asked the Secretary of State for Transport if will make a statement on the future of travel passes in London for pensioners, blind and disabled people.

I understand that for 1985–86 the GLC has announced its intention to continue to fund concessionary travel for pensioners in London. Thereafter, the responsibility for pensioners' concessionary travel will rest with the boroughs, which will continue to fund concessions for the blind and disabled.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the blind, disabled and pensioners of London on guaranteeing their passes for the first time, which no Labour or Lib-Lab Government ever did or thought of doing?

Order. That is somewhat wide of the original question.

On the first point, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It would be helpful if the Association of London Authorities joined the current discussions to see how best to get a voluntary scheme among the boroughs for 1986–87.

Can the Secretary of State give an assurance to pensioners that their passes will in no way be put in jeopardy by the mess that he has made over LRT's budget for next year and the excess £50 million that he demanded from the GLC in a manner described by Mr. Justice McNeill as

"illegally, irrationally and procedurally improperly"?

On the first point, the hon. Gentleman and the House know that a statutory back-up scheme for concessionary travel for pensioners in London is enshrined in the London Regional Transport Act. A threat to pensioners would arise only if the abolition Bill did not make speedy progress to the statute book.

Does the Secretary of State accept that he has no cause for self-congratulation? He accepted the amendment to include provision for concessionary fares in the LRT Bill most reluctantly. Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), does the right hon. Gentleman consider that, as a result of the impact of the court's judgment on pensioners' and other concessionary fares in London, he owes the House an explanation, the GLC an apology and the ratepayers of Greater London £50 million?

The hon. Gentleman knows that it was to stop the scurrilous groundless rumours that concessionary fares were under threat—which were being peddled by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends— that we underwrote those fares in the Bill. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman is complaining about that now. That is what he wanted. I repeat that the other matter to which he referred is sub judice.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the development of the quieter heavy lorry.

The quiet heavy vehicle project— QHV90— is making good progress. Most of the contracts have been placed with the industrial partners and I expect the programme to be substantially completed within the next four years.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she assure the House that the industry is not going slower than necessary on the development of the quieter heavy lorry, because that development was the essential quid pro quo for the approved increase in lorry weights? The development of the quieter heavy lorry is a better way forward than daft administrative bans in some areas, as currently proposed by the Greater London council.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; and I can give him the assurance that the project, costing about £10 million in total, is on target and proceeding well.

Does the Minister agree that the possible ban to which the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) referred would not apply to completely quiet lorries? Will she look into the figures quoted by the GLC? Is it not probable that such quietness could be achieved at even lower costs than have been considered so far? Will the Minister look into the matter immediately, notwithstanding the four-year programme that she has mentioned?

The hon. Gentleman should not take comfort from the discussion that has gone on about hush kits, to which I think he is referring. Although I regret it, there is no range of hush kits ready and waiting to be fitted to the many different types of lorry in use today. The way to achieve the realistic and lasting reductions in lorry noise mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is by design, as is being done in the QHV90 project. We shall ensure that when the first prototype comes along, in good time, it is followed by others; and we shall start manufacturing at the earliest possible date to the QHV90 specification.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Bus Bill will be presented.

Shortly, Sir.

Seeing that the bus's share of personal transport has fallen to a meagre quarter of what it was 30 years ago and yet the revenue subsidy spent on buses is some 50 times as great as it was 10 years ago, is it not clearly time that some radical change and solution were introduced? Is it not the case that anyone who looks at the situation objectively finds himself fundamentally behind the proposals in the White Paper?

My hon. Friend is quite right. I think that the subsidy is about 14 times greater, but otherwise I entirely agree with what he has said. In Northampton, the revenue support is 16 per cent, of the total cost of the bus operation. We believe that that money can be saved by increased efficiency or productivity, as has been demonstrated in many areas where competition has been tried. I believe that when the Bill is published, the policy before the House will lead to greater and better bus services and smaller subsidies, to the benefit of all concerned.

We hope that the delay in publishing the Bill means that the Secretary of State is taking on board some of the more sensible representations that have been made to him by the Bus and Coach Council and by Hackney carriage proprietors, among many others. Is that so?

Many responses to the consultative documents have been received, and we have been careful to take all the good advice that they have included. I am sure that I can count on the hon. Gentleman to support the princples of competition and of putting the consumer first, which used to form one of the Liberal party's foremost platforms.

Will my right hon. Friend attend not only to the chorus of vested interests that can be expected to be raised against such a change, but to the interests of those passengers who benefit from these changes but who do not yet know who they are?

We know that about 40 per cent, of the population depend on buses, and that is a very large clientele. I confirm that the proposals in the White Paper, and eventually in the Bill, are designed to assist and improve the lot of the passengers rather than of the operators.

Is it not time that the Secretary of State realised that his proposals are causing great anxiety throughout the community? Does he appreciate that many of those with vast experience of the transport industry believe that deregulation is a receipe for disaster? Is it not time that he rethought the whole issue and entered into further discussions with the local authorities, trade unions and voluntary bodies, such as the National Federation of Women's Institutes.

If the hon. Gentleman has the interests of the passengers at heart, he should try to reassure them that the Government's proposals will not only increase the standard and frequency of services but also, we hope, reduce fares in many cases. He should be reassuring his constituents that the proposals are in their interests. He should not be listening so much to the operators.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that long delays in the introduction of the Bill will not help the future of Ley land Bus, in my constituency which manufactures the best buses in the world? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that an urgent introduction of the Bill, allowing for all the changes and considerations that might have to be made, is in the interests of the manufacturers as well as of potential passengers?

In view of my hon. Friend's urgent representation I shall alter my original answer from "Shortly" to "Very shortly." I am fully aware of the problems of Leyland Bus. I have visited the factory. After an initial difficult period, I am sure that our policy, will result in more orders for the British bus industry, provided that it is competitive and supplies the market with what it wants.

Does the Secretary of State not understand that the elimination of cross-subsidy between routes will materially damage, above all, the people who live in rural areas? Since his White Paper said that the three trial areas had been failures, why is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to accept that what he suggests is totally unworkable and irresponsible, and is aimed particulary at the people who cannot hit back—the bus passengers?

The hon. Lady has got it wrong again. If she studies the trial areas in Hereford and Worcester she will discover that the absence of cross-subsidy has resulted in a reduction in the subsidy, the same network being provided in the rural areas and with lower fares in many cases. What happened in Hereford and Worcester can be applied generally to the rural areas and so provide better bus services with greater frequencies and at less expense.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what specific definition of rural areas he proposes should be used for the purpose of transitional grant aid for bus services in such areas.

For the purpose of the rural bus grant we propose to define rural areas as being areas outside metropolitan counties and the larger towns as measured by data provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. We shall listen to the views of Members as to the size of small town which should qualify as rural.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. On the assumption that the new levels of rate support grant will compensate the county councils for the loss of the revenue element of the transport supplementary grant, how will the £20 million of transitional aid in the first year to the rural areas be distributed so that the benefit goes to the rural areas?

The switch to capital only TSG will make no difference to revenue support, which will continue to be at the discretion of local authorities. The rural bus grant will be given through the fuel duty rebate mechanism. Operators will apply for the rural bus grant element on the basis of the services registered in rural areas.

Why does the Secretary of State keep saying that we shall receive a better bus service under the Bill? Does the Minister not realise the serious effect that the Bill will have upon rural areas? It is no good talking about the transitional period, because we are talking about regular periods afterwards, bearing in mind that bus services will be seriously reduced in rural areas, particularly in my constituency.

Rural bus services— indeed, all bus services—have declined in the last 10 years by over 25 per cent. The trial areas in which we have experimented show that we can stop the rot and increase the quality and number of buses.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us applaud the theory behind the Bill, but have doubts about the practice? In the past few years in this place some of us have had experience of Governments who have had good ideas in theory but who have finished up a few years later wishing that they had done nothing of the sort.

Yes, Sir. I can confirm that the Association of County Councils has given the proposed Bill its support.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what road safety or vehicle maintenance publicity campaigns are currently being conducted; and what is their cost.

Our publicity programme for 1984–85 has an estimated cost of £3,953,000 and has included major campaigns on child pedestrian safety, cycling safety and drinking and driving. The programme for this financial year is now largely complete.

Bearing in mind the additional seasonal hazards facing motorists, which are likely to be with us for some weeks, will the Department consider intensifying publicity campaigns, with the aim of seeking a greater awareness of vehicle maintenance and safety among motorists when driving in ice and fog?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Of course, publicity on vehicle maintenance is important. We have brought out much publicity and always do so whenever new regulations are introduced. In hazardous weather motorists must be aware that they should go out only if it is really necessary. They should check their fuel, oil and anti-freeze and ensure that then-windscreens and lamps, both front and rear, are clean. However much hon. Members may charge me with being a nanny in that respect, I must say that those who do the sensible things on the road are more likely to be safe and here next week to tell the tale than those who ignore commonsense advice, which is what motoring in winter weather is all about.

As the hon. Lady and I have an abiding interest in road safety, may I ask whether she or the Department has any views on the quality of road safety which is currently being afforded by Sir Clive Sinclair's latest invention, which I am given to believe is a bike?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the C5 is a trike which falls completely within the electrically assisted pedal cycle regulations. I should make it clear that it is a bike in the sense that one has to pedal in it. There is no way in which it is a motor vehicle. We are obviously monitoring what is going on at the road research laboratory.

I welcome the recent poster campaign encouraging pedal cyclists to have lights on at night. Will my hon. Friend recognise that the number of bicycles without lights is still appallingly high, and will she encourage the full enforcement of the law on those who risk their lives and other people's safety?

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. Whenever we can we point that out, and I know that, whenever possible, police forces insist that cyclists obey the law and have properly lighted cycles. All cyclists put themselves in terrible jeopardy if their cycle lights are not in proper working order and if they are not dressed so that they can be clearly seen on the roadway at all times.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the effect on rural bus services of bus deregulation.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about his White Paper on buses.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the buses White Paper and its effect on rural services.

I have received about 7,000 responses so far to the White Paper on buses and the consultation documents which were issued subsequently. A substantial proportion of the responses have speculated about the effects of the proposals on rural bus services.

I assume that the Minister has read all the representations and taken due consideration of them. I say that because when the Under-Secretary of State answered question 4 he led the House to believe that the Association of County Councils supported the White Paper on buses, yet when it gave evidence to the Select Committee its view was somewhat different. I do not know whether it has had a remarkable change of opinion in the past 48 hours.

I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman, so early in the day, prejudging the inquiry into these matters by the Select Committee of which he is Chairman. I have read the written representations of the Association of County Councils, which were broadly supportive of the proposals, though querying some of the detailed provisions. The hon. Gentleman would be mistaken to try to frighten rural passengers about these proposals. He may be interested to learn that in Hereford and Worcester 38 per cent, of the total revenue subsidy cost was saved, which would have been available had the county council wished to buy more rural services. Instead, it preferred to leave the present pattern of rural services and make the saving for the ratepayers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents welcome the proposals because they realise that rural bus services are practically non-existent and that our proposals are the only hope of increasing those that exist? Does he think it significant that in recent months the Liberal party in my constituency, which likes to believe that it is the champion of rural services, has been trying to hype up a campaign against the proposals but has had to abandon it because last weekend it found not one supporter?

My hon. Friend is the true voice in this House of rural dwellers, unlike the hon. Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who have asked the question. I agree that nobody can be satisfied with the present position of rural services and that the radical plan that the Government are putting forward to provide more and better services should be supported, even by hon. Members who represent urban constituencies.

In view of the support which expert bodies, such as the Bus and Coach Council, have given to the idea of introducing competition through the franchising of bus routes rather than having a free-for-all on the roads, may we be told whether the changes that the Secretary of State has made to his original proposals embrace that kind of approach?

I do not believe that franchising would achieve anything like the scale of benefits that the proposals in the White Paper for full competition will bring, for two reasons. The first is that county councils would, under the franchising proposals, use their judgment as to what was the right pattern of supply to meet the market, rather than allow the market to determine the pattern of supply of services. The second is that once a franchise was obtained it would be protected from competition, and that would have the effect of not allowing the full benefit from increased productivity and reduced costs, which we believe will come from allowing full competition, to be developed.

Will the Secretary of State confirm reports that he has had to delay publication of the Bill because of strong opposition from Members of Parliament, including some Tory Members who represent rural areas? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless he wants to see public transport reduced to a mere skeleton service run by cowboys, he will have to scrap the Bill completely in view of the devastating effect that it will have on bus services, particularly in rural areas, and on jobs in the coach-building industry; for example at Walter Alexanders in my constituency?

There has been an enormous number of representations and it has been important to take great care to design the detailed provisions of the Bill to facilitate the transitional period leading to the deregulated regime. That is why we are running slightly late. However, the hon. Gentleman will be pleasantly surprised by how soon the Bill will be in the Vote Office. If he has the interests of his rural passenger constituents at heart, I look forward to him joining my right hon. and hon. Friends in voting to support the proposals that are set out in the Bill.

Does the Secretary of State accept that while a small minority might have better services as a result of the Government's proposals, the cost will have to be paid for by those living in rural areas? Those living in rural areas and those who are dependent on off-peak services and Sunday services, and the elderly and the disabled. About 3,000 of my constituents have written to me on this issue, as they are concerned about the Government's proposals. They hope that the Government will decide to withdraw them.

Those who are paying the high levels of cross subsidy are those living in the cities, especially those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. They live on bus routes on which there are many passengers. They are being taxed, as it were, to subsidise those who live in leafy suburbs in rural areas. As a Socialist, which I assume the hon. Gentleman to be, is he satisfied with that pattern of cross subsidy?

Does the Secretary of State realise that in Northumberland there will be commercial pressure for the operators to compete for the routes on the fringes of Tyneside, leaving local authorities with insufficient moneys to provide revenue subsidies to the operators, who are left to make an attempt to provide a service for the large and thinly populated rural areas?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not a stranger to Northumberland. I can confirm that the bus service in rural Northumberland leaves a great deal to be desired. I believe he will find that a greater service is able to be provided for the same amount of money by receiving tenders for rural routes.

Will the Secretary of State make it clear that in areas such as Hertfordshire the cutting of a £1 million subsidy will result in the county spending £2·4 million on replacing school buses alone? Why does he not have the honesty to say that in the trial areas, expecially in Hereford, a number of buses were so dangerous that they had to be taken off the roads? It will be the passengers who will pay for the mad Bill that the Government propose.

The hon. Lady has it wrong, again. I think that she read an article about Hertfordshire and the transport supplementary grant. That had nothing to do with the bus Bill. Secondly, the percentage of buses passing initial inspection in 1983–84 was as follows: National Bus Company vehicles 60 per cent., private bus operators' vehicles 56 per cent., passenger transport executive operators' vehicles 49 per cent., and London Transport vehicles 47 per cent. That shows that the private sector has an extremely good safety record.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the London borough councils with whom he has discussed the future of the dial-a-ride service; and if he will make a statement.

We are in full discussion with the London Boroughs Association. We have also made contact with the Association of London Authorities, but we are still awaiting its response to our invitation to join the discussions.

Is the Minister fully aware of the increasing concern of the disabled and the organisations that represent them about the uncertainty of the future of the service? As the service is now being developed in London, it is the Government's duty to put some pressure on authorities such as the borough of Wandsworth, which will not make any commitment. It seems that the hon. Lady cannot be aware of the concern and could not care less whether the service continues or dies. It is up to the Government to help the disabled now that the service is in being.

It is my firm intention that the scheme shall be determined by the London boroughs, which are talking with us, and that includes Wandsworth. As a resident in that borough, I at least have some say in what goes on within it. The only doubt that is being put in the minds of the disabled about the dial-a-ride scheme is coming from those who are campaigning against the Government's policy. It is they who are worrying the disabled. I can assure the disabled that we are discussing the future of the dial-a-ride scheme. We recognise the importance of it, and the purpose of the talks is to find the best way of continuing to meet the need. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will desist from scaremongering, if that is what he has been doing.

Is not the way in which the GLC is spending ratepayers' money and stirring up concern among disabled people completely disgraceful? Is my hon. Friend convinced that the way in which the GLC spends money on this scheme provides the best value for money for disabled people?

I am sad to say that the GLC is not spending money in the best possible way. What we have been doing with the London branch of the national advisory unit for community transport to make its schemes develop in the most effective and efficient manner is the best way in which we can help not only to maintain the dial-a-ride system but to provide other systems to enable disabled people to get around. I shall continue to ensure that that happens, whatever the GLC does.

Is the Minister aware that one reason why the disability organisations wish to have a better relationship with London Regional Transport is that they do not necessarily consider themselves to be clients of social services and, therefore, within the purview of the London boroughs? Does the hon. Lady accept, therefore, that it is desperately important that people who rely on dial-a-ride should be able to look forward to that kind of relationship with LRT?

The hon. Gentleman's statement bears out the steps that LRT is taking with the new heads of its unit and one of its board members, who is directly responsible for the transport of disabled people in London. A number of the organisations for the disabled have already told me that they are pleased with the steps that LRT is taking through that unit to help disabled people to use conventional and new forms of transport in the future.

Does the Minister accept that if the Department of Transport returns to the GLC the ?50 million that the Department improperly filched from it, due to the incompetence of the Secretary of State, much more money will be available for the dial-a-ride scheme and other schemes? That is a fact, and not scaremongering.

The sub judice rule would apply to civil cases.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall be guided by you. One of the problems of the dial-a-ride scheme—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) would listen, I might be able to give him an answer to his question. The point about the dial-a-ride scheme is that we must effectively serve the needs of disabled people. Their needs can be best identified by those who are closest to them at local level. We are seeking to obtain the best value for money so that dial-a-ride can best help those who cannot get on conventional transport, and we shall continue to do that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you accept a point of order?

Order. Not now. I shall hear points of order later.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During an earlier exchange I referred to the judgment by the court last Friday that the Secretary of State for Transport had acted

"unlawfully, irrationally and procedurally improperly"

rose—

Order. Before the Secretary of State answers, perhaps I could clarify the issue. The resolution of the House on 23 July 1963 makes it clear that matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court should not be referred to in any question to a Minister, including supplementary questions, and this rule applies during the period when notice of appeal is given and until that notice of appeal has been decided. I am not aware whether the notice of appeal has been given.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have given notice to the court of intention to appeal. That is not the same as formal notice of appeal, but, as far as I am concerned—I am not talking about Opposition Members—it would clearly be improper for me to respond in any way on the substance of the matters about which we have given notice to appeal. Perhaps I should not have used the phrase "sub judice", but that is why I refused to comment on the points of substance.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to give us a ruling as to when the sub judice rule applies? Does it apply when a Minister says that his Department intends, at some unspecified time, to appeal against a judgment with which he disagrees and as a result of which he has been found to be acting

"unlawfully, irrationally and procedurally improperly"

As I understand it, the matter is sub judice when a formal notice of appeal has been given.

Then, further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely the Secretary of State is accountable for his actions and should have replied to the questions put to him during Question Time. As, in my limited experience, this situation is unprecedented, I ask you to allow an extension of Question Time so that the Secretary of State can be held to account for those unlawful, irrational and procedurally improper actions of which he has been found guilty by a court. When one reflects on the odium that the Government have poured on elected members of the GLC because of their attempts to run public passenger transport in London, it makes one feel that it is grossly improper to allow the Secretary of State to get away with hiding behind a sub judice rule which, as you have just ruled, does not exist.

Order. The House knows that I am not responsible for answers or supplementary answers from the Front Bench. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I think that we have exhausted this subject.

rose—

Order. I have already said that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. I cannot allow an extension of Question Time. We have a busy day ahead of us.

Further to that point of order.

Order. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.

I have a different question.

Well, ask it.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not get any pleasure from doing this at this time of the day. However, you ruled that if a matter was sub judice the Secretary of State could not be expected to reply to questions on it. We have just heard that the matter is not sub judice, but the Secretary of State is still refusing to answer the question. I appreciate that you cannot tell the Secretary of State when or whether to answer a question in the House. However, I hope you will agree that it is a gross abuse of the proceedings of the House for the Secretary of State to claim something that is false. I am not allowed, by the rules of the House, to say that the Secretary of State was telling lies, but I am bound to say that I would have great difficulty in finding any other way to describe his conduct this afternoon. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of the rights of all hon. Members, both Front and Back-Bench Members, to give a specific ruling that the Secretary of State is wrong and to call him to account and ask him what he is prepared to do about it.

Order. I have given a factual ruling. I cannot go any further. The Secretary of State is responsible for what he says in answer to a question. He can answer it, but he need not do so, and that is a matter for him.

Perhaps I might help. It is for you to rule, Mr. Speaker, whether a matter is sub judice. I made it clear during Question Time, and I repeat it now, that, as I have given notice of my intention to appeal, I shall not reply to questions that would prejudice that appeal when it comes on. That does not apply to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), but it does apply to me.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give us your guidance on another point? Although you cannot require the Secretary of State to say anything specific about this matter, will you ensure that in both the Local Government Bill Committee tomorrow and in the rate support grant debate on Wednesday—because this judgment has an impact on the proceedings on both those measures—no one will be banned from saying something on the ground that the matter is sub judice, when it is clearly not sub judice?

Order. The sub judice rule would not apply to legislation anyway, so the matter is open to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to discuss with the chairman of British Rail progress on contracting out ancillary services on the railways.

It has long been British Rail's policy to procure its supplies through competition. I am glad to say that the board has now decided to extend competition to the provision of support services. It has drawn up criteria to establish this competition on fair and equal terms and I will arrange to put copies of the criteria in the library.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I should like to concentrate the attention of my right hon. Friend and the chairman of British Rail on catering services on British Rail trains and stations. I believe that they will find a considerable appetite for change among the public.

My hon. Friend is right. So far, hardly any catering on the trains, and not all that much on the stations, is let out to competitive tender. The new criteria, which I urge my hon. Friend to study when he obtains his copy from the Library, will give the private sector the rules of the game, showing how the private sector may apply to British Rail to be allowed to bid for contracts to carry out catering—I hope to the general gastronomic satisfaction of all rail passengers.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings he has had with the chairman of the British Railways Board since 1 October; and what subjects were discussed.

My right hon. Friend and I have had four meetings with the chairman since 1 October last. We have discussed a wide range of subjects of mutual interest, including investment.

At the meetings with the chairman of the board, did the Minister and his superiors discuss the question of safety on British Railways? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the railway fraternity today there are some misgivings about the lack of maintenance of the old vehicles that are now running? Is he further aware that many trains are running late mainly because of a lack of normal maintenance procedures? At his next meeting with British Rail will he bring that matter up? Is he further aware that today on British Rail men and women work more overtime than is normal? Would it not be better to pay them a decent rate of pay and to employ more people?

The level of maintenance of rolling stock is a matter for British Rail management, and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of the chairman. British Rail has embarked on a major programme of investment in new rolling stock. I have today written to Bob Reid, the chairman, approving investment in 240 medium-weight sprinter DMUs at a cost of about £60 million.

asked the Attorney-General how many persons were prosecuted in the Crown court in 1982, 1983 and 1984, respectively, for offences contrary to section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875.

Offences under this section are purely summary and not justiciable in the first instance in the Crown court. Proceedings under this section are ordinarily instituted by the police and not by the Director. One prosecution was commenced in 1982, and two in 1983. Equivalent figures for 1984 are not yet available, but since 13 March 1984 275 people have been charged under this section.

First, I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his correction about the mode of trial, which I accept. Does he agree that there is an urgent need for an early review of public order offences? Does he further agree that the revival of a previously disused public order offence specifically for the purpose of charging pickets in the miners' strike is liable to exacerbate already difficult circumstances unnecessarily?

The Home Secretary is conducting a review of the public order aspects of the law. The offence covered by section 7, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman disapproves, is not one which should or could be outside the criminal law. The value of a law is not measured in inverse proportion to the length of time it has been enacted. There are three grades of unlawful assembly, for example, which the Law Commission recommended, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman is no doubt aware. Those matters are being considered by the Home Secretary, who, I hope, will be able to deal with them shortly.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this piece of legislation came into effect precisely to deal with the sort of intimidation that we are seeing at the moment? Can he assure me that he has had consultations with chief constables about obtaining evidence from working miners to the effect that the National Union of Mineworkers' leadership is organising a conspiracy? Will he take this opportunity to encourage working miners to come forward with further evidence, which will enable the conviction of the ringleaders to take place so that my constituents, who, even today, are visiting me because they cannot get to work without suffering from intimidation, can get justice?

It is not for me to have conferences with chief constables. That would be a matter, if appropriate, for the Home Secretary. It is true that there is a dearth of evidence that would be necessary if, for example, the Director of Public Prosecutions were seeking to initiate proceedings for conspiracy under section 7. He would need to have evidence which, at the moment, is not available. I have no doubt that the chief constables are carrying out their duties properly. I would welcome any working miner who has evidence of an offence under section 7 making that evidence available to the police.

Surely the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has the better point here. The use of the legislation in recent times has concerned solely industrial disputes. There is a real fear and danger that it will be seen as partisan, and that respect for law and order will be undermined for a considerable period in communities where such a law is used.

I congratulate the hon. Member on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that he will enjoy it.

asked the Attorney-General what recent discussions he has had with Price Waterhouse about sequestration; and if he will make a statement.

I have not had any discussions with Price Waterhouse since my statement to the House on 11 December. I have nothing to add to what I told the House in that statement.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the National Union of Mineworkers and its Labour party allies are doing their best to put about the story that it is the Government who are somehow instigating the legal actions? Therefore, will the Attorney-General—and his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and in the Government—take every opportunity to remind the public that this is not the case, and that the actions are being brought by working miners who feel that Mr. Scargill and his colleagues are purloining the union funds in a disgraceful and illegal way, in the light of the fact that there has been no ballot?

My hon. Friend is right. Last Friday there were three different actions before the High Court, in each of which the plaintiffs were working miners, some from south Wales and some from other mining areas.

Is the Attorney-General aware that he can try as hard as he likes to suggest that the Government are not involved in the court cases, but that when the public realise that the working miners' committee has been advised by two people who have served their apprenticeships at No. 10 under the Prime Minister, and take into account all the other people who have been assisting in the legal battles of working miners, they will be bound to come to the conclusion that the Government are heavily involved in the court actions? The Government are in it up to the neck, with a view to trying to smash the NUM, but they will not succeed. The Government see it as a prelude to smashing the whole of the TUC.

I am not sure whether it would be possible for a miner Member of Parliament to pay a greater insult to fellow miners than to say that they are acting under the advice and guidance of the Tory party. It is simply not true.

asked the Attorney-General when he expects to conclude consultations following publication of the 24th report of Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee on latent damage.

:The Lord Chancellor's Department has asked for any comments on the Law Reform Committee's report to be sent to it by the end of March.

If it is my right hon. and learned Friend's intention to introduce legislation in this Session of Parliament, he will know that amendment and clarification of the law, particularly relating to latent defects in buildings, is urgently required by all those involved in the process of construction, not least by the owners and occupiers of buildings.

The Lord Chancellor is well aware of the importance that is attached by many people, in the professions for which my hon. Friend speaks, to the contents of the report and to the subject generally. The Lord Chancellor is, however, equally determined to ensure that the public have an opportunity to comment upon the recommendations of the report. He has asked for those comments by the end of March. It is very important that any legislation should not be found to suffer from a latent defect. Therefore, I am afraid that the Lord Chancellor cannot give the undertaking for which my hon. Friend asks.

asked the Attorney-General if any public funds have yet been paid to Price Waterhouse in regard to its role as sequestrators of the National Union of Mineworkers' funds.

No public funds have been paid to the sequestrators.

Will the Attorney-General bear in mind that all the points made originally by the Opposition when the Government's decision became known remain justified, and that the amount of bias in the decision of the Government, who are acting in a way totally different from the way in which they have acted in any other circumstance, shows only too clearly that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should think about the matter again?

I ask the hon. Gentleman to read again the short speech, much interrupted, by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General when he wound up the debate on 19 December.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a need for the High Court to have a permanent fund available to it for use in sequestration proceedings? Will he discuss with the Lord Chancellor how such a permanent fund might be set up?

Certainly, that is one of the matters that has arisen as a result of this quite exceptional action, which is without any precedent, as everybody knows. No doubt I shall have the opportunity to discuss it with the Lord Chancellor.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the overseas aid budget goes to Commonwealth countries in Asia; and if he will make a statement.

In 1983 some £187 million, amounting to 32 per cent. of British bilateral aid, went to Commonwealth countries in Asia. Over that period £125 million, or some 30 per cent., of our multilateral aid contributions went to the same countries.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real shortage in those countries is of entrepreneurs? What part does the aid budget play in the creation of more entrepreneurs in those countries?

I do not think that it is as true of the Asian countries as it is of the African countries that there is a grave shortage of entrepreneurs. On the other hand, in one way or another, the aid programme provides scope for entrepreneurs, and we stress the importance of countries reducing their excessive overdependence on parastatals, which characterises so many of them at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider increasing aid to Nicaragua.

Her Majesty's Government have no plans to increase the level of their bilateral aid. Nicaragua does, however, benefit substantially from the European Community's aid programme.

Is the Minister aware that Britain's bilateral aid currently stands at around £25,000 a year and that that sum seems to be very trivial in relation to the needs of the country? May I ask the Minister to reconsider increasing aid to Nicaragua, because if he does not do so many people will think that his motives are political spite rather than a realisation of the needs of the people of Nicaragua?

The fact of the matter is that Nicaragua is by no means the poorest of the countries in central America, and is not among the poorest 50 countries as defined by the World Bank. Our intention is to concentrate our aid as far as possible on the poorest countries, and Nicaragua does not fall into that category.

Does the Minister accept that, apart from humanitarian considerations, the recent history of liberation movements and other such organisations in Africa shows that if we in the West do not give aid to Nicaragua or countries like it, it is almost inevitable that such countries will be put into the hands of the Communist bloc, which will certainly aid them?

I can only repeat that it is not possible for the United Kingdom to undertake substantial aid programmes to every country in the world. We have our priorities, and of course countries with historic connections rate high in our priorities, by and large. Nicaragua is not one of the poorest countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has called on the Ethiopian Government to negotiate safe passage with the liberation fronts in Eritrea and Tigre to ensure the distribution of food aid to those areas.

It would not be realistic or appropriate to expect the Ethiopian Government to negotiate with rebel movements in ways that might involve recognition of their claims. We have asked the Ethiopian Government on several occasions to ensure that food and other relief supplies reach all areas of the country. For some areas that is carried out most effectively by the voluntary agencies.

Surely the Minister is aware that the situation in key food distribution areas such as Makale is getting worse, not better, and that dozens of children are dying each day in such distribution centres, as many British people saw last week on television. The Minister has been to Makale and knows the problem there. The Government do not control the surrounding areas—the drought areas. Why is it inappropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to bring pressure on the Government? If he does not do so, or does not get the Council of Ministers of the EC to do so, there will be tens of thousands of needless deaths in the days and months to come.

With our partners we are now providing substantial quantities of food aid to Ethiopia, and that is as it should be. We make sure that the food reaches the area around Makale. It is difficult—we do not deny it for one minute—to see that it is distributed to all those who come under the rebels' authority. On the other hand, substantial numbers of people are moving in from the rebel-held areas to Makale to get food there.

With regard to my right hon. Friend's original answer, will he deny that the Royal Air Force is to be withdrawn from helping in Ethiopia?

We have not yet made a decision about that. The RAF has done enormously valuable work. We have to consider what is the best use of our resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is (a) the total cost of the Brewster housing project in the Falklands, (b) how many Brewster houses are occupied and unoccupied, respectively, and (c) what are the categories of occupiers of the Brewster houses.

The final cost of the project will not be known until details of local expenditure on site services and infrastructure and other related claims have been submitted. At present, 33 houses are occupied and the breakdown of occupants is as follows: 13 islanders, 13 personnel on contract to the Falkland Islands Government, three immigrants and four diplomatic service and Ministry of Defence personnel. The Falkland Islands Government estimate that the remaining 21 houses should be occupied by the end of this month.

Is the cost above or below £100,000 per house, and does the Minister regard that as value for money?

It is above £100,000 per house, but it must be remembered that that includes the cost of transporting materials there, the preparation of the sites, provision of water, electricity and so on. The Falkland Islands Government have also acquired ownership of other assets such as plant, equipment and an accommodation block as part of that process.

Does the Minister recall that the Select Committee on Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was dissatisfied with the arrangements made by his Department for tendering for those projects and their subsequent administration? Will he consider that report and ensure that in any future emergency of this kind much better and clearer arrangements are made?

I have studied the report, although it relates to events that took place before I took up my present post. I accept that we must consider carefully what can be learnt from this episode, but I do not accept that the whole thing has been a waste of time and money.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the additional quantities of food being provided for Ethiopia by the Common Market will be from additional resources or from reducing aid to other countries.

The cost of the 1·2 million tonnes of grain pledged by the European Council on 4 December for African countries affected by drought will be met by transfers from other parts of the Community budget not related to aid, from the unallocated emergency provision of the European development fund and from the 1985 Community food aid programme. In addition, member states will make available directly more than one third of the total amount. The British share of those actions will be met from the public expenditure provision for overseas aid.

Is it not highly disturbing that the total amount of food that the Common Market plans to send to Ethiopia next year is less than the amount sent every six weeks to the Soviet Union? What justification can there be for anyone going without food in Ethiopia when such unmanageable surpluses are being sent to the Soviet Union at vast expense to the British taxpayer?

My hon. Friend should realise that the quantity of aid pledged by the Community to Ethiopia and other parts of Africa is very substantial. He should also realise that the sending of Common Market grain surpluses is not a matter of giving something away free. It involves substantial costs—about £250 per tonne of grain transported and delivered in Ethiopia. The equation is thus more complicated than my hon. Friend suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount the United Kingdom will contribute to the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1985–86.

We have agreed to contribute £3·75 million to the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1985.

The Minister must be aware of the total withdrawal of funding to the IPPF next year by the United States. Will he bear that shortfall in mind, as the IPPF contributes to many valuable programmes in the developing world and it would be appalling if that work had to be substantially reduced?

I am aware of the cut in support from the United States, but the £3·75 million to which I have referred is an increase from £3 million in 1984, so I believe that we are doing our bit.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the closure of the new airport at Providenciales in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

The airport was closed to scheduled jet services from 29 November to 19 December while maintenance work was undertaken on the runway. It is now open and operating normally.

Does the Minister recall that another report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee expressed dissatisfaction with his Ministry's arrangements for the construction of the runway? Will he assure the House that he will investigate the events of that time and the effect that they may or may not have had on the closure of that controversial airport?

I do not believe that the events of that time had any effect on the recent developments. I am advised that it is not unusual for such cracks to appear. The runway is now operating successfully and so, I believe, will the Club Med project.