asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the inter-city strategy.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement of future plans for inter-city railway services.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received British Rail's proposals for its inner-city business.

I received the strategy study recently and have already had one discussion about it with the chairman. I shall wish to have further discussions with him before reaching a final view on the strategy.

Will the Secretary of State admit that it is impossible for inter-city to achieve its 5 per cent. return on assets by 1988, as the right hon. Gentleman wishes, without cities such as Aberdeen, Plymouth, Sheffield, Hull and Nottingham having their inter-city connections affected?

I do not know where the hon. Lady gets all that from. It is wholly untrue. The strategy study predicts a major improvement in the sector's financial performance by 1988–89. It does not yet show the business achieving the full 5 per cent. target in that year. The study is complex and important and I shall need to study it further before reaching conclusions upon it.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the great problems faced by British Rail are the target imposed upon it and the fact that, in developing an inter-city strategy, it has had to take note of what the Secretary of State says and balance that against possible cuts in services?

I have received the study, which will be published by British Rail. It may be necessary to remove some commercially sensitive matter. When the report is published and the hon. Gentleman can study it, he, with his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Richardson), will probably conclude that the newspaper reports they may have been reading are at variance with the study.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the acknowledgement from the Conservative Benches of the considerable efforts by British Rail's top management to run the business in an efficient and businesslike way? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incorrect to say that the Government have not supported British Rail in the past and that that has been shown to be a myth? Does my right hon. Friend accept that prolonged failure to reach a decision on the east coast main line will make it much more difficult for British Rail's top management to convince the work force of our commitment to a modern, efficient and profitable rail service?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his well-deserved tribute to the efforts of British Rail's management to impart more commerciality into the railways. I entirely agree with him. I received the east coast main line submission on 25 May and the inter-city strategy on 22 June. They are major and complex documents and I should like time to make sure that I find the right answer. I hope to reply before the House rises for the recess but I know that the House will understand if, in the interest of getting the decision absolutely right, I do not succeed in making that deadline.

When next my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he impress upon him the importance of running inter-city services on time? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been deterioration in that respect on the Birmingham-Coventry-Euston line, that on eight out of the last 10 occasions when I have used that service the train has been late, and that my experience is by no means unique?

Punctuality is an important factor of railway operation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will draw his unfortunate experience to the attention of the chairman, because it is he rather than me who is responsible for that. The railways can improve their financial performance partly by improving their punctuality, thus attracting more customers.

As the Secretary of State said that he received the report only on 22 June, will he make every possible effort to make a statement before the House goes into recess, because he will understand hon. Members' difficulties in asking him questions after that? Will he confirm that for an investment of about £200 million on the London-Edinburgh route British Rail could save almost £1 a mile, which is £1,000 per round trip? Will the right hon. Gentleman take on board the importance of the electrification proposal for the whole of the south-east of Scotland, which depends exclusively on that route for transport south?

I cannot confirm any of the hon. Gentleman's figures, which are new to me. His figure for the value of the investment is wrong, because the choice is between investment in new diesel stock or electrifying the line. Either way, there has to be investment. With regard to the date, I told my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) that I hoped it would be possible to give an answer before the House rose, but if it is not I am sure the House will agree that it is such an important issue that a little more time should be taken to get the answer right.

I am glad that the Secretary of State now recognises that inter-city cannot possibly pay its way by meeting its target by 1986. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is partly because its economics have been undermined by his competition policy for buses on the same routes. Will he confirm that the whole electrification programme does not depend upon an inter-city strategy and can stand on its own, as reports have said since 1978?

Inter-city does not quite meet the 5 per cent. target that we set for it, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is being unduly pessimistic about how close it comes to it. However, he will see the figures for himself in due course. I do not accept that the inter-city strategy and the east coast mainline electrification prospectus do not go together. The business must be considered as a whole. The railways plan the business as a whole before major investment is contemplated on one or other part of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many train miles of inter-city services were operated by British Rail in 1983; and what is the forecast number for the current year.

The figure was 48·3 million in 1983. BR's latest forecast is that inter-city train miles will rise to 48·6 million in 1984.

I am sure that that statement will be welcomed by the country, but will the Minister give us one assurance that major cities such as Leeds, Sheffield or Chester will not be deprived of their inter-city service as a result of his consideration of the inter-city strategy?

Those are matters for British Rail, but I have no knowledge of any suggestion that any of those services would be eliminated from the inter-city network.

When will the strategy be published? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity of killing once and for all persistent rumours that high-speed train services to the west country and Cornwall are at risk?

Once again, I have no knowledge of any proposal to cut train services to my hon. Friend's constituency. Publication is a matter for British Rail. I understand that it intends to publish the report, but it will do so without the commercially confidential information that it contains.

Does the Under-Secretary of State know that the chairman of British Rail has refused to sanction electrification of the Crewe to Holyhead line, or even a high-speed train service from Euston to Holyhead? Does the hon. Gentleman know that the unemployment problems in Clwyd and Gwynedd are severe and that attempts to find new work would be greatly facilitated if such services were available? What will the hon. Gentleman do to enable British Rail to have the funding necessary so that my constituents have a better chance of gaining new work?

It is for BR to decide which services it will provide and the type of train service—inter-city or otherwise.

The Government pay the money.

It is for BR to decide. It is a matter of considering how many customers will be attracted, how many people will use the service and whether the service is viable and provides value for money for BR and the taxpayer.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a most important inter-city route lies between the great city of Cambridge and the capital? Will he therefore look favourably on any proposal to electrify the line between Cambridge and Royston?

The investment proposal for electrification of the line to Cambridge has already been approved on one route. The proposal was not approved on the other route because it was not the best value for money.

Why are train services between Bristol and Manchester a part of the inter-city network, while those between Liverpool and Hull are not? What relevance does either of those lines have for the electrification of the east coast main line?

The concept of the inter-city service has grown up over a period. It originated as a marketing exercise and has continued to its present form as a sector within British Rail. It is for British Rail to decide—[Laughter.] It is all very well for the Opposition to laugh. We do not manage the railways. It would be wrong for Ministers or politicians to seek to manage BR. That is much better done by professional railwaymen who know their jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what meetings he has had with the chairman of British Rail since 14 May; and what subjects were discussed.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what was discussed.

I have had five meetings with the chairman of British Rail since 14 May, most recently on 4 July. Each time, we discussed a large number of matters of mutual interest.

Did any of those matters of mutual interest include the new timetables introduced on 14 May, especially as they affect my constituents and other commuters in south-east London? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the letters to the chairman of British Rail complaining about poorer services under the new timetables are only a fraction of the complaints voiced by the users of the service, who are further frustrated by continual delays and cancellations? Will my right hon. Friend invite the chairman of British Rail to review those services and to restore as quickly as possible an adequate and punctual service?

My hon. Friend has done a splendid job in bringing those deficiencies to the attention of the chairman of British Rail, including during an Adjournment debate to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responded. I am glad that I can tell my hon. Friend that British Rail recognises that some of the morning peak services on his line have been overcrowded. Recently, it lengthened two of the trains that call at Grove Park. It is now considering whether to stop two more trains there to help relieve congestion.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that —this follows the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) — that not only London but many other areas have been affected, some experiencing cuts of up to 25 per cent. and others cuts of more than 60 per cent., in spite of his allegation that the cuts would be no more than 2 per cent.? There has been a deteriorating service and overcrowded trains because BR has not been able to provide the services that would have been possible if the Government had not imposed those cuts. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will carry out an immediate assessment of the effects of the cuts to ensure that the same thing does not occur when new timetables are next introduced?

The hon. Gentleman should know that his figure of 2 per cent. overall is about correct. That is for the whole of the railway network, and within such an average one can find better and worse figures, as he no doubt will seek to do. I do not believe that that is due to the Government's financial control of British Rail. I believe that it is due to the change in travelling patterns. British Rail is right to seek to meet passengers' demands —increasing services where they require it and reducing them when they do not.

Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the chairman of British Rail whether it can compete fairly with deregulated coach services, given the low licence fees charged to those coach operators, and the considerable environmental disadvantages that are associated with road transport.

For longer distances within the country, the coach is cheapest, British Rail next and the aeroplane is the most expensive. I am interested to ensure that we try to even the competition between those three modes of transport to make it as fair as possible. That is why we have asked British Rail to make a modest return on its inter-city service and why in due course I shall be publishing proposals for the bus industry which may have some effect on the problem that my hon. Friend so rightly mentioned.

The Minister will be aware that earlier this year there was an unprecedented directive from Rail House to regional managers that they should not discuss investment priorities with parliamentarians. Was that done with the approval of the Minister, and does he have views on it as a proper way for the heads of nationalised industries to work?

If I were to have views and comment upon directives from the boards of nationalised industries to their managers, I should have time to do nothing else but read them. I believe that it is fundamentally wrong that I or any other Secretary of State should comment upon how the railways manage their internal affairs.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail and discusses communter services, will he impress upon him the need to take into account the experience and expertise of rail commuter organisations such as the Orpington District Rail Passengers Association, because they have a contribution and expertise to offer which is not always present in British Rail? They can help to match efficiency with the convenience of the travelling public.

I accept entirely my hon. Friend's comment. I believe that British Rail keeps in touch with its consumer bodies. I believe that it has now worked out beneficial proposals for keeping in touch with hon. Members about changes in timetables. I further believe that in the London area the arrangements for liaison between the chairman of British Rail and the chairman of London Regional Transport, which I am about to set up, will make for even more co-ordination.

At the meetings, did the chairman raise with the Secretary of State any uncertainty about the future of the Cambrian coast railway line and the central Wales railway line, about which there are rumours? If the chairman has not made any suggestion about the withdrawal or closure of those lines, will the Secretary of State say that clearly so that the users of those lines will be in no uncertainty as to their future?

At none of my meetings with the chairman of British Rail have those lines been mentioned, nor has there been any suggestion about their closure.

Has my right hon. Friend yet received a letter of thanks from the chairman of British Rail for his refusal to increase the speed limit on motorways from 70 mph to 80 mph, which can only be to help British Rail, because there is no other logical reason for it?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity, but the letter, which I await eagerly, has not yet arrived.

As part of the Government's non-management or mismanagement of British Rail, have they become aware of the dissatisfaction felt by people who travel from St. Pancras to Leicester about the almost complete lack of investment on that part of the line? When he next sees the chairman of British Rail, will he please protest about that matter on behalf of my constituents and those who travel to my constituency?

It is funny, but I detect a growing body of support for and encouragement of British Rail from my hon. Friends. It seems that it is only the Opposition who are knocking it now.

Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the chairman of British Rail the deplorable standards of catering and buffet facilities on many inter-city trains? If he has not, will he say that privatisation is an option that is open to it?

Perhaps I spoke too soon. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has been pursuing the question of introducing private catering and capital into all of British Rail's catering activities at stations and on trains. I hope that we shall soon see an opportunity for competition and for others to supply a better service where they can.

Has the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman of British Rail its reported plans to reopen the Snow Hill tunnel connection to provide a through train route to cross London? In view of the obvious benefits of the scheme to travellers from north and south London, will he tell the House when it is likely to come into operation?

No, Sir. The chairman has not raised that matter with me.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what value, in £ sterling, were exports by British Rail Engineering Ltd. in each year since 1979 and to date in 1984; and if he will make a statement.

The exports for each of the years were: £27 million, £34 million, £19 million, £3 million and £1·5 million.

The House will agree that the most recent trend is encouraging after a fairly disappointing profile. In view of British Rail Engineering's large surplus capital, will my hon. Friend assure the House that British Rail management is putting its full resources into the export potential, and also that we have an opportunity to compete fairly within the European Community with French, German and other carriage works?

BREL management is putting considerable resources into its export drive. Last week it launched its international coach. I joined BREL management in welcoming representatives from 20 overseas countries. It has already secured the first order for the coach, worth £3·3 million, from Gabon. The railbus is on demonstration routes in Thailand, Malaysia, Denmark and the United States. Further orders for rolling stock have been secured from Coras Iompair Eireann.

In view of the considerable success of BREL, when does my hon. Friend think that he will denationalise it?

My right hon. Friend asked the chairman of British Rail to examine the way forward for BREL. That will be one of the options which the chairman will consider, but he has not yet reported to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the accountancy policy of British Airways.

British Airways' recently published accounts for 1983–84 accord with standard accounting practice, and were audited by a leading firm of accountants.

Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary agree that British Airways' accounting practices inflated the deficit in 1982–83 and the profits in 1983–84, and may have a little to do with the Government's intention to dispose of the shares? Does he further agree that if the accountants were a team of ice skaters they would probably get more marks for artistic interpretation than for technical merit?

The accounts of British Airways have been audited by a leading firm of independent auditors in the City. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's criticsm of the audit would be borne out by anyone outside the House who is involved in accountancy. The aircraft were previously valued without having a residual value after depreciation. They have now been given a residual value, which is in line with the general practice of other companies. The only other major change in the accounts is in the valuation of buildings and properties, which have been revalued from time to time, as is normal accounting practice.

Are any Government financial guarantees to British Airways still outstanding? If so, are they still needed?

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister now make a clear statement on routes and their future? When he makes that statement—I hope soon—will he clearly show that the routes belong to the British people?

My right hon. Friend has asked the Civil Aviation Authority to report on the route structure of British Airways. When that report is received and my right hon. Friend has considered it, he will announce his decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has for controlling the use of resources in his Department following the report, "Financial Management in Government Departments."

We are currently engaged in a review of the objectives and cost of the Department's activities. An accountancy adviser has recently been appointed and the Finance Directorate is being strengthened to develop the Department's management accounting systems and review the planning and control of programme expenditure.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What further progress has been made since the last report and what benefits have there been to the Department?

Our review of objectives and costs is in progress. A performance indicator and output measures have been developed for the Department's main activities, and several were published in this year's public expenditure White Paper. The MAXIS system has completed its first trial year. We are using it to monitor and control the Department's administrative costs. We are making a significant increase in cost-consciousness throughout the Department, especially by giving line managers far greater freedom to make the best use of their budgets without constant referral.

With regard to cost consciousness in the Department, and with a view to improving economic performance, will my hon. Friend pay special attention to the excellent booklet which she has just received from the Temple Sowerby bypass committee, which puts forward proposals for a bypass in my constituency at a fraction of the cost of the one originally planned by the Department, but which was later unfortunately scrapped? Does she agree that that is an economic use of resources?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity. Of course I will examine the booklet carefully. Any sensible cost saving that can be found will be given much further study.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress there has been with the privatisation of Sealink.

The British Railways Board invited formal bids for Sealink last week and bids have now been received. These are now being considered by the board.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that that news will be welcomed by Sealink's employees, whose morale was beginning to suffer because of uncertainty about the company's future? Was he aware of some alarmist talk about industrial action over the plans to privatise Sealink, and does he therefore welcome the news that the executive committee of the National Union of Seamen has instructed its officials to seek talks with prospective buyers of Sealink as being in the best interests of all concerned with the company's future?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I confirm that that much more sensible course has been adopted by the NUS, which will seek talks with the successful bidder. The offers expire on 20 July, and I hope that a decision can be made before then.

Can the Secretary of State assure the House that he is satisfied with the proposed privatisation of Sealink? Would it not be better to scrap the entire deal and start again, or let British Rail get on with the job of running the service properly?

Scrapping the entire deal would not do much good for ferries to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He would not be thanked on the Isle of Wight for his advice, and I shall not take it. We are evaluating the offers, and the sale will be announced as soon as possible.

Is the Secretary of State aware that British Rail Investment Ltd., the body responsible for selling Sealink, has a deplorable record in the disposal of public assets—hotels and land —and in giving away Hoverspeed to management for £11 million, which was no price at all? Will he assure us that this time he will step in to prevent the disposal of an asset at a deplorable price and against the taxpayers' interest if the price so reflects it?

I would not agree to a sale at a price which did not reflect the value of the assets being sold. The relationship between British Rail and Sealink has been long and highly integrated. To some extent they depend upon each other, so the slight difficulty in defining the exact demarcation between the two has caused some comment. However, that is an inevitable part of the sale of such a company.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any information on the number of new passenger coaches ordered and put into service since the deregulation of express road services and as to how many of these new coaches were British made.

Many new express services have been introduced since deregulation, but the figures available for registrations of the vehicles do not distinguish between buses and coaches. Between 1980 and 1983 annual bus and coach registrations fell from about 5,800 to about 3,700. In 1980, 92 per cent. were vehicles made in Britain and in 1983, 79 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunities arising from deregulation give a real chance to British coach manufacturers and that those concerned with supporting British Leyland at Bathgate and elsewhere should encourage them to seek such opportunities rather than to rely on the continuation of bus subsidies?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a marvellous opportunity for British Leyland, not only in export markets, where it has already made significant new strides, but in this country arising from deregulation. I sincerely hope that the stimulus to provide a better quality of coach is a challenge which British Leyland will take up, because we know that it can produce the best coaches in the world if it is organised to do so.

Is not the obvious success of these new services in no small measure due to the speed with which they are able to travel on our excellent motorway system? How does my hon. Friend align her decision last week to constrain motor cars — which, after all, are smaller, lighter and more manoeuvrable—to the same speed as these huge monsters?

The modern coach, under good road conditions, is capable of travelling at a maximum of 70 mph. Cars may be able to do better, but there is absolutely no doubt that were speeds to be increased above what they are today there would be more tragic accidents and greater problems on our motorways.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the present arrangements for the entitlement of an orange badge for disabled drivers.

The tightening up of orange badge eligibility rules to cut out abuse of the scheme was agreed in advance with organisations representing disabled people, who welcomed the changes. I have received representations about a small number of difficult individual cases. I have great sympathy for such cases, but no scheme can possibly cater for every kind of disability and still remain workable.

Has my hon. Friend had her attention drawn to the growing tendency of local authorities to replace car park attendants with the "Trust the Motorist" ticket-issuing machines, which disabled drivers, who would otherwise not be entitled to an orange badge, cannot reach, as a result of which they cannot park and shop? Will she draw this point to the attention of social services authorities charged with determining the mobility of orange badge applicants?

I have indeed noted that in some ticket display car parks the machines are sited at too high a level for a chair-bound person to reach, either to put in the money or to take out the ticket. We shall bring this to the notice of any local authority which is aware of its responsibilities in this regard. There is no reason why these machines cannot be sited at a slightly lower level.

Will the Minister also bear in mind that often the machines put off disabled people from parking within car parks, as a result of which they resort to using their orange badges on roads with yellow lines? Surely there is a real need to consider whether these machines should be allowed at all, unless they are manned in such a way as to help the disabled to use these car parks.

My own experience, and that of many disabled people with whom I have discussed this matter, is that, on the whole, these machines are among the simplest to operate. The hon. Gentleman has obviously come across a form of machine that is not so simple. I hope that he will draw the details to my attention so that I can take the matter further.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now able to announce any conclusion on the study by the Civil Aviation Authority of route licensing.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now received the report of the Civil Aviation Authority on its review of civil aviation policy.

No, Sir, but I expect the Civil Aviation Authority's conclusions within a week or two.

As my right hon. Friend presumably referred the matter to the CAA in the first place to obtain an impartial and non-partisan view, does he agree that the understandable pressure from both British Airways and the independents is likely to make the decision much more difficult if it reverts to the political arena? In view of that, will he be sensible and give a categorical assurance now that he will accept and seek to implement the CAA report, when it is produced, regardless of its conclusions, and thereby avoid the differing pressures that he will receive from people as diverse as, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and former BOAC pilots now in the Cabinet?

We had better wait to see what the report says. He would be a brave man who bound himself to accept a report without knowledge of its contents. However, let me make it clear that I have remained entirely neutral throughout and said nothing about my views hitherto.

In considering the recommendations of the CAA, will the Secretary of State seek to ensure that the privatisation of British Airways does not endanger the ability of the independent airlines to compete, to survive and to go on providing the services which the consumers clearly want?

Yes, but I believe that the proponents of more routes for the independents and those who believe that BA should be left entirely as it is will acknowledge that the present dispute does not arise because of the privatisation of British Airways and that, even if British Airways were not be be privatised, the same arguments would be going on.

asked the Attorney-General if the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that sufficient court room accommodation is available for present requirements.

The existing court room accommodation cannot be considered adequate for anticipated future needs. The general position is broadly satisfactory for present purposes, given the recent growth in work load and current accommodation standards. The Lord Chancellor is constantly considering fresh means of increasing and improving accommodation both by the construction of new court rooms and the ad hoc use of existing premises.

My right hon. and learned Friend is no doubt aware of the high standard of the courts in Leicester, but is he further aware that that high standard is not matched in places such as Newington Causeway, where temporary buildings have been in use for some years and where, in weather such as we have had recently, new poignancy is given to the phrase "the defendant got a grilling"? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give the House any idea when those buildings are likely to be taken out of use?

There has been a extensive programme since the early 1970s, on which £118 million has been spent. Since 1980 there has been a net increase of 54 court rooms — new ones and others replacing many old and unsuitable ones which had reached the end of their days. I can reassure my hon. and learned Friend to the extent that, in the near future, we hope to provide 59 more courts. By the end of the decade there will be about 76 more, at an extra cost of £200 million.

Does the Attorney-General accept that it is intolerable that thousands of men and women are remanded in custody for periods up to at least 12 months awaiting trial partly because of the shortage of court room accommodation? Will he put more steam behind the provision of new accommodation?

A great deal of improvement has been effected, especially as regards those remanded in custody. The development that is going on is quite reasonable, especially when we have, as far as possible, to identify premises—they need large areas of land—suitable for the arrangements of all those involved in court cases.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the sooner we introduce tape-recorded interviews in serious cases in the Crown courts, and the sooner the Government make statements for the prosecution available to the defence in magistrates' courts, the sooner it will become less necessary to consider extending court accommodation?

Despite my hon. and learned Friend's ingenuity, I cannot see how that arises out of the question.

To be fair, there has been a vast improvement in the provision of new court accommodation. However, will the Attorney-General ensure that there is an intensification of consultation between the Property Services Agency and those who work in the courts, as there have been a number of examples recently where those who work in the courts have not been consulted and modifications have had to be made subsequently?

I should be grateful if I could be informed of those cases. I recall that when the major extension to the Central Criminal Court was being considered there was massive consultation between the Bar, solicitors and everybody else concerned.

asked the Attorney-General how many charges of riotous assemly have been considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the most recent convenient period.

Riot is not an offence which has to be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but chief officers of police may refer cases to him if they need advice or assistance. So far as the records show, no such references were made in 1979, 1982, 1983 or so far this year. In 1980 four cases were referred, resulting in 11, 12, 10 and 21 persons, respectively, being charged with riot. In 1981, five cases were referred, resulting in 15 persons being charged with riot in one case.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of my constituents find it hard to give credence to the fact that the riotous behaviour, organised violence, intimidation and threats to workers that they see on their television screens every night does not give rise to many prosecutions for breaking the criminal law, and, indeed, for contravening the law of riotous assembly, the understanding of which is clear to all? What can my right hon. and learned Friend say to my constituents about the apparent leniency being shown to those people?

The decision whether to prosecute, and for what offence, must be a matter for the chief constable or the police authority concerned. I do not think that my hon. Friend can know the facts. Let us consider two places. In Rotherham, which contains Orgreave, 251 cases are outstanding, 124 persons have been charged with unlawful assembly and 26 with riot. In Mansfield, 54 persons have been charged with riot. Therefore, that offence is being used quite widely in the area.

Is not the meaning of the old offence of riotous assembly far from clear, and is not a thoroughgoing review of such offences needed before the law can be properly applied in a way that is understandable to all?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the law of riot creates some grave evidential problems, but, as I said at my previous Question Time, I am particularly interested in the recommendations of the Law Commission to produce three types of unlawful assembly which will be triable either way and, therefore, if consented to by the defence, could be dealt with quickly. That matter should be considered carefully.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many people in Britain are concerned about the organised efforts of riotous assembly at the moment? Is not one of the problems arising out of the present miners' dispute that if charges of riotous assembly or affray are brought against individuals a great delay will take place, as those are indictable offences, which will have to be tried by jury, and consequently a great period of frustration will occur?

That is right. The delays can be quite considerable. There are several alternative offences which could and often are charged. There are various assaults, criminal damage, and, if necessary, the Explosive Substances Act can be used. The alternatives that are available in a number of cases have been properly used.

Because the law of riotous assembly is so unclear, as the Attorney-General agreed, would it not be a good idea for those cases that go to the DPP to be looked at by the learned Attorney-General himself?

Of those that have been referred to the Attorney-General so far—I think there are six—none includes riot. It is entirely a matter of discretion for the chief constable or for the county prosecuting solicitor to decide whether to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions. If they are referred, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Attorney-General is usually consulted. I hope that that would follow in this case.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that night after night ordinary people who are not lawyers see on the box most disgraceful acts being committed? What is happening to those rioters? Our present legal system may be somewhat antiquated, but is it not able to deal with mob rule such as we have today?

This cannot be described generally as mob rule. On a number of occasions there has been serious intimidation and violence. In such cases the decision must be left to chief constables. There is no way in which the Government can or should intervene in such circumstances. Chief constables are very experienced. The number of arrests exceeds 3,000 since the strike started, and, as I said to the House, a comparatively large number of people have been charged with unlawful assembly and riot, which are two separate offences. Some 124 have been charged with unlawful assembly and about 70 with riot. I emphasise that I should not wish to influence the chief constables in this matter.

Is the Attorney-General aware that there is considerable anxiety about the working of the Bail Act in connection with persons charged with offences arising from picketing? Is he further aware that in so-called picket courts, bail forms, with conditions already printed, are given to the magistrates even before hearings take place? Is not this appearance of pre-judging an affront to British justice, in which each case should be seen to be decided on the evidence? How can the blanket imposition of conditions on picketing miners, who may face only minor charges, be reconciled with the granting of unconditional bail to persons charged with serious offences? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Lord Chancellor to inquire into the working of the Bail Act in mining areas over the past few weeks?

I have no evidence to show that magistrates are not dealing with each application for bail on its merits and individually. It does not matter what is printed on the form. It may be for convenience, in case those are the conditions that are imposed. It is a matter for the judgment of magistrates when dealing with applications. I have no evidence that magistrates are approaching this matter in the wrong way.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase the present level of British bilateral aid to agriculture in Africa.

Our bilateral aid is allocated on a country basis and not by economic sector, but I attach much importance to the development of agriculture in Africa and I am very ready to approve worthwhile proposals for aid for this purpose.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance of his commitment to agriculture in subtropical Africa. Will he bear in mind that the figures that he recently gave me show that since 1980 there has been a drop of about one third in aid to agriculture in tropical Africa, and that the current figure of aid for agricultural projects in tropical Africa is a paltry £15 million? I cannot believe that that is in line with the right hon. Gentleman's order of priorities. Can he give the House an assurance that commitments for the future mean that that decline will be reversed and that the aid that Britain is giving bilaterally to agriculture in Africa will increase?

The figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are about project aid, and that is only part of the picture. Increasingly, aid today embraces programme and sector aid, which is not possible to allocate in this way. Project aid in other sectors, such as roads, can greatly benefit agriculture. I remain committed to the belief that the development of agriculture in Africa is of high priority.

Before my right hon. Friend gives away more of the taxpayers' money to African countries, will he please have a word with the EEC Commission and remind it that dumping agricultural produce in Africa, such as maize in Tanzania, may deal with a short-term problem, but that in the long term it will create much greater difficulties?

The European Commission is aware of our views about food aid and our belief that it should not be used indiscriminately. It is fair to say that Commissioner Pisani has accepted this view and has supported us in our efforts.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future level of financial support for the joint funding scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support and encourage voluntary agencies in the field of overseas development.

Subject to parliamentary approval, I propose to set aside £4·8 million in 1985–86 for the joint funding scheme, which enables us to finance half the costs of certain development projects undertaken by British voluntary agencies. This will represent an increase of one third on this year's revised allocation of £3·59 million and a doubling of the allocation in 1983–84.

That is a welcome statement, although the sum involved is only a relatively small proportion of the total aid budget. Does my right hon. Friend agree that aid given through voluntary bodies is not only cheaper but quicker? Does he think that there is scope for utilising more of the aid budget in that way?

I agree that aid given through the voluntary sector has many advantages, not least that it can reach the poorest people directly. I shall certainly be thinking positively about our future allocations to the voluntary sector.

I also welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that the track record of voluntary agencies shows that generally they are able to get aid to the poorest and most needy people, particularly in emergencies? For that reason, if for no other, will my right hon. Friend accept the welcome of his hon. Friends for what he said?

I accept the welcome of both my hon. Friends. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has just said about the voluntary agencies. However, the joint funding scheme is not about emergency aid; it is about the longer-term development programmes. But it is important.

While paying tribute to the work of voluntary agencies in the Third world, not least in the Sahel area and in Central America, may I make it clear that a recent reply by the Minister shows that net overseas development assistance has fallen to 0·35 per cent. of GDP, which is only one half the United Nations' target and is exceeded by virtually every other country in western Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to a major increase in aid to voluntary agencies and in the overall overseas development aid programme? If not, will he admit that his record so far has been that of a Minister for underdevelopment rather than that of a Minister serving the interests of developing countries?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was almost wholly irrelevant to the question on the Order Paper. Our record on the voluntary sector has been extremely good, and I intend to maintain it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received to ensure that funds for overseas development are given to individuals rather than organisations; and if he will make a statement.

I am not aware of any representations having been made on directing aid funds towards individuals rather than organisations. All aid is given with the ultimate intention of benefiting individuals, but is normally channelled through appropriate organisations, for the most part Governments or multilateral institutions.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the virtues missing from some of the countries which are the targets of overseas aid is capitalism? What is my right hon. Friend's Department doing to spread individual entrepreneurial skills to promote capitalism in those countries?

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend said. I believe that it is important that private enterprise in this country should play its part in promoting development overseas, which it can do by investment, and that the private sector in developing countries has a great deal to contribute to the success of those countries.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that both multilateral and voluntary organisations can be extremely effective in the administration of aid?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know has considerable experience in this area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist Africa to offset the effects of world recession and drought.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will institute a fund for the African Commonwealth countries suffering from drought.

We are continuing to provide drought-related assistance on the substantial scale maintained in the last financial year. New machinery would not in itself increase the generous proportion of our aid already directed at African Commonwealth countries.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the real answer to drought and recession in Africa is not to chuck money at the problem, in the form of food aid or disaster relief, but to promote projects which deal with the problems of agriculture at times of drought? We need more research into drought conditions and more projects designed to cope with those conditions, such as water conservation projects. We should also provide foreign exchange, possibly through the aid budget, to enable agricultural projects to fund the extra money needed from foreign exchange sources to enable them to continue.

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is very much a development rather than a short-term emergency matter. However, we have to do what we can to meet the immediate crises, and I think that we have made a good contribution in that respect, too.

I suggest that in the past our contribution to drought relief has been insufficient, and that it will be even less sufficient next year as the drought continues to make life miserable and death near to so many people in Africa, including those in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Kenya, which I recently visited. Will the Minister, on behalf of the British people, make a generous gesture to those who are in such misery as a result of the drought?

I accept that there is a grave problem in Africa, but we have not done badly. Our commitment in the past financial year totalled £24 million. So far this year we have committed £13 million, and we will, of course, continue to watch the matter very carefully.

Does the Minister recognise that the rapidly rising populations in Africa also contribute to the damage done by the drought and the world recession? Will he bend his mind to trying to increase our contribution to population programmes in countries which are also suffering from those disadvantages?

Population is a very important aspect of the problem. The World Bank has just published an important report on the matter, and we shall play our part at the conference in Mexico in August. I accept that population measures should play a significant part in our aid programme.