necessarily a ban but proper monitoring of shipping using those channels. What assessment has been made of radar surveillance in British coastal waters? Will the right hon. Gentleman take forward these proposals to the IMO?

I am willing to listen to various suggestions that we might wish to take to the IMO, including the outcome of Lord Donaldson's inquiry. As a result of last Thursday's meeting between tanker owners and operators and my Department, provisions are being drawn up for a code of voluntary restrictions on tankers operating in sensitive areas such as the two that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It will be a voluntary code, because to have a compulsory code it is essential to work through the IMO, which is why I have always stressed the need to reach agreement in the IMO. Radar surveillance all round our coast would be extremely expensive. We must, therefore, carefully consider the cost benefits. If one tries to introduce directions as a result of monitoring it could have implications for international law.

In welcoming the announcement that my right hon. Friend made about the meeting last Thursday, may I ask him to press on with his discussions with our Community partners? Does he agree that the Community is in a very strong position to exercise significant influence in the IMO and, as member Governments are likely to be more responsive to environmental concerns than a rather remote body such as the IMO, is not it a good opportunity to take our policy further?

That is the point. If we are to get agreement on further measures at IMO level, which has never proved particularly easy or quick, the more agreement we achieve in the European Community on measures that could be urged there, the better. That has been the purpose of our discussions. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that the United Kingdom took a leading part in those discussions in January, as it did when it was president in the previous six months. Indeed, we were commended for the action that we took during the Braer incident.

Although the House will welcome the Secretary of State's statement about moving towards some statutory control of the routings of vessels through that area, does he accept that the problem is that rogue operators and rogue ships take no notice of statutory enforcement or codes and that the only effective measure that they recognise is the possibility of getting caught? First, has he approached Norway and Russia about asking such ships to deposit their route movements with them when they pick up their cargoes? Secondly, it is nonsense to suggest that we have to wait for the IMO to get radar coverage in that area. Radar coverage is absolutely essential and the Government should decide to implement it now as the best form of deterrent.

The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I did not suggest that we needed IMO approval to have radar surveillance. I said that it involved substantial costs and that we should consider the cost benefits of implementing it all round the country. The hon. Gentleman was wrong on the first point, but, on the second, I agree that the tightening of port state controls, including the issue to which he referred, is certainly one of the most effective ways to bring pressure to bear on substandard ships. That is why we have given it high priority in the United Kingdom, where 30 per cent. of ships are now subjected to port state control—that is way above the target—and where the number of ships detained has increased substantially in recent years. I agree that it is important to target more and that is an issue which we wish to take up internationally.

There will be a general welcome for getting in place as many voluntary measures as possible, but does my right hon. Friend agree that to achieve the reduction there must be risk assessment? Would not it be a good idea to have radar surveillance in some of the most environmentally sensitive areas and the video recording of movements so that experts can consider what should be part of the voluntary agreement and what we should be asking for on a statutory basis later?

I see the point of it when there are benefits to be gained for the cost of putting such a system in place. That is why we have it in the Dover straits, where there are significant benefits. My hon. Friend's second point can be considered in the context of the Donaldson inquiry, although, even in that case, there could be implications for international law if one wanted to follow up the surveillance with positive measures.

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is little benefit in removing tankers from the Minches if the new rule takes them within four miles of the coastline of the Outer Hebrides? Will he therefore urgently consider surveying a new route 40 to 50 miles from the coastline?

The question of alternative routes, especially in extremely bad weather such as that during the Braer incident, is very much part of the arrangements that might be made and I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is considered.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the response has been to the future road building programme as announced in the autumn statement.

The 41 new scheme starts, costing over £1.3 billion, which I announced last Thursday have been widely welcomed by the construction industry and road users, as were the 41 local road schemes that I announced in the transport supplementary grant settlement last December.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is correct in assuming that the construction industry will welcome the increase of thousands of jobs? We hope to hear a welcome from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), too. Above all, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the replacement for Poole bridge, which is desperately needed in my constituency, maintains its place in the programme and goes ahead as promised?

My hon. Friend is right about the importance of my announcement last week for jobs in the construction industry. Next year, the programme will involve as many as 30,000 jobs in the industry. I was not surprised that there was hardly a welcome from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) when I made the announcement. There is no doubt that the record programme is good not only for jobs, but for the economy in terms of improving our road communications.

Is the Government's objective in proposing a Green Paper on road tolling to alter patterns of road use for environmental reasons or to raise revenue for the Treasury? If the objective is to raise revenue, is not it a bit steep to charge taxpayers to use roads for which they have already paid? If the objective is environmental, should not the revenue go to public transport?

We are pursuing environmental purposes in many ways in the road programme. As I said last week, next year we shall spend £2.2 billion in terms of capital investment in public transport. Given that 90 per cent. of passengers and freight now go by road, the figure compares favourably with the £2.9 billion of capital investment in roads.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this programme is both helpful and exciting for the construction industry? I hope that he will continue with the programme beyond the present proposals. Will my right hon. Friend concentrate more of the effort in urban areas? In towns such as Reading there is major congestion. Will he also ensure that the planning process does not slow the development of such roads?

On the first point, if my hon. Friend looks at the public expenditure programme announced last autumn, he will see that we are maintaining a high level of road building in years two and three. There is a concentration on the urban question—I know that this does not affect my hon. Friend—both in the considerable expenditure in London in next year's programme and in the substantial number of bypasses that are now included in the road programme.

Will the Secretary of State offer any experiments on road pricing and tolling? Does he accept that the Government raise three times more in road tax than is spent on road transport? Does he accept that that means a double whammy, in that he is trying to find a new tax to pay for the debt that the Government have imposed on this country and on its economic development?

That has to be nonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not have hypothecation of taxes in this country. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should put more money into the road programme without considering the questions that will be raised in the Green Paper, does that mean that he has now abandoned the charge that he sometimes makes that we do not have a level playing field between road and rail?

May I suggest to my right hon. Friend a way in which his Department's budget on road building would be saved and in which expenditure could be diversified to please many of my constituents? If my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to cancel the appointment of the consultants who are studying the proposed new M12, for which nobody has asked and which no one wants, and if he used the money for other more important road projects, such as upgrading the A12 from the M25 to Chelmsford, he would kill two birds with one stone. He would please my constituents and improve road communications to the hinterland of East Anglia and to Chelmsford.

I note what my hon. Friend has said. That point of view has been pressed on me by other hon. Members from the same part of the country. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will be visiting Essex shortly to consider those issues and I am sure that he will also take into account what my hon. Friend has said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it remains his policy for the route of the A1 to pass through Ferrybridge in West Yorkshire under the upgrading scheme; and if he will make a statement.

I announced the preferred route for the proposed A1 motorway between Redhouse and Hook Moor on 1 December 1992. The route passes to the west of Ferrybridge away from the built-up area. At present, detailed scheme design is under way.

Why is the Minister being so unfair and unkind to the communities in Ferrybridge and Pontefract which will border the new motorway? Why is he unconcerned about the health of the children at Ferrybridge junior and infant school, which will be near the motorway? Why is he indifferent to the people and communities of Ferrybridge and Pontefract by not allowing the motorway to go around their towns and communities, as happens in so many other areas? Why is the Minister being so uncharitable to those communities?

I know that the hon. Gentleman lives very close to the preferred route, but we believe that it is the best route. If we opted for the alternative route to the east of Knottingley, the journey would be much longer. Over the years, that would cost the country tens of millions of pounds more. However, there will be a public inquiry into the scheme and local communities and everyone interested in the road will have a full opportunity to put their views, which will be heard by an independent inspector. The upgrading of the A1 is truly important to the economy of the whole of the east of the country. We plan to upgrade the road to motorway standard between the M25 and Newcastle over the next 10 years. That is much needed.

Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of all of us for the care that he is taking with regard to the upgrading of the A 1 and the careful planning of the M 1-M62 motorway? Will he take into account the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) for the communities beside the road? Those fears are becoming increasingly important.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is very important that roads are designed with great sensitivity and, wherever possible, are removed from communities. There are now much better techniques to achieve that. In addition to earth mounds, we now have the real prospect of much quieter surfaces such as porous asphalt. We shall be using porous asphalt for the first time in a commercial contract in the coming year. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) for the way in which he represents the concerns of his constituents. He will be coming to see me very shortly about the M1-M62 link.

When will the Minister upgrade the Al in Northumberland, where there has been carnage over the years and deaths galore? I remind the Minister that Northumberland is in England, and not in Scotland——

Order. We are dealing with the A l in the area of Ferrybridge and West Yorkshire.

It goes on from there.

I realise that; it starts much further south as well. I call Mr. Stephen to ask Question 9.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken at the International Maritime Organisation to improve compensation arrangements for shipping accidents.

The United Kingdom took a leading role in the adoption in 1992 of protocols ensuring higher limits of liability in the event of an oil spill. We are also doing so in the development of the convention to ensure high levels of compensation in the event of a chemical spill and in other ways.

While I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about compensation, our principal concern must be to prevent the accidents from occurring in the first place. In relation to the English channel, which is of particular concern to my constituents, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is adequate radar surveillance of that very busy shipping lane and that if a vessel is seen to be contravening the rules for navigation in the English channel it will he contacted immediately by radio and that other ships will also be contacted by radio to warn them of the danger?

I confirm that that is the situation in the English channel. The traffic separation scheme, coupled with radar surveillance, has been effective in reducing the level of accidents in the area by more than 85 per cent. It is relevant to have that there because of the high level of traffic through the Dover straits. Where there is evidence of a contravention of the rules, appropriate follow-up action will be taken by the Department, which may include prosecutions.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is crucial to have a unified approach to maritime safety? Why do we have to keep waiting for disasters such as the Braer and the disasters that we have seen in the English channel? Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may be doing with the International Maritime Organisation in respect of the new oil compensation proposal, is it not the case that we may have to wait three years for it to be fully ratified by the eight necessary states? When will he do something about ship safety? When will he increase port state control? When will he make public the results of port state control? When will he do something to save the British merchant fleet, which has the best safety record of all?

I agree with the hon. Lady that it is not desirable simply to wait for disasters such as the Braer before action is taken. That is why we have been pressing for a considerable time along a wide range of fronts, but one needs the involvement and co-operation of other organisations, and countries around the world, if one is to achieve effective results. I accept that when there is a disaster it gives an extra spur to obtaining that agreement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking, both nationally and internationally, to combat piracy, in particular in far eastern waters.

We are about to publish comprehensive advice to British ship owners and crews on dealing with piracy and armed robbery. Through our embassies and high commissions, we have ensured that littoral states in areas where attacks occur are aware of our concerns. At the request of the Secretary General of the International Maritime Organisation, we shall be sending two experts to work with the IMO piracy working group which is to visit south-east Asia in March.

I welcome my hon. Friend's prompt actions in respect of international piracy, but will he continue to give the highest priority to avoiding incidents such as the attack on the Baltimar Zephir, which resulted in the deaths of the British captain and the chief officer?

We have made clear to the Indonesian Government, through our embassy in Jakarta, our very great concern at Captain Bashforth's murder on the Baltimar Zephir and our expectation that their investigation into the incident will be thorough and its results made known fully and speedily.

Does the Minister recognise that transport piracy comes in many forms? Does he recognise the extreme concern that is felt today by railway pensioners as a result of reports that £4.25 billion——

Order. We are talking about piracy on the high seas in far eastern waters. That question is a long way from the mark.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the latest performance statistics on the south-western lines division of Network SouthEast.

For the year ended 29 January 1993, the south-western lines managed to achieve an average performance which was above their targets for 1992. Peak punctuality was 90.9 per cent. and reliability was 99.5 per cent. That is a credit to staff and management.

Would my hon. Friend like to know that there is unrestrained enthusiasm on the 10 stations in my constituency about the prospect of the south-western lines division being franchised? That enthusiasm will be maintained so long as the contract that is let to the franchisee observes better performance standards then those currently obtained and safeguards the commuter lines such as those which pass through my constituency.

We are grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for franchising, particularly the south-western lines. It would be our intention that the private sector franchisees adopted even higher standards of punctuality and reliability to monitor their own performance.

Is it not a fact that the franchising that the Minister and the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) welcome will jeopardise branch lines such as those operating from Chessington, Hampton Court, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Esher, the Chertsey branch line, and many other branch lines throughout the Network SouthEast area? Are they not in jeopardy, along with many intermediate stations?

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he believes The Guardian newspaper that there is likely to be a threat to a substantial part of the network through franchising. The hon. Gentleman would be wrong: there is nothing in our proposals that jeopardises at all either branch lines or existing main routes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that standards of punctuality on the Network SouthEast route to Hastings are such that British Rail is paying a 5 per cent. reduction? Is he further aware that BR appears to be planning a reduction of seats on the fast trains in the new summer timetable? Will he consult British Rail and alert it to the distress and anger that my commuters feel about the appalling service that they receive from British Rail, which is leading to their approval for the franchising of the British Rail line?

I will certainly reflect my hon. Friend's concerns to the chairman of British Rail, but it is a matter for British Rail at present to determine the services that it provides and the fares for its services. Under the franchising system, the franchising director will require a commitment to a certain level of service, especially in the peak, and he will control fares in Network SouthEast.

To ask the Attorney-General how many vacancies there are in the Crown prosecution service in Greater London.

The Crown prosecution service in Greater London and Surrey has vacancies for 49 lawyers out of a total requirement of 499, and for 100 support staff out of a total requirement of 1,428.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that large number of lawyers means that cases can come to the courts more quickly? Is it not then offensive to many people for the courts to impose ridiculous sentences such as the recent £500 fine which was imposed on a rapist when a damned good hiding might have been more appropriate?

I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General expects to receive the papers in that case quite shortly so that he can decide whether the sentence appears to be unduly lenient. He will take his decision on the matter carefully and within the 28 days allowed to him by statute.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and many people in the country at large, find it difficult to understand the sentence—or rather non-sentence—imposed on the person responsible for rape? Is it not important that it should be clearly understood that rape is a vile crime and will be punished severely by the courts and that what was done in that specific case serves no purpose whatever in making it clear that rape is a vile crime?

It was precisely to enable my right hon. and learned Friend to deal with the deep sense of misgiving to which the hon. Gentleman referred that we changed the law on this subject and gave the Attorney-General power to refer sentences which appear unduly lenient.

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

On 1 April 1993, the existing 31 areas of the Crown prosecution service will amalgamate to form 13 new areas. The aim is to improve communication between the areas and headquarters, to lay emphasis on the CPS as a national service, and to enhance the responsibilities of chief Crown prosecutors and their role in management.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Does he agree that it is important that more time be given to experienced lawyers to have a personal involvement in the more serious cases with which they are dealing? Will the changes go any way to enhance that and bring it about?

Yes. Two of the advantages of the changes will be, first, that chief Crown prosecutors will be given a bigger role in the central management of the service as a whole and, secondly, that it will free senior lawyers to do case work on the important and complex cases with which the CPS now deals.

Can the Attorney-General confirm that he will carefully consider facilitating the CPS to argue before the Court of Appeal that the sentence in the Newport Crown court rape case was inadequate? Will he therefore give the Court of Appeal an opportunity to give some guidance about the sentencing of juveniles, as there has been a great deal of concern about the kind of sentences that juveniles have received for serious crimes?

I appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt my decision before I have seen the papers and the factors that impinged on the mind of the learned judge in that case, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look carefully at the matter and that, if the case is referred, it will give the Court of Appeal that opportunity, among others.

To ask the Attorney-General how many vacancies for the Crown prosecution service there are in the county of Hertfordshire.

The Crown prosecution service currently has a full complement of 48 lawyers in the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire area. It has one vacancy for support staff out of a total requirement of 80.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that all prosecutions are being undermined by punishments not fitting the crime? Does he realise that, apart from the recent rape case, there are many cases of crimes such as joy riding and so on which the nation feels should be punished properly? When will he stop pussyfooting about and get on with it?

We do not pussyfoot around. We refer many cases to the Court of Appeal when we believe that there are grounds to say that the sentence is unduly lenient.

To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to receive a report on the outcome of the inquiry on Matrix Churchill.

The time scale required to complete the Matrix Churchill inquiry is a matter for Lord Justice Scott. He has made it clear that he wishes to report to the President of the Board of Trade as soon as possible.

Is it not the case that Lord Justice Scott is currently still reading the papers and has not even spoken to witnesses yet? On that basis, are we not unlikely to have a report before the autumn? When the matter was first raised, the Prime Minister assured the House that he would not allow the inquiry to prevent parliamentary questions from being answered, but are not Ministers in fact refusing to answer legitimate questions to which the British public have a right to answers? If British Ministers have acted improperly, they should not continue in office until the report is completed.

There are three questions there. I repeat the assurance that Government Departments will give full assistance to Lord Justice Scott. He has already received about 30,000 documents. Obviously, they take a good deal of time to read and to assimilate. He then proposes to hear the evidence. I understand from a press release that he proposes to hear the evidence largely in public. It will then be for him to consider his conclusions.

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

I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

I welcome the announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend a moment ago. Does he agree that the restructuring will produce a more streamlined and effective service to bring to book both serious and less serious criminals in the rising ride of crime that we face at present?

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the review, coupled with the recent improvement in recruitment in the Crown prosecution service, should play a significant part in helping to reduce delays in the criminal justice system.

Is it not ironic that people who defraud social security to the tune of, say, a couple of hundred pounds a year in most circumstances, are caught and tried while the Crown prosecution service somehow manages to miss the people who make a small fortune out of City fraud? Why is it that the Crown prosecution service allowed Ernest Saunders to get away with most of his sentence? Why did it say that Roger Seelig, who now runs a business, could not continue his trial because of "nervous exhaustion"? Now he is making a big pile. If the Government want to deal with crime, they should start with the big people at the top—their Tory friends.

There are two answers to the hon. Gentleman. The first and specific answer is that both the decisions to which he referred, as I should have thought that he realised, were judicial decisions made after careful argument in open court. The second answer is that, in addition to the work done by the Serious Fraud Office, which handles some 50 to 60 large cases a year, the Crown prosecution service handles some 800 to 900 major fraud cases a year. The revised format of the service should also assist in that.

To ask the Attorney-General what was the level of recruitment to the Crown prosecution service in Lancashire in 1991 and 1992; and if he will make a statement.

In 1991 the number of lawyers in post in the Lancashire and Cumbria area of the Crown prosecution service increased from 66 to 67. The number of support staff fell from 90 to 88. In 1992, the number of lawyers increased to 76 and support staff to 113.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the ways in which we can improve the standards of the Crown prosecution service and avoid miscarriages of justice such as the recent Newport Crown court low sentence for rape, which has caused so much outrage, is to ensure that Crown prosecution service lawyers and other employed barristers are given rights of audience in higher courts, to ensure that they have the standard of training in advocacy to enable them to present cases in the public interest and to the best of their abilities?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and he will no doubt take into account the principles laid down in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 when he considers whether there is any need for increased rights of audience in the Crown courts.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of United Kingdom aid is given via the EC; and whether he expects this to change in the next five years.

In 1991–92 approximately 20 per cent. of British aid to developing countries was provided through the EC. During the period up to 1996, covered in the Chancellor's autumn statement, this proportion is likely to increase, but it is too early to make predictions.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware of concern among aid agencies that as the European Community's aid budget increases, there will be a corresponding reduction in the bilateral aid budget, and that since bilateral aid is one of the most effective ways to dispense aid, and the EC is one of the less effective ways, that is a cause for concern?

I have seen the Christian Aid statement to which the hon. Gentleman is perhaps referring. Of course, it is true that part of our aid is multilateral, since it goes through the European Community or the United Nations and its agencies. It is important that multilateral aid should be as effective as we can help to make it, but it all runs together. For example, the programme in Bosnia of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is financed partly by the European Community, which is the largest single contributor, and partly by programmes such as our own, but it all goes to the same purpose.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the principle that he laid down in a speech two years ago—that non-humanitarian aid to developing countries will depend on their human rights record? Will he consider the question of non-humanitarian aid to Ghana and Indonesia, as the latter annexed East Timor five years ago and is oppressing the population there?

Yes, we apply that principle and my hon. Friend knows of examples where we have done so, especially in Africa. I have nothing to say about aid to Indonesia, but I was in Ghana recently and think that President Rawlings needs and deserves encouragement, in particular because of his economic policy and his proclaimed intention of opening the door to consultation with the opposition.

How does the right hon. Gentleman justify his policy of cutting the aid budget to Africa substantially in real terms during the next three years while sharply increasing aid to eastern and central Europe? How does he justify using aid moneys to pay exorbitant consultancy fees to the former Soviet Union this year, and to justify the press release issued by the Overseas Development Administration this week with the headline, "Britain gives £1.5 million to help with Polish mass privatisation"? We have always known that the Tories never favoured aid in the first place, but is that not the most dishonest and disreputable distortion of the aid budget that can possibly be imagined?

The hon. Member is hopelessly out of date. He cannot have been in eastern Europe lately. The know-how fund has been one of the most successful forms of British aid in recent years. Because of the success of our privatisations, the sort of programme that the Poles and others most desperately require from us is help with theirs —they are after privatisation and not nationalisation.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rules governing aid from the European Community are no less stringent in relation to human rights? In that context, what pressure is the Community, as well as Britain, able to exert on the Government of Sudan to ensure that the record on human rights in the south of that country meets the requirements of those rules?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and this is something on which we agreed in the Community. Alas, we have felt bound to suspend virtually all our aid to the Sudan, except humanitarian aid, in an effort to show that country that its present record on human rights and good government in general is not acceptable either to us or to our friends.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he proposes to take to increase the accountability of United Kingdom representatives to the World bank to the United Kingdom Parliament.

The World bank is accountable to its shareholders, including the United Kingdom. The Government are accountable to Parliament for payments made to the bank as part of our overseas aid programme.

Does the Minister accept that the World bank, through its structural adjustment lending and project lending, has a far greater influence on the policies of many developing countries than our own inadequate bilateral aid programme has? In the light of that and of the recent Wappenhams report, "Inside the World Bank", which showed that more than half its projects are failing in social, environmental and economic terms, is it not a disgrace that the House has virtually no opportunity to discuss what the British Government are doing in the bank and the changes that we may seek to make to it? Would the Minister consider having an annual debate in the House on the policies of the World bank, which should include prior discussion of the main policies that the Government intend to follow in that institution?

The purpose of questions and debates in the House of Commons is to make the British Government accountable. The hon. Gentleman can initiate a debate if he wishes. If he wishes to know about actions by the British Government in support of environmental considerations, he need only take note of our opposition to the Narmada project in India, where we have taken an extremely robust line. We have made it clear that there must be great progress by April on environmental and other matters of resettlement if funding is to continue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British aid workers are currently estimated to be working in Somalia; what is the nature of their work; and if he will make a statement.

Many British and international relief agencies operating in Somalia employ British nationals in a wide range of activities, but it is impossible to estimate their numbers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the British contribution to the relief effort in Somalia is quite outstanding in economic and personnel terms? Will my hon. Friend particularly commend the wonderful work of Sean Devereux and other aid workers? Will the increased numbers of British forces enable some troops to go to Somalia to defend aid workers where appropriate?

Yes. Operation Restore Hope, in which the United Kingdom has provided tremendous assistance, has, with the United States initiative, been a terrific success. In terms of financial assistance, we are the third largest bilateral donor to the relief effort in Somalia; more than £40 million worth of relief has been committed in the past 12 months. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the great courage of aid workers in Somalia, including Sean Devereux. I am afraid that only today the deaths of a further five Red Cross employees were announced.

Did the Minister happen to read the excellent article in Friday's edition of the Financial Times by Mr. Nicholas Hinton, secretary general of the Save the Children Fund? He drew attention to the terrible shortcomings of the United Nations and its agencies in dealing with disasters such as that in Somalia. What steps have the Government taken to co-ordinate with United Nations personnel the much-needed improvement in the performance of the United Nations and its agencies to overcome the shortcomings which are so glaringly obvious?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, at our instigation a new co-ordinator has been appointed by the United Nations Secretary General and we wish him well. We fully recognise that when the United Nations takes over the operation from the United States that it must be properly funded.

Can my hon. Friend give us any idea of our involvement with the United States in planning what will happen when the United States forces withdraw? Many aid agencies, although they have supported the United States intervention in the current situation, are very concerned about what may happen when the forces withdraw.

It is essential that a clear plan is drawn up for the handover of responsibility from the coalition forces to the United Nations when the former leave. Discussion about that is currently under way and, as I have said, we are pressing for the United Nations to be fully resourced.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Kenyan Government about aid policies.

I last discussed aid and related issues with President Moi in Nairobi in September. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is in Nairobi today. She is talking to President Moi and others about a number of issues, including aid.

Bearing in mind that last month, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), the Government said that new balance of payments assistance was being withheld pending political and economic reforms in Kenya, and bearing in mind that the political reforms have taken place as a result of the election, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects the Government to restore new balance of payments assistance?

That will depend largely on how the International Monetary Fund gets on with its review of economic reform.