asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will increase Government funding of road maintenance.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will shortly announce the provision for expenditure on motorways and trunk roads in 1984–85. We shall continue to give priority to the motorway repair programme as explained in "Policy for Roads in England 1983", Cmnd. 9059.

Does the Minister agree that expenditure on road maintenance, which has been declining in real terms over the past two years, is a disgrace to the Government? Will the Minister give particular attention to counties such as Staffordshire, which are at the bottom of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy statistics on roads expenditure, and give them something in any allocation of funds? In her White Paper the Minister has no new major road schemes in Staffordshire up to 1987. She cannot be proud of that.

Over the past two years the total cash amount accepted for transport supplementary grant for maintenance has increased by over 22 per cent. We have been seeking to divert the money to this aspect wherever possible. The planned expenditure on the maintenance of trunk roads and motorways has more than doubled over the past four years. The cash outturn in 1978–79 was £89 million, but the provision for the current year is £200 million. With regard to new roads, the Department is busily engaged on a number of schemes in Staffordshire.

What new proposals are there for Staffordshire? How many construction workers are unemployed? Their unemployment goes side by side with the failure to repair roads adequately.

The Government have made up for the backlog of motorway repairs that was allowed to build up under the Labour Government. Last year we repaired the equivalent of 80 miles of motorway for just over £80 million compared with 40 miles of motorway in 1980–81 at just under £40 million. The repairs done have more than doubled. There is a high level of road maintenance, which we intend should continue. With regard to new schemes for the hon. Gentleman's area, his county surveyor and councillors were talking to me only last week in a friendly way and not in the way that he seeks to represent.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what were the respective amounts of funding to the British Railways Board in 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982; and how much money has been allocated for the current year.

As the answer contains a number of figures, I shall, with permission, arrange for them to be circulated in the Official Report.

Does the Minister accept that his reply does not help me in asking my supplementary question? Does he accept that we all know, because we hear by various means, that the funding in real terms is insufficient? Does the Minister further accept that on the routes to the north, particularly the line to Sheffield, which I know, fewer trains are running? Although they are faster, the interval between them is twice as long. There are fewer carriages on each train and fewer staff than there have ever been for many years. That is resulting in chaos. The queues at St. Pancras are horrific. The Minister should see for himself, especially on Fridays. Many people say that more money is needed if we are to run the railways, especially to Sheffield, properly.

I shall give the hon. Gentleman a fascinating insight into the figures. The total grant from the Government and local government at 1983 prices was £831 million in 1979 and £929 million in 1983, which is a considerable increase. I hope that, through increased efficiency, we shall be able to reduce that figure. If the hon. Gentleman has problems about any line, he should write to the chairman of British Rail.

As a regular user of the St. Pancras-Sheffield line, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that the service on that line has improved greatly in the past couple of years? I think that all passengers acknowledge that fact.

I am grateful for that remark. I hope that my hon. Friend will also write to the chairman of British Rail to inform him of that fact.

Does the Secretary of State realise, following his statement about policy on 24 October, that there is considerable alarm and concern in the transport industry? Does he agree that such a policy will involve many redundancies, in addition to those already calculated, between 1983 and 1986? Does the Secretary of State accept that his policy goes further and harms the prospects for electrification of the eastern line?

We have tried to separate the issues of the size of the network, fares and service standard levels and concentrate on efficiency in running the railway. Let me give an example of efficiency. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has no portfolio in the Shadow Cabinet, yet she is demanding £5,000 of taxpayers' money for research assistance. It would be efficient to cut that out.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that most of the funding for British Rail is provided to enable it to maintain services at the behest of central and local government and others? To lump together all of the funding for British Rail and use the word "subsidy" to describe it is no fairer than to use the word "subsidy" to describe the money that is used for building roads or maintaining the armed services.

I sympathise with my hon. Friend. The public service obligation grant for this year is £819 million, subject to possible adjustment, and an extra £110 million comes from other grants, especially from local government, to assist specific passenger services. Those extra grants are aimed at providing services that would not otherwise be provided by the specific grant. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's point.

Instead of making cheap jibes about some of my hon. Friends, will the Secretary of State consider examining the Appropriation Accounts of his Department, which were published on 31 October and gave a glittering example of the efficiency of his Department. It refers to road fund licensing on page 7, where the Secretary of State will see——

Order. The question relates to the funding of British Rail.

I realise that, Mr. Speaker, even if the answer did not relate to it. If we are talking about efficiency for our respective modes of transport, and available funding for British Rail, we should discuss the funding that has not been made available from road fund licences because of the right hon. Gentleman's incompetence.

I agree, Mr. Speaker, that the supplementary question can hardly be said to arise from the question on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman is referring to last year, since when my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made enormous improvements in respect of compliance.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the future of short-haul commuter services.

My right hon. Friend frequently meets the chairman to discuss matters of mutual interest, including commuter services.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he propose a new deal for the commuters in my constituency? If the chairman of British Rail promised to ensure that the advertised trains actually run, and run on time, without cancellation at short notice, would the Department be prepared to look sympathetically at the possibility of new electrical rolling stock for the line, as some is as much as 40 years old?

New electrical rolling stock is a matter for proposed investment by British Rail if there is a viable use for it. Disruption has occurred to trains on the line running through my hon. Friend's constituency, for which British Rail apologises. The inconvenience has been caused largely because of a signal disruption and two major signalling investments which are being carried out. When those works are completed, there will be substantial improvements in timekeeping and speed.

Is the Minister aware that conditions on the north-east Lancashire line, which is heavily used by commuters, are appalling and that passengers are conveyed in rolling stock that is at least 25 years old? Thanks to cuts in Government grants, it appears that there is no prospect of the rolling stock being replaced. Is it Government policy to allow provincial railway lines, such as the north-east Lancashire line, to die through neglect?

That is entirely a matter for the management of British Rail. If I receive a viable proposal from British Rail to replace the rolling stock, we shall consider it constructively.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the vital importance to my constituents of the High Wycombe to Marylebone railway line? Will he ensure that any decision about the future of the line, and especially of Marylebone station, is reached not in isolation but in the context of all the commuter services available?

I assure my hon. Friend that if a proposal is put before me about the closure of Marylebone station, I shall consider seriously the needs of the commuters in his constituency.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement about speed restrictions on the A59 between Mellor and Samlesbury in Lancashire.

Although I have already indicated to my hon. Friend the difficulty about speed on this road, I am having further discussions with the county and the Lancashire police, and I hope to write to him again shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter is causing great concern both to my constituents and to those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), as the road passes through both constituencies? Does my hon. Friend realise that were she to decide not to impose a 50 mph speed limit on this stretch of road, where fatalities have occurred, her action might be taken amiss? I urge her to press strongly for a sensible answer to this difficult problem.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows that I have been concerned about the road. I was impressed by the strength of feeling shown about the problem when I met my hon. Friend and his delegation. As far as I know, the county council has accepted that the criteria for a 50 mph speed limit have not been met. That is why I wish to have further discussions with the county authorities and the police.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the extent and state of the trunk road and motorway network in the west midlands.

The extensive programme of new road building, improvements and maintenance projects now under way and planned will bring significant improvements to the motorway and trunk road network in the region.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her promotion. Does she realise that the state of the motorway network in the west midlands and overloading on such routes, combined with a lack of communications to the ports for our exporting industries, leads to serious anxiety about slippage in the programme that she announced and calls into question the Government's commitment to provide west midlands' industry with satisfactory means of communication for its products?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties. I am happy to report that real progress is being made. The schemes currently under construction are costing an estimated £116 million, and contracts to the value of a further £144 million are due to start before the end of next year. I note my hon. Friend's comment about the link to the east coast ports. As he knows, the Government are considering the final version of that scheme.

However polite and courteous the leadership of the Staffordshire county council is to the Minister, it is thoroughly dissatisfied with the provision for roads in the county.

Most of the members of the Staffordshire county council whom I have had the pleasure of meeting have been extremely realistic about what can be done within sensible cash limits. We have been discussing programmes for the future on those terms. I know full well that everybody wishes to do more than he is doing, but there is a limit to the amount that any responsible Government can undertake.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that when the M40 is built in the midlands it will be to such a standard that my constituents and others will not be subjected in a decade's time to the horrendous diversions and stoppages that are occurring on the M1?

I assure my hon. Friend that the standard of materials and the manner of building new motorways are much better than they were when motorways were being planned and built 30 years ago. When roads are built with a life of 20 years, it is not surprising that we have to put on new skid-resistant surfaces after that time, as well as doing more work to make them last another 20 years, as is happening on the M1.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received about the objectives he has set for British Rail; and if he will make a statement.

Fewer than the eight parliamentary questions that have been tabled in the House.

The Secretary of State said in his letter to the chairman of British Rail on 24 October that the guiding objective should be to run an efficient railway. Is it not a fact that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to the running of an efficient railway is the Secretary of State himself? The right hon. Gentleman went on in that same letter to announce further cuts in railway investment, which will put British Rail into a financial straitjacket and cause even more closures, more fare increases and the destruction of possibly thousands of jobs on the railways.

The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. My right hon. Friend did not say anything about cutting investment in British Rail. He said that there was to be a reduction of about £200 million in the PSO. That is to be achieved by the more efficient operation of the railways and not by cutting investment.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that British Rail has accepted the objectives and, in so doing, has accepted that they can be substantially achieved by greater efficiency? Is it not extraordinary that the Opposition seem so to dislike the concept of efficiency?

The chairman of British Rail has broadly accepted the objectives that he has been given, but he has to wait until the 1984 plan before he is able to ascertain how he will deliver.

Are not the objectives issued to British Rail based on Serpell part I, which is a discredited document? The Secretary of State calls for the speeding up of redundancies and factory closures within British Rail Engineering Ltd. Will the Minister explain how that can help BREL when such actions will restrict its capacity to dealing only with British Rail? How will that help British Rail to go into the expanding export market? Is not the Secretary of State really seeking to destroy BREL''

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that my right hon. Friend's objectives are based on Serpell part I. They are based on British Rail's own plan for 1983—merely speeded up to be carried out over three years instead of five.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, as recently as 1982, "Labour's Programme" admitted that the railway network was unlikely to remain at the size it was at the time of the Railways Act 1974?

My hon. Friend is well informed about the Opposition's statements. I am grateful to him for drawing the information to the attention of the House.

In the letter of 24 October the Secretary of State said that he was bringing forward by two years the reduction in grant, and was ruling out major route closures and what are called unreasonable fare increases. In the light of that, what will have to give? Is it not clear that, with the proposed abolition of the Railway Staffs National Tribunal, the Government and the board are preparing the way for massive increases in unemployment through a massive decrease in manpower on the railways? Is it not that which will have to give as a result of the letter of 24 October?

What will have to give is more efficiency and productivity. As for the suggestion that there will be massive reductions in staff, I repeat that the Secretary of State's proposal in his letter to the chairman is simply a speeding up of exactly the programme that British Rail had set into its corporate plan for 1983.

My hon. Friend may not have received more representations than parliamentary questions, but no doubt his attention will have been drawn to the many comments in the press on the Serpell report, which will have some bearing on the objectives of British Rail's activities next year. I refer particularly to the threat to the line to Aberdeen from Glasgow and Edinburgh. Will my hon. Friend try to ensure with the chairman of British Rail that the line continues to have an adequate service? Indeed, the sooner that it is electrified, the better.

I assure my hon. Friend that I have not received any suggestion of a threat to the Aberdeen line and I know of no proposal that is likely to affect it in a way that would cause my hon. Friend concern.

The Opposition are amazed that the Secretary of State is not answering for his letter. That infamous letter, which means less rail in our times—produced within five days of his taking office—has shocked all those concerned with transport, because it recommends a reduction of £200 million, meaning higher fares, line closures, job losses and fewer services. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State is seen as a Treasury mercenary implementing a Treasury policy? Will the Secretary of State catch a train to Europe to see the difference in the quality of services there, with higher quality public services? Will he admit that his statement gives the green light to the implementation of a Treasury-inspired Serpell report—a fact so often denied in the general election campaign and even now?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. I am delighted to welcome him. However, far from my right hon. Friend's letter having shocked those involved in transport, a British Rail press notice included the following words from the chairman:

"We have been asking Government for a long time to clarify the objectives for our industry and this statement is the first significant move in that direction."

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to introduce legislation to set up London Regional Transport.

I shall be introducing legislation shortly.

Will my right hon. Friend condemn the appointment of Left-wingers to the London Transport board? Does he agree that it will make the sensible management of London Transport virtually impossible and work against the interests of travellers in London?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the job of the management and board of London Transport is to manage the underground railway and the buses. Politics should be left to the GLC and it is a great mistake to seek to politicise the board.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that it will not be his intention in the legislation to oblige London boroughs to provide concessionary fares for pensioners and the disabled?

I say to the hon. Gentleman:

"The Government does not consider that a mandatory national concessionary fares scheme would be appropriate."

Pending the introduction of legislation to set up the London Regional Transport authority, will my right hon. Friend consider bringing in a short Bill to prevent any further packing of the London Transport board without proper consultation with the chairman?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said that if anything untoward happens we shall not hesitate to protect the rights of Londoners, as travellers and ratepayers. I hope that it will be possible for the board of London Transport to continue to run the good services that it intends to run.

Will the Minister ensure, through safeguards in legislation, that no local authority provides less for pensioners in the form of free travel passes than the GLC now provides?

I must admit to the hon. Gentleman that some boroughs are causing me worry. They are Brent, Greenwich, Hackney, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark. They have said that they are not prepared even to discuss the possibility of concessionary travel arrangements reverting to the boroughs when the GLC is abolished.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorway were affected by lane closures during the most recent month for which statistics are available; and how these figures compare with six months and 12 months previously.

We estimate that about 30 to 40 miles, out of a total of 1,500 miles of motorway are affected by lane closures at any one time during the peak March to November period for maintenance work.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that I seem to run into those 30 to 40 miles every time I go on the motorway? Does she agree that we have many more miles of lane closures on our motorways than do other EC countries and the United States, where traffic is much heavier than in Britain? Is she aware that that is the subjective experience of many drivers? Will she try to concentrate repair gangs and resources on shorter sections so that they can be reopened more quickly?

My hon. Friend has been ill-advised about what routes to take because, I am told, we do not have more miles of lane closures than other countries. Our older motorways have been the victims of their own success. Last year, I noted the concern that was being expressed. Moreover, I experienced delays and still do regularly. Last year we changed to having shorter working lengths and longer gaps between sites. We are always trying to improve matters and now build roads to a stronger structural specification so that they will take the volume of traffic that is expected in the next 20 years. We are always trying to do better.

Will the Minister confirm that, in addition to lane closures, there have always been a considerable number of carriageway closures? Is she aware that on the M1 northbound there has been a complete carriageway closure on more than 200 occasions in the past three years? As those closures appear to be continuing, will she accept that some of us cannot choose the route that we take? Is she aware that the Government must accept that people who travel from London late at night are subjected to enormous delays and considerable frustration? When can we expect an improvement?

Many hon. Members will know that the area to which the hon. Gentleman principally refers is between junctions 5 and 8. We have been widening the motorway there to three lanes. We should all have appreciated that many years ago. Entirely new bridges have had to be built and for safety reasons there have had to be lane closures. Other improvements are being made as quickly as possible. No one, whether it be the hon. Gentleman or me, likes delays. I shall do all that is within my power—as my engineers are doing—to speed up the work that is necessary to provide the motorway network that we need for the future.

Will the Minister assure the House that there will be a statement on lane closures on the Severn bridge, as such closures are affecting the Welsh economy? It is high time that we had another statement on the matter.

I fully understand, and am sympathetic to, the hon. Gentleman's point. We expect to receive shortly a final report from Flint and Neill which has been agreed by Mott, Hay and Anderson. Any slight delay in its receipt has no significance for the safety of the bridge. My right hon. Friend will inform the House of the report's recommendations as soon as possible and will place a copy of it in the Library.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress being made towards privatising British Airways.

The Government intend British Airways to become a private sector company as soon as possible. I am now considering how best to achieve this.

What is the Government's reaction to recent suggestions that there might be some slimming-down of the British Airways route structure to create more fairness and competition between a privatised British Airways and the other independent British airlines? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that before there is any move to write off or write down the accumulated debts of British Airways, a Bill will have to be presented to the House?

I have discussed the first issue with Sir Adam Thomson. I have had to point out to him that the powers under which some routes were transferred from British Airways to British Caledonian in 1971 and 1976 have been repealed and that I now have no powers to effect a transfer of routes. As to my hon. Friend's other point, I hope that he will allow me to unfold plans for the privatisation of British Airways before I comment on what he said about a Bill to improve the capital balance.

The Secretary of State, who has Treasury experience, may not be prepared to present a Bill to the House to privatise British Airways if that company does not do something about its £1 billion debt to the country but is not the strength of the British Caledonian scheme the fact that it suggests a way in which that debt might be met without the Government incurring a loss?

The hon. Gentleman has advanced a solution to those twin problems. It will be for the two airlines concerned to think along the same lines before anything of that sort could happen. I have no intention of presenting a Bill for any such purpose in the immediate future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way out of the problem is for British Airways to trade its way out of its accumulated debt? Is he aware that, in the past six months, it made a profit of £162 million after paying debt interest and all other charges and that that is twice the amount of profit that it made during the equivalent six-month period the previous year? Is that not the best way in which to safeguard the interests of the independent sector and the taxpayer?

I confirm what my hon. Friend says and pay tribute to Lord King and his work force in British Airways for the remarkable recovery that they have made and for the excellent profits that they are now earning. I confirm that that greatly helps the airline on its way to the private sector, where nearly all of its personnel would like it to be.

Will progress be slower or faster if, against the wishes of British Airways, a major airport is developed at Stansted?

I do not see how that matter arises on this question or in the context of the privatisation of British Airways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the major capital schemes to improve rail passenger services in London and the South East which he has approved in the past two years.

In the past two years we have approved the electrification of the line to Norwich, initial works on the Victoria rail-air terminal and electrification of the line between Tonbridge and Hastings. There has also been substantial investment that did not require Government approval.

Does the Minister agree that that Level of investment is less than half of what is necessary to finance the commuters' charter, which British Rail published more than two years ago and which, to my knowledge, has not yet been disowned by the new, craven, chairman of British Rail?

I resent that type of comment. It was made against a public servant who has done a great deal to bring to British Rail a modern concept and a commercial approach to its operations.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the time scale of improvements and repairs to the M1 between the junction with the M6 and London; and if he will make a statement.

Existing works on the motorway are proceeding according to programme. We are phasing the works so that disruption to traffic is kept to a minimum.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that widening between Hemel Hempstead and Watford will be completed by 31 December? Will she assure us that the MI from Northamptonshire to London will be fault-free for several years, after so much effort has been put into modernisation and repair? Can we now have an end to the appalling congestion that we have suffered for the past five years?

I expect the M1 widening to be completed on time—not by the end of the year but by the end of this month — with the exception of some night-time closures on the northbound carriageway for a couple of weeks thereafter. I remind my hon. Friend that however much we improve the specifications to which we build roads, it will always be necessary to replenish the surface for skid resistance purposes. There will also always be a need for improvement when lighting columns and crash barriers must be replaced or repaired after they have been hit by motorists. We cannot ignore these matters. We must get on and do that work when it is necessary to do it.

asked the Secretary. of State for Transport if he will upgrade the A1(M) to a major motorway.

Where the A1 is officially classed as a motorway, it is constructed to full motorway standards and is capable of handling the volume of traffic using it, or likely to use it for the foreseeable future. The other, non-motorway, stretches of the road are in general similarly adequate; it is dual carriageway throughout from London to Gateshead. But there are pinchpoints, and we have proposed improvements for these.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the people of the Cleveland and north-east area will not be enamoured of her reply? It is disappointing to learn that the A1 in the northern part of the country will not be upgraded to a full motorway. What improvements does my hon. Friend intend to introduce in the Yorkshire area to make Teesside-Cleveland better for the business confidence of people in the area?

The dual carriageway is, in general, adequate. It would be wrong to spend money and buy up land to make the road of a higher quality than we can justify.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Secretary of State made a number of personal remarks relating to me——

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but it is my practice to hear points of order at the end of questions. We are running rather late.

asked the Attorney-General how often the Lord Chancellor meets the Lord Chief Justice.

Frequently, Sir.

Is there not now a case for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be urgently in touch with the Lord Chief Justice, formally or informally, to express the concern of many right hon. and hon. Members about the proposal to turn the Reuters trust into a public company? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the approval of the Lord Chief Justice is required to amend the trust deed and that he appears not even to have been consulted? Is it not the definition of a scandal that huge profits may be the reward for dishonouring the undertakings enshrined in a trust deed?

This is a matter in which the Lord Chancellor has no responsibility. Since I have been asked about my responsibility, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have looked with care at the documents. There are three options. It is a charitable trust or, if not, an ordinary trust or, if not, a shareholders' agreement. These is no evidence that I can see that makes it a charitable trust. It is only charitable trusts for which I have any responsibility.

asked the Attorney-General what representations the Lord Chancellor has received on the Government's response to the report of the Royal Commission on legal services.

the Attorney-General what representations the Lord Chancellor has received on the Government's response to the report of the Royal Commission on legal services.

No representations have been received.

Bearing in mind that when a tenant applies for legal aid to enforce basic rights, such as the right to repair or the right to protection from eviction, he is means-tested and often has to pay a high contribution, is it not unfair that the Government are pretending to give free, non-means-tested legal aid to anyone having a dispute about the purchase of his council house? Will the Attorney-General accept that, although I am in favour of extending legal aid, it seems unjust and inconsistent that the only people to whom legal aid is to be extended by this Government are those who are doing the Government's bidding by buying their council houses?

Even those who are in dispute about the purchase of their council houses will be subjected to the same means-testing. They will be made to contribute, if at all, according to their means.

Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own survey has shown that many defendants in magistrates' courts do not even apply for legal aid although they are charged with serious offences, why have the Government not accepted the report of the Royal Commission on legal services in order to widen the eligibility for legal aid and to make sure that all people who are charged with serious offences have legal aid?

Since the Widgery report, it has been clear that in practically every case where there is a risk of custody, and in most cases which go for trial in the Crown court on indictment, legal aid should be granted. If that has not happened in the magistrates' court on a case sent on indictment, it is almost always the case that the court then orders that the defendant should be legally represented.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why the Government have not yet been able to reach a conclusion about the future of law centres, given their importance and the increasing demands made upon them?

The matter is still under close consideration. The views are not all one way, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We are very keen to get it right. I hope very shortly that we shall be able to make an announcement of our intentions.

Can the Attorney-General use his influence with the Leader of the House to enable us to have a debate on the report of the Royal Commission? Apart from a short Adjournment debate on 5 November 1979, in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to express the initial views of the Government, there has not yet been an opportunity, after a lapse of four years, to debate this important report.

I shall make certain that the hon. Gentleman's views are made known to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Will the Attorney-General explain why it took four years for the Lord Chancellor to produce such a miserable and totally inadequate response to the Royal Commission's report and why, after four years' gestation, 176 out of 369 recommendations were refused consideration by the Government? Has not the time come for a new and radical approach, with the right institutions and the right financing, including that of law centres, to ensure that the needs of ordinary people are properly met, especially in housing disputes, family problems, personal injuries and the loss of employment?

I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on his appointment as Opposition spokesman on legal affairs. He does not seem to change his manner of questioning, whatever post he occupies.

asked the Attorney-General on how many occasions in the last year he has met the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to supervise his decisions to prosecute in criminal cases where there is reliance on the evidence of accomplices and to discuss the question of immunity for such accomplices.

The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and I are in frequent and regular contact in order to discuss the work of his Department and the general policies which he applies and so that he may consult me on specific problems as the need arises. It is not possible, without disproportionate cost, to identify the several occasions upon which we have discussed the matters referred to in this question.

Does the Attorney-General agree that the basis of English justice has always been the proof of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt? Does he further agree that in non-jury trials such as those found in Northern Ireland, where sometimes the sole evidence is that of an informer who has been sustained during the period of his informership, if I may put it that way, such evidence must perforce be tainted, and that those non-jury trials can never reach a satisfactory and just conclusion, because it is the evidence of one person against another?

As the hon. Gentleman will know from the written answer that I gave previously, the defence is to be informed of all provisions that have been made for witnesses before the trial. On the wider issue of whether supergrasses' evidence can be accepted by a court, I am entirely satisfied that justice is, in fact, done. However, I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to rely on my assessment alone. I refer him and others to the careful judgment given by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Lord Lowry, on 26 October in the case of the Queen v. Gibney, which explained and exemplified the scrupulous care taken by the courts to ensure that no one is convicted except on proof beyond reasonable doubt. I shall arrange for a transcript of the judgment, which repays reading in full, to be placed in the Library.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid Her Majesty's Government are giving to Grenada.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask his Department to prepare a report on the priority development needs of Grenada.

The Government have already announced their intention to make available capital assistance and technical co-operation for reconstruction and economic development in Grenada.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that when this escapade is over the kiddies in Grenada will have to pick up all the pieces and put them together, and that one would therefore expect the people of Grenada to request further aid from this Government? Will the Minister assure us that, if that call for further aid comes, it will be looked at and given, and that it will come from the reserve funds and not from the small amount that is at present available under overseas aid?

The aid, of course, will come out of our budget. As I have already said, we are prepared to consider priority needs for development. In doing so, we also have to take into account other donors and their potential contributions.

Although the prospect of renewed Government aid to Grenada is welcome, is the Minister aware that Sir Paul Scoon told my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mr. Evans) and myself the other day that, in his view, one of the most urgent needs now in Grenada is the maintenance of Government services and provision of the wherewithal for the Government to pay their servants so that services continue to be available to the people of Grenada? Will he look at the matter and see what the Government can do?

I am aware that there is an immediate cash problem in Grenada, but I repeat that there are other major aid donors, notably the United States, who are also prepared to help. We must judge what is the most effective way of using any assistance that we can give.

When my right hon. Friend is considering Grenada, will he also consider our aid policy in general in the Caribbean, and ensure that one of the objectives of that policy is to ensure that the Marxist takeover that took place in Grenada does not happen elsewhere?

I have sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. We do consider carefully and regularly our aid policy in that part of the world.

As the civilian airport at Port Salines is now 85 per cent. completed, and as British firms such as Plessey are involved in the contract, will the Minister see what can be done by the Government to ensure that the airport is completed, because it is essential for future tourism on the island?

I accept that the airport needs to go ahead. The Department of Trade and Industry is in close touch with Plessey on the matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any upward revision of aid to Grenada will not entail any cutback in aid to other islands in the Caribbean?

Yes, Sir, in the immediate future. However, every year we have to look at our aid programme as a whole and make judgments about priorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to finalise the details of the activities to be supported from the Overseas Development Administration budget in the Falkland Islands.

I do not expect to finalise the overall development programme for some time. Development is a continuing process carried out in close contact with the Falkland Islands Government. They have indicated their priorities; some projects have already been approved, others are now being prepared.

In view of the millions of pounds that are poured into projects ranging from the airport to Noah's Ark, should not senior Ministers take into account the formidable leaders in both The Times and The Guardian this morning about the Falklands and persuade the Prime Minister to take this opportunity to negotiate with the new Government in Buenos Aires?

My job is to supervise the development programme in the Falkland Islands. The case for a development programme there has been established for some time. I believe that the programme that is under way is effective and will help to provide the people there with confidence in their future.

Is the Minister aware that the Crown Agents have been involved in the Falklands? In view of their current financial difficulties, will he make a statement to the House on the options for their future before a decision is taken by the Government? Will he further assure the House that overseas development funds are in no way involved—I stress, in no way involved—in the financing of the airport on the Falklands?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box—I think for the first time. The subject of the Crown Agents does not arise under this question. The airport has been financed out of defence expenditure, not out of the development budget.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with progress in the Lomé III negotiations.

Yes, Sir. The current convention still has 16 months to run. Negotiations on a successor were formally opened in Luxembourg on 6 October. Detailed discussion in working groups is now under way.

Will the Minister assure the House that he will approach these renegotiations in a positive way to see what more the United Kingdom can do, bearing in mind its prosperity relative to the countries affected by the Lomé negotiations?

I intend to approach the negotiations in a positive and constructive way. I believe that it is right to place emphasis on the effectiveness of aid and on stimulating food self-reliance. Our resources are not unlimited, but I hope that the question of resources will be taken a little later in the negotiations, rather than now.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that under the Lomé II convention we tried very hard to get some security for investment, which would have been the best way to help the member states under Lomé II? Will he bear that in mind in Lomé III, remembering, too, that there is great resistance on the part of the other side in these negotiations to any possibility of guaranteeing human rights in Lomé convention countries?

We attach great importance to security for investment, and the Government already operate a scheme that is designed to strengthen that. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we think that it would be desirable for the new convention to contain provisions to uphold human rights.

What plans does the Minister have through the Lomé negotiations to improve the working of Stabex, particularly by increasing the amount of commodities included in it?

We feel that the money that is being provided for Stabex is not being used, as it should be, to strengthen the economies of the areas concerned. It has been used as a form of topping-up of emergency relief. In our view, the Stabex system needs to be more effective than it has been so far.

Although I welcome the support given by my right hon. Friend to the prospect of Lomé III, can he and his colleagues ensure that British companies get a larger share of the orders that derive from aid within the European development fund?

We can do something to ensure that, but fundamentally it is a matter for British companies themselves to make sure that they win the contracts. The position is improving, but it could be better.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government are making to the food crisis in parts of Africa.

We are providing food and emergency relief. Improving water resources and food production is, in any case, one of the main objectives of our aid in Africa.

May we have an assurance from the Minister that he will consider sympathetically any requests for any project that will help to eliminate this type of question appearing on the Order Paper?

Yes, Sir. The British Government already provide substantial assistance, and I was able to tell the FAO biennial conference last week that I was making a new allocation of 17,000 tonnes of cereals for Ghana, as well as providing further technical assistance.

Will not food shortages become more acute in countries such as Zimbabwe if European farmers are not encouraged to remain there? Does not experience show that the departure of European farmers from Zambia made the food shortage worse than it need have been?

I certainly agree that it would be a great pity from the point of view of food provision if there were a sudden flight of European farmers from Zimbabwe. In that country the great need is for stability.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will increase financial support for the United Nations development programme.

At the United Nations pledging conference on 8 November we announced that, subject to parliamentary approval, our contribution to UNDP in 1984 would be £19 million, an increase of £500,000 over that in 1983.

Does the Minister agree with industrialists and bankers who see increasing our aid not only as a moral duty but as being in our commercial interest?

I agree that the aid programme serves a moral purpose while at the same time serving British interests and commerce.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to question No. 27 on the Order Paper, which is addressed to the Secretary of State for Transport, but which unfortunately was not reached? Given the concern about the Severn bridge in south Wales and its importance to the economy there, I should like your guidance on the need for the Secretary of State to make a statement within the next 24 hours on the Floor of the House, so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to question him on this vital issue.

That is not a point of order for me. I think that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) heard what the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) said earlier — [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member for Newport, East was not here then."] If the hon. Member for Newport, East was not in the Chamber at the time, he will be able to read in Hansard what was said.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Secretary of State for Transport made some personal remarks about me during Question Time. Since he was, as usual, wrong on all accounts, would you point out to him that it would be a great aid to efficiency if he learnt to read?

The Secretary of State is in the Chamber and will have heard the hon. Lady's remarks.