asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.

In general, yes, but my Department will continue to seek ways to complete the works more quickly.

Why is so much motorway under repair and why does it take so long to effect the repairs?

We are reducing the backlog of maintenance which began in the mid-1960s. We have been adding between 70 and 80 miles per annum to total structural renewal. Next year there will be additional expenditure of £20 million, which will enable us to renew even more miles of motorway and to make the motorways, many of which were built more than 20 years ago and which are the victims of their own success, last at least another 20 years.

Is the Minister satisfied with the speeds at which motorway buses travel? During a period of bad weather they have exceeded speed limits in many areas. Will she issue an instruction to chief constables to go much further in enforcing speed limits?

Instructions to chief constables are a matter for the Home Secretary. We have carried out a full survey of speeds on motorways and other main roads and we are expecting the results in the next few weeks. When we have the results of this independent check on speeds, we shall be able to make recommendations. I urge drivers of all vehicles to maintain a safe distance behind the vehicle in front of them and to drive at speeds that are consistent with weather conditions. I was appalled by what I saw as I drove down the M6 and M1 yesterday

Is my hon. Friend aware that motorways that are constructed in concrete will last twice as long as those constructed in tarmacadam and that the necessary repairs will be that much less on concrete motorways? Will she undertake to construct all new motorways in concrete?

No. I understand the concern of hon. Members, especially that of my hon. Friend, that we should build roads that last longer. However, there are factors—for example, noise and proximity to property—that cause us to consider the most effective road surface for the area and circumstances in which it is built, and that we shall continue to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail about the improvement of London commuter services.

This is among the subjects discussed at the regular meetings that we have with the chairman. We have today approved British Rail's proposal to electrify the 24 miles of line from Bishops Stortford to Cambridge at a cost of about £10 million. This will lead to improved commuter services to Liverpool street. We have also concluded that the proposal to provide a second electrified service to Cambridge via Royston would not be justified financially.

Is the Minister aware that British Rail is planning cuts in off-peak services in the south-east division of up to one third, that peak-time services to areas such as Woolwich will be cut by 25 per cent., and that there has been no public consultation on these proposals? As much of the south-east of London has no tube services and many congested road links to the centre of London, how can the hon. Gentleman justify such major cuts of rail services?

The hon. Gentleman should consider the proposed cuts in proportion to the total service. He talks of cuts of one third, but if an off-peak service is reduced from three trains an hour to two, that reduction constitutes a cut of one third. There has to be a sense of proportion. Overall cuts in the southern area are 2 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents and I are immensely grateful to the Government for deciding to undertake the Liverpool street development? We regret the decision that they have taken on the Royston-Cambridge development, but I ask him to give an assurance that it could be reviewed in the light of the improved economic circumstances.

Anything can be reviewed. It is not economic circumstances so much as producing a viable investment project which provides the most economic way of moving passengers between those two points.

Further to my hon. Friend's exchange with the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), will he take an opportunity to remind the chairman of British Rail that our constituents are both his customers and, as taxpayers, his paymasters? Will he suggest that, if British Rail wants understanding, sympathy and support for the type of radical changes that it is proposing, it would be common sense and common courtesy to consult the Members of Parliament representing the affected areas?

A considerable amount of consultation is carried out by British Rail with local authorities, community groups, the Transport Users Consultative Committee and the London Central Transport Consultative Committee. I am prepared to draw to the attention of the chairman of British Rail the suggestion that Members of Parliament should be consulted as well. However, one should keep a sense of proportion. There have been cuts, especially in off-peak services that are lightly used, but there have also been increases in other services— for example, East Croydon, Reigate, Horsham, Portsmouth, Hayes, Tonbridge, Dartford and the new non-stop half-hour service to Gatwick every 15 minutes. It will be quicker for people to get to Gatwick than to Heathrow because of those new services.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Railways; and what he will be discussing.

I frequently meet the chairman to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the previous chairman of British Rail, in a bid to humour Sir Alfred Sherman, encouraged Coopers and Lybrand to set up a study into the suggestion of concreting railways into roads? Before embarking on an outbreak of "Shermania", will my right hon. Friend ensure that if we have any of these schemes, some of which, it is stated, will include vehicles running on guided tracks, all the costs, including land acquisition, will be borne by those carrying them out and that at the very least safety standards will certainly be no lower than those that the House has imposed on British Rail over the years?

There is no such proposal before me at present, although I have heard of possible plans for Marylebone station and the line from there. There will be great engineering difficulties, especially if the tunnel is too narrow for two buses. We must leave this matter to the railways and the National Bus Company. If they wish to put proposals before me, I shall consider them bearing in mind my hon. Friend's point of view.

Was the new chairman, Mr. Bob Reid, satisfied with his instructions to cut back the transport grant that he receives from 1988 to 1986? Did he give the Minister any idea of the savage cuts that are being forecast in the railway system by Conservative Ministers of State?

The reduced public service obligation grant was based on plans put forward by British Rail. I asked BR to accelerate the economies which BR identified that it could make. Those economies do not consist of a reduction in quality, the number of services or in a programme of major route closures. They are economies that are to be found from within the railway system. The present external financing limit which covers investment in the railways was put forward by the railways, and we agreed to it.

Does my right hon. Friend intend to discuss with the chairman of British Rail the privatisation of British Rail catering and buffets at stations? Is he likely to question him about whether it is true that British Rail has been unable to find any private company prepared to tender for those services?

I have discussed this matter with the chairman, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is continuing to pursue it. Station catering and catering on trains are separate issues, but we should have criteria for assessing the cheapest and best way to provide that catering and to allow those who can do so to provide the service. My hon. Friend is pursuing those matters with the railways. I believe that it is not a matter of privatising the service, but it may be a matter of contracting out.

On the subject of cuts in British Rail, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he has more faith in public consultation than in assassination by rumour and administration by leak?

I understand not the hon. Gentleman's question. Perhaps he was not consulted about the electrification of the line through Ely to Cambridge.

Because of BR's problems under successive Governments in financing its investments, will my right hon. Friend urge BR to respond positively to any proposals to privatise commuter or other passenger services?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on that question. I hope that Sealink will be privatised soon, which will provide additional resources for investment. I stress that the external financing limit is in no sense likely to prevent investment this year— indeed, it is rather more likely that BR will not be able to produce sufficient projects for investment to bring it to its limit.

As the excuse given for the abandonment of the stripping of asbestos from diesel multiple units is that the new build can go ahead, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that he will make money available to ensure that the programme is carried out—especially in the light of the Under-Secretary's undertaking to me during the last Question Time on transport affairs that there was nothing to stop the programme from going ahead on time?

The hon. Lady may not have heard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary say two minutes ago that we had agreed to the building of 150 lightweight diesel multiple units. That is evidence that we are allowing the replacement programme to go ahead, subject to the detailed checking of each application.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the electrification project which his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced this afternoon — which will be welcomed by many of my constituents—marks a further step towards the modernisation of the railways? Will he urge the chairman of BR to move ahead with that project with all possible speed?

I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes our decision. There will be no difficulty in BR moving ahead as quickly as possible, and it is keen to do so.

Is it true that the building of the 150 light-weight rail buses will be put out to tender to five different companies? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that that might delay the introduction of the vehicles? Are we not likely to repeat the mistakes made following the 1955 modernisation plan, when there was a multiplicity of different sorts of diesel locomotives, with all the consequential problems of maintenance and driver training?

The order will be put out to tender to five contractors. That means that British Rail Engineering Limited will have to tender effectively if it wants to gain the contract. However, whichever company gains the contract it will mean jobs for British industry—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State said that I should have listened to the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State. May I point out that it would have been more helpful if the right hon. Gentleman had read his brief? The Under-Secretary of State made no such statement and was referring to a letter that he had written to the chairman of British Rail this morning.

I do not think that that is a matter for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will limit transport supplementary grant to capital expenditure.

I am considering the future of TSG and I shall be consulting the local authority associations in a month or two.

In considering the future of the TSG, will my hon. Friend take account of concern about the widespread variations between regions, and between local authorities within a region, on the percentage of their accepted capital expenditure that is covered by the TSG? I cite Hereford and Worcester as an obvious example. Will my hon. Friend also take account of the opinion that part of the underspend is attributable to that and also to the manipulation of the threshold?

I appreciate the widespread concern being expressed about the variations. However, when looking at the per capita spending, authority by authority, I must conclude that some areas will need more resources in the second half of the decade than they have received in the past. That, by implication, obviously means that others will have reduced resources.

When the Minister considers the transport supplementary grant, will she bear in mind that the authorities which she has just mentioned receive very few complaints from the many thousands who travel on the transport services in those areas? Will she have full consultations with those passengers, and with the ratepayers in those areas, before she takes any decision about altering the TSG?

That is exactly what we propose. As I said in my first reply, we propose to have discussions with the local authority associations.

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

I expect to receive very shortly the report by the group of British and French banks studying the possibility of market financing of the various Channel link schemes. Thereafter, I will discuss with my French counterpart how we should proceed. Meanwhile all options, including reliance on shipping services, remain open.

As there is no shortage of efficient and reasonably priced means of cross-Channel communication, will my right hon. Friend give us an absolute undertaking that he will not agree to taxpayers' funds being assigned to this project or guarantees given on the taxpayers' behalf? The tunnel is outdated and costly nonsense. In particular, can he give us an absolute assurance that he will not involve himself in discussions which might lead to the financing of this white elephant from so-called Eurofunds as part of a package designed to ease the increase of Britain's resources to the EEC?

I do not know what proposals will be before us, but I can assure my hon. Friend that neither taxpayers' money nor guarantees will be available for commercial risks. The Government will have to facilitate access to the tunnel, but that is a very different matter from giving guarantees. Until I have received the report, I cannot go further than that.

I recognise that it would be very much more expensive to construct a combined road and rail link, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the possibility of driving themselves to the Continent would be attractive to motorists, while the possibility of driving their cars on to a train might prove rather less attractive?

My hon. Friend may well be right about that, but the question whether investors would be prepared to raise the extra sums necessary to provide a straight road link is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the commercial judgment of those who may promote such a link.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport which is the last section of the London orbital M25 motorway planned for completion; and what is the latest estimated date of its completion.

The last section will be Micklefield Green to South Mimms. Estimated completion date is autumn 1986.

I welcome the fact that the Government have made the construction of a London orbital motorway a priority scheme, and I welcome the progress made so far. However, is my hon. Friend still reasonably confident that the final section can be completed in under three years, given the present state of progress? Also, has any estimate been made of likely congestion on the existing roads in the area of the last section? Unless careful plans are made for distributing the traffic, there will be considerable congestion.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I hope that, whatever the results of the public inquiries, it will be possible to complete the road by autumn 1986. While the final section is under construction we shall signpost roads to direct traffic in such a way as to use the trunk roads to best advantage and avoid congestion of unsuitable roads in the area. I shall ensure that that matter receives the close attention of the Department in the latter part of 1986, before the M25 is brought fully into use.

What is the Minister's assessment of the effect of the London orbital motorway on existing main roads in the London area? Will not conditions on the north circular road, Archway road and the south circular road be significantly improved by the construction of the orbital motoway, even if no improvements are made to those roads themselves?

There is no doubt that the M25 London orbital road will make a significant difference to that traffic not needing to come within its bounds. There is no doubt also that a great deal of traffic inevitably has to come in to some part of the centre for the 9 million of us who live in London. It is sensible that in whatever plans the Department puts forward it takes close note of which roads are suitable and what improvements are necessary, not just to have a free flow of traffic, but to prevent residents being unduly disturbed by traffic which should not be on residential roads.

When will the whole of the M25 south-western sector, consisting of three more contracts — Reigate-Leatherhead, the Leatherhead interchange and the Leatherhead-Wisley interchange — be open? When all three are open, they will give substantial relief to my constitutents.

The Leatherhead-Wisley section will open in the autumn this year. The Leatherhead interchange and the Reigate-Leatherhead section will open in spring 1985, all being well.

Does the Minister accept that the M25's effectiveness in the south-east will be undermined by the decision to maintain tolls for the Dartford tunnel? In view of the strong views of county councils and other local authorities in the area, will the Government reconsider their decision not to take the Dartford tunnel into the trunk road network?

That is a much wider matter. The Dartford tunnels were built with the full consent of the Essex and Kent authorities which now administer them. I know that many people would like toll-free tunnels, but there is no doubt that the tunnels give an advantage, and that advantage must be paid for. I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman any assurance that the Dartford tunnel will be made toll-free. The Government are spending an additional £15 million to streamline the system through the Dartford tunnel by the provision of new approach roads and toll plazas. That will be beneficial to all travellers on the M25, regardless of the tolls.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will be in a position to make a statement about the proposed speed limit for the A59 between Mellor Brook and Samlesbury in Lancashire.

I have already written to my hon. Friend explaining why I cannot agree to a reduction in the speed limit on the A59 between Mellor Brook and Salmesbury.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents and their elected local government representatives will be disappointed by her reply? Recognising that the advice of her officials, and particularly the Lancashire county police, is such that she has no option, does she agree that it is now up to those local representatives to bring pressure to bear on the police locally to persuade them of the merits of the case, if there are any?

This has been a difficult matter, as I think, my hon. Friend knows. The campaign for reducing the speed limit on this stretch of road began in 1982 when, I regret to say, there were an unrepresentatively high number of accidents. Whereas there were 12 accidents in 1982, the 1983 figures are down, thankfully, to five accidents. That is in no small part due to the fact that we took the advice given to us and last February completed the removal of the three-lane system reducing it to two lanes. That has stopped people taking unnecessary chances when overtaking and made them far more conscious of the importance of being absolutely sure before overtaking. I understand the disappointment about our decision, but I believe that it would be wrong to impose a limit, which would not necessarily solve the problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will increase the level of expenditure on the trunk road and motorway programme.

I have already done so. Planned expenditure in 1984–85 will be £805 million, a 13 per cent. increase over 1983–84, which is approximately 6 per cent. in real terms.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many industrialists take the view that this is one form of public expenditure which might reduce industrial costs and thus aid the recovery? How many schemes are proposed for next year, and what is their value and the mileage involved?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The figures also represent a switch from current spending to capital spending, which we have often been urged to undertake. Next year there will be an increase over 1983–84 of 17 per cent. in the spend on the road programme, and in 1986–87, of 22 per cent. My hon. Friend asked about the number of road projects. I could give him a full list of projects in the programme, but the main ones that we are undertaking are the completion of the M25, the widening of the M1, the M40 Oxford to Birmingham plus the A1-M1 link.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the British Road Federation report accuses the Government of insufficient investment in the road programme and of having no clear policy for roads? Can he inform the House whether he or his Department have rejected tolls on motorways and are considering the recommendations by the BRF for tax-free bonds for pop stars? Can we envisage Tom Jones coming from his tax haven and speeding down to Wales on the Tom Jones motorway? Will that be a means of financing our motorways?

I expect that Tom Jones speeds down motorways in any case. We have rejected the idea of tolls on motorways in general, apart from the two aerial crossings. The best way to provide the roads that we need is to get the biggest programme that we can. The figures that I gave show that we have an increasing programme of expenditure on trunk roads and motorways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of fatal or serious road casualties over the Christmas period in 1982 and in 1983.

In 1982 there were 872 fatal and serious casualties between 24 and 28 December. The 1983 figures are not yet available. Comparisons between one year and another need to be made with care. However, I am hopeful that the 1983 figures will reflect both the increased public awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving that has resulted from our recent campaign, and the benefits of compulsory seat belt wearing.

I welcome the encouraging trend in the figures given by my hon. Friend. Does she recognise that there is one sad side effect? Fewer kidneys and other vital organs are available for transplant. Could her Department give any assistance or encouragement?

I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the apparent reduction in casualties. My Department already encourages people to give organs for transplant by sending out donor cards with licences to those who apply for provisional licences. I hope that everyone in the House will carry such cards.

I welcome the reduction in the number of casualties. However, does the Minister accept that there are still three times more accidents than there were after the first three years of the drink and driving legislation? Is she further aware of the controversially different policies pursued by chief constables, some of whom have imposed breath tests on between 4,000 and 7,000 people, with a success rate of 2 per cent., compared to the average of 150 breath tests, with a success rate of 50 per cent? Does that not seem to be a march towards random testing? Will she get together with the Home Office and assess the full effect of the results so that the House can judge whether random testing has reduced the number of accidents? Such decisions should be taken by the House, not by chief constables.

In the three years following the introduction of breath testing in 1967 there was a lower percentage of fatalities—about 20 per cent.—where the driver had over the legal limit of alcohol in the blood. The hon. Gentleman is right about that. However, the real question is not random testing but the unrestricted power to test. The House decisively rejected that in 1981. We should give the 1981 legislation, which was introduced only in 1983, a chance, and see how effective it can be, while reminding people of the dangers of drinking and driving. After a year we shall be better able to judge. I am not in favour of random testing, and the police do not want it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the European Council of Ministers about heavy lorries.

Lorry weights and dimensions were discussed at the two meetings of the Transport Council in December. I also pressed strongly for the early removal of restrictions on road haulage in the Community, but the Council's inability to make progress on weights, largely because of difficulties raised by the Italians, prevented any progress on liberalisation.

Is my right hon Friend aware that many constituencies in the Greater London area, including my own, are sorely affected by heavy lorries? Will he balance the demands of the commercial world, following the Wood report, with the essential environmental needs of the community?

The completion of the M25 will be of considerable help to my hon. Friend's constituency. I believe also that when we trunk the south circular road, on the abolition of the Greater London council, we shall be able to make further improvements that will help my hon. Friend's constituents with the problem of heavy lorries. I hope that those two possibilities are of some help to my hon. Friend. I fear that none of that arises from my visits to Brussels and the Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with British Rail about its programme for replacement of rolling stock.

Following recent meetings with the chairman, we have today written to him giving approval to the board's proposal to build 150 new lightweight diesel multiple units.

Can my hon. Friend quantify how much extra work this will mean for British Rail Engineering Ltd?

British Rail will be putting this matter to competitive tender. Whether BREL gets the work will depend on its competitive tender quotation. I have visited several BREL workshops and I was impressed by the high standard of skill.

The Minister has complimented the British Rail engineering works on its skill, but if he is not prepared to lift a finger to prevent the redundancies in railway communities throughout the country, such as Shildon in my constituency, will he at least urge the chairman of British Rail to set up a job-hunting agency, which will give some chance of prosperity to those communities?

At each closure of a BREL workshop special arrangements have been made by British Rail, generally in co-operation with local enterprise agencies, to help create new jobs in those areas.

Does the Minister recognise, welcome though his announcement may be, although there are no firm orders for specific shops that the lack of sufficient firm orders, which would allow the workshops to plan, is leading directly to the redundancies affecting constitutencies such as mine? Will he accept that until the Government go ahead with a proper programme of electrification and build within the workshops we shall experience more and more redundancies, until the workshops that he has praised are finally closed?

Orders for British Rail's requirements are determined by its needs and not by the capacity of its workshops. It is nothing new for any factory or industry not to know years and years ahead what its orders will be. That depends upon its competitiveness and ability to win orders.

Does the Secretary of State know whether the present level of rolling stock is the highest that any Government have funded?

I do not know whether it is the highest number. The Government have approved in the past four months major investments — the Tonbridge-Hastings line, new electrical multiple units, the DMUs, which were announced today, and the Cambridge-Bishop's Stortford electrification. There have been several other projects which British Rail has carried out which did not require the Government's consent.

Will the Minister accept that BREL has already produced an acceptable prototype of the light railbus in conjunction with British Leyland, and that BREL is equipped to complete the order in the required time? Is it not a fact—the Minister should convince his hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) among others of this — that the uncertainties in the placing of orders with BREL arise from the Government's Serpell-inspired directive to BRB to put tendering for railway construction on to the open market, whether or not it makes commercial sense? Will the Minister appreciate that what we want are not honeyed words about the efficiency of the work force of British Rail Engineering Ltd., but jobs for those men?

British Rail must get the best value for money for the purchases that it makes.

asked the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor will satisfy himself that future appointments to the judiciary are drawn from a balanced and wide background.

The Lord Chancellor appoints or recommends for judicial appointment the best candidates from the available field, regardless of background.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if a large majority of judges came from a background associated with, and had the political viewpoint of, the Labour movement, there would be considerable disquiet on the Tory Benches? Does he therefore recognise our concern about the present position? If the practice is to be that senior civil servants consult senior judges over controversial legislation — such as occurred recently in connection with industrial relations—is it not all the more necessary for judges to have a wider background in all respects than is the case today?

If one examines the appointments made by Lord Chancellors since the war—the time during which I have been observing whom they have appointed—one finds that they have come from all sides of the political spectrum Labour members have been appointed by Conservative Lord Chancellors and vice versa. It is necessary to have to perform this important task those who are best qualified in all ways.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the British public want no changes whatever in the system for the appointment of judges—[Interruption.]— that the judges are truly independent, that they are, as Bacon said, the lions under the throne, and that we wish them to stay where they are?

I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are drawn to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.

If the Attorney-General, in line with his colleagues on the Government Front Bench, wants to carry democracy a little further—and believes that trade union leaders and others must be elected every 10 years and that there should be ballots for this, that and the other—why do we not have ballots for judges, recorders and magistrates, instead of many of them being appointed to the higher echelons of the judiciary straight from the Tory party and the freemasons?

The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair, and I think that he knows it, although his remarks are in line with what we expect from him. We have seen, in some countries where the system of the election of judges is followed, the disasters that can occur. Our system, which we have had for many years, is effective and fair and I should not like to see it changed.

I appreciate the personal interest which the Attorney-General has taken in giving practical encouragement to young people to come to the profession. Is not the heart of the matter for the long-term future the need to widen substantially recruitment to the profession? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see how the present system of discretionary grants is working and whether it might be extended and improved to enable people of all classes, including those with very limited, or no means to enter the profession?

As for university grants, those intending to read law are treated in exactly the same way as others intending to obtain degrees at universities. We might look again at grants from local authorities to people who have done a short period of post-school educational work and then intend to take up the law. I have had some cases in my constituency where applicants have perhaps been unfairly treated.

asked the Attorney-General in what circumstances the Lord Chancellor issues guidance to the judiciary.

The Lord Chancellor never issues guidance as to how any individual case should be decided. In view, however, of his responsibilities as head of the judiciary and as the Minister answerable to Parliament for the administration of justice, it may fall to the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the senior judiciary, and often at their request, to give general advice and guidance in connection with those responsibilities.

Is it not wrong that the Master of the Rolls should have had discussions on politically sensitive matters with a senior civil servant in 1982, apparently without the knowledge of the Lord Chancellor, who has since had to remind judges that they should keep him informed on such matters? Does the Attorney-General approve of that practice, which breaches the long-standing rule about separation of the judiciary from the Executive? Was he aware of the meeting in question, as the Lord Chancellor was not?

It is right to get the facts. In 1975 the present Master of the Rolls gave an address at the annual general meeting of the Industrial Law Society. It was interesting and, in a sense, quite provocative and was reported in full in the Industrial Law Journal of 1975. As we know, Mr. Quinlan saw the present Master of the Rolls in 1982 to discuss the address and the views expressed by someone of great experience in that area of the law. The text of the report — I am not sure whether this information has been disclosed before — was never shown to a Minister. It was used by the senior civil servant concerned for his own use. There was no political twist to the case, because the report was never shown to a Minister. Judges are often consulted in confidence on matters in which they have special expertise. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Lord Chancellor has said that in future it would be wise for judges to consult him first if they are to be asked for their views in confidence. The Lord Chancellor has invited his colleagues in Government to do the same.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in Wolverhampton last week the magistrates fined somebody who had three time's the legal limit of alcohol in his blood and had never passed a driving test only £200, although he had killed somebody as a result of his reckless driving? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consult the Lord Chancellor about issuing advice to magistrates in such cases?

It is important to recognise the difference between the Lord Chancellor speaking about a particular decision, which, of course, he cannot do as such action would immediately invite the attack that the Executive is interfering with the judiciary, and speaking generally on sentencing. As the House knows, it is intended to give the Court of Appeal the same power with regard to sentences as it already has with regard to points of law on convictions that have been referred by the Attorney-General, although the case in question would not have the sentence altered.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask that the Lord Chancellor tell, instruct and advise the judiciary to stop imposing nominal and pathetic penalties on companies and individuals who kill and maim people at work and are convicted under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974? Will he draw to their attention the power to imprison and impose condign penalties, as a person who is murdered as a result: of negligence in a place of work is just as dead as he would be if he were slaughtered on a road?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are cases in which the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice issue practice directions. The proposal to give the Court of Appeal the chance to review some sentences will be useful. I look forward to it becoming part of the law.

I find it difficult to understand how a senior civil servant should have something "for his own use," to quote the Attorney-General. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman invite the Lord Chancellor to underline the importance of the judiciary being independent of the Executive and being seen to be independent of the Executive? Will the Lord Chancellor ensure that, in future, correspondence between the Executive and the judiciary and details of any meetings pertaining thereto are made public? Will he also ensure that in circumstances, such as individual cases, when it might be disadvantageous to publicise details, the fact that correspondence has taken place will be made public? Would that not help to guard against the suggestion that the judiciary is politically involved in any way?

There must be many occasions when those involved, such as the Lord Chancellor or the Home Office, who are concerned with the creation of a new offence, would want to consult the judiciary on what it believes is the appropriate penalty, or on whether an existing offence needs to remain on the statute book. I cannot believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman expects that, in those cases, there will be full publication of what is necessarily a confidential discussion and exchange of correspondence.

asked the Attorney-General what action he plans to take in the light of the report of the Lord Chancellor's legal aid advisory committee.

The Lord Chancellor is considering the report, which was published on 14 December.

Will the Government act on the law centre proposals, in particular the suggestions that they should be funded by central Government, that they should be the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor and that there is an urgent need for ministerial direction on funding? Would that not help to change the situation which largely exists at present, where the ability to enforce one's legal rights depends on how much money one has?

The committee's recommendations on law centres and their future funding are being urgently considered by the Lord Chancellor. The hon. Lady well knows that at present arrangements for their funding are diverse and that more than one Ministry has a share in those arrangements. It is important that any revision should get it right. I know that there is impatience that this has taken so long, but my noble Friend is anxious to reach a conclusion as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the names of current projects involving more than £10 million of United Kingdom Government aid overseas.

The list comprises 31 projects, each involving from £10 million to £117 million of United Kingdom aid funds, in 16 different countries. The total amounts to £985 million. Details will be published in the Official Report.

I recognise that these projects account for the greater proportion of our total overseas aid programme. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that these larger projects bring great benefits not only to the recipient countries but to many British firms and companies and that, not least, they provide many jobs for British people?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He might also like to know that 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid in 1982 was wholly tied to British goods and services.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all these large projects now include a population component where appropriate?

I cannot say that all these large projects necessarily include a population component, but it is one of the factors that we look at throughout our development programme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that to many people in Britain overseas aid is important and popular, particularly with regard to medical and agricultural help? Will he bear that in mind in future aid programmes, in particular with the medical input of our overseas aid programme?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I endorse what he says. Last week in India I saw both medical and agricultural projects of great value with which we are assisting.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration has been given to providing additional aid to Grenada.

As I informed the House on 28 November, we have already provided a grant of £750,000 to help meet Grenada's immediate development needs, and plans for spending that sum are well advanced. We are also examining longer-term development requirements with the authorities in Grenada and will be making an early assessment of the needs for additional assistance, taking account of the attitude of other donors and multilateral agencies.

On reflection, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it was wrong for the Government to have stopped aid to the previous Administration? Would not such aid have prevented the developments that have taken place on the island? Are the Government getting their priorities right when so little is spent on overseas development compared with the £2,000 million to be spent in the next three years in the Falkland Islands on military purposes?

No. I believe that the decision to reduce substantially our aid programme to Grenada under its previous Government was right, because that regime was not interested in either human or political rights. As to the scale of our present level of assistance, we are not providing that sum of money to the Falkland Islands in development terms. In Grenada we are coming forward with a sensible and practical programme that will be of direct and real relevance.

Will my right hon. Friend explain how he comes to the view that overseas aid is to be justified on the grounds of its popularity?

I think my hon. Friend must be aware that, while not everybody in this country is over-keen about overseas aid, there are nevertheless very large numbers of people, often, but not always, closely associated with the Churches, who are very firm in informing me and, indeed hon. Members, of the importance of our aid and development programme.

Will the Minister confirm that Plesseys will be allowed to finish building the airport in Grenada? Will he give an assurance that it will not be used for military purposes by the Americans?

I certainly hope that Plesseys will be able to finish the contract for the airport in Grenada. Talks are going on with the Grenadian authorities, I understand, and with the Americans to that effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the aid programme is currently used to support the agencies of the United Nations.

In 1982–83, out of an aid programme of £1·033 million, over £47 million, or 4½ per cent., was used to support agencies of the United Nations, and a further 17 per cent. for the World Bank group.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that Mr. Clausen described the resources available in the future to the International Development Association as gravely inadequate, following the disgraceful behaviour of the American Government at the recent negotiations? What representations are the Government making to the Reagan Government about that disgraceful behaviour? After all the fine words that we have had from the Minister and other Government spokesmen about the splendid work of the International Development Association, how does he account for the fact that the British Government are lowering their share and their contribution compared with other countries such as France, Norway and Spain, which are increasing their share and their contributions, partly to compensate for what the Americans have failed to do?

We have urged the Americans on a number of occasions to go for a level of funding that would be above the level that has emerged at present. We regret that it is not higher. As far as our own contribution is concerned, we are prepared to contribute a share that is above our GNP proportion.

In view of the many criticisms of UNESCO that have been made in recent months, will my right hon. Friend consider transferring part of our annual subscription from that body to the British Council, which can use the money more effectively and more wisely?

We have thought very carefully about UNESCO over recent months. We have decided to remain a member for the time being, but to make it clear to UNESCO that we think radical reforms are necessary. We shall review how far these have been carried out towards the end of the coming year, and then consider the whole position.

Will the Minister hold a departmental inquiry into some of the specialised United Nations agencies, in particular, the World Health Organisation, the ILO and the Food and Agricultural Organisation, with a view to preventing the overlapping of activities and expenditure? Is he aware that funds are often duplicated?

I accept that there is an overlapping between United Nations agencies, and I can name other examples which the hon. Gentleman has not quoted. Whether these can be resolved by a departmental inquiry. I am not sure, but I believe it is right that we should continually press for greater efficiency in the United Nations organisations where that is needed.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that money spent by non-Government organisations, such as Oxfam, on small projects is infinitely more effective for the people on the ground and that less of it filters out in bribery of one sort or another?

I should say to my hon. Friend that I think the money spent by the voluntary agencies is often of the greatest value. I saw an Oxfam-supported project in Calcutta only a few days ago that bears that out fully. However, I think it would be wrong to imply that projects supported by Governments are without considerable value. I believe that overall the record of the British-supported programme is very good.

If the Minister is to undertake some kind of inquiry into claimed overlapping between the FAO, the ILO and other bodies, will he make a statement to the House about the nature of that inquiry? Secondly, may we have some assurance that he will not in this respect be coat-tailing the United States Administration, who seem determined, without proper investigation or study, to withhold their funds from those agencies?

The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) was proposing such an inquiry, rather than me. As I say, I think that we need to look very carefully at what UNESCO is doing, and I strongly believe that it can be done very much better.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement indicating what criteria were employed in deciding to allocate aid funds to the Southern African development co-ordination conference.

Our pledges were made to help conference member countries to take practical measures that will contribute effectively to their greater economic development and co-ordination.

Does not this organisation follow ideas and criteria almost identical to those of the new international economic order which, as my right hon. Friend knows, is neither new nor international nor economic? Is it sensible for British taxpayers' funds to be used to subsidise an organisation whose prime purpose is to make water run uphill?

No, Sir. My hon. Friend is too hard. The projects that we are supporting through the SADCC are of value in helping the countries that belong to it to step up their own developments. The regional co-operation, especially in transport, which the SADCC encourages, can be of real value.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the revelations in The Observer yesterday about the Cementation contract, in which the Prime Minister and her son Mark were involved in a great deal of lobbying, I wonder whether any representations have been made by the Prime Minister's Office about a full statement being made from the Dispatch Box so that right hon. and hon. Members could question the right hon. Lady about the role that she and her son played in getting that contract. I remind the House that the right hon. Lady said on television yesterday that she lobbied on behalf of British firms which wanted to get contracts overseas. However, her own Ministry of Defence, straight after the Falklands war, refused to give a contract to a firm just outside my constituency and allowed it to go to a Swedish firm even though it had not submitted the lowest tender.

I do not think that that arises out of Question Time today. There will be other opportunities to raise the matter.