asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has yet completed his review of the interim assessment of the consultation on airline competition policy conducted by the Civil Aviation Authority.

The interim assessment contains some important ideas, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them as its purpose is to elicit comment from the British civil air transport industry and its users. The authority should report its conclusions on the review by mid-July.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I gather that the final report will be out soon. Does he accept that, because British Airways is comfortably into profit and well en route for privatisation, further competition with that company on its existing routes would be healthy? Does he further accept that hiving off routes that have taken British Airways some 60 years to acquire and on which it competes with about 200 companies in international air transport would be very damaging to the prospect of BA's public flotation.

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Lord King and his board on transforming the airline from a heavy loss maker to a high profit earner. I cannot, however, comment at this stage on my hon. Friend's views, because the matter is before the Civil Aviation Authority for review. We should like to hear everyone's views. I am the only one who cannot give views at this stage.

How does the Secretary of State intend to allay the obvious fears of independent airlines that they are likely to be steamrollered by a newly privatised British Airways, which has been built up to its present dominant position by the investment of substantial public funds?

That concern is at the heart of questions put to the Civil Aviation Authority. We should await its views on those topics. I am sure that the House will then want to return to the matter in the light of the Government's decision, which will be based on the authority's views. They will be put forward next month.

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that these are difficult times for the employees of British Air Tours and of British Caledonian Airways, both of which are in my constituency, because of the uncertainty that is hanging over them before the publication of the CAA report? Will my right hon. Friend be able to make a statement on the report before the summer recess?

Change always makes for uncertainty. One of the features of modern life is that change seems to be accelerating in almost every industry. I have sympathy with those who are affected, but that is not an argument against change. I do not know how the Government will handle the CAA report, and I have to reserve my position as to when we shall make it public and give our views. The report will be made public and the Government will give their views as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the contribution to the improvement in British Airways' operations that has been created by the activities of companies such as British Midland Airways, Britannia Airways and British Caledonian Airways in raising the levels of competition and of service to the customer? When he takes into account the views about the report that will come from a variety of people, will he recognise their genuine fears about the effects of British Airways' continuing monopoly in the market?

My hon. Friend and I stand absolutely together on the virtues of competition in this industry, as in others. That is why I am trying to introduce more realistic competition into the European airline market as well as into domestic routes. However, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that competition must be not only free, but fair. That is at the heart of the problem that we have posed to the CAA.

Has the Secretary of State seen the report in Accountancy Age, which makes it clear that British Airways' interim accounts seem to have been massaged considerably, in the interest of share purchasers rather than taxpayers?

I have not seen that article, but I have taken all possible care to urge the British Airways Board to ensure that all its financial reporting is based on the most accurate figures possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to meet the French Minister of Transport to discuss the report on finance for a fixed cross-Channel link.

I am in regular contact with the French Minister of Transport, and I will have further discussions with him once we have both had time to consider the report and assess reactions to it.

Although one accepts the Government's general policy on investment, does the Secretary of State realise that such a project needs Government encouragement and commitment? Will he do all that he can to ensure that, if agreement with the various parties is achieved, construction of the Channel tunnel link will be started as soon as possible?

We must give the interested groups a little time in which to come forward with proposals. However, if any group has proposals which do not involve either Government funding or guarantees of an economic or commercial nature, we shall certainly consider them sympathetically and try to assist. Nevertheless, the Government have made their position clear throughout, and are prepared to give only political guarantees and to assist with such things as treaties with the French and the maritime and other risks that might be involved in construction.

Before my right hon. Friend gives any thought to so much as one penny of taxpayers' money being spent on that cross-Channel fixed link, will he give a little thought to the negligence of the Department and Kent county council over the delay of no less than 18 months in building a proper flyover at the Barham crossroads on the A2?

I shall certainly look into that matter, although it does not arise from the original question, because, as I have said, the Government are not contemplating giving one penny of taxpayers' money to the construction of the fixed Channel link.

As one effect of the Channel link would be to create jobs in northern France and the south-east of England, would it not be right to give priority to the improvement of transport communications generally and the provision of a common transport subsidy? That would enable firms in Scotland, the north of England and Northern Ireland to take their goods to market in the EEC without facing the crippling cost of transport. Unless a transport subsidy is given, areas in the south will be aided, to our disadvantage.

The hon. Gentleman cannot have too much to complain about, as there is already a cross-Firth link in the Tay bridge which serves his part of Scotland. I am not at all sure that it would be right to give advantages in the form of money or guarantees to those who wish to provide a fixed Channel link as opposed to those who wish to provide ships and ferries to carry our trade across the Channel to Europe.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is generally accepted that any Channel tunnel should be a genuine private sector project? However, at some point the decision whether or not to proceed must be political, and I am sure that at an early stage the Government will want to settle all the speculation and uncertainty that have continued for so long. Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea of the time scale involved in the political decision-making?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that it must be a private sector venture, and the Government will need to give it statutory treaty and access facilitation on this side of the Channel.

What does that mean?

It means building the roads or railways that lead to the mouth of the tunnel. We have to do that. If any group suggests a project which is viable against Government criteria, we will assist. The private sector must come forward with fully developed plans before we can work out a time scale.

Can the Secretary of State spell out what he means by "we will assist"? Does he mean that in no case will the Government give financial assistance and that they intend to stand aloof from the project, even at the risk of its foundering yet again?

It means that it will be necessary to build either roads or railways to provide access to the English side of the link. It will be necessary to agree a treaty with the French and to examine the maritime and navigational risks to ensure that they are acceptable. It will probably be necessary to give a guarantee that the project will not be interrupted by political actions beyond the control of the promoters. Beyond that the Government are not prepared to go.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to reduce the delay caused by roadworks on the M1 in the east midlands.

All possible steps to reduce delays are being taken. Roadworks are carefully phased in relatively short sections with reasonable gaps in between. Delays generally occur only in peak periods after road traffic accidents.

Is the Minister aware that eight deaths have occurred recently because of accidents on the M1 due to road works at contraflow areas? All of them were near Leicester and the latest was yesterday. How long will this terrifying toll of tragedy be allowed to continue? While it does continue, will the Minister warn motorists to exercise extra care in contraflow areas and to keep a much greater distance behind other vehicles, including mine?

I much regret the deaths that have taken place. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that many accidents occur because motorists go through a contraflow section at too great a speed. Warning speed limits of 50 mph are posted. Motorists also bunch up far too closely behind the vehicles in front. Whenever that happens, there is a grave danger of an accident and, therefore, of personal injury. In every press notice that I have put out in the past two and a quarter years I have warned about the need to keep a fair distance behind the vehicle in front and for motorists to obey the warning instructions. I hope that motorists will take heed of this awful death toll.

Is the limit to which my hon. Friend refers legally enforceable? Will she clarify the position, because there is some doubt whether speed limits on rather unofficial-looking signs are enforceable?

The speed limit written in black on a white background with a black border is advisory. Before one can introduce a speed limit on any road, one must apply for orders. An objection period is necessary and the whole process could take longer than the road works to which it applies. I have asked officials if there is any other way of enforcing such a speed limit, but I have not yet found one.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has had from the London boroughs to his plans for a concessionary fares scheme for London pensioners.

The London Boroughs Association has welcomed the provision in the London Regional Transport Bill of a statutory reserve travel concession scheme. It has also agreed the principle of a voluntary joint scheme, based on the existing one, and is working out the details.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that the remarkable swing to Labour in London's EEC elections represents not only a satisfactory pricking of the alliance parties, but is a clear and unmistakable rejection by Londoners of the Government's attacks on their rights?

Order. The question relates to concessionary fares.

Does the Secretary of State now expect Tory-controlled boroughs in London and London Tory Members of Parliamemt, who are now living on borrowed time, to heed the electoral warning, and will he and his colleagues do likewise?

I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that the European elections have no relevance to the future of the concessionary fares scheme in London. It is indicative of the Opposition's view of the matter that they should want the future of Europe to be fought on the battlegrounds of domestic legislation for London. It is typical of the Labour party, for that is the length and breadth of its vision on the great topic of Europe.

Does my right hon. Friend intend to accept the amendment tabled in another place, which seeks to extend concessionary fares to the evening period?

We do not intend to overturn the amendment on evening peak travel. Their Lordships are well aware that they have deliberately left in the relevant clause of the Bill power for London Regional Transport to change the timings without my approval or that of the House and to reinstate the eyeing period, if desirable.

In the light of recent court cases, is the Secretary of State confident that the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities will sink their political differences and co-operate in negotiating the best possible concessionary fares scheme for London's pensioners?

The latest information is that they are more or less agreed on a scheme which closely resembles existing provisions for concessionary fares, and are working on the details now. I hope that they will succeed, because I have always been reluctant about the use of the reserve powers in the Bill. It would be better if the local authorities could agree. I wish them well.

If the Government do not abolish the GLC, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless take London Transport under his wing?

Yes, Sir, and very soon.

Does the Secretary of State's statement mean that although the House refused to include peak time travel in the pass for pensioners, which was, however, included in the other place, his guarantee that pensioners will not be worse off than before means nothing, because London Transport can change the hours? Will that system be introduced?

Yes, that is the present position. The GLC can change the hours without statutory procedures, and London Regional Transport will also be able to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will encourage the introduction of commercial advertising into road signposting.

No, Sir. The introduction of commercial advertising would conflict with the primary purpose of traffic signs, which is to assist road users to get to their destination in safety.

That is a most disappointing answer. Will my hon. Friend encourage the officials in the Department, who, if anybody, are responsible for signposting in its present spasmodic and misleading form, to visit France, where they manage to combine commercial advertising with excellent signposting both in the cities and on the open road?

I know that my hon. Friend is enamoured of French signposting. In Britain, we have in the past followed the august reports of a number of bodies. I have put in hand for Kent, and later for Nottinghamshire, two experiments to sign interesting historic places by means of white on brown signs, similar to those in France, of which my hon. Friend has spoken so favourably. We shall monitor those experiments and see what more can be done to ensure that those places offering objects of historic interest are made attractive and known to the road traveller.

Before the Minister overdoes her encouragement of signposting to places of historic interest, will she bear in mind that most towns and villages are inadequately signposted? As a priority, will she look at the American system, in which all motorway exits signpost what happens if the motorist leaves at that exit, what happens when he reaches the next exit, and the distance to it?

The hon. Gentleman knows that much of the signposting for towns and villages is the responsibility of county councils. However, I note what he says about displaying on the signpost exactly how far the next exit is. Our problem is that the more words we put on a signpost, the longer the motorist's attention will be distracted. I do not wish to do anything that might increase accidents, such as putting too much on signs or having too many of them.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing amount of graffiti on road safety notices, especially on motorways, in connection with pressure groups such as CND? Is she worried about this developing tendency, and does she have plans to combat it?

Anyone who gets within sufficient distance of a signpost to obliterate part of it or to damage it in some other way is breaking the law by being on the side of the motorway at that point. Officials of the county councils, which are the highway authorities which look after those matters for us, seek to remove such graffiti as quickly as possible. However, it is becoming increasingly expensive to do so, and we must consider how we can make signposts less vulnerable to such attacks.

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 this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the level of investment by his Department in the road system in the Greater London area.

London is receiving considerable benefit from the Government's first priority in its road programme—the completion of the M25. Within Greater London we are already planning to spend more than £700 million during the next 10 years or so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by any criterion, there has been gross under-investment in the capital's road system during the past 15 years? With the completion of the M25, does he agree that there is a case at least for a minimum new road-building programme to remove traffic from environmentally sensitive areas, to improve road junctions and to increase the number of traffic management schemes?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The evidence of our doing so is the figure that I mentioned of more than £700 million which we are planning to spend on London's roads within the next 10 years, apart from the M25. That motorway should take out of London traffic that need not be there, and we must then cater for the traffic that has business in London in an environmentally sensitive way as well as expediting the flow of traffic.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that any of his Department's investment in Greater London has been wasted by the GLC scheme to squeeze the capacity of traffic on the A4 at Cromwell road and Talgarth road, in which the Department has invested a considerable sum of taxpayers' money?

If one wished to discourage traffic from entering central London, and to encourage people to use public transport, the GLC's method of doing so at Talgarth road is an object lesson of how not to achieve one's aims. The concept was mistaken from the beginning and the GLC must urgently find a way to allow traffic to flow on the A4. I have urged it constantly to do so, but so far the response has been inadequate.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the Port of London Authority concerning continued access of oceangoing vessels to the royal group of docks.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that, despite its statutory responsibilities, the Connaught cut swing bridge in the royal docks cannot now be swung? Will he assure the House that the Port of London Authority will neither hinder nor prevent any future cargo operations in the royal docks, if only for the reason that more shipping in the Thames would provide it with more revenue?

That is a matter for the PLA; but as there is substantial under-utilisation of alternative facilities at Tilbury and on the river, which are within the PLA area, it is highly unlikely that there would be a demand at that spot.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent consultations he as had on reducing prices of airline tickets from London to major French airports; and if he will make a statement.

We are pressing for the liberalisation of air fares on all European routes, and we warmly welcome the proposals for lower, more competitive, fares which are now coming forward from our airlines.

I welcome the initiatives taken by the Government to reduce air fares. Does my hon. Friend know of any proposals by British companies in this area?

I am pleased to be able to tell the House that British Caledonian Airways is today announcing a new initiative on European fares, which includes an off-peak one-way fare to Paris of £35, which is almost half the existing fare. We look forward to discussing British Caledonian Airways' proposals with the French and other Governments involved.

As many passengers flying to the Continent must do so by going through London airport at exorbitant additional cost, should not a greater Government priority be the introduction of inter-regional or international lines between other parts of the United Kingdom and the Community countries in order to cheapen the cost of transport, which at present is hideously expensive?

We have already made it easier for interregional airport traffic to take place under an EEC directive. The problem is that not sufficient people wish to travel on those routes to make them commercially viable. We are seeking to introduce greater competition on the major routes, which should result in a significant improvement in service and a reduction in fares.

Is the Minister aware that the last initiative on cheap air fares by B-CAL and the Amsterdam groups, launched by the Secretary of State during the Euro-elections as something of a gimmick, has now run into the ground? Is he also aware that it has been rejected particularly by people in London, who hear the Secretary of State calling for cheap fares on aeroplanes while doing everything he can to increase fares for ordinary people on trains and buses?

Far from my right hon. Friend's initiative having run into the ground, he is meeting the Dutch Minister at The Hague this Wednesday, and I am hopeful that he will succeed in completing the current negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to ensure that all divers are adequately insured by the company for whom they work.

Divers working from United Kingdom ships within United Kingdom waters are already covered. I am consulting about the need to extend cover elsewhere.

I assure the Minister that my question is based on a real case in which the diver died and his widow received a letter saying that the company had no collective insurance for either accident or death. Can he give an absolute assurance that if measures are introduced they will include foreign divers, as many British divers are resentful of the increased percentage of foreigners working in British waters because of the additional costs to companies of employing British divers? If foreign divers are not included, it would make a British diver even more costly to employ.

I shall cover the hon. Gentleman's general point in the consultations to which I have referred. On his specific case, if he will write to me I shall look into it further. There is, of course, a liability on an employer within United Kingdom waters to insure against employer's liability, but in a highly paid profession it rests on the man to insure himself against an accident as opposed to relying on employer liability.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to discuss industrial relations in the railway industry with the chairman of British Rail.

I next plan to meet the chairman of British Rail on 2 July as part of our regular schedule of meetings. There is no formal agenda for these meetings, but if the chairman wishes to raise the subject of industrial relations I will, of course, be happy to discuss it with him.

Is the Secretary of State aware that as much as 70 per cent. of railway workers still receive basic rates of pay that are well below the levels advocated by the low pay unit? Is he further aware that, even after his helpful intervention with British Rail, a railwayman's basic rate of pay is now about £76? When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman, will he do all he can to try to sort out the scandal of low pay in British Rail?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the precise nature of the pay agreement between British. Rail and its employees is for the board to negotiate. Moreover, in this particular instance, the total of the cost of the pay award was proposed by the British Rail chairman, and the Government did not intervene. I am not saying that that is a rule on all such occasions, but in the particular instance to which the hon. Gentleman refers, there was no interference by the Government.

In his forthcoming discussions with the chairman of British Rail, will my right hon. Friend look into the possibility that four of the six points relating to productivity that were discussed and agreed in principle with the unions in 1981 have still not been complied with and were not made a contractual part of recent negotiations?

Despite reports in the press, the recent settlement included four points on productivity. The unions accepted the principle of driver-only operation on the Bedford-St. Pancras line. They accepted that British Rail would bring forward extensions of driver-only operation on passenger trains within the negotiating machinery with the aim of introducing them from 1985 onwards. They agreed to resume driver-only operation trials for freight trains between Willesden and Garston. They also agreed to resume negotiations on the extension of single manning on the footplate. Those substantial improvements in productivity were included in those negotiations.

As the Prime Minister has shown herself only too willing to intervene in the affairs of British Rail, will the Secretary of State ask her whether she would like to insist that, in future, railwaymen will not be required to work on average 12½ hours' overtime because of their appalling rates of pay, but that they should be paid at a rate that makes that unnecessary?

We do not on the whole interfere in the details of pay negotiations. Such a question is rich from the hon. Lady, when the Government of whom she was a member controlled every detail through a statutory pay policy, with pay clauses, and who controlled pay in the nationalised industries by statute enacted by the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only industrial relations questions that he is right to discuss with the chairman of British Rail? Will he also discuss with him the apparent shortage of guards in that part of south London covering my constituency, which has caused many problems for rail travellers to and from my constituency?

I note what my hon. Friend says, but perhaps he will agree that it would be better if he were to discuss that with the chairman of British Rail rather than me, if we are to maintain the proper relationship between the railways' responsibility and mine.

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that he has just laid before the House an order giving the chairmen of the nationalised bus and rail industries an increase from £50 a week to £95 a week, which should be compared with the average of £5 a week that he intervened to give British Rail workers?

The hon. Gentleman will know that that is a simplistic point. He must discuss each increase on its merits. For instance, the chairman of British Rail had no increase at all. Some of the members of the boards to which he referred are working more days a week and others are being given an increase on merit because they perform very satisfactorily.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will assess the performance achieved by, and investment involved in, the French TGV trains with a view to seeing what lessons can be learnt in the United Kingdom from French experience; and if he will make a statement.

I have followed the development of the TGV with interest and I have travelled on it myself. But I believe the most cost-effective and successful way to improve high-speed rail travel in this country is fully to exploit our existing routes, rather than to build new ones.

Does my hon. Friend accept that if we had invested rather more on the APT than the one twentieth of the sum that the French have spent on the TGV we could have precisely what he suggests—a train that can travel at those speeds without having to build new railways? Are the Government planning to do anything to fund BR's investment programme in new technology?

That is a matter for British Rail. The APT will come into service shortly on an experimental basis. It should be remembered that BR runs more trains at over 100 miles an hour than does France.

When the experiment that the Minister talks about starts up, will he ensure that the train makes a number of stops between London and Glasgow, including Carlisle?

No, Sir. I should not wish to interfere in the detailed management of British Railways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to encourage the provision of rural bus services.

I am giving weight to the need to improve rural transport in my current review of policy on road passenger transport. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that he will have an awful lot of encouraging to do if he is to return the number of bus-passenger miles in rural bus services to the 1979 levels, bearing in mind that the National Bus Company alone has reduced its bus-passenger miles by more than 90 million a year?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is the passengers who have reduced the number of bus-passenger miles, not the National Bus Company.

asked the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received, following the issuing by him of guidance to higher education institutions about the limitations on the use of their student union's funds in the furtherance of political purposes, that the guidance is not being complied with; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations that expenditure has been incurred by student unions in breach of trust. These cases are being investigated. If the allegations are substantiated I shall consider whether to take legal proceedings against those responsible. I should add that if, as a result of such proceedings, the court finds that a breach of trust has occurred, it could hold those responsible for authorising the expenditure personally liable to repay the money and could order them to pay the costs of the proceedings.

I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. Am I correct in understanding also that, assuming that payments are so made from a student union fund which is a charity, additionally it might be that those receiving money would be liable to repay it, knowing that it comes from a charitable source? Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand that he will have trenchant support for seeking to ensure that money given willingly by the ratepayer and taxpayer for educational purposes is not used to finance violence of the kind that we have seen this morning?

My right hon. Friend is right. Where breaches of trust are established it is open to me to take whatever action I consider appropriate to recover the money improperly applied. This may include tracing the money in the hands of any person who has wrongfully received it.

Is the Attorney-General seriously suggesting that this is the highest priority for him and his staff? Would he not do better, for instance, attempting to track down the witness in the murder case at King's Cross who disappeared this time last year and has never been tracked down by his office——

Order. I do not think that that has anything to do with the question.

There are no police offices involved in any of these investigations. They are entirely the responsibility of the Treasury Solicitor. This subject got first priority today because it was the first question.

Since what my right hon. and learned Friend said has been the law for a long time, and no doubt the care with which that law is enforced has also been observed for a long period of time, is it not somewhat remarkable that money should still be being voted by student unions to striking miners who are behaving unlawfully, and to such organisations as the English Collective of Prostitutes? Is it not clear that my right hon. and learned Friend is not doing enough to bring home to the leaders of student unions precisely what the state of their indebtedness will be if they carry on behaving as unlawfully as this?

It is perfectly right that I am not likely to know about breaches unless they are brought to my attention. Usually a breach is brought to my attention by a student. The guidelines that I published some time ago have been widely circulated. There is little more that I can do save say to my hon. and learned Friend that when these matters are reported to me, the Treasury Solicitor makes careful inquiry. A number of cases have received a lot of publicity in the past few weeks, and all are in the process of investigation.

asked the Attorney-General whether he will meet the Director of Public Prosecutions and chief constables to discuss criteria for prosecutions arising out of incidents during the miners' strike.

No, Sir. Offences of the kind so far involved do not have to be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I am confident that the police abide by the guidelines which I published last year describing the general criteria for prosecution. There are no special criteria for prosecution.

In view of the grave public concern about the paramilitary behaviour of the police, such as in today's incident at Orgreave, will the Attorney-General confirm that the policing strategy to be used during the dispute was decided well in advance at a meeting held way back in February between himself, the Home Secretary and the chief constables? Is it not about time that this Tory Government stopped using the police for the blatant political purpose of waging a vendetta against the National Union of Mineworkers?

I attended no such meeting. The hon. Gentleman speaks of paramilitary behaviour, but those of use who listened to "The World at One" today heard of 5,000 so-called pickets. They are not. They are demonstrators and rioters. At the end of this incident, the whole road was littered with lumps of concrete, stones, bottles, and bricks taken from a wall demolished by the people whom the hon. Gentleman supports. If that is what he considers unfair treatment by the police, the hon. Gentleman should think again and realise that the paramilitary behaviour, which is military behaviour when it should not be, comes from those whom he supports, not from the police.

In any talk about guidelines and criteria, will my right hon. and learned Friend remember that the recommendation of the National Union of Mineworkers and the TUC on the number of pickets necessary to constitute a peaceful picket is six, and not 6,000, as are being used at the moment in the sort of incident about which we have heard complaints?

My hon. Friend is right. Six is a reasonable number. I remind the House of what is the right of a picket—to obtain or communicate information or seek to persuade a man not to go through the line. That is all. What we have seen today, and today is perhaps one of the worst occasions that we have had, is so far removed from that that even the thought contained in the rule that has just been expressed by my hon. Friend is made nonsense of by what is going on on the front line, as it has now become.

Is the Attorney-General satisfied that the action taken by the Kent police at the Dartford tunnel some time ago was within the guidelines to which he has just referred? If the people concerned had persisted in going through the tunnel, under what charge would they have been prosecuted?

If they had persisted in going through the tunnel, they would have been arrested for obstructing the police in the course of their duty. Whether that was a proper distance from the pits or not is not a matter for me, but for the courts, if they have to decide it.

Are not the large numbers of people who have been assembling riotously, as they did today, the real problem? Should we not re-enact something like the Riot Act, which dealt with the problem of large assemblies and dispersing them? Is that not the right way to deal with the problem?

In September 1982 the Law Commission recommended a new type of unlawful assembly, which was to be divided into three parts, ranging from the very serious one, with behaviour such as that which obviously occurred today, down to a lesser degree, and in particular giving the option of trial by magistrates if it were agreed by both sides. One of the problems about the more serious offences of riot and unlawful assembly is that they can be tried only on indictment and therefore there is a considerable delay before the cases are heard.

Will the Attorney-General advise the Prime Minister that one of the likely consequences of the present serious situation will be a series of long, acrimonious and divisive court cases arising from the miners' strike, and will he also advise her that the time has now passed for covert Government intervention and that we have reached a stage at which overt Government conciliation of the dispute should take place?

If what the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting is that, because this is criminal conduct involved in an industrial dispute, there should be a different mode of dealing with it, I disagree. As to the remainder of his question, that does not fall within my remit as Attorney-General.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the light of the worst violence yet at Orgreave, the only thing to be done with the criminal law is to enforce it?

The enforcing must be left initially to the police. There is no way in which the Government or any other Department should seek to influence the police as to how they conduct their operations on the ground. Once they have arrested it is a matter for the courts, but I think that it is very much to the credit of the police that, in the 12 to 13 weeks that this has been going on, the number of arrests overall in 20 different police forces amounts to fewer than 3,000.

Can the Attorney-General explain his role in the Government's preparation for the miners' strike? Was he consulted by the Secretary of State for Transport in the instruction given to the chairman of British Rail to avoid approaching the Attorney-General's office? What part of his duties could conceivably arise in connection with the instructions of the Secretary of State for Transport?

I shared the right hon. and learned Gentleman's surprise when I read that passage, and I had inquiries made. There is a simple answer. The remit of the Attorney-General does not allow him to advise students, any private organisation, or even nationalised industries, and this had been made clear at a previous meeting. Therefore, although badly worded, the intention was, "Do not think that you can go and get the advice of the Law Officers—they are not entitled to give it to you." What appeared so sinister was in fact as simple as that.

asked the Attorney-General if he is satisfied with present arrangements for training both full-time and part-time members of the judiciary in their judicial functions.

It is thought that a suitable foundation has now been laid for the training of all full-time and part-time judges of the crown court. There is an unmet need for formalised training of those who sit in the civil and family jurisdictions. This is at present under consideration.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us an idea of when the present system will be extended to civil and matrimonial courts?

The Judicial Studies Board, which has been in existence for slightly more than four years, has so far concentrated upon the criminal jurisdiction. It is too early to say when my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will extend it to civil and matrimonial matters. The matter is under consideration, but at the moment I cannot be more helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in improving public water and electricity supplies in Grenada with aid from the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is attending a meeting abroad, and is sorry that he is unable to be present. I have been asked to reply.

I thank the Minister for that information, but does he agree that there has been some delay in these matters, and will he examine it? Does he also agree that, in the aftermath of disaster or war, the restoration of public water supplies and electricity supplies is always, or often, a priority? Is not Britain in a good technical position to assist with that, and should not his Department or the Overseas Development Administration be geared up to deal with this as a first priority?

I well understand the concern of the hon. Gentleman, and I assure him that the overseas development division in Barbados has given the highest priority to the part that it can play in the restoration of water and electricity supplies. Indeed, the overseas development division has paid no fewer than 15 visits during the past six months. The progress that it can make depends also on co-operation with the local authorities.

Is it not a fact that the contract for the replacement of the No. 7 engine in the power station in Grenada, which was out of action at the time of the intervention in October, has still not been put out to tender, and a firm order has not yet been placed for it? Through this delay, and through the Overseas Development Administration insisting on its full tendering system, the price of that replacement engine to Grenada has thereby been increased, thus making the Grenada power supply much less secure in the very insecure situation in the island, and putting up the price of electricity in the long run? Surely this is an occasion when the ODA should have acted much more swiftly and effectively?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The project for the No. 7 generator has, indeed, been the subject of careful negotiations. Detailed specifications have been drawn up and tender documents are being prepared. I understand that the new engine will be commissioned towards the end of 1984.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom Government's overseas aid goes direct to recipient countries; and what proportion goes via international or multinational agencies.

In 1983, 59 per cent. of British aid was given bilaterally, mostly on a Government-to-Government basis, and 41 per cent. went through multilateral institutions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the generality of these things, it is far more effective for British aid to be given after direct negotiations with the Government of the recipient country than through multinational agencies? If that is so, and bearing in mind the fact that there is a role for British aid through such agencies, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be greatly to the benefit of recipient countries if aid was provided direct?

In general we wish to give priority to our bilateral aid programmes, but, as my hon. Friend will recognise, we have extensive multilateral commitments.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) is totally wrong?

It is difficult for me to enter into a debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). However, it is true that we get good returns on bilateral aid and on multilateral aid. As is revealed by my hon. Friend's question, the computation of those returns is a somewhat complex art.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, following the discussions on economic recovery at the London summit, he intends to bring about any changes in the volume or the use of British aid.

The Government's current plans for the aid programme take account of the global economic situation. We shall continue to explore ways by which aid can make a more effective contribution to solving the problems facing developing countries.

By that, does the Minister mean that "the global economic situation" explains what is meant by "wherever possible" in the post-summit communiqué, which declared the intention

"to maintain and wherever possible increase flows of resources, including official development assistance"?

The hon. Gentleman goes down familiar paths. The important thing that has been agreed at the summit and in previous ones, including those attended by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Prime Minister, is that the key to recovery is keeping public expenditure under control so that the recovery of national economies will permit an increase in world trade. The vital significance of world trade for developing economies should be recognised by all of us. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we have not abandoned the aspiration to the 0·7 per cent. target, but he will remember that the Labour Government remained well short of that target as well.

rose——

No.

Would not economic recovery in the Third world be helped more if, instead of increasing the percentage of aid, the Government tried to persuade the EEC to stop spending £100 million a week on dumping food on the world market, thereby depriving Third world countries of a decent and fair return on their agricultural produce?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the significant efforts of my right hon. Friends to reform the budget and, as part of it, the common agricultural policy.

Bearing in mind that this is a familiar road, did the Government say at the summit when they expected to achieve the 0·7 per cent. target? If not, will the Minister tell us now?

No, Sir. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), it is important to restore the economies of the developed and developing world. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, for many years, Britain has exceeded the United Nations target of joint private and official aid flows of more than 1 per cent. of gross national product.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the resources available to the International Development Association and the regional affiliates of the World Bank are adequate for their immediate requirements; and if he will make a statement.

In the Government's view, the seventh replenishment of IDA's funds at a level of US $9 billion which has just been approved by the World Bank executive board, is inadequate to meet the needs of poor countries and we have indicated our willingness to contribute to supplementary funding to bring the total nearer the $12 billion which most donors thought appropriate.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the Government deserve congratulations on the part that they have played in endeavouring to ensure that loan finance is provided on an expanded basis through the IDA to the most needy parts of the Third world?

I am happy to accept those congratulations and I shall certainly pass them on to my right hon. Friend.

Would a common fund for commodities be rather like the CAP on a world-wide basis?

My hon. Friend points to a danger of which all of us who are considering the project should be well aware.

On what conditions will Britain make the additional money available to IDA? Is it contingent upon the contribution of the United States and other countries?

The supplementary fund is a matter for negotiation. We are closely in touch with all other donors, especially Japan and the Federal Republic of Germany. I think that, at this stage, I can go no further than that.