asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take action to prevent heavy lorries from using the section of the A259 at the Rottingdean village intersection on the road between Brighton and Newhaven.

The A259 at this point is a principal road for which East Sussex county council is the highway authority. It has extensive powers to keep lorries away from roads which are not suitable for them, but the county council must decide whether to use those powers.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that last month a lorry coming down the hill into Rottingdean crashed into nine cars in a public car park and that it was only a miracle that there was not human slaughter on a big scale? Will she urge the county council to take action rapidly?

Yes, I am aware of the serious accident in June. I remind my hon. Friend that heavy goods vehicles, which sometimes come down that road far too fast, are signposted in Newhaven to take the A26 trunk road.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will introduce legislation requiring all new cars to have anchor points for rear seat belts.

They have been required on new cars manufactured since 1 October 1981.

In view of the massive saving of life that has resulted from the compulsory wearing of seat belts in the front seats of vehicles, will the Minister undertake to introduce equivalent legislation to save the lives of people travelling in the rear seats?

Although there has been a most welcome and notable saving of lives from the compulsory wearing of front seat belts, we should be careful not to predict too soon exactly how much effect that has had. Now that the anchorages for rear selt belts are provided and we already have powers to require the fitting of a lap or shoulder belt, it is a matter of concern that we get the question of fitments right. We are discussing that matter with other European countries. After that, there is the question whether rear seat belts should be worn compulsorily or voluntarily.

Has my hon. Friend heard of the man who was so concerned for his own safety that he stayed in bed until he died of starvation? Will she ensure that no compulsory rear seat belts are introduced in the interests of spurious safety unless it is completely proven that lives will be saved in that way, and cut out some of the silly nannying that is taking place?

I do not think that I am qualified to speak on the first part of my hon. Friend's question. On the second part, the use of rear seat belts, which has been raised many times before in the House, is something on which we should proceed with all caution, but let us first get the fitting and the type of belts correct.

Is lot the argument "with all caution" precisely the one that was used year after year on the compulsory wearing of front seat belts? If, after a few years, even the Government are convinced that there is a direct correlation between deaths and the non-wearing of front seat belts, will they seriously consider making them compulsory for the rear seats?

In no way do I wish to discourage the saving of lives. As the House knows, I am fully in favour of the wearing of seat belts whenever they are fitted in a vehicle. However, the House should be careful not to draw firm conclusions from just two months' figures, which are the only figures that we have to go on at present.

Does the Minister agree that the fitting of rear seat belts would require certain design features to be considered? Will the Minister give consideration to the type of seat belts that should he fitted—for example, the type fitted in the front seats? Is he aware that people have been spun through the current design of belt when vehicles have been hit from the back?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the option between lap and shoulder belts in the rear requires us to consult further with our European neighbours and the motor industry before coming to a decision, as well as waiting until we have gathered a little more information on the results of the compulsory wearing of front seat belts.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the sadly delaying and unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had or intends to have with British independent airlines in connection with the proposed privatisation of British Airways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet management and trade unions within British Airways to discuss future ownership of the organisation.

The Government intend to privatise British Airways as soon as practicable. I have already discussed the future of British Airways with the airlines chairman and chief executive and I look forward to meeting other members of the board and staff of British Airways, as well as representatives of British independent airlines.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the leaders of private airlines in this country—British Caledonian and Dan Air to name but two — would warmly welcome the denationalisation of British Airways, but would take it gravely amiss if it were to happen too soon? Is he further aware that they believe that at least two years are required for British Airways to return to profit and for a proper company to be put on the market, bearing in mind that they have had no subsidy during recent difficult years?

I look forward to meeting representatives of British independent airlines. I recognise fully, as my hon. Friend fairly says, that they have views on the matter, and I shall listen to them carefully. While we are committed to the move, we must consider its impact on the independent airlines.

As there is increasing support within Government circles for ballots, will the Minister assure the House that any privatisation procedure will include a ballot of all the members of British Airways?

I am glad to say that we have just had the largest possible ballot — a national ballot — on this matter. I have in hand our manifesto, in which privatisation was carefully spelt out, and it received warm endorsement, as the hon. Gentleman will know.

May I congratulate the Secretary of State on at least one point—on adopting that part of Labour party transport policy that includes the transfer of shipping and aviation to the Ministry of Transport? May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he follows the Labour party's integrated transport policy he will have every support from the Opposition?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. I did not organise the arrangements myself. That was done by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, so I shall pass his congratulations on to her.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will respond to British Rail's proposal for electrification of the east coast main line.

We shall do so when British Rail has produced an acceptable plan showing how it will achieve fully commercial operation of its inter-city business.

Is the Minister aware that it is now three years and as many Secretaries of State for Transport since the promise was first made to electrify the east coast main line? Is he further aware that, in those three years, the railway unions have co-operated in the loss of a further 25,000 jobs within the industry? Finally, is he aware that further deceit and delay by the Government will lead to an even further collapse in the relationship between management and the railway unions? Is it not time that the Government fulfilled at least one of their long-outstanding pledges?

It may be three years since the first application was made, but we are expecting the plan from British Rail later this year which will enable us to take a decision.

Whenever my hon. Friend responds to British Rail's proposals for the electrification of the east coast route, will he ask a few searching questions about the lack of proper rolling stock and other shortcomings on the existing electrified commuter lines serving south Essex?

I am meeting the chief executive of British Rail tomorrow and I shall bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind.

As the Government have not come to a decision on the electrification on the east coast line, has the Minister received a proposal from British Rail to close the Carlisle-Settle line and, if so, will he resist it?

I have received no such proposal.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the electrification of the main east coast line is a high priority for the railway industry? Is he willing to tell the chief executive of British Rail that the Government are becoming tired of the delay by the British Railways Board in producing a commercially viable paper which the Government can consider and to which, I hope, they can react favourably?

I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's point, but I expect to receive the paper before very long.

Is the Minister aware that it is many years since the colossal undertaking of raising all the bridges on the east coast line was put in hand in preparation for electrification? Is he further aware that, but for the intervention of the oil lobby in the House and outside, electrification would have been carried out many years ago? Will the Secretary of State stop procrastinating and give a decision now?

I was not aware of the raising of the bridges and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing that to my attention. With regard to speed, we are waiting for British Rail. As soon as the paper arrives we shall be happy to deal with it.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the views expressed by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) are shared by many Conservative Members? Is he further aware that many new Members hope that the Government will show that they recognise the vital role that the railways have to play in the country's transport infrastructure? As a start, will my hon. Friend at least accept the point that the unions, however reluctantly, have in the past three years taken many of the steps that the Government have urged on them and that the Government should now respond to the report on electrification?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I fully accept the vital role that British Rail plays in the transport policy of this country. We have received a request to meet a deputation from the NUR. We shall be glad to meet it and we look forward to doing so.

In answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) is the Minister aware that one of the reasons for the continuous vacillation on the proposal for the electrification of the east coast line is the unacceptable conditions that the Government are placing on British Rail? Is the Minister now telling the House that he has not yet received on his desk a submission from British Rail for money to electrify the east coast main line? If he has not yet received that submission, the Minister will be aware that the rolling stock—the diesel locomotive rolling stock—that is currently used on the east coast main line may soon have to be renewed. That is a crucial decision that must be taken by British Rail. Does he agree that the sooner his Department gets off its knees and starts answering questions on this matter, the sooner British Rail will be in a better position to electrify the main line and ensure that further problems do not ensue?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me say that where British Rail has produced an acceptable plan showing how it will achieve fully commercial operation of its inter-city business we shall be happy to go forward with the proposals on electrification.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the objections to providing access in Loughton to the Cambridge-bound carriageway of the M11.

There is no clear traffic demand at present but we shall review the position after the M25 round the north-east of London is complete.

Is my hon. Friend aware that demand is frequently expressed to me? In due course, will she be prepared to discuss that access with those concerned?

I am aware that there has been some demand for a full interchange at that point on the M11. That demand has been opposed in previous inquiries by the county council and the district council on the grounds that it would attract much more traffic into local unsuitable roads and that we should await completion of the northeast quadrant of the M25 with an AI21 interchange before reaching a decision. Of course, I shall be prepared to meet interested parties at any time.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce a decision or, the form of improvements to the Hastings-Tonbridge railway line.

We hope to announce a decision shortly.

I hope that "shortly" is in the near future. Although I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the personal interest that he has shown in the subject and the meetings that he has held with interested parties, will he confirm that he recognises that the improvement of that line is essential if the area is to build up its industry and employment? Is he aware that the area has been sadly neglected by successive Governments for the past 30 years?

I fully recognise that the improvement of the line is wrapped up with the future of Hastings as a business growth area. I received a deputation that my hon. Friend brought to see me last week. It presented a formidable case for early investment in the line. I have taken that fully on board.

Does the Minister agree that one of the options for that line is to electrify between Tunbridge Wells and Hastings? in that event, how would le define a fully commercial return as a percentage of capital?

There are many options for improving that line. Electrification is just one. We shall be looking for——

A miracle.

If the hon. Gentleman wants a specific rate of return, perhaps, he would like to table a question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the line is important not simply because of Hastings? It runs through many constituencies and is vital to a large part of the south-east region.

My hon. Friend is right. Among the deputation that I received were representatives from various towns all the way from Hastings to Tunbridge Wells. I am fully aware of the line's importance to the area.

Will the Minister assure us that the commercial criteria that will be applied to the Hastings line will be exactly the same as those that are applied to the east coast main line?

No, because it is not an inter-city line.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider reviewing the basis upon which the road element of grant-related expenditure is determined from per capita to the needs of the area or road concerned.

A joint central-local government working group is currently looking at possible alternatives to the present grant-related expenditure for road maintenance. For capital expenditure on roads, the grant-related expenditure is directly related to the transport needs of the areas. It is derived from the amount of each authority's bid for capital accepted for transport supplementary grant.

Is the Minister aware that many highways and roads are still suffering from the ravages of the severe winter of two and a half years ago? Is it not time that the Government gave road users a fairer deal in response to the massive amount of money that they give to the Government by way of licensing fees and taxation? May we have a better deal and better roads?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have not had hypothecated taxation in Britain since 1935. This year's spending on local road maintenance is 22 per cent. above what it was in 1981–82. Expenditure has increased in each of the past three years. West Yorkshire should look to the fact that it has emphasised revenue support for buses. It must decide whether it needs to increase revenue support for buses by 17 per cent. as it has — it has also increased capital expenditure by 18 per cent.—or to spend the money on road maintenance.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, under existing policy, the quantity of new road building and improvement in Greater London has been pitiful? Will she note the report of the Select Committee on Transport, which commends a crash programme of construction and improvement if London is to be fit for visitors and to move around in, especially because of the increasing importance of road communications and the transport industry?

My hon. Friend knows that we are well aware of the need for road building in Greater London. We are taking the Select Committee's recommendations fully into account.

Is the Minister aware that our principal roads are falling into disrepair at an alarming rate through lack of maintenance which is largely the result of the Government's cheese-paring? Does she agree that we need an emergency programme if we are not to lose all the advantages of saving lives by compelling the wearing of seat belts, because motorists will swerve to avoid the large potholes that are now to be found in all our major roads?

One of the problems of spending on road maintenance is the high variability of its cost as between different local authorities. That is why we are trying to create a code of good practice for road maintenance to ensure that every county gets the best value for money. We are asking counties to concentrate their resources on the roads that are most in need. Many of the decisions about where money is spent are in the hands of the counties.

When my hon. Friend examines grant-related expenditure, will she consider city, town and county authorities diverting heavy lorries out of the centres of towns? Will she encourage them to maintain roads properly and to use maintenance grants to find ways of keeping heavy lorries out of the centres of built-up areas?

My hon. Friend knows that county councils have considerable powers to re-route heavy goods vehicles. They must take into account the state of the roads on which they re-route such vehicles. We have made substantial increases in our bypass programme so that towns can be saved from the ravages of heavy goods vehicles. It is up to the counties to consider the suitability of alternative routes before taking powers to direct heavy goods vehicles on to them.

Does the Minister believe that it is possible to drive from Birmingham to London on a summer Saturday in less than three and a half hours without being delayed by miles of motorway that is cordoned off for road maintenance? Does she agree that no maintenance seems to be done at weekends as those doing it appear to regard it as a quaint form of outdoor relief?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that maintenance on our oldest motorways is necessary to conserve our best assets. He also knows that maintenance must be done in better weather, otherwise the money is wasted. If he is so seriously delayed, I am surprised that he has not taken a train.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on new road construction in each of the past three years at constant prices.

At average 1981–82 prices, expenditure on new construction of motorways and trunk roads in England was £404 million in 1980–81, £447 million in 1981–82 and £515 million in 1982–83. The corresponding expenditure figures for local roads are £465 million, £375 million and £365 million. Figures for 1982–83 are still provisional.

As the Government aim to improve industrial efficiency, and as a better road system would contribute to that, does my hon. Friend agree that we should spend far more on new road construction than has recently been the case?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we are now doing far better in new road construction and structural maintenance to keep our older roads and motorways in good condition. He will also be aware that we took an extra £45 million in the Supplementary Estimates last year to increase trunk road spending. We shall maintain that progress.

If in Cumbria substantial economies can be made if the county council rather than private consultants acts as road construction agents, will the hon. Lady favour the county authority?

I am not sure whether I entirely follow the hon. Gentleman's drift, for the simple reason that the planning of roads by many counties is not more cost-effective or cheaper than putting the work out to consultants. However, in general the policy is that where a county council that has done the preparation work has a specific know-how, it will often continue the preparation work for that Department. Where there is no such expertise, the job, if it can be done as well, or better, will go to the consulting engineers.

As some new road construction has been held up in the past because of an insufficient pool of projects that had completed planning and other procedures, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in future there will always be a sufficient pool and allocate resources to achieve that objective?

My right hon. Friend is well aware that in the last 18 months I have sought to add to the pool so that there are plenty of schemes. That is why last October we added 21 schemes to the pool, and in May this year I announced an additional 43 schemes so that these would be ready as soon as resources were available to build them. As my right hon. Friend is aware, we are now building more roads with fewer resources than we were two or three years ago.

Are the Government prepared to look sympathetically at proposals for new road construction financed by the private sector?

Indeed. We are at present looking at this with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The figures given by my hon. Friend show a strange divergence between central Government spending, which is rising, and local spending, which is falling. What can she do to remedy that?

My hon. Friend may be aware that we have been discussing the possibility of giving local government flexibility to spend its capital allocation on structural maintenance. We are about to consult the local authorities so that they may use their capital allocation for the maintenance of good existing roads, with a far better road surface, as an alternative to embarking necessarily on vast new roads. That proposal is just about to go out to consultation.

How is the road building programme affected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's cuts, and how soon will we know that information?

I can give the hon. Gentleman the answer right away. I intend to absorb the 2 per cent. savings within the management of the trunk road construction and maintenance programme without affecting the impetus of the national motorway building programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is his intention to privatise the British Airports Authority.

We intend, in accordance with our manifesto commitments, to introduce private capital into the British Airports Authority. I shall be discussing this more fully with the chairman of the authority and considering how best this might be achieved.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that this policy, if confirmed by the public inquiry, could have a profound effect on the Government's other policy of providing extra capacity for airports in the south-east?

As my hon. Friend knows probably better than any other hon. Member, that inquiry has just completed its hearings and it would not, therefore, be proper of me to comment in advance of the inspector's report. However, my hon. Friend and I stood on the same manifesto to encourage the introduction of private capital into Britain's airports, and that is what we shall seek to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is yet able to assess the effect of the compulsory wearing of seat belts on road casualty figures.

Deaths and serious injuries to front seat occupants of cars and light vans in the first two months of compulsory seat belt wearing were down by 25 per cent. on the same period a year ago. That is equivalent to a saving of 1,100 fatal and serious casualties. It is, of course, too early to assess the full effects, but it clearly looks most encouraging.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that interesting reply. Have his Department and the police had any problems in enforcing these regulations?

We have no national figures, but there have been a limited number of prosecutions and a large number of warnings. It is most encouraging that, without great public complaint of aggressive interference by the police, the latest figures available to my Department show that the number of front seat passengers and drivers now using seat belts has increased from 40 to 95 per cent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who over the years fought to introduce this change now feel totally, completely and utterly vindicated?

It is too early to draw absolutely clear conclusions. However, I have said specifically that the figures are most encouraging. We shall watch them carefully, because the savings in life, hardship and distress that appear to have resulted from this change should be welcomed by everyone.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, in view of the underspending on road capital works by local authorities in 1982–83, he has made any recommendations to local authorities on the reclassification of spending on major structural maintenance as capital expenditure as now adopted for trunk roads.

I shall shortly be consulting the local authority associations on extending this reclassification to local roads.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. How far have discussions gone towards adopting the same system as is used in Wales, of restricting TSG to capital projects only to ensure that sufficient capital projects are completed?

Discussions are at present going on in the grants working party, and as that has not yet reached any conclusions it would be premature of me to go further into this.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent communications he has had with the director of the Port of London Authority.

I have had recent meetings with both the chairman and chief executive of the Port of London Authority.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the chief executive recently wrote to all employees of the PLA on 20 June warning them that some residual operations, even those that are currently making a profit, will have to close? Will he assure the House that that letter was not written in pursuance of any directive from him?

It was written in pursuance of the chief executive's own letter of 17 May, in which he pointed out that

"The PLA is in financial crisis. The eight week strike by PLA dockers has had a disastrous effect … The PLA can never be the same again."

Has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with the PLA about the proposal to have a STOVL airport along the river? If so, what was the outcome?

My hon. Friend is aware that that is at present the subject of a planning application, and the recent demonstration was in the presence of an inspector. It would, therefore, be quite wrong for me to comment further at this stage.

I agree with the Secretary of State that the effects of industrial action, whatever its cause, justification or lack of justification, are very much to be deplored. However, will he now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about any directions that he may have given? Is it not extraordinary that operations that are currently profitable might have to be closed for fear of future loss?

The hon. Gentleman cannot pick out an odd item and say that it is currently profitable, because as the chief executive told all PLA employees:

"The PLA is in financial crisis."

Disregarding the problems of the PLA, and taking in all ports, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major difficulties for employers and ancillary workers is the incredible national dock labour scheme? Will there not be a review of that during the lifetime of this Parliament? Will not my right hon. Friend take action against dockers who have jobs for life, whether or not they work?

My hon. Friend will be aware that it is not just the dock labour scheme, but the interaction of the Jones-Aldington agreement on the dock labour scheme which introduces some of the problems of which employers have spoken. He will also know that the dock labour scheme is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but I understand why he has raised this matter on this occasion.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will take steps to improve coach safety on motorways.

Yes. The safety record has been very good, but, because of our grave concern over recent accidents, we are taking steps to improve standards of both driving and vehicle construction.

Is there not some evidence that some coach drivers are being pressurised by coach operators to keep to unrealistic timetables to enable them to compete with British Rail services as a result of the Transport Act 1980? Instead of equivocating on this matter, as she has done in a number of written replies to parliamentary questions, will the hon. Lady introduce a 60 mph limit on British motorways to prevent coaches travelling at as much as 80 mph and speeding past those other road users who keep within the law?

There is no evidence for what the hon. Gentleman has said. Operators are responsible not only for the timetabling of their routes but for the fitness of their drivers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is already a 70 mph limit. Last week I met the officers of the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss this, and its enforcement, and this week I shall be meeting representatives of the Bus and Coach Council, the Transport and General Workers Union and the National Bus Company to discuss keeping within the law and making sure that safety standards on British coaches are maintained.

asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the report of the committee on defamation chaired by Mr. Justice Faulks (Cmnd. 5909); and if he will make a statement.

No such legislation is at present contemplated.

Does the Attorney-General agree with the committee's criteria as to the purpose of the law of defamation, which is to establish a proper balance between the right of the individual to his reputation and the preservation of the right of freedom of speech? As the committee reported as long ago as March 1975, does he agree that the existing law contains many anomalies, and will he undertake to introduce legislation to amend the law contained in the Defamation Act 1952, as recommended by the committee? Can he give any undertaking that legislation will be introduced in this Parliament?

I can give no such undertaking. The report had about 10 main recommendations, not of the greatest importance. There has been little pressure from any quarter for the implementation of the report, which, on the whole, favours more libel proceedings. I do not see that there is sufficient priority for it to gain a place in the legislative programme.

As Faulks on defamation, much of Younger on privacy, Franks on official secrets and half of Phillimore on contempt are all accumulating a shroud of dust, and bearing in mind that there has been no obvious reaction by the press to the report of the Press Council last February on controls on cheque-book journalism, and remembering the recent debates on the right of reply and the behaviour of much of the press since the general election, is it not high time for a full public inquiry into the whole of the law relating to the press?

That question covers a wide range of topics and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, a Contempt of Court Act was enacted in the last Parliament. These matters are under discussion, but there was little reaction to the Faulks report.

asked the Attorney-General if Her Majesty's Government will bring forward proposals to extend the legal aid scheme.

Assistance by way of representation was extended last December to applicants to mental health review tribunals and on 1 May this year to parents involved in child care proceedings. Full legal aid will be extended to parents involved in child care proceedings next April. Any further extension will have to depend upon the availability of resources.

Are not the Government ignoring the will of the House and breaking, if not the letter, certainly the spirit, of promises made to the House during the passage of what is now the Legal Aid Act 1982 by excluding from the draft regulations a right of recourse to those who have been refused legal aid in the magistrates' courts for cases to be heard in magistrates' courts? Is it not those cases in the magistrates' courts where the right of recourse is most important, bearing in mind the refusal rate in magistrates' courts and the past inconsistencies in the granting of legal aid in magistrates' courts?

The hon. Lady was less than just in the preface to her question. The right of recourse conferred by section 6 of the Act in the first instance, it seems likely, will have to apply to cases where there is to be trial either way in the more serious cases. This is a major step forward and we shall have to see how the matter proceeds. It is also a major improvement on the position before the previous Government took office, and we shall have to see how it goes.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in Scotland the public prosecution system costs less than legal aid for defence and that if the scrutiny and economy in that system were applied to the English system the inequity of those with modest savings having to pay a contribution out of capital to legal aid could be alleviated?

Matters of prosecution and what changes may be desirable are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I note my hon. and learned Friend's point, which is one about which he knows a great deal, as he frequently reminds us.

What do the Government intend to do about the refusal of some local legal aid committees to allow social security claimants to obtain legal advice on the green form scheme? Is not advising them to seek advice from the DHSS as daft as telling the managers of an offshore fund to, seek tax advice from the Inland Revenue?

I have seen the reports in two newspapers today, to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring. I know that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has not had the opportunity to look into these matters. However, I can give a general assurance that legal aid is available, subject to means requirements, in respect of any matter affecting the bearing of any point of English law upon the individual. It is not necessary at this stage for me to say more.

Before considering any extension of the legal aid scheme, car my hon. and learned Friend tell the House how much is spent on legal aid, the latest figures, and by how much those figures have expanded recently?

The cost of the criminal legal aid scheme has gone up over the past two financial years by about 12 per cent. in each case. For the year 1981–82 the cost of the total legal aid scheme embracing criminal and civil legal aid and the green form scheme was £169 million.

Will the Solicitor-General accept the congratulations of the Opposition on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new office? As to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), will he go as far as to denounce the suggestion that the chicken should seek advice from the fox and invite his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to write to legal aid committees suggesting that advice on the provisions of the many and complicated statutes relating to welfare benefit is at least as much a matter of English law as advice on corporation tax and income tax evasion?

I am grateful for the kind words used by the right hon. and learned General at the beginning of his remarks. I do not think that I should say more before my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has had an opportunity to look into the matter. However, I can confirm that matters affecting entitlement to welfare benefit are matters of law to which the legal aid scheme is applicable and it would not follow, nor is there anything in the legislation so to suggest, that because advice for example, from a lay quarter may be available on a particular matter, legal aid would not be awarded in such a case.

asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to harmonise the granting of legal aid throughout England and Wales.

On the assumption that by harmonisation the hon. Gentleman means consistency in the refusal or grant of applications, it is not thought that this would be achieved by legislation. It is, however, intended shortly to introduce regulations under section 6 of the Legal Aid Act 1982 to provide recourse against refusal of criminal legal aid by magistrates' courts.

While I welcome the answer in respect of criminal legal aid, does the Minister accept that the same problem is beginning to exist in certain areas over civil legal aid—the blue form scheme? Press reports today state that the same problems occur in the green form scheme, in that the different area committees take different views of what is and is not covered. Does the Solicitor-General agree that there ought to be equality in the granting of legal aid throughout the country?

It is obviously desirable that there should be as much consistency as possible. The hon. Gentleman knows that where legal aid is refused, it must be refused by the general committee in an area and not by the secretary to the legal aid committee. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has any information that suggests that there has been inconsistency or unreasonable refusal, the best way to proceed is for them to write to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about assistance given by the Overseas Development Administration for the development of tourism in the Falkland Islands and dependencies.

I understand that the Falkland Islands Government expect to make their new development corporation responsible for planning tourist development. The corporation is now being set up, and I have not, therefore, had specific proposals put to me. I can confirm that we expect the Falkland Islands Government to use some of the aid now available for this purpose.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on assuming his new responsibilities and I wish him well. Will he be receptive to ideas from outside the normal channels for the promotion of tourism in the Falkland Islands and may I bring one of my constituents to meet him or one of his officials at an appropriate time?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I took up my new post in January, but they are none the less welcome. I should be delighted to meet any of my hon. Friend's constituents at any time.

How sensible is it to talk about tourism when the British taxpayer has to pay the Danish owners of the Herta Maersk a fat fee for bringing fresh water to the Falklands from New Zealand?

The hon. Gentleman's fantasies about the Falklands grow ever more bizarre. There is scope for tourism in the Falklands, although it is not enormous, and the Government will try to help.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage the flow of British private investment to the poorer countries.

We have eliminated exchange controls. We provide investment insurance. Since 1979, 15 investment promotion and protection agreements have been signed with other Governments. As part of our aid programme, the Commonwealth Development Corporation has stepped up its collaboration with United Kingdom investors; we run a scheme for the support of pre-investment studies by private firms and we provide finance and technical co-operation for joint ventures.

Is there a team of officials in my right hon. Friend's Department that is specifically charged with furthering this policy? What instructions has he given to overseas posts and commercial departments to look out for suitable investment opportunities?

I do not think that there is a team of officials designated in the way stated by my hon. Friend. On the other hand, I hope he agrees that what I have said shows our concern to promote the policies that he clearly favours. In my experience, overseas missions are conscious of their duties in this respect.

How much British private investment goes to the very poorest countries—those most in need—and how much goes to those that are not in such dire need?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures offhand, but private investment helps both categories of countries.

Have the Government any plans to extend the insurance arrangements to which my right hon. Friend has referred? How extensive are they and do they cover the export of capital as well as goods on a large scale?

I do not know whether the Government have any plans to extend the arrangements, but they give a comprehensive coverage to a wide variety of overseas investment.

Private investment, by its nature, cannot cope with the problems of supplying raw materials and their exploitation. Should not there be a Government initiative to ensure that the poorer countries benefit from their raw materials, because that is what is most needed by those countries?

Private investment overseas cannot do everything, but the private sector can do useful work on raw materials in developing countries.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much scope for the further encouragement of overseas private investment? I congratulate him on the measures outlined, but a need exists to combine private investment with investment in the public sector more effectively. Will the Minister pursue policies to that end?

That is exactly the type of policy about which the Government should be thinking.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will increase the level of funds for the Republic of India in the forthcoming year.

In the current financial year we expect to exceed last year's total of £110 million in our bilateral programme for India.

I welcome that statement. However, is the Minister aware of the appalling floods that struck the state of Gujarat a few weeks ago, causing dreadful devastation and the loss of more than 500 lives? Even if the Indian Government do not consider it proper to ask for specific assistance for the relief fund, will the British Government, bearing in mind the terrible tragedy, and the wishes of many former Gujerati citizens, who are now United Kingdom citizens, contribute to that fund without delay?

I am aware of the appalling havoc caused by the floods. I still believe that it would be appropriate for the Indian Government to put a request to us if they require assistance, but we are providing relief through two voluntary agencies—Oxfam and the British Red Cross.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to publish his response to the Brandt Commission's report entitled "Common Crisis".

My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary hopes to lay the White Paper before the House before Parliament rises later this month.

I am pleased to hear that a White Paper will be placed before Parliament shortly. Are the Government prepared to reply positively to the request in "Common Crisis" that over a five-year period we should raise our total official aid to 0·7 per cent. of GNP? Many hon. Members are concerned by the apparent drop in aid figures just prior to the general election, and which were announced in April. Secondly, many hon. Members are disturbed by the Government cuts and I seek confirmation that overseas development will not be affected by those cuts.

I am unable to give a firm undertaking that the 0·7 per cent. target will definitely be achieved within five years. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a reduction in the overseas aid budget for the current year, but there will be an 8 per cent. increase in cash terms over last year's budget, and that will be ahead of the rate of inflation.

As financial indebtedness is a major problem highlighted in "Common Crisis", do the Government intend to make clear in their response to the document that the idea of a country such as Brazil going into a salutory default would not be in the interests of the developing countries or the developed countries?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's comments, but he must await the publication of the White Paper.

In the light of the tremendous support by the public for the original Brandt report and the Government's lack of reaction, will the Minister ensure that the Government will examine the major questions raised in the second report and put before the House proposals that will go some way towards dealing with the problem of world poverty?

A full and constructive day's debate has taken place on the second Brandt report. The new Foreign Secretary took action at the International Monetary Fund interim committee earlier this year, which was of great value. The Government will set forth in the White Paper a detailed response to the proposals.

If further cuts in public spending are to take place in the autum will my right hon. Friend ensure that his senior colleagues are aware that many of my hon. Friends would be bitterly opposed to any further reductions in the overseas aid budget?

I shall certainly stick up for my own programme and I shall ensure that suggestions by my right hon. Friend and others are considered carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total sum now committed of the £31 million allocated for assistance to the Falkland Islands.

The Falkland Islands Government have given priority to the £15 million civil rehabilitation programme. Final decisions on the use of the £31 million development money have not yet been made, although tentative allocations were in mind when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) announced that commitment on 8 December last. Important progress his been made in preparation for this development work, and the Falkland Islands Government are considering whether they wish to adjust their priorities to free resources for purposes not originally covered.

Is it not a fact that the Falkland Islands executive and legislative councils favour a degree of measured progress towards Falkland Islanders owning the land of those islands? Why are Her Majesty's Government not favouring the Falkland Islands Government purchasing private land now on offer to them with money that can be taken out of the £15 million that is still in balance?

The Government have made available £450,000 to the Falkland Islands Government to purchase the Packe Brothers farm on West Falkland. I should have thought that that way a valuable start. Our view on the question of land distribution is that it is worth while, but that it should proceed gradually and carefully so that we know the real demand.