To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what current proposals his Department has to extend the London underground system into south London and beyond.

Primary responsibility for developing the underground network rests with London Underground Ltd. A substantial part of the Jubilee line extension currently under construction runs south of the river and London Underground has plans for a southern extension of the east London line.

I thank the Minister for that response. I realise that London Underground Ltd. will be the primary body involved in any work. I welcome the extension of the Jubilee line and the docklands light railway, but does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that they do no more than touch the periphery of south-east London? We need a major extension through south-east London and on to Bromley and/or Croydon. The commercial, social and, in these days, environmental case for that is overwhelming.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a study is currently under way, involving the five south London boroughs and London Underground, of precisely the problem to which he has referred. I accept what he says about the absence of a tube line in that area of south London, not least because I live there and am acutely aware of it. We rely on buses and on Network SouthEast, but there is no doubt that the tube would be a great addition.

Although I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on proposals to improve public transport in south-east London, may I urge him not to forget the needs of the motorist and the travelling public who want to travel by car? The east London river crossing must be part of any overall improvement in south-east London. Although people living in Erith, Crayford, Bexley and other such areas want an improvement in public transport, they also need more crossing points on the river so that they can use their cars.

One of the improvements south of the river is £800 million-worth of new Networker trains on the Kent link line, which benefit my hon. Friend's constituents and others in that area. His comment about the need for more river crossings is well understood; however, he knows that many of the proposals for crossings have encountered difficulties, not least with local authorities such as his local authority in Bexley. For example, the proposal for a road from the A13 through to the A2016 was not only specifically precluded from the original Oxleas wood public inquiry, but would—as my hon. Friend's local authority has pointed out—cause concern about localised traffic, not least in the Bexley area.

On the subject of improvements to underground services south of the river, is the Minister aware that members of the all-party Northern line group recently visited the ABB and GEC Alsthom factories at Derby and Preston, both of which are champing at the bit to supply new rolling stock for the Northern line—as, I am sure, are their overseas competitors?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the private finance initiative and his enthusiasm for its delivery to a safe conclusion. Although it is not for me or my right hon. Friend to show any preference at this stage for those who are competing to supply the Northern line trains, we follow the matter with interest and will certainly ensure that time is not lost unnecessarily.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the environmental benefits resulting from the tolling of motorways.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the environmental benefits of the tolling of motorways.

Motorway tolling will provide another source of finance for improving the motorway network, helping to avoid the congestion and associated environmental problems that would otherwise come with economic growth and increasing traffic. It will also enable more efficient use to be made of the network, for example, by pricing to spread peak-period congestion.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but motorway noise will still be high. Is he aware that the houses of my constituents in Long Eaton and Sawley are a bare 20 ft from the edge of the M1, with only a garden fence between them and the traffic? In such circumstances, does he agree that effective sound barriers are needed, whether or not the motorway is widened, so that my constituents can again hear themselves speak in their gardens?

The effective way of dealing with that problem is to take measures when the motorway is widened. My hon. Friend will know that a preview of the public consultation for widening between junctions 25 and 18 is taking place today and in the coming weeks. I believe that my hon. Friend has been able to discuss all those matters on site with representatives of the Highways Agency. I can tell her that the agency expects mitigation measures, which will come with the widening, to reduce the noise significantly, and they will include contouring the adjoining land, putting up fencing and the other measures to which she refers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extra revenue raised from tolls can be used to improve motorways, thus diverting money to help keep traffic off minor roads? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, in rural Suffolk constituencies such as mine, where there is great concern about excessive traffic in our historic villages, the environmental advantages of that are fully recognised?

My hon. Friend is certainly right that that will be one benefit of motorway tolling; it will enable additional finance to be found for the widening of motorways. That will enable us to avoid some of the environmental disadvantages that will accompany increasing traffic if traffic increasingly goes off the motorways and on to historic towns and villages or other villages and towns nearby. So there is definitely an environmental benefit to be had from motorway tolling—in addition, of course, to the benefits of reducing congestion and its costs.

But what estimate does the Minister have of the number of people who will not be willing to pay the tolls and will divert on to existing roads instead? Is not he already aware that some people seem reluctant to pay tolls on some of the river crossings and are already putting extra burdens on existing roads? Is not this a crazy policy?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the consultation document on motorway tolling, which was published last year, he will see that that was addressed fully in a chapter of its own. The point is, first, that it is important to keep the motorway tolls at a reasonable level to avoid the danger of local diversion but, secondly, that if we do not widen the motorways, diversion to local roads is likely to be much greater because of congestion on those motorways.

But does not the Secretary of State realise that, if he imposes a tax on using motorways, people will seek to avoid it by diverting on to other roads? All that he is doing is creating even more problems for drivers and public transport policy. Surely, what he should do is to instigate proper public transport policy and persuade people to move away from using the car.

We are currently spending very substantial sums on public transport. Investment is at a record level. The hon. Lady must recognise that it would not be possible to duplicate with a public transport system all the many thousands of journeys with different sources and different destination points that are undertaken each day on the motorway. That would be physically impossible. It is therefore important to improve the motorways to avoid the very dangers that she foresees of diversion on to local roads which will arise if the motorways are not effective.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on Network SouthEast rail services in relation to passengers charter standards.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Network SouthEast rail services in relation to passengers charter standards.

I am pleased to say that, on average over the year ending 24 June 1994, 14 of the 15 south-east commuter routes met or exceeded their passengers charter standards for punctuality and 12 met or exceeded their standards for reliability.

But does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes complete nonsense of attempts by management and staff to improve rail services and to benefit from increased investment in the railway system when the whole system can be brought to a halt by a small group of workers harking back to the bad old days of excessive trade union power?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the strike does not help with improvements for passengers—or, indeed, for all customers, including freight customers —on the railways, for the very reason that my hon. Friend gives. If there are damaging and unnecessary strikes, they frighten traffic off the railway which may not come back. Such strikes can only be at the expense of investment in the railways and thus damage the interests of all those who work on the railways. So I agree with my hon. Friend. The strike is damaging and unnecessary.

Notwithstanding the welcome recent improvements, as reflected by the passengers charter, and also the improvements that will flow from the £100 million resignalling project and the 25 317 sliding-door trains that will be introduced at the end of next year, does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot improve services while the hard men of the left are on strike?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to his own line, the London, Tilbury and Southend line. He is right to draw attention to the improvements on that line. Those improvements have come through management and employees working together in advance of the substantial capital investment to which he referred. I repeat that I believe that the strike is damaging to the railway industry and all who work in it. It is unnecessary, because it is perfectly possible to have a good, modern employment package for the signalmen. I hope that the strike will now end.

Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance from the Dispatch Box that, if there were an accident on the railways in the Network SouthEast area arising out of the use of untrained signalmen, Railtrack would be fully insured against any claims for damages?

Railtrack is taking all the steps necessary to ensure safety, as everyone would. Railtrack has informed the Health and Safety Executive of all the competence checks that it is applying to ensure that its legal duty on safety is met. It is for the inspectorate to ensure that that happens.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, if Railtrack is allowed to make an offer similar to the 5.7 per cent. offer that was withdrawn following his intervention, that would be likely to make a majority of signalmen reflect on whether they should go back to work? If his hon. Friends are going to trot out those hoary old stories about the hard left, is not it about time that he joined the hard left and we wheeled out Mr. Solomon Binding and allowed him to negotiate freely between the two sides without the interference of the Secretary of State or some of his silly hon. Friends on the Back Benches?

I have made it clear that the Government's approach to public sector pay should be followed in this case. The approach is that any productivity improvements for the future—of which there are many because there are still an awful lot of very old-fashioned practices on the railways—should be self-financing and the total cost should be met out of Railtrack's wage bill. That is the position that I have made clear. I believe that the offer that has been made is reasonable.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all Conservative Members want to see improving standards of service on Network SouthEast? Is not it clear that the image of the region will suffer so long as the RMT strike continues and continues to be dominated by a handful of Marxist-Leninists, many of whom have friends on the Opposition Benches?

I agree with my hon. Friend on two points. First, escalating the strike to two days a week looks like a throwback to the sort of actions that we saw in the 1970s, which so damaged the industries affected. Secondly, the strike will be damaging for railwaymen because many passengers are finding alternatives means of transport and some of them will stick to them. Even worse, all that is happening at a time when we are trying to get more freight off road and on to rail, particularly with the opening of the freight terminals to the channel tunnel, a major opportunity for the railways. Having unreliable trains that do not run because of a strike is not the best way of attracting new freight on to the railways. That is why I say that the strike is damaging, unnecessary and not in the interests of railwaymen.

Passengers in the south-east and elsewhere have experienced disturbances for some weeks because of the dispute over productivity and pay. Does the Secretary of State agree that, given that the efforts of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to bring about a reconciliation do not appear to have succeeded, it is time for the matter to go to independent arbitration? Will he urge that on Railtrack?

This is a matter for ACAS. I hope that the two sides will get together again with ACAS because I do not believe that all the issues have been thoroughly discussed and negotiated. A modern employment package is on offer which, not least in terms of improved, much-enhanced basic pay and much-enhanced pensions, is in the interests of signalmen as well as of the railway industry.

Will the Secretary of State give a clear and unequivocal answer to the question: is there any person working in a signal box anywhere in Britain on days of industrial action who would not be there at other times in terms of achieving the certificate of competence? Have the conditions changed in any way to accommodate the industrial action? Does he agree that if the Government were to get out of the dispute, it could be solved very quickly? Will he answer another specific question: will he allow Railtrack to restore the 5.7 per cent. offer which took account of retrospective productivity gains which it knew were fair, which the unions knew were fair, and which only the Government prevented from being delivered?

I understand that Railtrack ensures that all staff operating signals are competent to do so under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Railway (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994. It is reasonable for the Government to have an approach towards public sector pay, given the substantial proportion of overall Government expenditure that is involved—more than 25 per cent. I note that the Labour party is talking about controlling public expenditure, but shies away from any steps that are taken to do so. It is reasonable for the Government to have an overall attitude to the matter, but it is for Railtrack and the RMT to negotiate. All hon. Members will have observed that, once again, those on the Opposition Front Benches are refusing to make clear their position on an unnecessary and damaging strike.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the beneficial effect on historic buildings of the removal of heavy traffic from towns and villages by diverting it on to new bypasses.

Right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House remind me ceaselessly of the benefits of bypasses, for both the buildings and the people of communities living with high levels of through traffic.

Representing, as he does, a cathedral city, will my hon. Friend harness his natural ecclesiastical sympathies to his considerable political weight to expedite the day when Selby abbey is embellished and protected by the Selby bypass?

Yes, of course I will. Since the memorable delegation that my right hon. Friend brought to see me last year, progress has been made. The forces of nature, however, cannot be ignored and, in engineering terms, the scheme is particularly difficult. There have been problems with ground work, but I hope that compulsory purchase orders can be published in the autumn.

Does not the Minister realise that growth in traffic has meant that bypasses are being deserted and that traffic is going back into the historic heart of cities, poisoning the people there with an unprecedented mixture of carcinogens, benzenes, and PM₁₀s? All are produced and pumped out into the atmosphere. They are then held in place by a lid of barometric pressure and a windless day, and are cooked by the sunshine. We are creating a lethal cocktail for our people to breathe in and we do not yet know the results of the inquiry into what happened in December 1991. As this enormously dangerous, uncontrolled experiment is occurring in our cities every fine day, how on earth can we contemplate doubling the growth of traffic?

The answer to the second question is, easily; the answer to the first is, can the hon. Gentleman name one?

Does my hon. Friend agree that when new bypasses are built or motorways widened, one of the continuing problems is that of noise? Does he support my contention that, where possible, quieter road surfaces should be used? Porous asphalt, in particular, is a positive move forward and we want much more of it.

Of course my hon. Friend is right. Noise can be an abomination and can ruin the quality of life of many people. But my hon. Friend should not rely only on porous asphalt. Technology is on our side and even better surfaces are now being developed. For example, whisper concrete is not only quieter but lasts many times as long as porous asphalt, which means that roads do not have to be dug up as often.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received concerning the publication "Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review".

We receive many representations about road improvement schemes from individuals and organisations, the majority of which express concern that it has not been possible to proceed with particular schemes as fast as people would like.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern in my constituency about the removal of the Leek-Rushton bypass from the national trunk road programme? What measures does he intend to take to deal with the problem of congestion in Leek, and does he think that the project should be reinstated in the programme?

I remember very well the representations that my hon. Friend made on behalf of his constituents earlier this year—and I, too, was sorry that the Leek bypass was withdrawn on environmental and economic grounds. But the district council and the Highways Agency are meeting on 22 July to consider a package of local improvement measures for the town and I should not wish to pre-empt those discussions.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many (a) private cars, (b) buses and (c) other vehicles are currently using London's roads; what this figure was (i) 10 and (ii) 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

I am afraid that the figures that my hon. Friend wants are not readily available in the form that he requested, but, for instance, between 1972 and 1990, the number of motor vehicles crossing the cordon line around inner London in a 24-hour count rose by 16 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that more and more of my constituents are being forced on to the roads—

Riding horses?

Well, certainly Shanks's pony, and no doubt some of them would like to use horses to overcome the problems of getting to work that are posed by the strike. Is not it outrageous that they are being exploited— and constituents throughout the country are being exploited — by a group of people whose best interests would be served by their getting back to work and staying there?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. His constituents will investigate other means of getting to work and some, no doubt, will continue to use them when this sorry dispute is over. It seems to me to be an absolutely classic case of how to commit industrial suicide.

Is the Minister aware that my local authority, Camden, today issued a report showing that European Union guidelines on nitrogen dioxide and ground-level ozone have been breached consistently in the past month? What additional funds are the Government attempting to find, first, to create more bicycle lanes in my local authority and, secondly, to provide a properly integrated public transport system for London and Londoners?

I am never greatly surprised by anything that Camden council does, but the Government acknowledge that the problems of air pollution are extremely serious. The hon. Lady should know of the extensive pattern of works and programmes that is in place to improve air quality, of which improved facilities for cyclists is an important element. She will be aware of the 1,000 mile cycleway that the Department of Transport has sponsored, which I am pleased to see boroughs taking forward. I hope that she will note that a number of Labour boroughs have seemed to be extraordinarily unwilling to introduce their 1,000 mile cycleway plans, but perhaps she will urge them to do so more quickly.

Does my hon. Friend accept that during the years of economic growth in the 1980s the number of people commuting by car in central London fell and the number of people using public transport rose, and is not it a tragedy that in the past month and a half every single person who relies on the railway, as many of my constituents do, has been shown that the railways are unreliable and that most of the investment will be delayed by this ridiculous strike? Is not it about time that RMT-sponsored Members of Parliament started siding with the traveller and not with antiquated union agreements?

My hon. Friend must be entirely right. It cannot be anything other than sheer industrial lunacy to kill the basis of the industry that one hopes will provide one's future employment. That is exactly what the RMT signalmen are doing in the dispute. The sooner they understand that, the better they, and Londoners, will be.

Why was the Minister so coy about revealing the figures? Does he accept that, over the past 20 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the volume of traffic involving private cars and lorries coming into London and, simultaneously, a drastic and very serious decline in the use of London's buses? Does he recognise that that is the path to disaster in London? Until the Government understand the lesson and change their policy, all that Londoners will have on offer is a nightmare of increasing congestion, pollution and traffic chaos.

I am delighted to say that, as London has had a Conservative Government for most of the past 20 years, economic activity has increased substantially and the amount of traffic has increased with it. However, the hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. The number of passenger journeys on London's buses increased by 8 per cent. between 1982 and 1992.

Given the enormous importance of both bus and car traffic in London, will my hon. Friend send for papers from Kingston council about its intention to close Kingston bridge for repairs for an entire year? That will cause enormous disruption as there will then be a six-mile stretch of the Thames within Greater London without any road bridge.

I understand my hon. Friend's quite proper concern about Kingston bridge, which is in his constituency. I hope that he will appreciate that it is not a bridge for which I have direct responsibility. However, if my hon. Friend would care to discuss the matter with me, I will certainly do what I can to assist.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action is he taking to reduce the level of pollution caused by motor traffic.

As a result of improvements to vehicle standards, the MOT emission check and the planned real increase in fuel duty, pollution from motor traffic is falling and will continue to do so until well into the next decade. We continue to be concerned about this problem, are undertaking further research and would be ready to take further action when appropriate.

When 1 million asthma sufferers are at risk from air pollution, will not the Minister's words strike everyone as a sign of complete complacency? Are not even his smallest priorities wrong? Is not he embarrassed by the contrast between the ludicrous amount of energy that has been spent on the ridiculous cones hotline and the difficulty that people have in reporting polluting vehicles to the authorities? Is he aware that my constituents are told that they must ring Bristol at their own expense, that no one has ever been prosecuted as a result of a telephone call to the unit in Bristol and that none of the police forces have the portable devices necessary to test and then prosecute grossly polluting vehicles?

On the last point, we are specifically carrying out research to discover what can be done to achieve a fully effective system, as there is not yet one. However, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong about complacency. A substantial number of actions have been taken in the past three years, some of which I have listed, and the introduction of catalytic converters will reduced harmful emissions by more than 75 per cent. It is important that such actions are taken at European Union level, not least because continental sources account for roughly half ground-level ozone concentrations in the southern part of Britain. That is why we are pursuing the matter at that level, why further measures are being taken in the Council of Ministers and why I am always ready, because I very much share the concern about the problem, to consider other action which could be taken.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that while all those measures are good, if traffic is stationary in one place for a long time, there is a build-up of pollution? May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the village of Tolpuddle yesterday held the annual commemoration of the Tolpuddle martyrs? The traffic jams consequent upon that were horrendous. However, for 364 other days of the year, my constituents suffer from the same problem. Will my right hon. Friend have a word with the Minister for Roads and Traffic to ensure that the Tolpuddle bypass is moved up the list as a matter of urgency?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have drawn up a list of priorities for bypasses, and he is right to draw attention to their importance. Traffic that is either not moving or is moving very slowly pollutes the atmosphere much more than normal moving traffic. That is why it is so extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats have committed themselves to removing 41 major motorway improvements, which is bound to have considerable environmental disadvantages, not least in respect of the atmosphere. The many traffic calming measures and other measures that we are introducing, in particular the red routes in London, are designed to make a contribution to improving the situation. We have to take a series of steps, and those are just some of them.

Rather than going it alone, why will the Secretary of State not say that it is important that he should work with the Departments of Health and of the Environment? It is impossible to do anything about the problem of pollution if he is not prepared, with his colleagues, to set standards for, and to monitor, air quality. Is not it the right hon. Gentleman's roads programme which is at fault? Is not the real problem that it is generating more traffic?

I assure the hon. Lady that we co-operate in working on those issues and in working on planning policy guidance note 13 to find solutions. I beg the hon. Lady to understand that the roads programme has an important contribution to make to our economic competitiveness, which is the other important part of it, as well as to enabling the many millions of our citizens who want to use their cars more to do so. The programme is important because unsatisfactory roads which cause great congestion and act almost as car parks with cars ticking over pollute the atmosphere much more than roads on which traffic moves freely.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what fraction of his Department's annual budget is spent on roads; and what fraction of journeys in Britain every year is made by road.

Over the past three years, just under half of my Department's total budget was spent on roads. Given that nearly 90 per cent. of all journeys nationally are by road, that demonstrates how my Department's expenditure is skewed relatively towards public transport.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever some people might pretend, his figures powerfully demonstrate the extent to which his budget is deliberately accentuated to encourage public transport rather than private transport? Should not my right hon. Friend be strongly congratulated on achieving that success?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That success shows in the many large public transport projects that we are currently undertaking, and it shows also in the figures. Planned investment in public transport remains at historically high levels and it will involve expenditure of not far short of £6 billion over the next three years.

When will the Secretary of State accept that the more money he spends on roads, the more people will use private vehicles and the more congestion and pollution there will be? At the moment, Londoners are choking to death. Hospitals are inundated with people with respiratory diseases and the Government are doing nothing about it—they are stunningly complacent. When will the Secretary of State take action? For example, on days when pollution reaches danger levels, he should ban the use of private vehicles in central London and he should also start doing something about engines that pollute London. Is he aware that, while he is stunningly complacent, people are choking to death on the streets of London?

I have already explained that we are taking a considerable number of measures. As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the potential measures that we are looking at is congestion charging in London, on which we are doing probably the biggest piece of international research that has ever been done. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is committed to banning vehicles on the roads in central London. I do not believe that that is what the vast majority of people want.

May I tell my right hon. Friend of the widespread concern in my constituency at the way in which his budget is being spent on the M62 relief road? He has now acquired a number of houses in my constituency. Many of them are empty and many are in disrepair. There is widespread concern among my constituents about who will take tenancy of those properties. Will my right hon. Friend urgently look at the management that is undertaken by the Highways Agency so that we can put a decent, sensible system into operation?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is currently doing just that.

The Secretary of State has acknowledged that this year he is spending more than £2 billion of taxpayers' money on building new roads. Could he change his priorities and allow Railtrack to spend £5 million on settling the signalling staff's dispute? Is not that what it would have done with its offer of 5.7 per cent. if the Secretary of State had not intervened and stopped the payment?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the money that we are spending on our rail reforms will ensure a much better railway for the future. The intention is to attract more passengers and freight on to rail. That is why I am concerned about the current strike: at the very moment when we can attract more freight on to rail, it is discouraging people and companies. I note that the hon. Gentleman still refuses to condemn this thoroughly unnecessary strike.

To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to improve the effectiveness of the Serious Fraud Office.

Since 1988, the Serious Fraud Office has made a real contribution to the investigation and prosecution of serious fraud. A number of detailed recommendations of the recent review have already been implemented; others are in hand, and others are being studied.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the fraud police are doing an excellent job, and that eight times out of 10 they get their man? [Interruption.] Will Opposition Members please stop gibbering? One might as well go to London zoo. Would not joint vetting further improve those tremendous statistics?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Serious Fraud Office has a commendable record in achieving convictions in the cases that it brings to trial; in more than 80 per cent. of cases, the principal architect of the fraud has been brought to justice.

Is the effectiveness of prosecutions likely to be enhanced or diminished by the departure from office of the Attorney-General's Parliamentary Private Secretary? Will he give a categorical assurance that he was not approached by his ex-PPS as an intermediary in the case of Mr. Charrington and that the Paymaster General —who is responsible for Customs—was not approached either? Will the Attorney-General clear the air in regard to why his PPS has departed and, I understand, is not to be replaced?

I am surprised that the shadow Attorney-General should concentrate on such a matter.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many are not as happy as some commentators about the work of the Serious Fraud Office? Does he accept that many believe that serious fraud should be tried not by juries but by technical assessors, as recommended by the Roskill report?

My hon. Friend has expressed a view which is supported by a number of people. At present, I do not share that view; over the past 13 years, during which I have considered the matter carefully., the principal difficulties have tended to arise from the need to arrange an effectively mounted prosecution and to ensure that judges with the difficult and onerous task of trying the cases are properly trained and have the right background.

Is the Attorney-General unable to give the categorical assurance for which I asked, or is he just plain insolent?

I am perfectly able to do so, but it does not really arise from the question.

Is not it a fact that the Customs and Excise prosecuting authority is fiercely independent and is not swayed by anything that any Member of Parliament may ask, or not ask, of its favour? It is sometimes influenced by the advice that it gets from the Attorney-General, but it is always fiercely independent in making its decisions.

My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has already received answers to his questions. If he would only refer back to them, he would not bother to ask them again.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of beginning prosecution proceedings in the United Kingdom against those held responsible for Nazi war crimes.

The Metropolitan police war crimes unit is continuing to investigate about 28 cases and has submitted interim reports to the Crown Prosecution Service in 10 of those. Police inquiries are not yet complete and no decisions can be taken about prosecutions until they are.

Is not there all the difference between what may happen in the heat of battle, as in the Falklands war in hand-to-hand fighting—although I do not condone anything improper that might have occurred, even then —and the systematic, cold-blooded murder of men, women and children, as was the case with the Nazi war crimes? What sort of message would go out to those committing such crimes, be it in Rwanda or Bosnia, if those who had committed the most terrible crimes against humanity were not brought to justice simply because of the delay of time? They should not have come to Britain in the first place, but if they have come to Britain and there is evidence against them, should not they be tried, regardless of time?

The House made its views on this matter clear when the War Crimes Bill came before it. That Bill has passed into law and the police are properly carrying out the investigations and will, in due course, make their report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The matter will then be considered in accordance with the law.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if there are allegations against anyone resident in this country who may have participated in heinous crimes in concentration camps on the continent during the last war, the public believe that those people should be investigated and prosecuted, if necessary?

The point that my hon. Friend is making tallies well with the investigations that are being carried out.

To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich case; and if he will make a statement.

The total reported costs at 7 July 1994 were £2,150,000.

Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that more than £2 million of taxpayers' money was used on Sir John May's inquiry, which had no power to subpoena witnesses or to call documents and yet absolved from blame all those involved with miscarriage of justice, except those people cleared by the Court of Appeal? Does not he know a cheaper source of whitewash?

Opposition Members were quick to adopt Sir John May's findings in the Maguire inquiry when it suited their book. Now that it does not, they sing a different tune.

To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to bring prosecutions under the War Crimes Act 1991.

I refer my hon. Friend to my reply a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that more than £8 million has been set aside for war crime prosecutions this year, but none for next year? How is evidence to be obtained from foreign countries concerning alleged events that took place more than 50 years ago? Will he take a close look at what happened in Australia, Canada and Israel, where they went down a similar path and ran into serious trouble?

My hon. Friend is right—£8 million had been provisionally set aside in the event that prosecutions took place this year. I well understand my hon. Friend's views on the matter. It is difficult to investigate events that took place 50 years ago. That is why it has to be done carefully and scrupulously, as I assure my hon. Friend is being done.

Will the Minister accept that time can in no way discharge the heinousness of the crimes that were perpetrated by some of the Nazis against a large of number of people, including Jews? Under the circumstances, £8 million is money well worth spending.

I entirely accept the first part of what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, the investigation has to be able clearly to establish what did or did not happen 50 years ago so that the question whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction of any person can be properly evaluated.

To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received in the last month on the prosecution decisions which were taken in relation to Matrix Churchill.

I have received no such representations.

Is the Attorney-General aware that, as a result of his questionable involvement in the decisions relating to the prosecutions of Matrix Churchill, 600 people working for that company lost their jobs? Before he perhaps loses his job in the next few days, would not it be right for him to say that his involvement in that incident was regrettable and to apologise to those workers?

No. If the hon. Gentleman, who is a lawyer himself, does the subject justice and takes the trouble to read and think carefully about my part and the part of others, he will realise that it was done carefully and with complete integrity, in accordance with the law as it was understood at the time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what plans he has to provide further assistance to British non-governmental organisations working to assist development.

The 14 per cent. increase for the joint funding scheme and 8 per cent. for the volunteer sending programme for 1994–95 are very significant increases at present.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but can he give the House an assurance that the tragedy, and the urgent requirements, of the refugees flooding into Zaire from Rwanda are being carefully considered by his Department and that action will be taken to make it as easy as possible for NGOs to get every possible assistance as quickly as possible?

I know that non-governmental organisations will be assisting. At present, there are three aircraft. Two aircraft are on their way—one to Entebbe and the other to Nairobi. The first is the largest and will be unloaded in Entebbe; the second will arrive in Nairobi and wait for clearance to travel to Goma. A third aircraft is leaving tomorrow. Those aircraft are taking emergency humanitarian relief items which have been sent as a result of the assessment that was made, before the weekend's television pictures, by the ODA mission which, only last week, visited the area, including the particular spot where so many of the refugees are.

The Minister will be aware that the non-governmental organisations are clear in their message: not only in Zaire but in Uganda and Tanzania, there is a need for significant extra help to deal with what is not simply the immediate crisis of refugees fleeing from Rwanda but what is likely to be the long and medium-term duty to look after them—certainly in the indefinite future. Given that the Government have made special additional allocations in the past when there has been a particular crisis in another part of the world, can the Minister undertake to the House that that is under active consideration and that, if necessary, such money will be forthcoming from the British Government?

We certainly remain ready to do more. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, since the crisis began, £11 million has been committed bilaterally for refugees and displaced people in the area. The assistance being delivered by the three aircraft to which I just referred, which is worth some £2 million, is additional to that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the extra resources given to non-governmental organisations is money well spent, especially bearing in mind that the non-governmental organisations have specialised knowledge, such as I saw in their family planning programmes in Malawi?

My hon. Friend is right. Non-governmental organisations generally react swiftly, are flexible and can get into remote areas more quickly than anyone else. It is for that reason that over the past three years we have doubled our overall funding to non-governmental organisations from £65 million to £150 million a year.

Will the Minister focus on the fact that there are now perhaps 1 million or more refugees from Rwanda in Goma in eastern Zaire? Is he aware that representatives of British aid agencies today described the situation there as "wall-to-wall bodies", and that the emergency facing the region is on a scale unlike anything ever seen, even in Africa? What has the Minister done to implement UN decisions on humanitarian relief for Rwanda and on other measures to assist aid agencies in the distribution of vital emergency relief? Does the Minister recognise that hundreds of thousands of people are in real danger in Goma and elsewhere, and that humanitarian intervention on a massive scale is now absolutely necessary?

Yes, we have responded and continue to do so. As I said in my earlier answers, ODA officials were there only last week. They assessed what we could do immediately, and we are doing it. Goma airport is still closed, but we hope that it will be open tomorrow so that the second aircraft which I mentioned can land there, and the third aircraft can land on Wednesday.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the status of planning for the world population conference to be held in Cairo in September.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on preparations for the United Nations international conference on population and development.

Planning for the international conference on population and development is well advanced. My right hon. and noble Friend will lead the British delegation.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that additional resources will be made available by the Government to help implement what we hope will be the important outcome of this conference?

Yes, we very much hope that in the next two years—we have a planning figure in mind—we will spend some £100 million on family planning. That will be a 60 per cent. increase over current spending, which is already high and has increased every year since 1991. It will be vital for more to be spent in that sector following the conference.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on the huge increase in funding which was announced last week by Baroness Chalker in what I believe to have been a significant speech. Will my hon. Friend reject any criticism of the increase, and can he tell us what are the prospects of some of our European partners matching the increase in funding before the Cairo summit?

Every second, almost three babies are born into the world and I very much agree with the impact of my hon. Friend's argument. We will certainly press all our European Union colleagues, and those responsible for the Commission's aid programme generally, to increase spending in that sector. We believe that the conference comes at a most critical junction, and it may well determine, through action and policy, whether the population of the world doubles or trebles in the next century. If we do the right things, it will only double.

Will the Minister accept congratulations on the positive response that the Government have shown with regard to this important issue? In respect of the conference in September, will he attempt to get his officials briefed so that they are not misguided by the propaganda emanating from certain quarters to the effect that it is now the feminist position in the third world that women want to continue having more and more babies? That must be absolute nonsense and part of some religious propaganda organisation. It is in the interests of the whole population of the planet that population control is widespread.

It is most certainly in the interests of us all, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is particularly in the interests of many women and their partners in the third world. Over half of the couples in the world practise family planning now, but we believe that at least 100 million families who would like to plan their families do not have access to family planning advice and services.

Given that the population of East Timor has already been eradicated by one third due to the action of the Indonesian Government, may I ask the Minister immediately to investigate the atrocities in East Timor last week, when a further four people were killed and 74 imprisoned—

Order. The question concerns world population and the conference, and is not about atrocities. As interesting as her question may be, I fear that the hon. Lady is way off the beam on both points.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the President of Uganda concerning assistance to that country.

Both my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Overseas Development had discussions with President Museveni during his recent visit.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the good record of economic growth in Uganda since President Museveni took power illustrates the advantages of good government in generating benefits for the entire population of such countries and the sense of tying our own overseas aid policy to that principle?

My hon. Friend is quite right: Uganda has been a good story in recent years. British bilateral aid stands at about £34 million a year and has remained at that level in recent years. There is a great deal of approval of Uganda's economic policies, which have led to economic growth of about 5 per cent. a year since 1987. Tomorrow, at the World bank's consultative meeting in Paris, we shall announce a new pledge of some £20 million of balance of payments support for the current year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent aid programmes are focused on self-help.

The underlying objective of the whole aid programme is to build on and to promote self-help.

Is not one of the greatest problems facing our overseas development programme the fact that it runs the danger of developing a complete reliance on what I would call the begging bowl mentality? Is not it important for our own overseas aid programme to concentrate on projects that allow self-help and thereby allow people to earn money and self-respect?

Self-help is central to the whole aid programme. I must tell my hon. Friend that most poor people in developing countries are extremely self-reliant. Our aid programme tries to help village and neighbourhood committees to look after water supplies, to maintain drains, to run kindergartens and to do other similar things. My hon. Friend might like to consider that when we spend between 80 and 85 per cent. of our bilateral aid in low-income countries, that is, of course, helping the poor to help themselves.