asked the Secretary of State for Transport if the current consultation on airline competition policy will also include an investigation of competition between airports as well.

In its consultation letter the Civil Aviation Authority indicated that it will be considering the competitive imbalance between airports as well as between British Airways and other British airlines.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no competition between airports at present? The Civil Aviation Authority designates the airport and the air service licence, and the operator has no choice. Is there any reason why, following the denationalisation of the British Airports Authority, which I trust is still high on my right hon. Friend's agenda, the rules should not be changed so that licences specify, for example, just London without specifying which airport, thus leaving the three London airports to compete for the airline's business?

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are reviewing the options on how to introduce private capital into the British Airports Authority. Most air service agreements that are negotiated internationally merely designate London. In view of the pressure on Heathrow, the licence specifies the airport in order to steer operators away from Heathrow.

Will the Minister take the opportunity of telling the House and British Midland Airways that he will not allow it to land transatlantic flights at Glasgow airport and thus kill off, by unfair competition, Prestwick airport and ensure its closure?

That is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority, but appeals can be taken to Ministers. It would be improper for me to make any comment at this stage.

Will the consultations include a discussion on the absurd situation whereby the British Airports Authority is sustained almost entirely by duty-free shops? Will there be consideration of the sensible proposal, which I have made a number of times already, that duty-free shops should be at the point of arrival rather than the point of departure?

I take note of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but it does not arise at this stage.

If, as my hon. Friend suggested, it remains the Government's policy and preferred approach to attract airline traffic away from the congested Heathrow, presumably towards the underutilised Gatwick, will he explain why the British Airports Authority is proposing to increase landing charges at Gatwick by 10 per cent. from April, while leaving landing charges at Heathrow unchanged?

I would think that the landing charges at Heathrow are high enough as they are. It is for the British Airports Authority to choose how it gains its net income. It has a target which it is expected to achieve.

Did the Minister read this weekend the British Airways evidence to the CAA? It makes it clear that privatisation is irrelevant to competition or the sound development of the aviation industry in the United Kingdom. If the CAA comes to the same conclusion, will the Minister reconsider his obsession with privatisation, which does little for competition and robs the taxpayer of his investment?

We are considering all the options at present for introducing private capital into the BAA.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress on the drafting of the European Community directive on motor insurance; and when he expects to lay the directive before Parliament.

I am pleased to say that the directive was adopted on 30 December 1983. My officials are in touch with insurers with a view to producing workable proposals for its implementation, on which I intend to consult representative bodies.

My hon. Friend has been most helpful in the matter. She will know that, as the law stands, innocent parties to a motor accident can suffer unfairly. As it will be some time, I understand, before the directive, if it is agreed, can be implemented in member countries, will my hon. Friend keep an open mind and try to implement the provisions of the directive earlier in this country, if necessary?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome to the directive. As he and other hon. Members may know, member states are required to amend their legislation by 31 December 1987 and to bring the changes into effect by 31 December 1988. However, I hope that it will be possible to introduce the amendments as soon as we are ready to do so after thorough consultation in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.

I shall be meeting the chairman of British Rail later this week to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Will the Secretary of State tell the chairman that he does not think much of his attempts to muzzle the criticism of railway managers about the appalling level of investment in the industry? Does he not accept that it is ludicrous to claim that the railways have enough investment, when he has lopped £200 million off what they wanted, and when in 1981–82 the British Railways Board called for more investment? Does he accept that hon. Members, the railway unions and the travelling public know that more investment is needed for a proper service, and that we shall go on arguing that case?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The external financing limit, at £953 million this year, is unlikely to be reached by the railways. The level for next year, of £936 million, is exactly what British Rail asked for. We have not reduced the figure it sought. With regard to the future, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that there is no constraint upon investment by BR provided that that investment is viable.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to reach agreement with the chairman of British Rail, and quickly deal with any obstacles that may remain, so that the electrification of the east coast line can proceed as quickly as possible?

I am still awaiting the final details of the inter-city strategy, which it is necessary to have before we can take a decision on the east coast main line electrification project. As soon as we receive them we shall move as speedily as possible to a decision.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of British Rail, will he undertake, if the subject of the possible change of the Marylebone railway to an express bus route is discussed, to receive at the same time a deputation, led by me, of the transport committee of the London borough of Brent, because its roads and services would be badly affected?

The first question in relation to Marylebone will be whether British Rail puts in an application to close the station and the line, in which case the matter will probably come to me on appeal. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to say anything in advance of those submissions. However, I am always absolutely delighted to see the hon. Gentleman and his friends on any subject at any time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of any intention by British Rail to promote a private Member's Bill for the construction of a rail link to Stansted, ahead of any decision by the Government to develop that airport further?

I am surrounded by such questions. I would be in a quasi-judicial position if I answered them. I cannot comment on anything to do with Stansted either. However, I confirm to my hon. Friend that no such application has reached me.

In view of the letter which the chairman of the British Railways Board is supposed to have sent to the top brass and others, when the Secretary of State meets the chairman this week will he tell him that his services are no longer required because he has let the railways and railwaymen down?

The hon. Gentleman does less than justice to the chairman of British Rail. He has done a remarkable job since becoming chairman to pull the railway together and to improve its efficiency without restricting services in any way. The hon. Gentleman would further his cause a little better if he stopped taking such a negative and critical attitude.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he congratulate him on the excellent investment that is being made in the Gatwick line? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that that investment will be able to continue further down the line in future?

I shall be happy to pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations. Considerable efforts have been put into improving the service to Gatwick in every respect. As for further down the line, I suggest that my hon. Friend writes to the chairman. Especially after the kind words that he has said about him today, he might give my hon. Friend a favourable answer.

With regard to the original question whether the chairman of British Rail was right to attempt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, to muzzle railway management, will the Secretary of State concede that Mr. Bob Reid has been a senior executive of British Rail for many years and presumably put his name to the 1981–82 corporate plan, which demanded more investment, and that for him now to say that there is sufficient investment in the railways shows that either he did not do his sums properly in the first place, or that kowtowing to the right hon. Gentleman is one of his conditions or terms of employment?

That allegation is also totally unworthy. It is not necessarily the case that the more investment the better. The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to ground nuts. That was not necessarily a good thing. The investment with which the railways have been provided under the Government and the investment that it wants for the future will be provided, provided that the investment is sound.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what were the amounts of Government subsidy to the British Railways Board for the years 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983, respectively.

Central Government public service obligation grant was as follows: 1979, £485 million; 1980, £576 million; 1981, £749 million; 1982, £817 million; 1983, £819 million, subject to adjustment.

When the Minister talks about the chairman of British Rail doing his best to pull the railways together, will he and his colleagues bear in mind that the attitude of the general public is that the chairman is doing his best to pull the railways apart? Is the Minister aware that, no matter how much it sounds as though investment is increasing, the reality is that lines are ready to close, people are fearful of their jobs, fewer trains run, there are fewer coaches per train and many lines such as that from St. Pancras to Sheffield are now regarded by railway men and the public as in grave danger of disappearing because of the Serpell report being introduced by the back door, the Bow group report which was published today and many other reports, which seem to be emerging simply to destroy our railways?

I resent the continuing attacks upon British Rail. Far from the chairman doing his best to pull the railways apart, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will find that no major changes in the timetable are anticipated this year and that there will be consolidation. Moreover, there have been substantial improvements as a result of the introduction of high-speed trains last year.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the British Railways Board has secured the right amount of external financing limit? Will my hon. Friend encourage the board to invest up to that level, which it has not done previously?

I do not expect that the external financing limit will impose any constraints on British Rail's investment intentions this year.

Will the Minister tell British Rail that it must not go ahead with its proposal to close Ardrossan harbour station as that would clash very heavily with the Government's policy to help island communities? The closure of that station would adversely affect the tourist trade and local business men on the island of Arran.

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's views to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.

Do not the figures that my hon. Friend has given indicate that, far from cutting the railways, the Government have increased support from the level of £485 million under a Labour Government to £819 million under this Government? Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to remind the Opposition that the railway mileage was cut far more dramatically under the last Labour Government than it ever was under a Conservative Government?

The increase in constant prices has been some £83 million since 1979. I can say to my hon. Friend that we do not regard subsidy as a virility symbol and we are delighted that British Rail anticipates being able to operate with less.

Will the Minister, with some of his Back Benchers, look at the reality for British Rail, which is the adding together of its revenue returns and the PSO grants? If the hon. Gentleman adds those figures together he will realise the difficulty that British Rail has in raising sufficient money to meet its investment requirements. The EFL is not the requirement, it is the amount of money available for investment. That is the reality for British Rail, and it is about time the Government recognised it.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The problem is not the limitation on money, but finding viable investment projects that are worth while.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the Greater London council in respect of its proposed ban on heavy lorries in the Greater London area at nights and weekends; and if he will make a statement.

I have made it clear to the GLC that I would want to consider very carefully all the evidence upon which a night time and weekend lorry ban was proposed. I would not support measures which inflicted damage on London's economy, and I will not hesitate to use my reserve powers if necessary.

I welcome that reply, but is my right hon. Friend aware that this proposed ban would have a particularly devastating effect upon the major supermarket companies, increasing their costs and their prices, and threatening at least 8,000 jobs in depots in the Greater London area? Will he continue to do all that he can to curb the GLC's madness in this respect?

My hon. Friend is quite right. I gather, for instance, that Marks and Spencer, which has a turnover of £600 million in London, providing 14,000 jobs, has already decided to locate its next food depot outside London if there is such a ban, and Sainsbury's has said that 1,296 jobs would be at risk if the ban were implemented. Those are the sorts of considerations which I expect the GLC to take into account before doing anything rash.

Does the Secretary of State agree that there has so far been no substantive proposal from the GLC? Does he not agree that there is still room for improvement in the delicate balance between environment, transport and employment?

I agree with the vague statement with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his question, but I also point out that we have had no view from the Opposition Front Bench on this matter. Do we take silence to mean that the Opposition agree that the GLC would be making a grievous mistake if it pursued this stupid plan?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it affects not just supermarkets, important though they are? All of us who rely on the Nine Elms fruit and vegetable market will start wondering how supplies will be brought into London at night time so that they can be bought during the day.

In view of that point, with which I entirely agree, I have asked the GLC whether it intends at least to hold a public inquiry into this proposal.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we on this side of the House at least are prepared to consider the views of the Wood report on the question and to let these decisions rest with the elected representatives of Londoners on the other side of the river? Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we are not interested in making political points in favour of heavy lorries in order to guarantee an even further boost to the Conservative party's treasury from heavy goods vehicle operators?

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman is finding such difficulty in combining a posture of sitting on the fence with being in the pocket of the GLC.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to estuarial crossings.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 24 October 1983 to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). The policy of successive Governments has been that estuarial crossings should be paid for by users.

Is my hon. Friend aware of local concern about the completion of the M25 and its impact on the Dartford tunnel? Is she further aware that there has been support for the provision of finance for new toll booths at the entrance to the tunnel? Can she give an assurance that the toll booths will be manned on all occasions so that delays or bottlenecks are not caused on the M25?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming the pleasing nature of the £17 million investment in the approach roads and toll booths. I well understand local consternation. As an occasional user of the tunnel, I hear the comments of those on either side of it. However, the manning of the toll booths is a matter for the tunnel authority. I am sure that it would not have come forward with proposals to extend toll booths if it were not prepared thoroughly to man them, in view of the amount of traffic passing through.

Will the Minister explain why, if we as a nation are prepared to pay for major trunk roads as part of the general expenditure of the Department, we are not prepared to do the same with estuarial crossings, be they tunnels or bridges, when they link major roads?

When the Department decides to invest in major trunk roads it takes into account any estuarial crossings that might be involved. But if a local authority builds an estuarial crossing on its own account with a debt of more than £140 million, which has now risen to £186 million, as in the case of the Humber bridge, it cannot expect the general taxpayer and the Government to take on the debts into which it freely entered.

Whatever the merits of the argument for estuarial crossings, does my hon. Friend accept that there are alternatives to the Dartford tunnel, which would involve much traffic coming into London only to go out again to join the M25? Does she accept that there will continue to be a great deal of pressure on the Dartford tunnel?

I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. There is a great benefit to motorists in carrying on around the M25 and through the Dartford tunnel. However, the introduction of tolls has enabled us to have substantial additions to our transport infrastructure, and they must be paid for. What happens in future is a matter for further decision.

Has the Minister considered the proposal by the Merseyside county council for freeing Mersey tunnel users from charges to cross the river? Incidentally, that involves hon. Members coming from her constituency.

Out of that lot, I must tell the House that the Runcorn-Widnes crossing existed long before the second tunnel, which is why the Mersey authority now has a debt of £82 million. My right hon. Friend discussed the whole question of the Mersey tunnel tolls with representatives of the Merseyside county council when it visited us recently. We are awaiting proposals from it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, had not approved the construction of many of the esturial crossings, and approved their financing by tolls, we would not have many of those crossings and the country and the motorist would be very much worse of?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Users of esturial crossings enjoy special benefits because of the saving in time and money that arise from using them rather than going round by a longer route. He is also right to say that without the investment made by individual authorities we would have a far less good road network.

When will the Government make a statement on the repair work on the Severn bridge, and when will there be a statement on the second crossing?

As I said to representatives from Wales last week, there will be a statement very shortly.

Is the Minister not interested in administrative costs? Is it not true that the administrative cost of collecting £100 in tolls from the Forth road bridge is 14 times that of collecting the same amount through income tax?

That is a question for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider upgrading the A12 to motorway standard.

No, Sir. When schemes now under construction and programmed are completed, the A12 will be a high standard dual carriageway from London to north of Ipswich. We could not justify the cost in money and the effect on the environment of upgrading the road to motorway standard, which would include providing a separate facility for non-motorway traffic.

In view of the tremendous increase in trade through east coast ports to the EC and elsewhere—reflecting the success of other Government policies—and the huge increase in the volume of traffic using the A12, will my hon. Friend undertake to make a fresh study of traffic levels to establish whether there would be any justification for upgrading that important road to motorway status?

We have taken the factors involved into account—including the growth of the east coast ports—in assessing the need for improvements to the A12. By the end of 1986 we shall have completed all the improvements except one small one, which is scheduled for the end of the decade. After 1986 there will be a continuous dual carriageway from the southern end of the A12 to the north of Ipswich, and that will help.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that the timetable changes proposed on British Rail southern region will not adversely affect the interests of commuters.

Timetable decisions are a matter for the Railways Board. It is seeking to improve the match between supply and demand.

At a recent meeting between the general manager of British Rail southern region my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and myself, the general manager conceded that the reductions — the third in eight years in the south of England—are caused by having to match his potential for providing services with the finance available. He also went on to say that the reductions will lead to an occupancy rate of 135 per cent. in many commuter trains running into London, that it is southern region's intention to increase fares in real terms by 1 per cent. each year and that southern region's commuters, under this Administration, will face paying Pullman prices for cattle truck conditions.

The hon. Gentleman has failed to take into account the fact that substantial improvements have been made in some areas of the southern region as the board of British Rail has sought to match supply and demand. For example, there are the services to East Croydon, Reigate, Horsham, Portsmouth, Hayes, Tonbridge and Dartford, and there is the new non-stop service to Gatwick. The hon. Gentleman insists on concentrating on the reductions. If one is to balance supply and demand, there will be improvements and reductions in service at the same time.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that press reports during the Christmas recess about the adverse effects of changes in the timetables were grossly exaggerated? Furthermore, is it not unfair for Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to refer to remarks made by people with whom they have had discussions, when those people are not necessarily in a position to confirm what was said?

I confirm that there have been some scaremongering stories in circulation about the extend of cuts in services. In London and the south-east the cutback amounts to only 2 per cent. of loaded train miles. Across the country it amounts to only 1 per cent.

Will the Minister explain why so many of the planned cuts in southern region fall on southeast London, the forgotten corner of the city in public transport terms, which has no London Transport tube links to the centre and has congested road links? Why should people who depend so heavily upon British Rail find their services so seriously cut?

Because of the changes in the pattern of travel to work. There have been considerable changes in the movement of people coming to and from work, and the railways have sought to match their services to it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that although I have criticised British Rail in the past for failing to consult local Members of Parliament when changing the timetables, I am now satisfied that it has gone out of its way to consult local authorities and passenger organisations and is at least trying, as my hon. Friend said, to match demand with the new timetables, with at least a degree of success, save that it seems to think that life in London, including the Houses of Parliament closes at 11.30 pm?

Some of us might wish that it did. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the consultation processes that British Rail has been going through. After the knocking copy that we have had from the Opposition, I am sure that when I pass those remarks on to the chairman of British Rail he will be grateful.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my supplementary question to question No. 11, I repeated certain figures appertaining to the future of British Rail. I was attacked for doing so by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who implied that I had acted improperly in repeating a conversation between myself and the general manager of the southern region of British Rail. The figures that I gave to the House—on the third cut in eight years in the rail service—are accurate and can be found in the 1983 corporate plan of British Rail. The 135 per cent. load factor for southern region trains — [HON. MEMBERS: "This is not a point of order."] Yes, it is. The load factor figure and the 1 per cent. increase in rail fares can also be found in the plan.

Order. That is more of an explanation than a point of order.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) to say that he was quoting from a meeting that had taken place. It seemed to me that if those remarks were not verifiable they could be unfair. If the facts are as were stated, I accept that, but we shall wish to look at Hansard.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the recent report of the Air Travel Reserve Fund Agency.

We are monitoring the position of the fund in view of payments being made following the Laker collapse, but I see no immediate need to increase it. There is still over £16 million left in the fund.

Will the Minister accept that that reply suggests appalling complacency in view of the stricutures in the report, which mentioned a £2 billion business, currently operating on exceedingly small margins and, therefore, with the probability of a collapse straining the fund and the ABTA/CAA bonds. Will the Minister adopt a more positive attitude to the searching report issued by Sir Kenneth Selby and the other members of the agency and give a much better response, in view of the fact that we shall be debating this matter in an Adjournment debate later this week?

The hon. Gentleman might like to know that even the Laker collapse cost the fund only £6 million. As I said, there is still £16 million left. It is right that I should give my view, because the hon. Gentleman has given his. Mine is that the fund is adequate for the present. The hon. Gentleman will be debating this complex and difficult matter with my hon. Friend. It will be possible to go into it much more deeply on Friday and there will be more to be said then. I want to reassure the public that, for the present, the fund is adequate.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be unwise to be alarmist about this matter, but would he nevertheless concede that over the past five years the turnover of package tours has increased by about 300 per cent. while the value of the fund to which this question refers has increased by no more than 50 per cent.? If he is disinclined to agree to any additional levy, will he at least recommend that, although there is no immediate likelihood of a number of package tour companies going out of business, it would not be a bad thing for prospective holiday makers to effect the appropriate private insurance?

I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I particularly agree that it would be altogether better if individuals insured themselves rather than have the matter organised centrally. As the report has been made by Sir Kenneth Selby, to whom I pay all due tribute, I have carefully studied the problem. I shall be asking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reply in some detail to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) about how we see the way forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of the London Transport Executive.

I saw Dr. Bright last Monday, when I looked at the latest London Transport developments on bus control and underground operation. I am always happy to meet him to discuss matters of mutual interest.

When the Secretary of State met the chairman of London Transport, did he tell him that he intended to fund the new Regional Transport Authority at the much reduced levels of expenditure set out in December's transport support grant settlement? Did the right hon. Gentleman go on to explain that, in that case, it would probably be necessary to close more than 30 London Transport stations and to withdraw more than 30 London Transport bus routes?

The hon. Gentleman appears to have seen a misleading report in The Standard by something called the "Capital Group" in which it was wrongly stated that £100 million was all that would be available next year for London Transport. However, I can happily confirm that there will be £125 million of revenue support and £175 million of capital support, making £300 million in all. That is three times the amount suggested. As a result, no stations are on a list to be closed and no bus routes are likely to be withdrawn. I hope the hon. Gentleman now has it clearly in mind that that report was totally false and, in my opinion, mischievous.

asked the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what subjects were discussed.

Last Friday we discussed the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.

May I congratulate the Attorney-General on his prophetic powers and ask whether he discussed with the Director of Public Prosecutions the invoking of the criminal law against employees of GCHQ who may refuse to give up their union rights and accept the £1,000 bribe? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered what the Government will do about prosecutions that might arise, for example, if those employees refuse to accept injunctions or to comply with orders to leave the premises?

That was not discussed. The matter will have to be considered if it arises.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend draw the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the increasing unhappiness about his refusal to take cases to court under the Obscene Publications Act when those cases seem open and shut to ordinary people? At the next opportunity, will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to the DPP our unhappiness about the fact that it would seem that the inadequacy of the Act is being disguised by his inability or unwillingness to act?

That question is not quite fair to the DPP. He has initiated several prosecutions of films, magazines, and so on, and also of a number of video cassettes. Both he and I keep that matter under constant review.

asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to consolidate the law regarding directions given to nationalised industries.

No, Sir.

Is the Attorney-General aware that there is anxiety in the nationalised industries about the difference between a direction given under statute and a ministerial instruction? Will he consider with the Minister, in accordance with page 434 of "Erskine May", whether it is expedient for him to make known to the House any opinion that he may have given regarding the direction to dispose of Wytch farm, which was laid before Parliament on 12 October 1981, and the Minister's instruction on 30 March 1983 to carry forward negotiations with the Dorset group of companies? In particular, if the powers of direction under section 7 of the Gas Act are limited merely to a power to dispose—and not as to whom or as to what offer should be accepted — what will be the constitutional and fiduciary position of the British Gas Corporation if it misguidedly disposes of that asset at a price that it regards as below value?

I had no notice of that question, but I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the Minister needs my advice after I have considered the matter, he will receive it.

Has the Attorney-General considered the point that the Regional Transport Bill contains a proposal to remove the right of individuals to sue London Transport for any breach of duty? If not, will he undertake to do so and to bear in mind its effect on the general structure of administrative law, in that the Bill seeks to remove a fundamental right of citizens to be able to enforce the duties of a public authority.

That cannot be a matter for me. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend.

asked the Attorney-General why the contributions made by defendants towards the cost of their own criminal legal aid have fallen over recent years; and if he will make a statement.

The decision whether or not to make a contribution order in each case lies within the court's discretion. It is, therefore, not possible to be certain about what factors have influenced courts' individual decisions. In order to achieve greater consistency and efficiency the Lord Chancellor has introduced new arrangements, which will become effective from 1 March 1984.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he think that the new regulations will go some way to increase substantially —to about 10 per cent. for instance—the contributions made by people on legal aid, which remains at a paltry figure of less than 1·5 per cent?

There is a prospect of that. When a order is made for contributions from income, payments will be required forthwith instead of at the end of the case as at present, when enforcement is much more difficult. We expect that contribution revenue may well be doubled by the measure.

Is not the real reason why the courts are ordering a smaller amount to be paid by convicted defendants towards their costs that an increasing number of people appearing before the courts are unemployed? Do not the Government's own figures show that the new scheme will recoup only about £3 million, without taking into account administrative costs? That is only a small sum for the Government to recoup. How can the Government justify it when weighed against the injustice that it will inevitably cause because some defendants do not take up the offer of legal aid in criminal cases as they fear that they will not be able to keep up with the contributions?

The most that can be said is that the courts have to order such contribution as appears reasonable, having regard to the defendant's resources and commitments. A wide variety of circumstances can lead the courts to make or refuse an order. Because there is some evidence that this jurisdiction has not been exercised entirely consistently, the Lord Chancellor is introducing the regulations to which I have referred.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the largest problem about criminal legal aid is that often the wealthiest defendants—the fraudsters and the drug conspirators — have their costs paid to an enormous degree? Does he agree that that is an abuse of the use of taxpayers' money? Is my hon. and learned Friend also aware that during the passage of the Legal Aid Bill 1982, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) tabled an amendment which gave the registrar power to require the details of a defendant's means and to appoint an expert to examine those details if the need should arise? What use has been made in the last 18 months of that provision, and to what effect?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. There are well-founded suspicions that people who could well afford to pay for their defence have been getting away with it at the expense of the taxpayer. The provision introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) is embodied in the regulations that take effect on 1 March. That will enable the courts, as distinct from the DHSS, to make the type of inquiries to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. I hope and believe that it will lead to a considerable improvement.

Will the Solicitor-General assist the House by confirming or denying whether this miserable sum will be raised by taking into consideration child benefit and the wages of innocent wives?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should make it clear whether he wishes to resile from the criterion that the sum should be "reasonable" having regard to resources when an order for legal aid is made. If only a small sum can be raised—I agree it is and will remain a small proportion of the total cost of the scheme—I should not wish us to depart from the "reasonable" criterion. The regulations will provide that the means of a spouse shall be taken into consideration. That is a long-standing practice and I think that it is proper.

asked the Attorney-General what information the Lord Chancellor has as to the further powers to be sought by the Law Society concerning the investigation of complaints against its members.

The society's proposals include powers to enable action to be taken on bad professional work and, where appropriate, to require a solicitor to remit costs or to rectify an error at his own expense.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept than, even with those additional powers, the present system of handling complaints against Law Society members is open to serious public criticism? Does he further accept that that public criticism has not been allayed by the lay observer's report into the Glanville Davies affair, which largely exonerated that system of complaints? Will he accept that the only way of allaying that criticism is to have an independent system for investigating complaints against Law Society members, or at least a system with a substantial lay element, as was advised by the Royal Commission on legal services in 1979?

It would be wrong to say that the lay observer did not make any criticism of the Glanville Davies case. He referred to a continued improvement in the Law Society's overall standards in dealing with complaints and said that he had no reason to doubt the fairness or objectivity with which the society and its staff sought to approach the investigation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds were made available for the Republic of India in the last three years for which figures are available; and how much he intends to make available for the corning fiscal year.

For the financial year 1980–81, gross aid to India totalled £141 million; for 1981–82, £102 million; and for 1982–83, £110·5 million. Figures for the current financial year are not yet available. We shall shortly be discussing with the Indian authorities how we might spend a similar amount in 1984–85.

Does not the Minister not deplore the decrease in aid to India since his Government came to office? Does he accept that what we give to that great democracy not only does a little to alleviate the mighty poverty and suffering there, but enables India to buy goods from us and therefore contributes to the vast imbalance of trade, under which India buys far more from us than we do from India?

I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's strictures about our aid to India. However, I fully agree that the aid programme to India is of great value both to India and to ourselves.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of the family planning element in our aid programme to India should not be underestimated? Does he also agree that, as part of the aid programme, consideration of the stress on technologically complicated and expensive helicopters is perhaps less appropriate than would be the consideration of stress on a more technologically appropriate aircraft, such as the Optica made by Edgley in Salisbury?

My hon. Friend raised two points which do not seem to be closely related. I have seen effective work in family planning in the state of Orissa, which we are supporting. As my hon. Friend knows, a project concerning helicopters is under active consideration at present. I have not yet come to a decision on the matter, but hope to announce one soon.

Does the Minister agree that a chief sufferer from the American failure to replenish the IDA properly will be India? Does he also agree that, whatever the outcome of the current Lomé 3 negotiations, India will continue to be discriminated against, unlike the ACP countries, which stand to benefit to a greater degree? In the light of that, will the Minister examine carefully his aid programme to India and make up for the discrimination by Lomé and the loss that India will undoubtedly sustain as a consequence of the failure of the Americans to replenish the IDA?

I accept that a reduction in the size of the next IDA replenishment will have an impact on India. Although India is not part of the ACP system, the Community has a substantial aid programme in India, and that is all to the good.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals there are for assistance to India.

A number of new proposals for aid projects have been either agreed or are under discussion. They include assistance to forestry, housing, and the power and oil sectors.

Has there been an increase since Christmas in the number of letters coming from people in this country asking for aid to India?

I am afraid that I cannot answer that question off the cuff, but I shall certainly write to my hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration, in terms of new projects, to the 80 per cent. of agrarian development that relies on agricultural co-operative societies? Does he agree that the development of co-operatives should be an important part of the programme? How many members of staff at the high commission in Delhi are considering putting our money to the best advantage?

Agricultural development is of great importance in our worldwide aid programme. However, the effectiveness of co-operatives in agriculture is a matter that is very much argued. We do not have a large aid staff in Delhi, but it is being increased and it is backed by strong help from my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he now proposes to take in concert with other countries to make up the shortfall in the seventh replenishment of the funds of the International Development Association.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the current status of the negotiations for the seventh replenishment of the International Development Association.

The Government have from an early stage made it clear that we favour a larger replenishment of IDA's resources for the next three years than the $9 billion agreed last month in Washington. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) on 27 January, we have decided that we are prepared to make a contribution to supplementary funding on the basis of the usual equitable burden-sharing among donors. The World Bank has welcomed our initiative.

I am glad to know that the Government are seeking to prevent a United States boycott of IDA's replenishment. However, is the Minister aware that although the Government appear to be taking a cautious step forward, they are in fact taking a massive stride back, since the planned United Kingdom contribution to IDA at 6·5 per cent. is down by more than one-third from the 10 per cent. that we contributed to the sixth replenishment? Will he assure the House that any IDA replenishment will not be at the cost of the Southern African development co-ordination countries, as is suggested by reports of his recent refusal in Lusaka to increase aid to those countries?

Although there will be a reduction in our total contribution as between IDA 6 and IDA 7, the reductions will reflect a number of factors, including the total size of the replenishment and changes in the dollar-sterling relationship. However, if there is a supplementary fund, that will reduce the drop substantially. There is no truth in the suggestion that our attitude towards the SADC conference, and the amount of money I pledged there, is affected by the position of IDA.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that his remarks will be welcomed in Third world and Commonwealth countries, since this is the second time that Britain has stepped in to help the IDA replenishment, which is so important to the many countries that are trying to relieve themselves of the burden of overseas debt?

I thank my hon. Friend and agree entirely with what he said. It is notable that at the SADC conference, to which the hon. Member for Lambeth, Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) referred, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth paid warm tribute to Britain over its decision on supplementary funding for IDA.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this case America's attitude towards IDA is nothing short of appalling? Bearing in mind our excellent record on aid, can we not stress the point to America that no country with such wealth can be called civilised if it is willing to let 40,000 people a day die of starvation, when the great Western world has the means, if it has the will, at its disposal to prevent this?

We have made clear to the Americans on several occasions our desire that they should contribute more to the next replenishment of IDA than they plan to do at present. No doubt we shall continue to make that point. However, I must point out that the American bilateral aid programme is increasing at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he has for strengthening co-operation between British industry and the aid programme.

I consider it important to improve liaison with the private sector and have taken a number of practical steps to bring it about. I have appointed a commercial liaison officer to act as a first point of call for inquirers and have arranged informal discussions with business men for the interchange of views and ideas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the importance of this sector, British industry will be grateful for the steps taken by my right hon. Friend further to familiarise himself with the situation? Will he assure the House that he will take renewed steps in this direction, since many of my constituents have never heard of the aid programme?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for what we are doing. I assure him that there is no doubt about our determination to involve British industry more fully in the work of our aid programme. I am sorry that many of my hon. Friend's constituents have not heard of our work. If he wishes to ask me, I should be glad to visit his constituency and inform them.

How many letters has the Minister's Department received from British industrialists since the Prime Minister quoted from St. Francis of Assisi?

I must have notice of that question.

Will my right hon. Friend, in view of his reply, support the West Indian committee's private enterprise in mounting a trade mission to Grenada, which leaves Britain in the middle of this month? Does he accept that the Grenadian economy will thrive only if the private sector is put in a position to make a major contribution to the recovery of that island?

I have no doubt that the private sector can help significantly in the recovery of Grenada, as in aid programmes generally. I should be happy to discuss with him the specific point made by my hon. Friend.