asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the level of capital spent on roads by local authorities under their transport supplementary grant programmes.

In 1982–83 there was £442 million of capital expenditure by local authorities on their roads, in addition to £847 million on maintenance. Although I expect the capital expenditure to exceed £400 million again this year, I wish that it were higher.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts when considering transport supplementary grant applications, but will he study the matter a little closely to ensure that the level of capital spending is higher? Will he also reconsider the possibility of restricting TSG to capital expenditure or to specific approved items so that money for capital projects is not spent for revenue purposes?

I assure my hon. Friend that I am considering carefully both the possibilities that he has mentioned, but we have not yet reached a conclusion. We should need to consult if we decided to do what he suggests. I agree with him that it would be nice if local authorities would spend up to their capital allocations, but there is nothing that we can do to make them do that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that speed and weight affect maintenance, which in turn affects the amount of money that local authorities must spend on roads? In the interests of safety and expenditure, will he reconsider his Department's ideas about increasing the speed limits for lorries and other vehicles?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have recently published an analysis of the track costs incurred by all types of lorries and other vehicles in relation to their weight, speed, number of axles and so on. From that scientific study, he will discover the precise extra costs that each type of vehicle places on the road repair programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations have communicated with his Department about the provisions in the London Regional Transport Bill to (a) remove local control of London transport from the Greater London council, and (b) end the present Greater London council London-wide-scheme providing London pensioners with free travel; and whether the organisations are for or against the proposals.

I have placed in the Library a list of 67 organisations that have sent comments on the Bill. As the hon. Member knows, the Government are ensuring that a uniform scheme of concessionary travel will continue, and neither the GLC nor hon. Members have any excuse for the continued scare campaign directed at elderly and disabled people.

Does the Minister accept that her proposals to end local democratic control of London transport and to worsen the present arrangements for pensioners' travel are thoroughly unpopular with Londoners? Will she now alter or scrap those retrograde measures, in line with public opinion?

No, Sir. We are not worsening concessionary travel for pensioners. We are safeguarding the scheme so that it is uniform across the whole of London.

Does my hon. Friend accept that my constituents and many other people in London are happy with the Government's reassurance? Does she agree that the anxiety caused by the Labour party and others is completely unnecessary?

Yes. We made it quite clear in the July White Paper that we would see a scheme continued. The London boroughs have made it clear that they agree with the scheme in principle. We are now safeguarding it in the Bill.

Does the Minister accept that the Government's promises are somewhat empty when we are told that the Health Service and the trade unions are safe in their hands? Are not old people all over the country getting worried about their concessionary fares because they no longer trust the Government's promises?

There is no reason why elderly and disabled people throughout the country should be concerned about their concessionary fare schemes. We have made our position clear in the House. It is high time that the hon. Gentleman stopped stirring up the feelings of elderly and disabled people.

Is my hon. Friend aware that no Labour Government, or a Labour Government supported by the Liberals, ever guaranteed pensioners' passes for Londoners? Is she further aware that ratepayers as well as the elderly are scandalised by the amount of money spent by the Greater London council—probably amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds, maybe more — in trying to frighten them into believing that they will no longer have passes when the Bill to abolish the GLC is passed? The guarantee is welcome, and I thank my hon. Friend for it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their welcome. We have also received welcomes from the London Boroughs Association and other London boroughs for the safeguarding of the scheme. It is high time that the GLC stopped wasting ratepayers' money on an unnecessary campaign, just frightening and terrifying the elderly.

Does the Minister accept that the Conservatives' uniform scheme provides for less than the GLC's present scheme and is likely to cost the pensioners money? Indeed, the Minister is having to bring in compulsory powers to make sure that the Tory London boroughs implement it. Is she aware that Derbyshire county council, which covers Chesterfield, has introduced a scheme to extend concessionary fares to the unemployed? When the new Labour Member for Chesterfield comes to the House next week, will she listen to what he says about that?

I am not sure that that question has anything to do with Transport questions. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, the safeguarding of concessionary fares for pensioners, while there is obvious due regard to the cost to the ratepayers, is the right way to proceed, and is the way that most pensioners support.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce proposals for enhancing the tourist attraction of British motorways and expressways.

Although motorways are intended primarily to facilitate safe and rapid journeys, great care is taken, by landscaping and planting, to make them and their service areas attractive to the user as well as to fit them into the countryside through which they pass.

My hon. Friend could have fooled me. Is she aware that many stretches of our motorways and expressways are tourist attractions in themselves all the year round? Is she further aware that there are woefully few facilities for motorists to stop and stare, and nowhere where they can have a picnic or a decent meal? Will she study foreign experience to see how we could get better tourist value from our motorways?

I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments about developments abroad and about opening up to the touring public the country and the beautiful areas that are reached by motorways. We are considering picnic areas. I shall consider most carefully any proposal that is put to me.

Would not the tourist attraction of motorways be increased if coach speeds were reduced? How was it possible that on 8 February, in the Department's notice on maximum speeds for vehicles, the Government failed to reduce the maximum speed limit for coaches on motorways? They have left the limit at 70 mph under the law, when in practice coaches can speed at 78 mph before they are prosecuted. Will the Government intervene to do something about that before there is a major accident on our motorways?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have been having discussions with my hon. Friends at the Home Office about the enforcement of motorway speed limits. The Bus and Coach Council has undertaken to produce a code of practice this year.

It will not work.

I have left the council in no doubt that if it does not work powers will be taken through the House to enforce the law, as it should be enforced.

Will my hon. Friend look closely at the signing of tourist attractions on motorways? I shall give a single example to which my hon. Friend might refer. Leeds castle, one of the greatest tourist attractions in the nation, is in my constituency, and is within 100 yd of a motorway. Under present legislation, however, no sign is allowed. Can the legislation be reviewed?

I assure my hon. Friend that I am examining the whole question of signing places of historic interest. There is already an experiment on trunk roads. If that is successful, we shall seek to extend it. Nevertheless, I have to bear in mind the danger that too many signs on motorways may distract the attention of motorists from the road, on which their eyes should be fixed.

Will the Minister examine the question of concessions for motorway cafés? Is she aware that the food served in such cafes is expensive, unhygienic, inedible and thoroughly unattractive? Will she do something about the licensing of caterers who are making huge profits from administering cafes which provide no service to the public?

I do not know when the hon. Gentleman last visited a motorway service area or, indeed, whether his remarks about "cafes" referred to such areas. Since leases were sold to operators there has been a great improvement in the majority of service areas. Some, however, still need to be improved and we are taking that up. If the hon. Gentleman has complaints about individual service stations, he should take them up direct with the motorway service area.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the nature and standard of repair and improvement work carried out on the MI motorway during the past year.

Yes, Sir. The work was carefully planned and designed to high standards. Contractors were required to comply with strict specifications.

In the light of that reply, will my hon. Friend comment on the situation in Hertfordshire where a stretch of newly constructed fast lane hard shoulder has apparently been scrapped immediately after completion by being covered over with fill and edged with a kerb? Why has that been done? Does it not smack of bad planning at the very least, and will my hon. Friend make a statement?

Every contract is subject to supervision and subsequent checking. I am already looking into a number of contracts on which work has not been satisfactorily completed. I cannot comment further now, but I shall write to my hon. Friend when I have information about the stretch to which he referred.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the task of representing a north Yorkshire constituency at Westminster entails a degree of affection for the M1 motorway that not every hon. Member has the privilege to acquire? Is she aware that that motorway has become marginally more lovable in the past few months now that the series of road works has been completed? How long does she think it will be before they have to start again?

understand my hon. Friend's affection for the M1, although I cannot say that I had much affection for it when I drove down it last night. The widening between junctions 5 and 8 completed last November has been a considerable improvement. Nevertheless, like any other structure, the motorway requires maintenance. Further work will have to he carried out, although that will be done in the speediest way to avoid inhibiting the free flow of traffic. Unless we maintain our motorways in proper condition, we cannot safeguard the original investment.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his practice to advise the shipping and civil industries on the effects of electromagnetic pulse and ways of minimising them.

Responsibility for advice to the civil aviation industry on electromagnetic pulse rests with the Civil Aviation Authority, which has promulgated information in one of its publications. Information for ships masters is contained in an official publication already available to United Kingdom shipowners.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that the information given is based on the latest available Ministry of Defence information? Does he agree that the increasing reliance by the MOD on civilian resources, especially in shipping, and, to some extent, in civil aviation, makes an acceptable and effective communications system essential at all times?

The latest information provided for shipping is via the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend can he satisfied about that. I shall make inquiries in writing about the Civil Aviation Authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the response of local authorities in implementing Government cycling policies; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. Almost all county councils now recognise the importance of providing improved cycling facilities.

I acknowledge the good work being done by a small number of local authorities. However, does the hon. Lady agree that the original momentum of the plan that she drew up some two years ago is now slowing? In view of that deterioration and of the Government's rate-capping policy, how does she now propose to meet the needs of cyclists, particularly as so much depends on the local authorities?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has done much to enhance policy in this area by putting forward good ideas. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, who put forward the proposals, has been grateful for his help.

Will the hon. Lady pay tribute to the Isle of Wight county council, which is organising another international cycling rally this year and is on the way to completing 25 miles of rural cycleways?

I am delighted at the Isle of Wight's cycling plans. My officials have told me what is happening there. However, some parts of the country are more suitable than others for the creation of cycleways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to meet the London Boroughs Association to discuss the future of concessionary fares for the elderly and the handicapped.

I am in regular touch with the London Boroughs Association on matters of common interest, including the development of the practical details of the uniform scheme of travel concessions for elderly and disabled people that is to be provided.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the published view of the London Boroughs Association that unless the Government virtually double grant-related expenditure assessments for concessionary travel it will be almost impossible to maintain the quality of the scheme? Given the threat of rate-capping that is hanging over the London boroughs, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that they will be able to provide a scheme as good as that which is now in operation?

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not seen the latest press release from the London Boroughs Association, which states:

"The LBA has always expressed its support for the principle of a concessionary fares scheme, and the Government's statement underpins this policy. The GLC have no excuse now to continue their scare campaign among the elderly."

Does my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about the plight of old-age pensioners? The line put forward by various Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), could be called a red herring.

My hon. Friend is right. I hope that we shall now be able to stop wasting ratepayers' money on a scare campaign. If this is the way in which the GLC debates the subject of its own abolition, it is clear that the Government were right to decide to abolish it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport why his Department has not built up a provisional list of road schemes for implementation at short notice.

We have.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is an elementary precaution? If he had been stuck for ideas, I would have suggested that there is an urgent need for alternative routes via Gloucester into Wales, especially bearing in mind the difficulties with the Severn bridge. They should be top of the list.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interest in roads through my constituency. The Birdlip bypass and the dualling of the road between Blunsdon and Cricklade and the Brockworth bypass should start in 1987. The Northleach bypass will open this summer. These are all contributions to an alternative route to Wales. We are also studying the possibility of a quick route from Gloucester to Ross-on-Wye by a road which would bypass Newent and join the M50 just beyond. These schemes have been carried forward for the reason that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

What extension of those schemes has proceeded on the basis of all the statutory planning requirements being completed, and which could be implemented without delay? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the list includes a genuine bypass for Worthing which goes round the town, unlike the previous route which went straight through the middle?

The schemes that are on the shelf are ready to start should the necessary extra financial resources be made available by early completions or because spending is below the budget set when the planning proposals were passed. I shall have to write to my right hon. Friend about whether those schemes include the desirable bypass around rather than through Worthing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the chaos in south-west London this morning and during the weekend because of the closure at short notice of Hammersmith bridge? Will he ensure that the repairs are carried out by day and by night to alleviate the misery of road users and local residents, and will he make a statement about the state of the bridge?

My hon. Friend is right to be worried about the bridge. It is a GLC bridge. Serious failure has taken place on one of the rockers. It will take a considerable time to repair. I hope that the GLC will have heard my hon. Friend urging that work be undertaken night and day to ensure that the bridge is closed for the shortest possible time.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department hopes to reach agreement with the Derbyshire county council on the strengthening of bridges in the county.

It is for county councils to decide on the bridge strengthening necessary on their roads to meet the needs of traffic. Their expenditure proposals are taken into account in the annual transport supplementary grant settlement. My Department has been preparing, with county councils and other interested parties, a code of assessment for highway bridges and structures, which we shall publish shortly. This will provide a basis on which to prepare a programme of strengthening where necessary.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that Derbyshire county council claims that bridge strengthening is necessary because of the new heavier lorries? I believe that to be a disputable claim, but until it is settled, several bridges—none in Chesterfield —are subject to weight restrictions. We feel that we are being held hostage until an agreement is reached.

I am aware of the Derbyshire county council's claims. A new code of assessment for bridges is needed, not because of the introduction of 38-tonners, but because of the general volume of present-day traffic. The axle spacing on new vehicles has been restricted in such a way as to make their loading on bridges no greater than that of other heavy lorries, except for a marginal increase of about 3 per cent. on a small minority of short span bridges.

May I support the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) in his application to have the bridges strengthened? Might I add that it would be helpful for him to be safe when walking across the bridges to talk to all of the unemployed in west Derbyshire to tell them that they have enough money, just as he told the people in the north-east?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to know the state of transport supplementary grant for Derbyshire, I can tell him. During the current year we accepted 95 per cent. of Derbyshire's bid for road maintenance and 92 per cent. of its bid for capital expenditure. For 1984–85 we have accepted 91 per cent. of its bid for maintenance—that represents an increase of more than 30 per cent. over four years. For capital expenditure there is an increase of 21 per cent. over last year.

Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the highways committee of Derbyshire county council has written to me about the number of heavy goods vehicles in that part of the world and the extent to which they are overloaded? Has not the problem worsened since July last year when the Minister's Department sent out a circular to licensing authorities throughout the country about non-prosecution when heavy goods vehicles are up to 10 per cent. overloaded? Is it not the case that heavy goods vehicles are now running around our roads with loads of up to 42 tonnes, which is in direct contravention of the House's decision to set the maximum at 38 tonnes?

The maximum weight for vehicles is 38 tonnes on five axles, and it so remains. The letter written as an advice note about uniformity to local authority trading standards officers has been a matter for their discussion. The hon. Gentleman knows that the traffic commissioners are independent enforcement agents. They, together with the police and the trading standards officers, must decide on the most effective method of enforcement. To prohibit a vehicle which is overweight, which they are encouraged to do, involves an immediate penalty, backed by prosecution—[Interruption]—If the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet for a moment and stop exaggerating, as he usually does, I will tell him that enforcement is prohibition, backed by prosecution. The licensing authorities have been told to use the increased resources which they have been given, and the increased number of weighbridges, to make the most effective enforcement possible with a maximum weight of 38 tonnes.

Will the Minister none the less make it absolutely clear that there is to be no discretion on the limit laid down by Parliament and that people who exceed the limit should be prosecuted?

As with any enforcement of our law, if there is a minor infringement—

10 per cent.

—a warning is given. But I do not call even 5 per cent. minor, and I have made it absolutely clear that effective enforcement must be carried out by the traffic commissioners. I give my right hon. Friend the complete assurance that that is being done.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet completed his detailed evaluation of the Snow Hill rail link scheme.

My Department has asked West Midlands county council for further information about its evaluation. A reply was received from the council on Wednesday 22 February and is now being considered.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for that reply. Will he deny reports that the Government have already refused to put their share of the funding into this much needed cross-city commuter link? Will he assure the House that it is his Department's policy to encourage more people to use the railways and to get them off the roads?

Yes, Sir, and yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with conditions of travel for peak period train commuters in London and the south-east.

This will be covered in discussions we shall have with British Rail about further development of objectives for London and south-eastern services. These include such matters as load factors, punctuality, reliability and cleanliness.

Will the Minister concede that the latest reductions in train services in London and the south-east are the third in less than seven years and that southern region has already made it plain that, given those further reductions, the occupancy of peak hour trains will be up to 135 per cent.? Is that not a step backwards for most commuters?

The fact that it is the third change simply reflects changes in travelling patterns. The hon. Gentleman labours under a misapprehension about British Rail's intentions for maximum loading. They are that there should be 100 per cent. in compartment stock, 110 per cent. in gangway slam-door stock and 135 per cent. in sliding-door stock, which has been specially designed with additional standing room. All of those peak loads are designed for the busiest part of the route at peak time only.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the vital need for commuters travelling from my constituency to inner London and elsewhere is that British Rail trains should not be cancelled at short notice, without warning? Is he aware that in many cases it means that commuters must wait a whole hour between services instead of half an hour, which is clearly economically damaging and socially disrupting to them?

I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.

Will the Minister reconsider the answer that he has just given after travelling on some suburban trains in south London, where in many cases commuters are totally dependent upon those services, and where there is precious little standing room anyway?

The special modern rolling stock with sliding doors to which I referred has additional standing room provided within it. It is not operating in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I must tell him that trains often arrive—this is especially so at central London stations—jam-packed in the front compartments but nearly empty in the rear compartments.

Is it not likely that the conditions in which commuters travel at peak hours will be improved substantially by the privatisation of commuter railway lines into central London where possible? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as it appears to be a self-contained route, he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would consider favourably any move towards the privatisation of the line between Shoeburyness and Fenchurch Street?

Proposals for the privatisation of various routes will be of interest and will certainly be encouraged by us, but they must be commercially attractive to British Rail. We have set British Rail stiff targets, and it would be wrong for us to undermine them by insisting on things that are not commercially attractive to the board.

May I welcome that statement by the Minister and say that before any privatisation takes place we should have a debate in the House? Is he aware of the position on the Portsmouth line, where many trains have been reduced to only eight coaches and are consequently grossly overcrowded? Will he ask the chairman of British Rail, southern region, to return to 12-coach operation as soon as possible?

I shall draw those detailed matters of management to the attention of management, where they rightly belong.

Will my hon. Friend deprecate any action by railway staff that would jeopardise the transport of passengers, especially tomorrow, in defence of the illegal action in connection with GCHQ?

Any such action would damage the improving image of British Rail and its attempts to attract passengers to use train services, which is the real justification of the railway, and the way ahead for its successful promotion.

When the Minister talks to the chairman of British Rail, will he ask him whether he has given an instruction to railwaymen in the south-east similar to that which he has given in other regions to the effect that they should not lobby their Members of Parliament or any other person for extra investment in British Rail? Will he explain to the chairman that, despite the Government's attitude, railwaymen still have civil rights?

There would be no point in railwaymen lobbying Members of Parliament for extra investment in British Rail, since the Government have fully allowed all of British Rail's requests for investment.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress of his plans to privatise the National Bus Company.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on 14 February, at column 115, I am having a thorough study made of these and related questions and hope to be able to make a full announcement in the early summer.

Although I welcome the privatisation of the National Bus Company, which is in line with the Government's belief in deregulation and increased competition, which has so benefited the consumer of coach services during the past four years, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is confident that privatisation will not adversely affect the provision of rural bus services?

I shall study deregulation and increased competition before making any proposals for the National Bus Company. I assure my hon. Friend that the study will include ways of ensuring the continuation of rural and uneconomic bus services, although I believe that they could be provided with much less subsidy than at present.

Before coming to a decision, will the Secretary of State ignore the suggestions of Sir Alfred Sherman that existing railway lines should be converted into roadways, bearing in mind that this miniature mogul had taken a paid consultancy with the National Bus Company when he was sitting on a commission appointed by British Rail to examine this crazy proposal?

I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman should object to Sir Alfred Sherman advising, whether paid or unpaid, British Rail and the National Bus Company. I assure the hon. Gentleman that any proposal to close any railway must be subject to the full procedure and to my eventual confirmation. There is no way in which bus services can be substituted without the full glare of a public inquiry being invoked.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what account he took of the effect on fares and passengers when setting the level of approval subsidy to London transport for 1984–85.

If, as I assume, the hon. Member is referring to the level of expenditure which we have protected from legal challenge under the Transport Act 1983, I can tell him that my right hon. Friend has made it clear that this figure should not make necessary any substantial increases in fares beyond the general level of inflation.

Does the Minister agree that, if she were to take an objective and dispassionate view of fares in London and passengers on London transport since the Labour-controlled GLC introduced its cheaper fares policy, she would find that the outcome has been that increased passengers and reduced congestion have been so beneficial that the only doubt is as to how much lower fares should go?

The hon. Gentleman takes no account of the increased burden that is being placed on the ratepayers of London, and the problems that that causes for industry and jobs in London. If he looks at the recent figures which his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I have been debating in Committee, he will find that there has been a large measure of creative accounting. Until we get to the bottom of what the GLC is really doing, the contention of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) has no substance.

asked the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer, Official Report, 6 February, columns 596–97, what consideration he has now given to a directive given under a statute and a ministerial instruction in relation to the directive to dispose of Wytch farm, laid before Parliament on 12 October 1981, and the Minister's instruction on 30 March 1983 to carry forward negotiations with the Dorset county council.

It is a long-standing convention that opinions given by the Law Officers are confidential. I am not prepared to disclose what advice, if any, I have given or may give to colleagues on these matters.

I thank the Attorney-General for the consideration that I know he has given to the question. Admittedly, the subject does not lend itself to simple and short question and answer, but will the Attorney-General, as a Law Officer rather than a partisan political Minister, put in the Library of the House an explanation to the non-lawyers and simple-minded among us as to whether the Government are acting extra-legally in the matter? There is a suspicion that over Wytch farm the House of Commons has been taken for granted, and possibly for a bit of a ride.

To do that would be to breach the convention.

As this is a constitutional matter involving the status of an Act of Parliament, can the Attorney-General explain why one Minister gave a proper direction under an Act of Parliament, while his successor issued an instruction which does not seem to have been covered by that Act of Parliament, whereas in the meantime another Act of Parliament—the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982—had been passed, which would have permitted a detailed and proper direction to have been given?

I do not accept any of those allegations. As I said, I cannot go behind the long-standing convention.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received regarding giving to an accused person the opportunity to elect to dispense with committal proceedings.

Neither I nor the Home Secretary, who has responsibilty for matters of procedure in magistrates' courts, have received any such representations.

Does the Attorney-General agree that if the law were changed in a simple way to allow the accused to elect to dispense with committal proceedings, that would have two dramatic efforts? First, it would shorten the time spent waiting for trial in the Crown court. Secondly, it would reduce significantly the overcrowding in remand prisons such as Her Majesty's remand centre at Risley.

I can see that that course might well lead to an agreeable result, but we must remember that some form of scrutiny is very important before cases get to the Crown court. That is why, even on a paper committal, representations can be made to the magistrates that there is not sufficient evidence for the case to be committed. This system has been criticised in a number of quarters, but at the moment we take the view that it is best left as it is.

Should we consider not just the fact of scrutiny but the possibility thereby of saving costs, when it is clear that evidence can be tested in committal proceedings?

That is one of the many aspects that must be considered. A Home Office study, which, if not completed, is almost finished, is examining how we can improve court listing and reduce delays. An important principle is involved. At the moment I am not satisfied that it would be in the interests of the defendant to remove that scrutiny, although, I fear, sometimes it is perfunctory.

asked the Attorney-General what futher representations he has received regarding the use of supergrasses in Northern Ireland.

I have received a number of representations on the question of these so-called supergrass trials, some of them approving the use of such evidence and some disapproving it: some of these representations were disinterested and well informed, and some of them less so.

Does the Attorney-General accept that there is increasing worry about the use of uncorroborated evidence by informers in Northern Ireland? Will he think again about the practice in Northern Ireland? Would it not be more sensible, so that justice is seen to be working effectively and impartially, to use the same system in Northern Ireland as is used in the rest of the United Kingdom?

The same system is used across the United Kingdom. The use of informers is not limited to Northern Ireland. I invite the hon. Gentleman to re-read my detailed written answer given on 24 October 1983.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the law relating to the evidence of informers is exactly the same in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales?

That is so. It is exactly the same.

Is there any rule against the use of uncorroborated evidence by so-called supergrasses in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland?

No. Any claim that I have given any direction to the Director of Public Prosecutions that that evidence is not to be used is false.

Does the Attorney-General agree with me that the use of supergrasses is a violation of natural and legal justice and that, in general, they are perjured murderers who are selling their hitherto comrades, some of us suspect, for money? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that, in the long run, this bringing into disrepute of British justice is bound to have a bad effect and ultimately to intensify the rate of killing?

I could not disagree more with practically everything said by the hon. Gentleman. The only point I shall take up is the use of perjured evidence. Usually, the evidence which the supergrass admits is not perjured. On practically every occasion he is convicting himself, and this is dealt with by the court. He is then called as a witness against those whom he has known.

When does the Attorney-General expect to receive Sir George Baker's report into the operation of judicial procedures in Northern Ireland? Is it expected that there will be speedy Government action on the report's recommendations?

I believe that the report will be available in some form shortly.

Although the law on informers is the same in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom, is not the real difficulty the fact that in one part of the United Kingdom informers are used coupled with Diplock courts and, unhappily, there is no opportunity for a jury to be in any position to evaluate the evidence? Does not the worry arise, in part at least, from that process? Is there not also a danger that a witness might improve his evidence and add to the number against whom he is giving evidence in the hope of obtaining even greater favours?

I would take more seriously the risk that judges were not applying the proper direction to themselves, so that there was a danger of convicting without collaboration, if the judgments given during the past few years did not clearly show the opposite. Recently, in a remarkable case, the Chief Justice, in a long judgment, acquitted a number of those accused on the evidence of a supergrass. It is clear to me, and to all who take a genuinely close interest, that the judges are taking superlative care in considering the evidence of uncorroborated supergrasses.

asked the Attorney-General what steps have been taken in the last 12 months to reduce the waiting time between committal and trial in criminal cases in the Crown courts; and with what results.

The measures taken in the past 12 months include the appointment of additional judges and the provision of additional courtrooms, and improved efficiency. These enabled the Crown court in 1983 to dispose of nearly 10 per cent. more committals for trial than in 1982, against an increase of more than 8 per cent. in the number received, and the average waiting time was reduced from 14·1 weeks in the quarter ending September 1982 to 13·9 weeks in the corresponding quarter of last year.

I thank the Attorney-General for that reply. Does he not agree that the continuing delays make it all the more important and urgent for consideration to be given to payment of compensation to those who are held in custody pending trial but who are subsequently acquitted?

This matter has been under consideration by Governments and those interested in this over many years. I do not think there is anything new that would lead me to alter my mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects to be able to make a statement about the future of the Crown Agents.

I refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 23 February.

Since that statement came out in favour of eventual privatisation, in principle at any rate, of the Crown Agents, and since that was the subject Morgan Grenfell was specifically asked to investigate, will the Minister consider the possibility of making the report available to hon. Members so that we can study it? Secondly, has the Minister reconsidered the answers that he gave the House on Thursday about the need for formal consultation, at least with the 100 or so Third world Governments who use the services of the Crown Agents?

The report was commercially confidential, and it would not therefore be appropriate to make it available. As I said last Thursday about the views of the Governments who use the Crown Agents, it was well known that we were considering the future of the Crown Agents and there was plenty of time for anybody to make representations if he wished to do so, but at the end of the day the decision was a matter for Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the reply, Official Report, 6 February, column 418, how long the Minister of State spent inspecting the Brewster houses in the Falklands.

About an hour, Sir.

At what point in time did the right hon. Gentleman tumble to it that we were talking about Brewster homes at about £133,000 per home, and should he not have made some statement to the House rather than let this fantastic information dribble out?

I do not deny that there have been problems with this contract, but it is important to understand that, of the cost of £133,000 per house a substantial amount—about £31,500went on shipping, and another substantial amount went towards the purchase of capital assets, plant and an accommodation block that will be of continuing value to the people of the Falkland Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in discussions to provide additional funds for the International Development Association; and if he will make a statement.

The association's management has not completed its discussions with all other donors and it is therefore too early to expect a report from it. We have made clear our willingness to participate in a supplementary fund of up to $3 billion, subject to satisfactory detailed arrangements and equitable burden-sharing among donors.

Is there not a serious prospect that the work and plans of the World Bank for development in the poorest countries of the world will be seriously and adversely affected if progress is not made soon on the part of the replenishment with which we are dealing?

As the House knows, we were disappointed, to put it mildly, about the $9 billion level that was reached. For this reason the British Government took the lead in stating that they would support supplementary funding, and we hope that a good measure of this will be achieved.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's positive response to the setback —engendered in the United States—to the future of the International Development Agency was welcome? How do Her Majesty's Government see the way forward to getting some supplementay funding? Will it come from the Arabs or from some of the newly rich countries?

By and large, the supplementary funding will come from those who already contribute to the main funds in the same portions. There is a gap as far as the United States is concerned, and in addition the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan have doubts about joining the supplementary fund, but we have expressed, particularly to the German Government, our hope that they, too, will decide to join.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government intend to increase the quantity of the United Kingdom's overseas aid to the United Nations' target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product.

We remain committed to the United Nations target, but we have made it clear that we are not committed to a timetable for its achievement. Future progress towards the 0·7 per cent. target depends on a number of factors, including the future performance of the British economy.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is grotesque that the Government can find £10 billion for the independent nuclear weapon Trident and £8 billion for our commitment to the Falklands over the next few years, and yet can find only one tenth of what we will spend on Trident for the entire overseas aid and development budget? Does he agree that we should be stepping up famine relief, because 40,000 people are dying every day? Will he also say something about what can be done in the Upper Volta?

When the Government fought and won the election in the summer, they laid great stress on the proper defence of this country. The electorate endorsed that, and it remains our policy. However, we also conduct an effective aid programme of which we can be proud. As for the pressing problems of Africa, we have already done a great deal in that respect and are considering what more we might do.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the aid from the United Kingdom is given in the form of private investment in the Third world and that it is substantial by any standards?

My hon. Friend is right. We have a good record of private investment in Third world countries. It is worth pointing out that private investment is of great value to Third world countries because they do nor have to repay it until there are profits to be returned and such investment does not, therefore, have the drawbacks of loans and indebtedness.

Do the Government intend to work towards the 0·7 per cent. target year by year, or will it be a matter of luck whether the aid programme, as a percentage of GDP, goes up or down?

The figures always fluctuate and a number of factors contribute to them. The 0·7 per cent. figure remains our target, but we shall have to build up the British economy considerably before we are likely to get near that target.

Will my right hon. Friend consider angling as much aid as possible to nongovernmental organisations, as they get it to the people on the ground and the aid is not filtered away through corruption and grandiose projects?

Non-governmental organisations have a valuable part to play and we already give them very good support.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be greatly disappointed that the Government have not set a timetable for attaining the 0·7 per cent. target? Does he agree that, if the Government achieve their objectives in inflation, it will be largely because of falls in commodity prices, which have not been helpful to the Third world?

Commodity prices are a problem in the Third world. Happily, there are signs of improvements in those prices. As for our overall aid performance, I reiterate that I believe that our programme is a very good one which is widely appreciated.

Will my right hon. Friend consider using some future overseas aid to liquidate pipeline debts that are owed by many overseas countries to business men in this country and are causing enormous difficulties to many businesses?

I am always reluctant to contemplate using our overseas aid programme for the liquidation or repayment of debts. It can set an awkward precedent and I should prefer our aid money to be spent on its proper purpose of development.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if we think of soft loans as aid they should not be repayable to the Treasury, but should be put in a fund that could be recycled for the benefit of the Third world and, therefore, could properly be regarded as aid?

It is worth making the point that our aid programme to the poorest countries is overwhelmingly, if not entirely, in the form of grants rather than soft loans. However, I am willing to look into the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and write to him.

Will my right hon. Friend seek an early meeting with Princess Anne to congratulate her on the splendid way in which she has drawn attention to the desperate plight of the people of the Third world?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the outstanding work that Princess Anne has done on behalf of the Save the Children Fund, and I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Against that ministerial complacency, at a time when demand in the Third world is increasing because of natural disasters and recession, may I ask what is the purpose of a target if the Government make no effort to reach it?

I completely reject the accusation of complacency. I believe that we are working hard to operate an effective programme, as I have already said. Nevertheless, it is not possible to pay out money until one has created the wealth with which to do that.