asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his White Paper on the future co-ordination of public transport services in the London area.

The White Paper, "Public Transport in London" —Cmnd. 9004—was published on 26 July 1983.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the White Paper contained no mention of the scheme for old-age pensioners' travel on buses and tubes? Does he recall that that scheme was introduced individually by boroughs, but taken over by the GLC and administered by it under both political parties? If the GLC is abolished will it not put the scheme at risk, since there is no guarantee of equivalent finance for an equivalent standard of free pass?

I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand that the London Boroughs Association, at its meeting last Wednesday, announced that it would assume responsibility for the existing GLC scheme for concessionary fares. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to join me in welcoming that and in heavily condemning the GLC for the ridiculous scare stories that it put out on this matter.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and ask him whether the new authority will be able to bring about some uniformity in travel concessions in London and in those other parts of the country that will be served by that authority?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I shall do my best to help him in all the many transport problems that he will raise with me. In answer to his question, the London boroughs will take over the scheme, and I hope that they will be able to improve it. However, we are rather jumping ahead, because it will be some time before they actually assume responsibility.

Will the Minister say how the new proposed London regional transport authority will be allowed to set its expenditure levels? Is he aware that on the basis of the Government's approach to other local authority spending it is likely that there will be a cut of at least a half in public transport spending in London?

We are still considering the final details, but no major change in the level of subsidy is intended. It will come partly direct from the Government and partly perhaps from a rate precept which will pass through the Government to the new LRT. The details will be made plain to the hon. Gentleman when the legislation is published.

Is it not quite outrageous that the GLC has been using ratepayers' money to mount this propaganda battle to scare our old-age pensioners? Is it not another justification for the abolition of the GLC?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is outrageous. It is a complete waste of ratepayers' money, and it is particularly obnoxious in that it involves trying to frighten elderly people.

On the matter of pensioners' free travel passes, is the Minister aware that "pursuit" — in his words—by the London Boroughs Association is a long way from a guarantee for the scheme? Will he give an absolute guarantee that London pensioners' free travel passes will not be taken away?

I do not remember using the word "pursuit"; I merely quoted what the London boroughs had decided. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased to hear that news and would welcome it in the spirit in which it was meant.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for further electrification of railways in Scotland.

The British Railways Board has sent us an outline appraisal of electrification of the line between Edinburgh and Newcastle, and I understand that it is considering various schemes in the Glasgow area in conjunction with Strathclyde passenger transport executive.

Is the Minister aware that the British Railways Board has for some time been looking to electrification of the line from Edinburgh to London? When will he give a decision on that, as it will bring considerable employment to the area and make the railways and industry in the north-east and Scotland more efficient?

I understand the attraction of the scheme to the hon. Gentleman, but the Government must first see detailed proposals from the board.

Has British Rail made any proposals for electrification of the lines north of Edinburgh?

We have received no such proposals.

Will the Government consider early electrification of the entire route from King's Cross to Edinburgh, as no single act would give more confidence to the rail industry north of the border than an early decision on that?

The whole question of east coast electrification is bound up with British Rail's strategy for inter-city, of which the Government are currently awaiting details.

Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the fourth Minister to have been presented with proposals on electrification? Will he ensure that a decision is made, as British Rail has said on innumerable occasions that the most significant investment decision required is for rail electrification of the east coast main line?

The ball is in British Rail's court. The Government are awaiting the board's further proposals on the strategy for inter-city. When we receive them, we shall be in a position to make progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for taking over the establishment and supervision of lorry routes when the Greater London Council's responsibilities are reallocated.

I am now seeking the views of local authorities and others about our proposals for reallocating highway and traffic responsibilities in London. The arrangements adopted for handling London's lorry traffic generally will need to cater for the widespread importance and impact of freight movement in and around London.

Whatever the Minister's final decision, will she give proper weight to the needs for commerce and industry in London and avoid the doctrinaire response of the Greater London Council in the Wood report?

Industry and commerce must have full consideration in any scheme involving lorry ban proposals. I agree with my hon. Friend that a blanket ban as proposed by the GLC prior to the Wood report would not be conducive to employment in London. The GLC should take careful note of what it would do to London employment and industry if it proceeded with a complete ban. Careful planning and full consultation with the boroughs must take place in devising lorry controls.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for new road construction work and traffic management in the Greater London area.

The Department has a substantive trunk road programme to benefit Greater London over the next few years as the M25 nears completion. Traffic management is currently a GLC responsibility. Our proposals for reallocating highway and traffic management responsibilities in London were published on 7 October and I am holding consultations about them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no valid reason why the north London lorry box concept should not be implemented immediately by the GLC, and that the two-year delay since the scheme was ready to be implemented by the previous GLC fails to benefit anyone? Will she also bear in mind that if the GLC is incapable of taking this responsibility many people would wish to see the responsibility removed from the GLC?

As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, when the idea was put up it seemed sensible and the Department considered that it should be implemented. Matters have changed a little, but I look for commonsense solutions—not blanket bans—which will benefit all the boroughs concerned and not simply pass the problem of lorry control from one borough to the next.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her well-deserved promotion. When responsibility for traffic management is taken from the GLC, will she review the need for many bus routes which seem to be slowing not only private vehicles but buses?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I shall do my best in my job.

I join in congratulating the hon. Lady on her promotion, but ask with incredulity how someone of her intelligence can believe that the involvement of three separate bodies dealing with roads in London—the Department, the London boroughs and a joint voluntary committee, which has yet to be set up— can possibly be more efficient than a properly planned integrated system.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce his decisions on the Serpell report.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the Serpell report.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has had on the Serpell report; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has today written to the chairman of the British Railways Board setting out the Government's objectives for the railways. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend will make a statement about this later today.

If the Minister agrees that both roads and railways have a part to play in serving the country, will he give an assurance that the development of the railway system will not suffer as a result of the building and development of the road system?

The railway system will be maintained according to the level of consumer demand. That is the overriding factor in the prosperity and success of the railways.

Will the Minister support bodies, such as Bradford district council, which oppose the butchery of the railway system? Will he accept that expansion of the railway system is vitally important in combating unemployment and in promoting economic recovery, tourism and other social factors? Will he also have a word with the courteous Neanderthal who has recently been appointed his boss and ensure that even courteous Neanderthals are prepared to consign the Serpell report to the wastebin of history?

It is unfortunate when hon. Members use inflammatory language such as

"butchery of the railway system"

When the Minister receives views on the Serpell report from representative bodies, will he note the views of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), who said on 25 August when opening the Glasgow railcentre that the Government's view was that there would be no substantial cuts in the rail network?

I repeat what I have already said. The Government have no programme of major route closures in mind.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in determining his conclusions on the Serpell report that some of the hysterical opposition was deliberately whipped up pre-publication by the public relations advisors to British Rail, as was admitted in a recent article in The Sunday Times? Will he judge this issue on what is the best service to consumers rather than on any sectional interest, be it British Rail or any other?

When my right hon. Friend makes his statement, I think that my hon. Friend will be well satisfied.

Will the Minister give an assurance that when the Secretary of State discusses the Serpell report and its recommendations with the chairman of British Rail the discussion of Government policy will not be restricted to the options contained in the report but that the Government will constructively and positively consider considerable public investment in the electrification of the railway to serve the next century?

Investment in the railways depends upon the projects concerned. If a viable proposition is proposed by British Rail, we shall be interested.

Will my hon. Friend reject wild allegations by Opposition Members about the butchery of the railways? Does my hon. Friend agree that, post-Serpell, the railways are being kept intact? Does he agree also that perhaps the Serpell report has done some damage by confusing options with proposals in the public's mind? In that context, may we have an assurance that services in the far west of England, for example, are absolutely safe, as has already been made clear in previous statements?

The diagrams attached to the Serpell report were for illustrative purposes. They were not part of the proposals by Serpell, in spite of what has been said in the campaign of distortion. They are not proposals by British Rail or by the Government. I am happy to give the assurance that no proposals which involve railway lines in my hon. Friend's constituency are in front of me.

I shall try not to use words such as "butchery", but will the Minister confirm what his predecessors have told the House—that the Government do not intend to reduce the existing 12,000 track miles? Does that remain the Government's policy today?

"We cannot expect that the network existing at the time of the 1974 Railway Act should remain unchanged for all time." The hon. Gentleman will recognise that extract from Labour's Programme 1982. We agree on this matter. There are no proposals for a savage cut in the route network.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has plans to safeguard the future of Liverpool docks.

I was very glad that last month the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company was able to announce its first profit since 1978; the future of the port depends on whether those who work there can continue this success by maintaining and improving the service which they offer to their customers.

Does the Minister accept that if Britain is to have free ports we must have one in Merseyside for the docks there to survive? This is especially true since the enterprise zone system is attracting industry from the docklands area. Will the Minister at least subsidise the docks to the extent that Hamburg subsidises its port by accepting responsibility for dredging and lighting and for the streets and highways?

I see no point in subsidising a port which is making a profit. Free ports are not the responsibility of the Department of Transport.

Should not the Government support the successful ports rather than poor business, because the successful ports are proving to be worth while in terms of imports and exports?

So long as my hon. Friend does not suggest that we provide financial support, I am with him. Since the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is making a profit, the question of support does not arise.

Bearing in mind that the deep water container port at Seaforth is successful, will the Minister examine the proposal by the Liverpool university study group, supported by a number of Merseyside local authorities, for a barrage to be erected across the Mersey to provide further deep water facilities, a third estuarial crossing and much needed work for people in the construction industry?

I am prepared to consider any proposals by the hon. Gentleman if he cares to write to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had on his proposals to reorganise public transport in London.

Our White Paper "Public Transport in London", published on 26 July, invited views from all concerned. I am in the process of discussing with the passenger transport bodies which have written to us various points which they have raised.

Will the Minister publish the details of the replies received as a result of the consultative procedures? How many pensioners and pensioners organisations have approached her to express their concern about the consequences of the proposals for free passes?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening when my right hon. Friend said clearly that the London Boroughs Association at its meeting on 19 October, confirmed in a letter to my Department on 20 October, said:

"The Association considers on the setting up of LRT the boroughs should assume responsibility for concessionary fares on the basis of the existing scheme."

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, whoever finally is responsible for public transport in London, there is an acute need for capital investment? Will she take comfort from the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) —the former Secretary of State no less—now regards calls for carefully costed capital projects as desirable, responsible and sensible?

I do take note of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) says. I also note the sensible plans which the London Transport Executive has put forward on a three-year basis, which, of course, include plans for capital investment.

Does the Minister accept that for many families in the London area the top priority is better integration between the services provided by London Transport and those provided by British Rail? What consultations is the Minister having about that aspect?

I am happy to say that I have had a number of consultations with the passenger bodies representing London Transport and British Rail in the London and the south-east area. At the top of my priority list I put better service to the traveller in London because that traveller has suffered time and time again from the vagaries of the GLC's doctrinaire policies, which must stop.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport which body will be responsible, when the Greater London Council is abolished, for traffic matters.

Our consultation paper seeks views by the end of January on the detailed proposals about those traffic matters which might become the responsibility of individual boroughs and about those which need to be handled on a wider basis.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her promotion. In the context of the consultation paper may I focus her mind on the south circular road, since it causes such chaos for the residents and damage to businesses in south London? May we be assured that the Government will look carefully at where the responsibility for developing that collection of signposts will finally rest?

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be looking carefully at the future of the south circular road. He will note from paragraph 13 of the paper published on 10 October by my Department that the first individual road mentioned to come under the Secretary of State's responsibility is the A205 south circular road.

Is my hon. Friend aware that under its present powers the GLC has instructed its officers to report by the end of the year on the implementation of a lorry ban in London? Will my hon. Friend examine those powers and the powers of her Department to ensure that no hasty or premature decision does irreparable carnage to the city's economy?

If there were any proposals for inflicting irreparable damage we should not hesitate to step in. I hope that that will not be necessary and that the GLC will see that there is no point in making a proposal for one part of London which adversely affects a neighbouring part.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards finance for British Rail.

I have today written to the chairman of the British Railways Board, giving him guidance on the Government's policies and, with permission, I will make a statement about this later in the afternoon. As to the current year, the central Government grant to the passenger railway under the public service obligation will be £819 million, subject to certain adjustment factors. The full details of this settlement are given in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) today.

Would it be more convenient to wait until the statement, or should I ask my question now?

The hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to ask his question now.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment, but advise him that some of us will be keeping a wary eye on him in his dealings with the railways. I wish to ask him a simple question: does he believe that a small, crowded, industrial nation such as Britain needs a modern railway system? If he does, when will he provide the finance for British Rail to provide the system?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I congratulate him on a good try, which I hope results in further opportunities to question me later. The Government believe in a railway system of the sort that he described. The statement that I have made provides the necessary funds for that. I shall have more to say about that matter later this afternoon.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one way in which Britain could tackle the unemployment problem would be for British Rail to receive much more generous funding? Is he aware that in my constituency, and in north-east Wales generally, there are proposals to run down the services provided by British Rail, even though that area is greatly afflicted by unemployment? Will he bear that in mind when he makes his statement later?

The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that additional finance for British Rail or any other nationalised industry means additional taxation, which in turn is likely to mean a reduction in employment in some other part of the economy.

Has the Secretary of State had time to study British Rail's corporate plan, which was published in August 1983? It illustrates the large savings that have been made by British Rail, on which it should be congratulated. Does the five-year plan published in that document accord with the right hon. Gentleman's views?

I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating British Rail on the savings that it has so far made. He will know from the plan and his knowledge of the industry that British Rail is fully aware that it can make even greater savings. That will be the subject of what I have to say later.

Does my right hon. Friend's response to British Rail cover the proposals for electrification that are now with the Department?

There is only one specific proposal for electrification before the Department. I wish to study it carefully and personally. I hope to make a decision as soon as possible.

rose——

Order. There is to be a statement later and I shall bear in mind those hon. Members who have not been called during Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current position regarding the proposed Channel tunnel.

I hope to receive very shortly the report of the group of British and French banks on private financing of the various schemes that have been advanced for a fixed link.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will favour twin rail tunnels of 6m diameter, and not the elaborate bridge and tunnel combined proposal by the elaborate Ian MacGregor?

All possible propositions and designs are still open. The banks' report will comment on the cost and financing difficulties associated with each project. We must await that report before forming any judgment.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the many groups that have put forward various proposals feel an urgent need for those alternatives to be narrowed down so that they can put more effort into finding the necessary backing for their schemes?

There will have to be a rationalisation of the possible proposals at some time. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that much depends on the ability of the private sector to finance any scheme. We must, therefore, tackle finance first.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is firm Government policy that in no circumstances will any public money be at risk, either directly by subvention or indirectly by some form of insurance policy?

We must await the report of the banks. The Government have made their position clear, and there has been no departure from that position.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how it is intended that the proposed appointed regional transport authority for London should be funded; and if it will have powers to levy rates.

Grants to London regional transport will be paid direct by the Secretary of State. Like those elsewhere, London's ratepayers will need to make some contribution to the cost of their local transport services, and possible mechanisms for this are currently being discussed with local authorities.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government, who have been dedicated to removing quangos from the British system, are now contemplating establishing an unelected quango that will charge rates to London ratepayers who will have no redress against that body?

We have an elected Government with more than 80 elected Members of Parliament from the Greater London area. London regional transport will be a management body that will properly manage the way in which the transport provision for this great city should be organised. Back-Bench Members of Parliament will leave us in no doubt about their views on the financing of London regional transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what topics he discussed with the chairman of British Rail during the recess.

I have discussed a number of railway matters with the new chairman of British Rail, including the Government's objectives for the railways, on which I shall be making a statement later today.

Did not the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of British Rail the one problem which, above all else, should concern them both? Is it not true that the paltry £819 million cannot possibly provide sufficient finance to improve the service to the general public?

I have had time to meet the chairman of British Rail only once, and on that occasion he did not raise that matter with me. Therefore, I presume that he feels that he can live with that grant for the current year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a decision on the London to Hastings railway line has been awaited for some months? During the recess did he take the opportunity to discuss with the chairman of British Rail the future electrification of that important railway link between London and the south coast? If not, will he undertake to do so without delay?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to state that there is no question of that line being discontinued, as was suggested in a recent newspaper article. I ask him to give me a little time to study the problem. I have been in office for only one week. I promise him that I shall try to make a decision as soon as possible, because I realise the urgency.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figure of £819 million that he announced this afternoon is £40 million less than that which the British Rail corporate plan suggested would be the minimum necessary to survive the next 12 months? How does he square that?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman had realised the good news in those figures. In accordance with the remarks of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), British Rail has made improvements in its cost and productivity, which is reflected in the PSO grant. I am sure that is something that the whole House will welcome.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the schemes of privatisation of transport interests which have taken place since May 1979 and the schemes under consideration by the Government.

Since 1979 the National Freight Corporation and British Transport Docks have both been privatised. Other disposals include British Rail's hovercraft and hotel interests, International Aeradio Ltd. and much of British Airways' hotel investment, as well as long leases on most motorway service areas.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many of the private entrepreneurs who have taken advantage of the privatisation of bus services not only confine their operations to the most lucrative routes but appear to show a marked preference for buying foreign-made vehicles? Will he therefore take steps to stop these pirates undermining the job prospects of workers in the British coachbuilding industry, for example at Alexanders of Falkirk in my constituency?

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, on the contrary, in many of the privatisation there has been a remarkable improvement in the service to the consumer, in the economic performance of the unit and in the fortunes of those who work in them. For example, in the National Freight Consortium, shares which the workers bought for £1 are now worth £3·40, and the service has been improved. The hon. Gentleman must put his question about Scottish buses to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the company that bought much of British Rail hotels, Virani Brothers, has utterly refused to meet any of its obligations in relation to pension rights and trade union conditions? If the attempts to get this remedied are frustrated by the shunting around of these hotels from one company to another, what will the Minister do to ensure that these matters are put right?

The hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers are not responsible for the pension funds of private sector companies. They are not really responsible, except indirectly, for the pension funds of nationalised industries. It must be accepted by the Opposition that these are matters of private negotiation between the two sides of industry, once privatisation has taken place.

asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce measures to merge the professions of solicitors and banisters into a single profession.

No, Sir.

I appreciate the brevity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer but if the Government are as determined as they say they are to attack the problem of restrictive practices and to protect the interests of the consumer, should he not direct his attention to the fusion of the legal professions in the interests of the consumer, to the detriment of restrictive practices and to the benefit of all those who have recourse to the law during their lives?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Benson Commission, which unanimously decided against fusion.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that to fuse the two professions would do nothing to aid the public in terms of costs or delay?

The Royal Commission, which went into the matter in great detail, heard a great deal of evidence. It said that in terms of costs the total amount of work would remain broadly the same and that the intervention of a barrister with deeper specialist experience and an independent view could often assist in early settlement. The point was considered by the Royal Commission, which concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that fusion would materially improve the situation.

asked the Attorney-General what is the current annual cost of legal aid in (a) criminal cases and (b) civil cases.

The net cost of legal aid in the most recent financial year, 1982–83, was as follows:

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the recently published report on the survey into the grant of legal aid in magistrates' courts shows that there are still wide divergences in the rates of refusal from one court to another? What action does the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to take to give all applicants for legal aid an equal chance regardless of the area in which they happen to live?

I agree that the survey to which the hon. Gentleman refers does give rise to anxiety about the discrepancies in rates of refusal of legal aid. Section 6 of the Legal Aid Act 1982 will soon be in force. It will give recourse to criminal legal aid committees in respect of refusals of legal aid from magistrates' courts. In addition, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will be giving thought to ways in which it may be possible to bring the criteria on which legal aid should be granted to the knowledge of courts concerned and to explain them more fully.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House of the cost of the new type of legal aid now in operation in Northern Ireland, where murderers and those guilty of bombing have become "supergrasses" and have a large amount of money paid to them so that they can avoid drawing on legal aid?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is answering a written question on the implications of the "supergrass" controversy later today, but the broad principles on which legal aid is granted or withheld remain the same in all cases.

Does not the survey confirm what has already been said on the subject by the Benson Commission, which was quoted with approval by the Attorney-General in another context a few moments ago? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that since that report was published in October 1979 it has never once been debated in the House and has never even been the subject of a statement? Is it not high time for a statement informing the House of the reaction of the Government to the various proposals in that report?

My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has indicated recently the respects in which he has already given effect to certain recommendations of the Benson Commission and has set out other recommendations of the Benson Commission to which further consideration is being given. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct when he says that the Benson Commission did draw attention to discrepancies in the rates of refusal of legal aid. When my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor took charge of legal aid in 1980 he set in train the inquiry which has resulted in the report to which reference has been made today.

asked the Attorney-General if Her Majesty's Government will ensure that the new contribution regulations on criminal legal aid will not penalise the wife and children of a defendant.

The regulations to be made under the Legal Aid Act 1982 will provide for the resources of married couples normally to be aggregated in assessing a defendent's liability to contribute towards the cost of his legal aid. This reflects the principle of the general law, which imposes a duty of mutual support on spouses.

Is not child benefit paid out of public funds to benefit the child? Therefore is it not wrong to regard it as something that can be taken into account when assessing a man's legal aid contribution? That w ill mean that, instead of being spent on children, child benefit will be spent on the legal defence of a man who is charged? Is that not wrong?

The general principle by which the means of spouses are aggregated is of long standing. It is embraced in the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, which was enacted by the previous Labour Government, and goes back further than that. It is right that there should be a discretionary power to relieve the operation of this principle in a proper case, but the broad principle is that the assets of the family as a whole should be taken into account. If we were to derogate from that it would be right to stop the system by which deductions are made from the assessable income of a husband to take account of his obligation to support his wife.

How will this work in practice? If contribution orders are to be enforced against the spouse who is charged, but are to be calculated additionally on the resources of the other spouse, what will happen if the husband applies for legal aid but the wife refuses to make her resources available to the husband? Will she be compelled to do so, and, if not, will he be expected to pay over money which has never been in his possession?

That sounds like a barrister's question.

Enforcement proceedings are taken against the spouse to be charged. It becomes a matter thereafter of considering what the reasons are for the failure to pay if there has been a failure to pay. If there is good reason, which does not carry with it culpability on the part of the spouse who is in arrears, the court will have a right within its discretion, to make an exceptional order. That is a sensible way of going about it.

That sounds like a barrister's answer.

That must come as a rare and beneficial surprise to the hon. Gentleman, for he does not hear many answers of that sort. This has to be looked at in a sensible way and the courts will wish to do equity and justice, using their common sense, as they generally do.

asked the Attorney-General when the Lord Chancellor last met the chairman of the Law Commission.

Three weeks ago, on Monday 3 October 1983.

Does the Attorney-General realise the increasing problems for leaseholders of flats and that legislation to enable them to enfranchise and extend their leases is long overdue? Will he urge the Law Commission to speed up those things that are preliminary to what might be a Government Bill to enfranchise and extend leasehold flat leases?

I am sure that everyone knows of the hon. Gentleman's acute interest in this matter. There are certain preliminary matters that have to be resolved and the Law Commission's first report on the subject of rights appurtenant to land will recommend reform of the present law of positive and restrictive covenants. The general form that the Commission's proposals are likely to take is outlined in its last annual report. It is hoped that the report on this subject wil be published early next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what talks he has had during the Summer Adjournment with the World Bank on the debt problems of developing nations.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington on 27 and 28 September. Officials in my Department have had many contacts with the World Bank.

So what practical steps will the Government take to help reflate world demand to increase developing countries' exports so that they can service and ultimately reduce their international debts?

The Government have given maximum support to the IMF. I believe that the actions taken by the IMF in conjunction both with the creditor countries and the debtor countries have proved valuable. Of course, the problem remains a substantial one, but progress is being made.

In Ministers' talks with the World Bank, have the Government pressed the American Administration to be generous in the next IDA replenishment?

We have indeed done so and I hope that that will have effect in due course.

Will the Minister accept that not only is the IMF scratching about for money, but the World Bank itself is almost on the verge of bankruptcy? Will he also accept that one of the main reasons why the poorest countries in the world are not getting the assistance that many Opposition Members would like to see is that most of the money coming from the IMF and some of that from the World Bank finishes up in the pockets of bankers representing middle-ranking countries, which are up to their necks in debt because of over-expansion and Americanisation during certain times in the past five or six years?

We are doing all that we can to ensure that the next replenishment of IDA is an effective one, but the hon. Gentleman's latter remarks seem to bear little relation to the facts.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans he has for promoting private investment in the poorer countries.

There are a variety of measures already. My officials are considering with other Departments whether there is more we can usefully do on the subject. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions we shall certainly examine them carefully.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the promotion of private investment in poorer countries is a major part of his responsibility and that he proposes to take the lead in Whitehall in co-ordinating policy in this regard?

Yes. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of this matter. The Government are working — effectively, I believe—in this respect. We have been responsible for the negotiations of investment promotion and protection agreements, which can be of considerable value. I believe that developing countries would often do well to rely less on short-term bank loans and more on direct private investment.

If the Government can shrug off their sustained complacency in this matter they will surely realise that private capital can only scratch the deep problems besetting the poorest countries of the world. Surely only international action by Governments can get to the root of the problems, which are caused by ludicrously high interest rates and low commodity prices. When will the Government wake up to that fact?

The Government are in no sense complacent about this matter. I believe that private investment can play a useful part, but, as I have already made clear this afternoon, we also recognise the great importance of what the IMF and the World Bank are doing, and we are playing our part in that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the Overseas Development Administration budget for 1983–84 and 1984–85 is applicable to expenditure in the Falkland islands.

It would be premature to give precise forecasts of expenditure in the Falkland islands in 1983–84 and 1984–85, since details of activities to be supported have not yet been finalised. But I expect the balance of the rehabilitation grant of £15 million to be spent in the current year and a substantial proportion of the £31 million development grant in the next two or three years. Estimated expenditure in 1983–84 to dare is approximately £3 million.

How does the Minister justify the misappropriation of large parts of the development budget to the Falkland islands, while, at the same time, the Government are cutting British aid to some of the poorest countries in the world where people are starving to death?

It is quite untrue to talk about misappropriation of my programme to help the Falkland islands. They are among our dependencies, to whom we have a prior obligation anyway, and events last year will undoubtedly have reinforced that in the minds of the overwhelming majority in this country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much greater public support in this country for aid to the Falkland islands than there is for continued aid to Zimbabwe, where air force officers acquitted by the courts are still imprisoned?

I do not intend to draw such a comparison, but I reiterate that aid to the Falklands is justified and necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

I have no immediate plans for such a meeting, but I meet the chairman frequently.

On the matter of the CDC involvement in the NGPI project at Agusan Del Sur in the Philippines, why did the British authorities exert pressure for the non-renewal of the contract of a British VSO worker who was investigating allegations of the violation of human rights in the area where CDC involvement is planned?

I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the CDC, will he also discuss the representations that Mr. Frank Judd of the VSO has made to many hon. Members about the organisation's fears and worries concerning the continuation of its programme? Will the hon. Gentleman also consider the possibility of removing full-cost fees for students from Commonwealth countries?

If I were to discuss those matters with the chairman of the Commonwealth Development Corporation he might think that I was out of my mind. They have nothing to do with him.

When the Minister meets the chairman of the CDC, will he draw to his attention the fact that hon. Members, while having a high regard for the CDC, will exercise the right to criticise individual projects if they feel that they are unworthy? Had we not done so, certain improvements in human rights in Mindanao would not have taken place.

Of course hon. Members have the right to discuss and to criticise. After all, it is a free country and a free House. I am prepared to accept that some of that discussion has been of value, but the important thing i s that the steps that are taken now are effective.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the safeguards built into the proposed oil palm development project in Loreto in the Philippines are not only unprecendented, but are recognised as being highly effective in safeguarding that potential project as a viable and important one for the CDC?

I know that my hon. Friend has just been out there to look at these matters on the ground. I am grateful to him for what he says.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on his response to the Brandt Commission report entitled "Common Crisis".

None, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is tremendous support in this country for the original Brandt report and for the supplementary report? Will he therefore use his best efforts inside the Government to reduce the massive arms expenditure in which the Government are involved in with the extra £10,000 million for Trident, and urge that we should devote more resources to helping the two-thirds of humanity who are suffering from poverty and want?

I am aware that there has been considerable support in this country for both the first and the second Brandt report. However, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that while I believe very strongly in the value of our aid programme, I also believe that this country has to be properly defended.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with international debt running at some £900 billion, all that has happened so far has merely papered over the cracks? Has not the time arrived when we should be looking at the possibility of a Bretton Woods style conference to make sure that we can help with the long-term problems of the world, which are getting worse by the day?

I am not yet persuaded that such a conference would necessarily be helpful. First, we should recognise the gravity of the problem, as my hon. Friend has expressed it. Secondly, we should recognise that our existing institutions have been working very hard and have had some considerable achievements in tackling the problem.