asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision relating to the Whitebirk-Blackburn to M6–M61 section of the M65 motorway.

As I announced on 26 July, in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), I have decided to include in the trunk road programme an all-purpose trunk road route to the south of Blackburn which would link the M65 at Whitebirk with the M6 and M61.

Is the Minister aware that her announcement last Thursday to make the link between the M65 and the M61 was widely welcomed in my constituency and throughout north-east Lancashire and that we are grateful to her? As there has been a four-year delay since the cancellation of the original motorway scheme from the M65 to the M61, much anxiety has been caused in my constituency and elsewhere about how long the new road scheme will take. May we have some idea of how long it will be before the new road is built?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. He knows that the decision was difficult and finely balanced. I shall be approaching the consultants shortly and asking them to study the route south of Blackburn. It is too early to predict what will happen, but I give him and other interested hon. Members the assurance that we shall move as speedily as is sensible.

Is my hon. Friend aware how pleased I and many other colleagues are by her decision, based on the facts presented to her by a variety of people? Is she further aware how grateful we are, particularly in my constituency in the Samlesbury and Mellor Brook area, that the plan chosen is not that which would have damaged the east part of my constituency? May we have an undertaking, now or as soon as possible, that the proposed trunk route will be upgraded to motorway standard if necessary?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the announcement. I am aware of the need to consider the Samlesbury junction with the M6. I cannot give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks, because that would prejudice the work on which the consultants are about to embark. However, I shall keep his remarks in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations the Civil Aviation Authority consulted in the process of preparing its review of airline competition policy; and, in particular, which appropriate trade unions it consulted.

The organisations responding to the Civil Aviation Authority's consultative letters, listed in appendix 2 to the authority's final report on airline competition policy, included a number of trades unions.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the trade unions have not been consulted about the implications of the CAA report? Will he also confirm that he has met leaders of the airline industry, including Sir Adam Thomson and Lord King, to discuss the report's implications? Is the right hon. Gentleman not in danger once again of unilaterally intervening in industrial relations, as he did in the docks dispute, and therefore making another strike more likely? Does he agree that thousands of jobs are threatened as a result of the CAA review?

No, Sir. The CAA consulted all the unions concerned. Since the report's publication, unions have been free to write to me about their views. Some have done that. It would be wrong for me to see the unions at present, because I have first to see the airlines concerned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strength of feeling of a large number of the 37,000 remaining employees of British Airways who, having gone along willingly with a reduction in the work force from 58,000, now believe that the Civil Aviation Authority's suggestion that more of their routes should be taken away and more of their jobs lost is bad and hope that he will turn it down?

I am sure my right hon. Friend will accept that the Government have not yet reached a decision on the matter and that it would be wrong for me to prejudge any such decision. I understand the fears and apprehensions of all those involved in this dispute.

The Secretary of State will be aware of my constituency interest in Manchester international airport and of the grave anxieties among its thousands of employees concerning the present uncertainties. Is there no definitive word that the right hon. Gentleman can say about the CAA's report before the recess? When will he make a statement?

I am aware of the uncertainty that the report has caused. I hope to make a decision and announce it as soon as possible, though that may not be while the House is still sitting.

Is it true that a decision will be made about the CAA report on Thursday, as was suggested in the Sunday Express? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that if the CAA report is rejected there are likely to be upwards of 5,000 redundancies in the independent private airlines?

My hon. Friend is an old enough hand to know that he should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers. I fear that that even goes for the Sunday Express. I am acutely aware of all points of view. Indeed, it would be difficult not to be. I cannot make any comment on the substance of the matter until the Government have reached their conclusions.

Will the Secretary of State say whether, as a result of the replies that he has received, the management or trade union side of any provincial airport has given support for the CAA report?

I have had no direct communication from the trade unions in relation to any regional airport, but I have had representations of a national character from protagonists on both sides.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be grave disquiet inside and outside the House if he makes a statement on this issue during the recess? Will he promise that, if he does not make it before the recess, he will at least leave it until after we return, so that we may question him on whatever decision he makes?

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will question me and other Ministers at length in due course. I invite him to agree with me that to leave the industry in a state of suspense until we return from our recess would be unfair to the industry.

Is the Minister aware that to disturb the present situation at the new Birmingham airport would be extremely damaging?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that germane to this whole matter are the mechanics and timing of privatisation and the question of airport policy? Is he further aware that to try to settle competition policy in the abstract, without resolving those questions, could lead to an unsatisfactory solution? Will he think long and hard, take heed of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), and not rush into anything which we may later regret?

I assure my hon. Friend that I have thought, and will continue to think, long and hard. I believe that when conclusions are reached it is right to inform the world at large.

Has the Secretary of State considered the effect on employees at Edinburgh airport? Does he think that it is good enough to rattle off the sort of answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and simply say that he notes what my hon. Friend says? Will he give a better answer than that?

I understand that Edinburgh airport will be involved only indirectly in the proposals set out in the CAA report. The routes which it is proposed to be transferred may or may not be transferred. However, they will still be flown, and the net effect on employment must be minimal, if anything.

Does my right hon. Friend still think that he was right to refer the matter to the CAA? What circumstances, if any, have changed since he did so?

The enormous concern and importance of the issue are such that it would have been quite wrong for the House not to have a report from the CAA. It is clear from the reaction that there are strong views on both sides of the House. The issue should not be brushed under the carpet by refusing to consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Airways.

Quite soon, I expect.

Is the Secretary of State aware that no reputable opinion in Manchester is in favour of the CAA report? When he next meets Lord King, will he tell him that he, the Secretary of State, rejects the non-competitive nonsense contained in the report, which would see the removal of the national carrier from Manchester airport and relegate the airport to third division status? Does he accept that this would have a detrimental effect on the entire northern region?

I do not intend to tell Lord King that until the Government have made up their mind that that is their view, or that the reverse is the case. I cannot prejudge the decision to which I shall be coming soon.

My right hon. Friend is probably aware that when he meets Lord King, if he does, he will probably be reminded that back in 1979, when the then Secretary of State gave his pledge to denationalise British Airways, he also gave two more pledges: first, not to reallocate routes, and, secondly, to give employees the opportunity to buy shares in the company. If he goes ahead with reallocation, will he ask Lord King just how ready the employees will still be to take shares in the company when 8 per cent. of its business is to be given away to its main competitors?

I cannot comment on the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but he has raised matters that we shall be taking into account. I confirm that it is the Government's intention to allow employees of British Airways to purchase or to be given shares, whichever it may be, so that they might enjoy the continued prosperity of the airline upon privatisation—and privatisation will certainly continue.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Airways, will he draw to his attention one of his answers in Hansard to the effect that it would be wrong for the House not to have a report from the CAA? Will he assure the chairman of British Airways that it would be equally wrong if the House did not have an opportunity to discuss the report before any decisions are taken? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wishes to retract his earlier answer.

The House has had an opportunity to discuss the report. It did so for three hours in the early hours of last Thursday. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber at the time.

The Secretary of State did not speak in the debate.

I was on the Government Front Bench and listened to every word that was said. The House should have a chance to discuss the report, and it has had that chance. I listened to the debate, and surely that is what I should have done.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Airways, will he check with him the effect that the CAA report, if implemented, will have on Manchester airport and if British Airways loses all its European flights to substitution, not competition? Will it not have a detrimental effect on an important airport?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I cannot comment until the Government have made up their mind.

Neither the House nor Lord King will be convinced by the Secretary of State's dithering performance over the future of British aviation. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the charge made by Lord King that he was told that the airline would not be broken up if he carried it through its changes? Does he agree that Lord King feels that he has been betrayed by the Government and that he has a right to call for the Secretary of State's resignation?

The hon. Gentleman must calm down a little and wait for the Government to announce their decision on that matter. I do not believe that the sort of wild talk in which he is engaging is relevant to this exercise.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to prevent the foreign ownership of British Rail Sealink.

We have taken steps designed to ensure that Sealink's ships will remain subject to the Government's powers of requistioning for defence purposes and that any future change in ownership would not materially affect the defence interest.

That was not the answer to the question that I asked. I asked about foreign ownership. Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State recognise that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are opposed to foreign control and ownership of public services, such as Sealink, British Telecom and the royal ordnance factories? Is it significant that today the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the golden share? Is that no longer his policy for controlling potential foreign ownership? If the golden share is still his policy, will the hon. Gentleman explain who will monitor its operation, under what circumstances it will be operated and whether the criteria used will be based on whether a threat is posed to ownership or just simply on control? Will he define "control"?

The Secretary of State will be able, through the golden share, to ensure that ships are kept available and subject to the Government's requisitioning powers. In relation to foreign flag, it would require the consent of the Secretary of State to put a sizeable part of the Sealink—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ownership."]—I said "ownership". I am answering the question. It will require the consent of my right hon. Friend to put a sizeable part of the Sealink fleet under a foreign flag. If such proposals arose, the Secretary of State would consider the defence implications.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the interests of the taxpayer, the customer and the Government will best be served by the encouragement on the Sealink route of competition between successful private sector companies of whatever origin? Will my hon. Friend do whatever he can to ensure that free competition continues?

The purchasers have given assurances of their intention to expand the business. I do not expect that there will be any diminution in the level of competition.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the terms of reference he has given to the new chairman of London Regional Transport; and if he will make a statement.

I set the objectives for London Regional Transport in letters to the chairman dated 20 July and 24 July, both of which have been published in the Official Report, at columns 373–74 and 555–57.

What directives has the Secretary of State issued to the chairman of London Regional Transport about fares and subsidies? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, or deny that fares will increase in London by 25 per cent. next year and that in 1986–87 there will be a 21 million mile cut in bus mileage, a 9 million mile cut in underground mileage and a loss of 9,000 jobs?

I utterly deny all the figures which the hon. Gentleman has invented.

Although this is a matter for the board rather than for my right hon. Friend, will he confirm the Government's enthusiasm for the continuation of the no-smoking ban for ever?

As a smoker myself, my hon. Friend puts me in a corner. I must rely on the time-honoured ministerial statement that that is a matter for the board.

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that London Regional Transport will be able to undertake the long-overdue capital investment that is necessary to provide Londoners with a modern, up-to-date, efficient public transport system?

Yes, Sir. One of the great advantages of being able to reduce revenue subsidies by half during the next three years is that more money will be available for capital investment, thereby improving the system.

Now that London's buses and tubes no longer belong to the Greater London council, will my right hon. Friend ask the chairman of London Regional Transport to take down the black posters currently appearing on the backs of buses which say, "GLC Working for London," and replace them with red ones saying "GLC Working for Moscow"?

I believe that those advertising posters arise out of a contract between London Transport, as it was, and the GLC. If my hon. Friend would like to enter into a contract to advertise on the buses, I am sure the chairman of the LRT would be only too happy to discuss it with him.

Reverting to the denials of the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Standard reported that his hon. Friend the Minister of State said that fares would go up by 20 per cent.? Is he aware that the chairman of London Regional Transport said that under his direction it would be necessary to reduce the number of jobs by 6,000 and that he could give no guarantee that the reduction would be achieved by voluntary redundancy?

The hon. Gentleman should listen to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State says, not read the headlines in the Standard without reading through to the words that she used. If he did, he would find that she said that although fares might need to rise roughly in line with inflation, there might have to be an initial adjustment. The figure quoted by the hon. Member of Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was totally false.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will issue a general warning to the public concerning the hazards of motorway driving during the summer holiday period.

I advised motorists in May that they could cut the risk of accidents and major delays on motorways this summer by looking out for advance warnings of road works, slowing to a safe speed and keeping their distance behind the vehicles in front. In addition, leaflets about lane discipline are being issued with every car licence renewal reminder.

Is the Minister aware that that good advice has been ignored by probably the majority of motorway drivers, who keep close behind the vehicles in front of them, cut in and out of lanes and take no notice of pamphlets of the type being sent out when licenses are issued? Will she now do something other than thundering in the Chamber, perhaps by passing out notices at motoway service stations so that people will recognise the dire danger that they cause to themselves and to others by their behaviour?

I am well aware of and share the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about the lack of lane discipline and the mad driving in which some drivers indulge. The police will patrol those areas of the motorway as much as possible, and they will prosecute cases of careless driving where they occur. It is in everyone's interests to observe the rules of the road. It is not special advice; it is advice in the "Highway Code". We shall take whatever measures can effectively be taken by having pamphlets made available at motorway service areas. However, those who go through the cross-over sections at too fast a speed or who drive badly are rarely those who stop at motorway service areas, even when they ought to.

Is my hon. Friend aware that her advice will fall on deaf ears in my constituency where, last Saturday week, there was a 15 to 20-mile traffic jam from dawn till dusk on the M5? One of the reasons is the misuse of the right-hand lane, which is not used just for overtaking, and the lunatic decision of the Government not to abolish the 70 mile speed limit.

Traffic jams occur when all motorists choose to travel at the same time. If they would vary their journeys considerably and follow the advice in the west country holiday routes leaflets, which are available, their journeys would be much easier. However, it is not just in this country that people choose to travel at the same time. Fortunately, we are a long way from the situation which occurred near Munich last weekend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that at present there are no fewer than five sets of road works on the M1, most of them major, in the 100-mile stretch between London and Coventry? Would it not be a useful contribution to road safety if at any time on the busiest section of our busiest road there were no more than three sets of road works?

If during the 1970s the then Government had undertaken the road works necessary on our motorways, we would not now be having to make up for lost time and making sure that we put in the necessary investment to preserve our motorways for the future. If we do not do that now, we shall have even more severe problems in future.

Does the Minister accept that had not the Government twice taken the decision during the lifetime of this Administration to increase heavy lorry weights it might not be necessary to cone off so many miles of motorway? Why is it necessary to cone off so many miles of motorway at weekends, when no work is taking place and the plant used for that work is put together in a comparatively small area of motorway? If a private firm is responsible for coning off Britain's motorways, is it paid so much per cone? Will the Minister consider launching a campaign to urge people to drive on the left on motorways rather than as so many motorists do, driving in the centre lane, to the fury and frustration of heavy goods vehicle drivers?

It is, of course, right that drivers should always move into the left when they can. Yesterday work took place on the M1, M40, M4 and a number of other major roads because companies are seeking to carry out that work as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have read of my right hon. Friend's decision to ensure that companies undertaking these major roadworks know what it costs to keep a lane closed, so that they are aware of the necessity to keep cones to the minimum, consistent with the safe move-over to a restricted area. If traffic is too suddenly taken into a restricted area, we can have accidents, which cause even more delay. However, we must get on with this work, and this year it is proceeding even faster than in the previous two years.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the introduction of bus lanes.

Bus lanes must be shown to give a net benefit to the community and their total local impact taken into account.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that bus lanes are a totally useless facility for the motorist, totally counter-productive, cause snarl-ups, and achieve the opposite to what they are supposed to achieve. They delay motorists trying to get to their place of work, and in council and city areas such as Leicester and the GLC they are supposed to deter motorists and encourage buses, although they achieve neither result.

I agree with my hon. Friend that where bus lanes have no net benefit to travellers across the area they cannot be in the interests of those travellers. That is why it is clearly not sensible to install bus lanes in a doctrinaire fashion. They must be properly designed and conceived if they are to succeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now given consideration to whether the Ribblehead viaduct on the Settle-Carlisle line qualifies for heritage funds; and if he will make a statement.

The eligibility of projects for heritage funds is a matter for the organisations which control them. I have control over none of these bodies.

Is the Ribblehead viaduct any less of a monument to its age than, for example, Chatsworth? Will we simply allow it to crumble. This is quite apart from the value of the diversionary line from Scotland to England, which, presumably, will be more important if there is to be the east coast electrification?

It will be for British Rail to consider making an application at the appropriate time, when it knows the future of the Ribblehead viaduct, which is tied up with the decision—not yet taken—on the future of the Settle-Carlisle line. What the hon. Gentleman has said is absolutely reasonable and proper, but must be set in the context that there are eight listed or scheduled viaducts on that line.

When is the public inquiry into the Settle-Carlisle line likely to start, and will my hon. Friend confirm that that inquiry will be held under the auspices of the Yorkshire TUCC?

There will be two inquiries, one under each TUCC. I understand that one is likely to start early in the autumn and the other as soon as can be arranged. At present there is talk about the early spring, but I hope that it will be before then.

Has my hon. Friend seen the report produced by the independent consultants, who have concluded that the phrase which can best be used to describe British Rail's policy on this line is "wanton neglect?" Nevertheless, that report concluded that the Ribblehead viaduct could be saved for the next 15 to 20 years at a cost of only £2·1 million. Does that not throw more doubt on yet another set of figures produced by British Rail?

The report to Cumbria county council was received only last Thursday. We need to consider it as a whole and not take that part out of context. I have not had time to do so yet, but I assure my hon. Friend that all the points in the report will be fully taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what encouragement he is giving to district councils to take over the running of passenger transport services in metropolitan areas.

Once the new joint boards have been set up, we shall be prepared to consider proposals from metropolitan district councils to provide separate services and enter into arrangements with other operators in the public and private sectors.

Will my hon. Friend say on what basis the Government will judge applications by district councils to have more control over their local services?

I can only say to my hon. Friend that after the transfer of responsibilities of the metropolitan councils a district council that puts forward a proposal to the Secretary of State will have that proposal judged on its merits. I cannot say more than that at present.

When the Minister makes any decision about the future of transport in the metropolitan counties, will she take into account the difficulties that were encountered in those areas before the transport authorities were established, when municipal undertakings were running services along similar routes, at different fares, with great confusion? As a result of that situation the PTEs and PTAs were established to provide sensible and co-ordinated transport services for the conurbations.

As the hon. Gentleman knows from the consultation document, the PTAs are there. What happens in the future will be a matter to be considered on its merits. I note carefully what the hon. Gentleman says and will be taking that into consideration in any proposal that might come forward.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if the full figures are now available for the first year of compulsory seat belt wearing to indicate the effects on car occupant casualty rates; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average wearing level for front seat belts during the first year of compulsory seat belt use; and what wearing rates have been recorded for fatal, serious and slight front seat car occupant casualties and for those where the injury severity was unknown.

Seat belt wearing rates have remained close to 95 per cent. throughout the first year. Among fatal and serious casualties, 75 per cent. were reported as wearing seat belts and 9 per cent. not. The remaining 16 per cent. were unknown. Wearing rates amongst slightly injured casualties are not yet available.

In view of the fact that more than 6,000 children are being injured each year in the rear seats of cars, are any steps being considered by the Government to provide for safer carriage of children in the rear seats of passenger vehicles?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have considerable sympathy for his view. Parents are in the best position to know what is best for their children and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the practical difficulties, from his own experience. I should like parents to take the advice contained in the leaflet "Child Safety in Cars" and, wherever possible, to restrain children by using a booster cushion and an adult belt in rear seats. But it is a matter for parents to decide what is best for their own children.

In view of the superb figures of casualty saving, would it not be a commendable exercise in humility if all those who opposed compulsory seat belt wearing were publicly to accept that they were wrong? Would it not be sad if we were to spend as long arguing about compulsory rear seat belt wearing as we did over front seat belts, when so many casualties have been avoided?

Nobody is more happy that I at the substantial reduction in fatalities, serious injuries and minor injuries. I must say to my hon. Friend that it is interesting how many letters have been sent to me by former opponents of compulsory seat belt wearing, thanking the House for passing the legislation and saving the lives of relatives and others. I am sure that the House will want to consider that effect if and when it considers a further measure.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by British Rail in securing productivity gains.

I understand from British Rail that labour productivity has gone up by 11 per cent. since 1979 and that further improvements are planned.

I am sure that the House will find those comments extremely encouraging. However, how far has such improvement been hampered by secondary picketing as a result of the miners' dispute?

The losses on the freight side that British Rail is now suffering as a result of the miners' dispute are between £4 million and £5 million a week. That lost revenue will weaken the pace at which British Rail can carry out its modernisation investment programme.

asked the Attorney-General when he proposes to raise the eligibility level for civil legal aid.

Eligibility levels were last raised in November 1983, and will be reviewed again towards the end of this year.

Does the Solicitor-General agree that it is right that eligibility levels should be reviewed at regular intervals, in line with inflation and the cost of litigation? In the overall review of eligibility which the hon. and learned Gentleman is carrying out, will he bear in mind that when the civil legal aid scheme began in 1950, 80 per cent. of the population were eligible, and since then there has been such a significant narrowing in eligibility levels that many people who should be entitled to go to law cannot do so?

It is the Government's policy that families and citizens on small and modest incomes should have legal aid at a cost that they can afford. There has been a practice of regular—and quite frequent—review and increase of eligibility levels. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is proposing to review the levels at the end of the year.

What prospects does the Solicitor-General have for those who wish to have legal aid to present their cases before tribunals?

There is a considerable body of opinion that holds that certain tribunals should attract legal aid. On the other hand, successive Governments have not found it possible to extend legal aid to all tribunals. That is the present position, and I have nothing further to add.

The Solicitor-General will recall the Attorney-General telling the House on 18 June that the interpretation of section 22 of the Legal Aid Act 1979

"has proved to be very difficult and I have not yet reached a firm conclusion on it." — [Official Report, 18 June 1984; Vol. 62 c. 1.]

In case that question arises out of a question on the eligibility for legal aid, I can say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is considering, with the Secretary of State, the implications of section 22 for Department of Health and Social Security work.

asked the Attorney-General how many charges of grievous bodily harm have been considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the most recent convenient period.

Causing grievous bodily harm is not an offence that 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. In addition, other reportable cases may disclose possible offences of this nature, which are then considered by the director. In the week commencing 16 July 1984 the director considered five cases of causing grievous bodily harm, none of them connected with the mining dispute.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his last few words will cause surprise? Does he agree that most normal people are well aware that the National Union of Mineworkers is deliberately sending people around the country, who cause grievous bodily harm daily, which is seen nightly on our television screens by millions of people? Is it not about time that those matters were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the specific circumstances that are now upon us?

I do not think that my hon. Friend has quite understood my answer. I was asked about cases that had been considered by the director. In cases considered by the police, there have been 14 charges of grievous bodily harm arising from the troubles, and 235 cases of causing actual bodily harm.

Although this is unrelated to the miners' strike, can the Attorney-General give hon. Members guidance as to the way that we should proceed if, after charges such as grievous bodily harm have been made as a result of cases going to the DPP, other evidence comes to light between then and the trial that suggests that more severe charges should be made, but the DPP refuses to consider that other evidence? This has happened in a constituency case. This is an urgent matter and I should be grateful for general advice, but I shall write to the Attorney-General about this.

I cannot think of any case in which the DPP or any of his senior officials have refused to consider evidence. Such cases are always given the most careful attention, but I should like to have a letter from the hon. Gentleman and I shall look into the matter.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there are a number of cases before magistrates' courts that are being unnecessarily held up? Will he be good enough to take such action as is necessary to speed things up?

The administration of justice at the magistrates' courts is a matter for the courts. The Lord Chancellor has power to appoint an additional stipendary if he is requested to do so by the petty sessional division. He does not do it off his own bat. As I understand it, it is proposed, as a result of the requests, to appoint three stipendary magistrates to assist with the work.

I recognise that this question is not, strictly speaking, within the right hon. and learned Gentleman's ministerial responsibility. However, has he read the extraordinary speech last Friday by the chief constable of Warwickshire, in which he advocated that: the judiciary should alter its sentencing policy in respect of certain types of cases? If so, will the Attorney-General confirm that the prosecution is in no way concerned with the sentencing policy of the courts, which is entirely a matter for the judiciary?

I always admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman in avoiding the strict principles. I did not read the speech, but I can confirm that no Government of any kind would ever seek to interfere with the complete independence of the judiciary, which includes sentencing policy.

How many prosecutions in general have arisen out of the miners' strike, and in particular what action has been taken regarding miners who have been threatened in their own homes? Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the law is adequately protecting those families?

I shall answer this question by referring to the number of charges, rather than prosecutions, because many of the cases have not yet been brought before the courts. The courts have dealt with about 20 per cent. of over 4,000 arrests. The charges for arrest range from minor cases under the Public Order Act 1936 through to more serious ones. There have been 100 under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, which is the offence of besetting somebody's house. This is the intimidation charge, which I consider to be serious. There have also been 59 arrests for drunkenness, 164 for unlawful assembly, 112 for riot and 19 for affray. There is a wide range of charges, including many for theft, resisting arrest, offensive weapons and such like. I can be more specific, but I shall overrun my time.

The Attorney-General referred to the deployment of three stipendiary magistrates. To which areas will they go, and, in particular, will they be considered for those mining areas where there is considerable disquiet as regards the working of the Bail Act?

I cannot tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman to which areas the stipendiary magistrates will go, because I would be guessing, although I think that one is to go to Rotherham. They are being allocated to assist the petty sessional courts in getting through this most unexpected increase in their work load. I make it clear that they will not deal only with mining cases, but with all cases. The view is taken that those who are not concerned in mining cases and awaiting trial should not be held up by what is going on now.

asked the Attorney-General when he last instigated proceedings under the law on riotous assembly.

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. The most recent occasion on which he has brought proceedings for riot was in September 1981. The charges arose out of an incident in south London, which also gave rise to even more serious charges of a reportable nature, one being murder. Charges of riot have been brought more recently by other prosecuting authorities.

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware that the overwhelming majority of our constituents believe that the law is pitifully inadequate in dealing with Scargill's intimidatory levies, who seem to be not only laughing at the law but stamping all over its grave. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a commitment to the House that the Government will rapidly bring forward measures to ensure that perpetrators of mob violence of that sort can be adequately, rapidly, justly and firmly dealt with?

With one minor evidential exception about riots, the criminal law is adequate. It is an entirely different matter when one comes to finding the evidence which will justify proceedings.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have an extra five minutes on law and order and five minutes less on overseas development?

No.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will restore official development assistance to the 1979 level and set a date by which Her Majesty's Government will achieve the 0·7 per cent. United Nations' target.

Current plans for aid expenditure are set out in the most recent public expenditure White Paper, Cmnd. 9143. Like the previous Government, we are not prepared to set a date for the achievement of the 0·7 per cent. United Nations' target.

As this is the third time that we have raised the matter in recent days, the Minister is well aware that aid as a proportion of GNP is down to 0·35 per cent.—among the lowest of any European country. We do not even have a recognition of the problem or a wringing of hands. May we have some statement from the Minister about what he intends to do, or will he admit that he is now the Minister of Under-Development and resign?

Our figure of 0·35 per cent. is similar to the OECD average of 0·36 per cent. I stress that in the past two years the cash allocations for aid have more than kept pace with inflation.

Before agreeing to any United Nations figure, will my right hon. Friend give more urgent and necessary help to some of the drought-afflicted regions of Africa?

I am happy to say that the Government are contributing £1 million to the Famine in Africa appeal of the Disasters Emergency Committee, £350,000 to appeals from the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and a further £150,000 to the Africa appeal of the international committee of the Red Cross. I have also set aside a further £3 million for use as emergency and humanitarian relief, primarily through the voluntary agencies, and will offer 2,000 tonnes of bilateral food aid for distribution in Ethiopia by voluntary agencies.

In view of the appalling situation that exists in part of Africa, we are grateful for that announcement. Will the right hon. Gentleman also take on board the fact that where he is able to channel money through voluntary organisations it often allows him to make that aid available to both sides in a dispute?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my statement. At the international conference on assistance to refugees in Africa, and by the increased support for the joint funding scheme, I have shown clearly over the past few weeks my support for the voluntary sector.

While accepting that percentage figures can cloak a lot of money, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give details of how great a percentage of our aid programme now goes to the poorest nations—which is the most effective use of aid—rather than the general figure?

I shall give my hon. Friend a precise figure, but I think that it is over 60 per cent. of our bilateral programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he makes of the effect of current interest rates on the development problems facing the Third world and of the impact thereon of the United Kingdom's aid programme.

The level of interest rates is an important and worrying influence on the prospects for those developing countries with major debt problems. The United Kingdom's aid programme cannot resolve major debt problems but supports development efforts in many countries, for example through balance of payments support.

Is the Minister aware that a 1 per cent. increase in LIBOR rates means, for the 10 largest Third world debtors, an extra £3 billion a year in interest payments? Is it not time that someone in the Government—preferably the right hon. Gentleman—got to grips with the problem and tried to persuade the United States that its policies are working entirely against the Third world and all of its development plans?

Our views on the United States' budget deficit are well known. Our aid programme, with its strong emphasis on grant as opposed to loan, is much appreciated in the Third world, as it does not add to the debt burden of countries that receive our aid.

Should not the adjectives that my right hon. Friend used have been "ruinous and catastrophic" rather than "worrying"? Is it not time that the Government made much stronger representations to the Americans that their interest rates should be reduced?

The choice of adjectives is a matter for hon. Members. We have made it clear that we are deeply worried about the problem. I believe that our aid programme is doing everything possible to pick up some of the consequences of that.

Given that the figures that the Government have released are, according to the Government's method of calculation, the lowest since 1980, when they were the lowest since 1973, how can they possibly meet the increase in interest rates, far less achieve the United Nations' target?

May I say gently to Opposition Members that they should not believe all that they read in early-day motions. For example, early-day motion 955, which was recently tabled by Opposition Members, is frankly inaccurate in its statement of the amount of money that we are spending on the aid programme.

It is in the Minister's answer of 21 May.

Order.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that interest rates are no more and no less than the price of money which, even internationally, has competing uses? Must not those who borrow money be assumed to be aware of the conditions under which they borrow it?

I see my hon. Friend's point, but we must acknowledge that there have recently been fluctuations in the world economy which have caused severe problems for the developing world.

What proportion of the debts that are owed by the Third world to the developed world accrue from the purchase of arms? Are not American and other Western banks now carrying a heavy threat which derives from the fact that their Governments supply enormous quantities of arms, largely to repress the domestic population?

That is not a matter for me. The Overseas Development Administration programme is concerned entirely with civilian aid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the Minister for Overseas Development's visit to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation's offices.

In my visit to Paris on July 11, I discussed with the director general and others their reactions to the concerns expressed in my letter of 2 April. I also met the temporary committee set tip by the executive board. I stressed again that we shall be looking for significant indications of change by the end of 1984.

Has my right hon. Friend received the report of Peace and Community Endeavour to the United Nations parliamentary group, of which I have the honour to be chairman? What is his reaction to that report? Does he believe that UNESCO will make effective reforms, sufficient to retain the United Kingdom's subscription and support, by the end of the year?

I have indeed received the interesting report to which my hon. Friend refers. In regard to the extent to which there is progress in response to our proposals in UNESCO, I can only say that the executive board has set up a special committee to examine the matter. The director general has also set up five working groups. We shall have to wait and see whether they come up with effective proposals for reform.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit recipient countries during the summer adjournment.

Neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State nor I have any firm plans at present for visits to aid recipients during the recess.

With regard to what the Minister said earlier about the Government's plans to finance aid to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Mozambique and other areas that are affected by drought, can I tempt him to spend his summer recess in the deserts of north-east Africa? The problem will obviously be worse during the summer and it would be advantageous to have a first-hand report from the Minister on his return.

I have made clear to the House on a number of occasions, including earlier this afternoon, the great seriousness with which I view the problems that afflict Africa at present. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that my Department will do all it can to contribute towards a solution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the renegotiation of the Lomé convention to be concluded.

It has been proposed that the next ministerial negotiating session should be in Luxembourg on 9 and 10 October, when it is hoped that the outstanding issues can be resolved. I am reasonably optimistic that the negotiations can be concluded well before the current convention expires on 28 February 1985.

Will the Minister tell me what progress has been made on trade issues and on opening up EC markets to developing countries?

Nothing like enough progress has been made on trade issues. My Government have been pressing hard for improved access to the Community for agricultural products and for more liberal rules of origin. So far we have not achieved the success that we would have wished to achieve, but we hope that if opportunities occur we shall be able to press the matter further.