asked the Secretary of State for Transport if the guidance he gives to local authorities about the criteria for providing pedestrian crossings includes specific provisions reflecting the requirements of disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. Special advice is given on when to provide pedestrian facilities and the use of pelican crossings is recommended in preference to zebra crossings. We also require the use of audible signals with pelican and signal crossings to help the blind, where appropriate.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. As a principle, will her Department additionally require dropped kerbs at all pedestrian crossings to aid the disabled and ensure that they have time to cross when it is appropriate to do so? Will she push the GLC into action in my constituency by encouraging it to provide a crossing that is suitable for the disabled at Cowgate road? The GLC has for 12 months frustrated my efforts to get a crossing there for the disabled.

Although we welcome the use of dropped kerbs, they are sometimes distracting for the blind if they are used unexpectedly. Therefore, we feel it best to consider using dropped kerbs when they are in combination with some form of textured pavement surface. I note my hon. Friend's comment about the GLC. I am not in the least surprised, but I doubt whether it will take any advice from me.

Will the Minister make sure that when ramping is used it is not such as to allow the disabled person's wheelchair to enter the no-go area while it is not allowed to be in it, but makes it easier to cross the road when it is safe to do so?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. Some dropped kerbs have a slight ridge before meeting the roadway. The use of this new type of dropped kerb seems to provide an added safeguard for those who are chairbound.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proper ramping of pedestrian crossings is essential for those in wheelchairs and for semi-invalids? Does she recognise that incompetent ramping by local authorities can be lethal to those whom they are endeavouring to help?

I recognise that incompetent ramping is extremely dangerous. We give guidance to local authorities, but if my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member comes across ramping that is plainly dangerous, I hope that he or she will take up the matter with the local highway authority.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the guidelines allow for extra time to be given at crossings in the vicinity of hospitals? Does she agree that there is a case to be made for extra time to be provided at crossings in the vicinity of old people's homes, nursing homes and even post offices, where many elderly people have to go every week to collect their pensions?

I understand my hon. Friend's point about increased time. I believe that a small increase in the "steady green man" time would be desirable to compensate for the crossing time that is lost by the pedestrian's delay in reacting to the appearance of the crossing signal. A small increase would help the disabled. I am considering that and whether to delay the start of the flashing amber light that is shown to drivers, which would help those whom my hon. Friend has in mind to negotiate the crossings safely.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will convene a conference of interested local authorities to discuss the Government's cycling policies; and if he will make a statement.

Conferences dealing with cycling matters already take place as necessary. These provide one opportunity among many for continual exchange of views between the Department, local authorities and other interested bodies. I am asking the Department to convene a conference early next year to review progress.

Does the Minister accept that the success of the Government's cycling policies depends to a large extent on the initiatives taken by local authorities? In view of the explosion in cycling—I am glad that the Minister is an enthusiast—at a time when the Government are slashing local authorities expenditure, what is she doing to ensure that cycling obtains the resources that it deserves?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we are working hard to ensure that we introduce cycling schemes where we can—that is, where they are economical and make sense in the locality. He is right in saying that the matter should be decided by the locality. The schemes should be in the interests of safer cycling, which we have been promoting especially hard in the new code during the last few weeks.

Has my hon. Friend had a conference with the Home Office about the need to enforce the law on the lighting of bicycles and about the fact that a high percentage of bicycles show no lights?

I am as worried as my right hon. Friend about that. I shall discuss enforcement in general with the Home Office in a few days' time. One of our prime campaigns, which we must continue for as long as is necessary, is to make it clear in something like our new safety code for cyclists that cyclists are a danger to themselves and to other road users by cycling without lights.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with present progress on railway electrification.

I am glad to report the progress British Rail has made. It has electrified 245 track miles since May 1979. A further 430 track miles are now being electrified or have been approved.

Does the Minister accept that the profitability objective that he has set is now unlikely to be reached within the arbitrary time scale that he laid down? In the light of that, will he set that condition aside and consider the electrification of the east coast main line on its merits, which are, that it would make an independent contribution to British Rail inter-city services and an undisputed 11 per cent. return on investment?

The financial objectives of British Rail, for which the Secretary of State asked, are simply those which British Rail proposed for 1988 brought forward to 1986. We have already said that we would give east coast main line electrification urgent consideration when we received the inter-city strategy, which we expect to receive shortly.

Will my hon. Friend make a clear statement that it is the Government's policy to provide the most efficient and effective railway system as an essential component of a modern, industrial country? Will he therefore consider transport policy like defence policy, and, if good defence or transport are needed, provide the best possible and most modern facilities?

British Rail is already determined to provide the sort of service to which my hon. Friend referred. It has planned a major increase in investment for the next few years, and my hon. Friend will be pleased with the progress that is being made.

The Minister said that he expected the electrification of the east coast line shortly. What does he mean by "shortly"? Has he a time scale for its implementation?

I did not say that I expected east coast main line electrification shortly, but that I expected the inter-city strategy shortly. When I have received that, we shall be able to take a decision on both east coast main line electrification and its timing.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider pressing British Rail to help finance a study into north Wales electrification in view of the electrification of the Norwich line and the line between Hastings and Tonbridge, both of which will produce a similar rate of return to north Wales electrification, but far fewer potential customers?

It is for the management of British Rail to propose electrification where it believes that that is the right thing to do. I have received no such application.

Is the Minister aware that the 11 per cent. discounted rate of return on the east coast main line investment is 4 per cent. higher than on the investment for comparable road building and 2 per cent. higher than on comparable rail investment in France? If we show by our actions that we have no confidence in our manufacturers in this area, how can we convince foreign buyers to buy British electrified equipment?

The hon. Gentleman is presupposing a result from our examination of proposals for east coast main line electrification. We have not yet carried out that examination.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of his analysis of the responses he has received to Cmnd. 9063 and accompanying consultation papers.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to publish a detailed analysis of the responses he has received to Cmnd. 9063.

In the period up to 21 March, 393 responses to my Department's consultation papers were received and they have all been carefully considered.

In view of the responses received to Cmnd. 9063 and the policy of reallocation of responsibilities, have the Government changed their view on this matter, or has the consultative period simply been an academic exercise?

Some responses were in favour of the Government's proposals, some were against, but many were addressed to particular parts of the proposals. All of those recommendations have been taken into account.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been much anxiety about the delay in publishing the analysis? Although the Minister said that 393 responses had been received, is it not extremely odd that only 110 were published in his latest document, which has been placed in the Library? Will he give a categorical assurance that all responses will be published when he publishes his analysis of what has been said, because that is the only way in which hon. Members can ensure that the analysis is correct?

It is for those whose submit their views to decide whether they should be published. If I were to publish every communication that I received from Opposition Members I am sure that they would censure me, because that would give away many things which they would rather not give away.

When does my right hon. Friend expect to reach conclusions from his review of bus licensing?

Fairly soon. I hope that it will be possible to publish a White Paper before too long.

Is it not irresponsible for the metropolitan county councils, especially West Yorkshire council, to try to give the impression in advertisements that simply because the administration of public transport in the metropolitan counties will be changed, support will be withdrawn and many services will be cut?

I am afraid that we shall be subjected to groundless scaremongering similar to that indulged in by the GLC about London Transport. It would be better to await the detailed proposals, which will come forward in due course.

Will my right hon. Friend accept our congratulations on the steps that he has taken to open competition in European aviation? Does he agree that the new £49 return fare being offered by British Airways and KLM from London to Amsterdam shows—

Order. I find it difficult to relate this to the main question.

rose—

Mr. Wareing.

rose—

Order. I am not a transport expert, but I could not relate the hon. Gentleman's question to the main question. Perhaps the Minister can.

I believe that I can relate it, Mr. Speaker. What my hon. Friend says about the benefits which competition in transport services can bring in terms of falling costs and fares is applicable to how the metropolitan counties can manage their affairs when they cease to be in a position to waste money unnecessarily.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the overwhelming majority of responses to his White Paper, whether in general or in particular, opposed the Government's policy for rearranging the management of passenger transport, highways and traffic management? In the light of those responses, are the Government prepared to offer a fresh consultation paper?

No. I am convinced that there is a great deal of duplication between the present metropolitan counties and the districts and that there will be considerable benefits to transports by bringing counties to an end. As I said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), while some of the responses were wholly in favour of the proposals, and some were wholly opposed to them, they were, in the main, directed to specific parts of the proposals and cannot be put into one category.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the proposals in Cmnd. 9063 are, in the opinion of many of us, ill-conceived and ill-thought out. Judging by the votes of some of his right hon. and hon. Friends during the recent past, they are also extremely unpopular as well as undemocratic. Which Conservative party shall we listen to on transport?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the general election of June 1983 there was overwhelming support for the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC? Who is he to question the views of the electorate?

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make public the terms of reference to be issued to the commissioner conducting the public inquiry into the proposed increase in toll charges on the Severn bridge.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to him on 20 February last, saying that there will be no formal terms of reference. The question before the inspector will be whether to recommend that the draft order in which the proposed tolls increase was published should be made.

In view of the strategic importance of the Severn bridge as part of the motorway network and the need for the removal of an impediment to the free flow of freight and other traffic to and from Wales, will the Minister ensure that every consideration is given to views calling for the ending of tolls, let alone their increase?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is for the inspector to determine what evidence is relevant to the proposal before him, which is to increase toll charges. I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the inquiry is about a particular proposal, and anything that is considered there is decided by the inspector and not by Ministers.

Is the Minister aware that the proposed increase in tolls will be seen in Wales as an additional deterrent to industrial location in the Principality, adding to the other deterrents which the Government have raised, such as the reduction in the regional development grants. Will that be considered by the inspector?

As I said to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), it is for the inspector to determine what evidence is relevant to the proposal. It is for the inspector to decide whether to take into account those matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but plainly any road that is some distance from the ports of entry has a bigger problem than somewhere nearer those ports. It is for the inspector to decide.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the metropolitan county councils operate countywide schemes for concessionary fares for pensioners and disabled people.

All of them.

In view of the Secretary of State's somewhat belated announcement during the Report stage of the London Regional Transport Bill guaranteeing free off-peak travel for the old and disabled in the London area, may we expect a similar announcement in respect of the metropolitan counties? Does he accept that that announcement, when it comes, albeit belated as was his previous one, will be welcomed by the Opposition?

If the hon. Gentleman looks up his records he will find that the announcement was made, not at the Report stage of the Bill, but on 15 February last. All that did was to follow what was stated in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts straight, because the new joint passenger authorities will inherit the full powers of the metropolitan county councils in relation to concessionary fares. They do not, therefore, need the guarantee, which would not have been needed in London but for the members of the Association of London Authorities, who refused to co-operate with the London Boroughs Association in determining the scheme.

As the joint boards will take over the full responsibilities previously held by the county councils, is it not absolutely right that they should also have discretion regarding concessionary fares?

Absolutely right.

Will the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that, whatever management structure is set up after the abolition, the present concessionary schemes, particularly the scheme in Tyne and Wear, where there are free concessionary fares, will not be worsened, but will be maintained?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is entirely up to the passenger transport authorities, which will have that responsibility following abolition of the metropolitan authorities. I believe that these matters are rightly decided by the district councils concerned. I am sure that they will take careful note of all that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends say.

Although money is undoubtedly better spent on increasing non-means-tested cash benefits, is my hon. Friend aware that many old people complain that the system is patchy across the country? Is there not a case for convening a conference of transport operators to see whether some kind of uniform national scheme could be operated?

The Labour Government turned down that idea, which appeared in their Green paper of 1979. I believe that there is such variation in different parts of the country that the local authorities are in a far better position to know what their elderly and disabled people need and thus to decide what should be provided.

Does the Minister agree that when people in London are guaranteed a continuation of their free bus service it is wrong that people in the metropolitan counties and elsewhere have no such undertaking from the Government?

First, it is not a free bus service, but a concessionary fares scheme paid for out of the rates and taxes. Secondly, people in London have been guaranteed the safeguarding of a basic scheme, but it will still be up to the boroughs to pay for the scheme provided by London Regional Transport. In other parts of the country local authorities will be making their own provision for the services which they believe it is right for their people to have.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is now taking to increase competition in the provision of transport.

We have already achieved increased competition in domestic coach and air services and we are now making progress towards liberalising air services and road haulage in the European Community. The London Regional Transport Bill allows for increased competition in the provision of public transport in London and I am now reviewing how best to relax bus licensing to achieve a wider variety of services in the rest of the country.

I am grateful for that answer, but knowing my right hon. Friend to be a man of radical turn of mind I wonder whether he is satisfied with the progress being made. In particular, does he feel that the London Regional Transport Bill allows for adequate privatisation provision for independent transport in London, and is he satisfied with the independent provision of transport on the airline routes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On the first point, I believe that the London Regional Transport Bill enables the notions of competition and private enterprise to enter London's transport at the best speed possible. We are also proceeding, not recklessly, but step by step, to increase competition on domestic airlines, and I think that the benefits of that have been noted in all parts of the House.

What competition is there for the Carlisle-Settle line? What is its value as a diversionary line involving Scottish trains? Knowing of the Secretary of State's radical turn of mind and of his architectural interests, may I suggest that there is a case for part of the costs of reconstruction of the Ribblehead and other viaducts being borne out of heritage funds and not necessarily out of British Rail funds?

I never thought to be berated for radicialism by the Conservative hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I am grateful to him for recognising the change-about in our roles.

Is my right hon. Friend aware—he will not be aware, but I am about to tell him—that I have just got off a train which arrived at Euston a quarter of an hour late, on which there was standing room only in both second and first-class, and on which the quality of the buffet facilities was lamentable? Is he further aware that when I write to the chairman of British Rail on behalf of my constituents and myself I get fobbed off with apologies and promises to try to do better? When will he bring greater competition into the railways?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting here from his late train in time to ask that supplementary question. I confirm that there is competition from the north-west—he can travel by car, coach or air if he prefers—but I do not think that even he would suggest that it is possible to have competition between trains. I urge him to write again to the chairman of the British Railways Board, because I think that my hon. Friend will find that the chairman is extremely receptive to any ways in which he can improve the service.

When extolling the virtues of such competition from the Preston area, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, had his hon. Friend travelled down the M1 and M6 motorways, he might not have made Question Time at all, thereby depriving the House of the superlative answer that the Secretary of State has just given?

Equally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will admit that there are risks in travelling to Fenchurch street station.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the inspector's report on the inquiry into the port rates charged by the Port of London Authority; and when he expects to be able to make a decision on the inspector's recommendations.

We expect to receive the report very shortly. We will announce our decision as soon as possible, but I cannot yet say when this will be.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. When making his decision on this report, will he consider separating the conservancy activities of the PLA from the purely commercial activities, such as the Tilbury area? Does he accept that these commercial activities have, in effect, made the PLA bankrupt?

When we have received and considered the report and are in a position to reply to the PLA about its own finances, I shall have in mind the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Will the Minister bear in mind that heavy conservancy costs in some ports make them less competitive than other ports whose conservancy costs are lighter? Would it not be right and proper for the Government to intervene to ensure equalisation of port conservancy costs by financially supporting authorities faced with high conservancy costs?

That concept has never been espoused by any Government. It would, I think, be counterproductive to ensuring effective competition between our ports in attracting cargo.

Will my hon. Friend try to establish the extent to which port rates in London are a genuine charge for conservancy costs and to what extent they subsidise the PLA's loss-making operations? To the extent that they are the latter, does my hon. Friend agree that they are entirely unjustified and ought to be abolished?

It would be presumptuous of me to answer that question until we have seen the inspector's report and examined what he says.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied that the current motorway network is adequate for the present level of traffic.

Except where improvements or additions are already under construction or are planned, the network is adequate at present.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the volume of traffic on some stretches of motorway—particularly on the M1 and M6—is excessive and that there is a strong argument for building new stretches of motorway to complement these busy stretches, thereby easing congestion?

I am sure my hon. Friend is well aware that my Department's proposals for the extension of the M40 will, if they go ahead, considerably ease passage on the M1. By increasing total expenditure on motorways and trunk roads by 22 per cent. over the next three years we are doing our best to keep up with the increasing amount of traffic using our roads.

Does the Minister agree that the motorway network and traffic levels in Lancashire would be made more adequate if the Government decided to link the M65 with the M6? When can we expect a decision on the restoration of that motorway scheme to the Government's programme?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience, and I shall be only too glad when we reach a decision on the matter. I expect that will be fairly soon, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that the north-west has been provided with more motorways than many other areas which have waited a long time for an improvement to their infrastructure.

I compliment my hon. Friend on the pressure that she has exerted to ensure that the M25 is completed, but can she say whether any studies have been made on the introduction of flexibility and extra lanes, if required, as the traffic build-up, especially through my constituency, already suggests that that motorway will be heavily over-subscribed? Will the existing arrangements be adequate?

We have, of course, made provision in certain parts of the M25 for four-lane carriageways. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but until we have completed the remainder—slightly less that 50 per cent.—of the M25, there will be some unnatural flows of vehicles seeking to use the route in a different way. I must ask my hon. Friend to be patient, but I assure him that we have the matter under serious consideration.

Does the Minister appreciate that the smugness of her answer to the original question will be much resented in Wales, given that the Severn bridge is very much part of the M4? What is she going to do about all the difficulties with the bridge, the persistent hold-ups, one-lane traffic and, most recently, the fact that an overtime ban is being enforced by those employed on essential repairs?

I have no intention of being smug about any answer that I give in the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our studies on the Severn crossing and what is to be done with it are a matter for maximum priority by the Department. I shall certainly look into the matter if there are industrial relations problems. However, I dare say that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends could do a lot to help solve them instead of making unfounded statements.

What is the state of play with the M40, which will ultimately link Birmingham and London? My hon. Friend will be well aware it has been in gestation for nearly 15 years.

I am only too well aware of the problems which a long period of planning and going through the public inquiry system can bring about. However, the report has appeared in our Department during the past fortnight. We shall be progressing it thoroughly and as quickly as possible. I hope to make an announcement by the end of the year, after my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport have considered its details. On present plans, we expect construction to start in 1987, as in 1985 we shall have to complete the side roads, compulsory purchase orders and any possible inquiries.

Is it not a fact that poorly repaired motorways have caused some of the delay, that there is no real need to increase the motorway network, and that, with a speedy recovery and construction of the M25, there will be no further problems?

I cannot say that my crystal ball is as accurate as that of my hon. Friend and that there might not be problems in future. Although we are taking every possible step to minimise the effect on road users of repairing our roads, so that they last another 20 years, we must keep a watching brief on the development of different modes of transport in Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that the A423 road between Oxford and Banbury is adequate for the weight and volume of traffic that it carries.

No, Sir. My hon. Friend is aware of our proposals for extending the M40, which would substantially reduce traffic on the A423.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the people of north Oxfordshire would be relieved if the Government gave a definite commitment to constructing the M40? We do not want to hear my hon. Friend say, "If the M40 goes ahead." We want a definite commitment that it will go ahead. As my hon. Friend well knows, the trunk road is deplorable and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) has mentioned, we have been waiting about 15 years for the M40, during which time no real improvements to that trunk road have been made. Is my hon. Friend aware that I was also disturbed to hear her say that the M40 would not start until 1987? I thought that it was to be in the trunk road programme from 1986.

I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that work will start in 1986, but he knows as well as I do that, should the inspector recommend that we go forward with that plan, we shall start as soon as possible. I accept that conditions on the A423 are far from satisfactory. We are carrying out an accident and congestion study to identify any action that can be implemented before the M40 becomes a reality for his, and many other, constituents.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the problems of that part of the country are on not only a north-south but an east-west axis? When assessing the A423, will she also have a close look at the A43, which is even more congested?

I am well aware of the need for improvement at Blisworth and many other places along the A43. There are a number of plans in the White Paper. In the past two years schemes have been brought forward to add to the improvements planned for the A43, which should help to release some of my hon. Friend's constituents from those traffic jams.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assurances he can give that the current employees of Sealink will be given the opportunity to acquire a stake in the equity of their company.

I welcome the British Railways Board's assurance that in assessing offers for Sealink it will take into account the ability and willingness of prospective purchasers to give employees an opportunity to participate in a share ownership scheme.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the ultimate decision is his? Will he follow the example set by the Government in relation to the National Freight Company and British Telecom, which allows employees a minimum of £70 or £75 worth of shares? Does he agree that the best way forward is to ensure that the work force is involved and that, if Sealink is to be privatised, employees should have at least a 20 per cent. stake in the equity?

I share the hon. Gentleman's view. That is why I asked British Rail to include in the letter inviting bids the following:

"In determining the acceptability of offers the British Railways Board will have regard to…a prospective purchaser's ability and willingness to extend to Sealink UK's employees an opportunity to participate in a share ownership scheme."

asked the Attorney-General if he has any proposals to change the method of assessing the eligibility of applicants for civil legal aid.

asked the Attorney-General what plans he has to change the method of considering the eligibility of applications for civil legal aid.

asked the Attorney-General if he has any plans to change the method of determining eligibility for civil legal aid.

Assessment of financial eligibility for civil legal aid is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. He and the Lord Chancellor are considering the recent Rayner scrutiny report, but no decisions on the main recommendations have yet been reached.

Is the Attorney-General aware of the widespread concern that confidential information given by applicants for legal aid is being used by the DHSS for other purposes, that that appears to be in accordance with confidential DHSS guidance to staff and that staff are probably acting in breach of the Legal Aid Act 1974? Will the Attorney-General look into that matter?

The case of Whipman v. Whipman has recently been drawn to my attention. I am considering it urgently and intend to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is an element of artificiality about this, in that page 6 of a legal aid application contains a direction to the effect that financial information will be supplied to the Department of Health and Social Security? Is not the effect of that that the Department is supposed to read the information for computing legal aid and to turn a blind eye if a possible case of fraud is suspected?

That problem becomes particularly acute when, in a remote district, the same official may deal with both supplementary benefit and legal aid applications.

In view of the Lord Chancellor's responsibility for these matters, and since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to talk about the problem and answer questions here, is this a matter that should be discussed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, as it needs detailed investigation?

It is not for me to say what matters should be discussed by the Home Affairs Committee. The consequences of the Whipman decision are serious. If an errant husband cannot be traced and the wife is compelled to apply for supplementary benefit, which may be well below the sum ordered by the court, and that husband applies for legal aid, his name and address will be known to the DHSS. However, if the decision is right, that cannot be used to provide the remedy which the wife so badly needs.

If there is any doubt about the law, and if there is any doubt arising from the case mentioned, have not successive Labour Governments for 11 years also made the same mistake? Is it not time that the law was changed? Do not most people want applications for legal aid to be checked for fraud?

The case occurred in 1951. The L code, as the legal aid code is called, is applied by the DHSS. It used to be applied by the National Assistance Board and then the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The code has been in existence for 30 years, which covers the lifetime of a number of Governments of both political complexions.

Was the Attorney-General consulted by the DHSS before its spokesman said that the DHSS had been legally advised that the code did not contravene the law? Was the DHSS aware of the comments of Commissioner Grazebrook in the case of Whipman v. Whipman? Can the Attorney-General confirm that the Lord Chancellor believes that it is important that people should not be inhibited from applying for legal aid because of the fear of disclosure of information?

I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his industry and diligence in finding the case—a fact which, unfortunately, I learnt from the newspapers this weekend rather than direct from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

asked the Attorney-General what further progress has been made in seeking to reduce the disparities in the grant of legal aid between different magistrates' courts.

The Lord Chancellor has a number of measures in hand to promote greater consistency in the grant of legal aid for the magistrates' courts. The most important of these is the introduction from 1 March 1984 of a right of recourse from the refusal of legal aid by the courts in certain cases.

Is the Solicitor-General not aware of the wide variations in the refusal rates among magistrates' courts? For example, the rate in Cardiff in 1982 was 7·5 per cent., in Swansea 15 per cent. and in Lower Rhymney 34 per cent.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the new regulations introduced in March, which provide for recourse in certain circumstances. There is an unacceptable degree of inconsistency, and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor recognises that. The existence of the regulations is well known. They are referred to in the form of refusal which a justice's clerk hands to a disappointed applicant for legal aid.

Is consideration being given not only to the personal approach but to the general public interest in certain cases where the criteria should be waived? Is the Solicitor-General aware of the case of one of my constituents, Mrs. Doreen Wardle, whose son died from glue sniffing? She is inhibited from proceeding with an investigation of that case because of the high costs involved.

The criteria are under consideration by the Lord Chancellor and the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. If he cares to write to the Lord Chancellor about the particular circumstances, I know that he will receive a carefully considered reply. It is now for the advisory committee to make its report to the Lord Chancellor, who will then consider what changes, if any, need to be made.

asked the Attorney-General if he will now publish the Rayner report on legal aid assessments.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 9 May.

What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reaction to the proposal by the Rayner committee to transfer the business of assessment from the DHSS to the Lord Chancellor's Department? Before taking any steps in that direction, will the Attorney-General consult legal aid practitioners so that the money saved will not be at the expense of the legal aid service?

The decision whether to transfer is a major part of the recommendation, and it is a matter which no doubt my noble Friend will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. On that and all other matters that are under urgent consideration, I hope that we shall be able to reach a decision soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to continue his efforts to ensure that aid is used by host countries for developmentally sound purposes.

All spending proposals in my Department are carefully appraised to ensure that they can produce a satisfactory return to the host country and have a positive impact on their development. Monitoring and evaluation procedures have recently been strengthened. Efforts are being made to achieve better co-ordination between donors and with recipient Governments.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the report of the Independent Group on British Aid that he is sacrificing the quality of British aid by giving greater weight to Britain's commercial and industrial need?

No, Sir, I do not believe that quality is being sacrificed for Britain's commercial interests. The bulk of our aid goes to the poorer countries, where it is needed most. Its use continues to be fully appraised to make sure that its development impact is satisfactory.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some countries, such as Zambia, accept foreign aid but refuse to remit money owing to individuals who have left the country? Will he impress on these Governments that, unless they abide by international commitments, they cannot expect to continue to be recipients of our foreign aid?

We are always ready to press Governments to pay out moneys which they should pay, but I am reluctant to use the foreign aid programme as a means of bringing that about.

Is there not a risk that the aid for trade provision will be used by some developing countries for purposes other than those that are developmentally sound, at the behest of British exporters?

It is conceivable that there could be a risk, but it is for my Department to approve all aid and trade provision allocations, and we look at the developmental considerations carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been received to the letter of 2 April from the Minister for Overseas Development to the director general of UNESCO.

I have not yet received a direct response to my letter, but I reinforced the message in it when Mr. M'Bow called on me on 18 April. Our proposals are currently being debated by the executive board.

In view of the recent history of UNESCO, what specific improvements are the Government seeking; and, if those improvements are not forthcoming, will my right hon. Friend consider that Britain should withdraw from UNESCO?

In my letter to Mr. M'Bow I set out the improvements that we require. It would not be possible to list them all here, but they relate to the most effective use of resources, reducing the political content of UNESCO and, generally speaking, greater emphasis on action rather than theoretical studies. Mr. M'Bow understands that, if reforms are not achieved, our membership of UNESCO will be in great doubt.

Do not the real objections to UNESCO come from multinational newspapers and television corporations, which object strongly to developing countries trying to develop their own systems so that they can receive information about their societies and not fall under the control of the international companies that seek to dominate their media?

The right hon. Gentleman gives a distorted impression of what we are doing. I have already explained our objections. It is true that there have been apprehensions lest the New World Information and Communication Order should lead to some loss of freedom among the media. We should be unhappy about that if it came to pass.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is being provided for the power generation projects in Africa.

We are providing aid for such projects in 10 countries. Details will be published in the Official Report.

I should like to ask a particular question about the new Kiambere project in Kenya. What is the cost of the project to the British taxpayer? While I accept that the potential advantages to Kenya are considerable, what will be the impact on jobs and industry in this country?

Our grant to Kenya for the Kiambere project is up to £12·3 million. I have no doubt that that will be valuable to Kenya. It will also provide important contracts for switchyard equipment, transmission lines and general electrical work for British companies.

Does my right hon. Friend know that there is a major hydroelectric power station on the border between Namibia and Angola, which was designed to supply power to Angola? Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, when the situation demands and it is possible for us to give such help, he will be prepared to recommend support to bring the two generators into use to supply power to southern Angola?

I cannot give such an undertaking, but if a proposal is put to me at the appropriate time I shall consider it carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent commitments of aid have been made to Pakistan.

At the World Bank Consortium meeting on Pakistan in April we announced a further £25 million of grant-aid to Pakistan for projects to be agreed with the Pakistan Government. We also announced a grant of £1 million to a programme aimed at discouraging the growth of narcotic drugs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Pakistan has a particularly serious problem with the large numbers of refugees coming from Afghanistan? During the discussion with the Pakistan Government, was any reference made to tagging aid specifically to help the Afghans?

We recognise the great problem faced by the Afghan refugees, and we respect the response of the Pakistan Government to the problem. Since 1980 we have allocated about £21 million for the support of those refugees.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Pakistan I was told of the country's gratitude for the aid given to the refugees? However, have the other countries which also condemned the situation that produced the refugees given money proportionate to their means, and, if not, will Her Majesty's Government address them?

I cannot answer for all the other countries concerned. However, the overall response to the problem of Afghan refugees in Pakistan has not been unsatisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the African, Caribbean and Pacific/European Community Council in Fiji.

The annual ACP-EC Council meeting on 2 May discussed issues relating to the management of the second Lomé convention. The third ACP-EC negotiating conference on a successor to the convention on 3 to 5 May made satisfactory progress, and it was agreed that a fourth negotiating conference would be held in Luxembourg on 28 to 29 June.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest contribution of the Lomé convention has been towards the development of trade rather than to making available quantities of aid money? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government are pursuing that line?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The trade aspect of the Lomé convention is extremely important. In the negotiations we have stressed the need for further liberalisation of trade in the next convention.

The Minister said that satisfactory progress had been made at the talks. Therefore, can he tell us why there was no discussion of either the amount of finance or the criteria for finance and disbursement? There was virtually no discussion of trade. How does the Minister reconcile the ACP countries' demand that there should be serious discussion of the Community's relationship with South Africa with the invitation to Mr. Pieter Botha to come to this country?

It has always been understood that finance should be tackled at the end of the negotiations. I made clear my views on trade. There was some discussion of trade. It is not true that there was no discussion of trade. A group was devoted to it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that sound economic development in many of these countries requires measures to reduce the rate of growth of their populations? Did he therefore raise that issue, or have it raised, at the recent talks for the ACP-EC renewal? If not, will he do so in future?

The question of population was raised, but it did not feature prominently. However, the Government have done a considerable amount in that area. Our support for population activities has increased considerably in recent years and it will continue to grow.

Does not the scope of the Lomé convention negotiations and renegotiations need radical revision to take account of the gamut of relationships between the poor and rich countries represented and of many other different matters, including the dumping of surpluses under the common agricultural policy?

The Lomé relationship is already wide-ranging. We discussed in Fiji, and will continue to discuss, matters covering a great deal of ground, and our discussions touch at certain points on food aid. I should be reluctant to see the scope of the convention becoming wider and wider. It is important to make the convention effective.

Was any progress made on the question of the rules of origin applying to the ACP countries?

Some progress was made, but I hope that we can achieve more.