asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends meeting representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.

Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any immediate plans to meet representatives of the AMA. I meet them as necessary from time to time on matters of mutual interest.

Will the Minister or her Secretary of State seek a meeting with the AMA? If she were to do so she would find from the urban areas of Britain a reception as hostile as that which she received from the rural areas, particularly Wales, on the proposed legislation on buses. Will she advise the Secretary of State that if such a meeting were held it might provide a convenient opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his proposals, to climb down and perhaps save what little face he has left?

As I said, I meet the AMA from time to time, particularly its members in the different authorities, and that includes members from the metropolitan county councils, who have been present at a number of meetings where this issue has been raised. I accept that many people are scared about what will happen, but that is a result of scaremongering and the failure to face the fact that competition has always brought about a better standard of service for the passengers. It is about time that we organised Britain's transport on the basis of the needs of passengers rather than of those who would administer it.

When my hon. Friend meets the AMA, will she confirm to it, as to the House, that although rear seat belts may be desirable, she as no intention of making them compulsory?

That is matter for the House.

I am surprised that that should arise on this question, but one gets used to any subject coming up. We are studying carefully the Select Committee's recommendations and, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) says, whether rear seat belts should be made compulsory would be a matter for the House and not for Ministers.

When the Minister meets representatives of the AMA, will she meet the Merseyside representatives and discuss with them the decision to close the link between the Isle of Man and Liverpool, a 150-year-old service, which the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company decided to terminate precipitously and arbitrarily on Friday last, putting people out of work and massively inconveniencing people who live on the island and on Merseyside?

That is not a matter for the AMA. From my reading of the newspapers, that service is not to be terminated but its destination point changed from Liverpool to Heysham. Obviously that is a matter of concern to everyone in the Liverpool area, but there must be good management reasons for that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can draw some of his own conclusions.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further responses he has received to the White Paper, "Buses", Cmnd. 9300.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received concerning the White Paper, "Buses".

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has so far received to the White Paper, "Buses".

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received concerning the White Paper, "Buses".

I received nearly 8,000 responses to the White Paper and the consultation documents which were issued subsequently.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those who genuinely wish to make a constructive contribution to the creation of a more appropriate framework for buses are becoming increasingly frustrated and irritated by the exaggerated claims and the distortions of those who are opposed to any change whatsoever? Does he agree that, far from abolishing standards, the Bill, with its many clauses, will reinforce them?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful for what he said. Standards are important and, now that the Bill has been published, the House will have had the chance to see the statutory provisions that we propose to improve standards. Where there has been total deregulation in the long-distance coach industry, standards have improved enormously because operators realise that if they are to attract more customers it is in their interests to provide high standards.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the serious concern expressed by many people who use public transport and many who run public transport that if the Bill goes forward as published it will be disastrous for off-peak services, rural services and concessionary fares? Will he take into account the views expressed at the seminar held today by Transport 2000?

I beg to differ. The purpose of the Bill is to improve the matters which the hon. Gentleman listed. I assure him that I would not be seeking to legislate to make services worse. I believe he will discover that the effect of the combination of tendering for services, the rural bus grant and the new flexibility which the provisions of the Bill allow will be that rural services will improve very much. The hon. Gentleman ought to be very careful before suggesting otherwise from his rural area of Burnley.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Bill—a cowboys' charter—with its proposals to end internal cross-subsidisation, taken with the effects of the abolition of the West Midlands county council and other county councils, puts at risk up to 30 per cent. of services in Coventry and the rest of the west midlands? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his vague promises about the protection of pensioners' bus passes fall on stony ground, because it is no good having a bus pass if Sunday, evening and other services do not turn up at the bus stop?

The hon. Gentleman has gone no further than obtaining a copy of the Bill. He clearly has not read it. If he had, he would know that if off-peak services are not provided by the operator—and I think that in many cases they will be—they can be provided by the local authority, which can put them out to tender in the way described in the Bill. That is also the case with concessionary fares. If those fares end in Coventry, the hon. Gentleman will know who to blame. It will be his own local authority and not me.

Regarding the tender proposals, how can a local authority receive realistic tender proposals for a route on which the operator could face competition from another operator who is prepared to take only the profitable part of that route?

It would be a strange competitor who, without subsidy, challenged a subsidised operator on a route which had been genuinely uneconomic and had been put out to tender. The circumstances suggested by the hon. Gentleman seem to me extremely remote. However, if the position outlined by the hon. Gentleman occurred, I suggest that there could be a break clause in the contract and everybody would be pleased to know that part of the route that had been subsidised did not need subsidy, and that would save some money.

When my right hon. Friend studies the responses to the White Paper, I hope that he will also study the report by Bristol university, which appeared in the papers today and confirmed that the Hereford experiment had been excellent and beneficial to consumers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as a loss-making publicly owned line in a rural area in my constituency can be replaced by a private, unsubsidised service, that shows that there is plenty of scope?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, though I have not yet had time to study the Bristol report. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary talked to well over 60 people on the buses in Hereford and found none who had anything but praise for the new system. Their only fear is that the deregulated system might be taken away from them, to their very great disadvantage.

Has my right hon. Friend had any responses from, or discussions with, the Bishop of Durham, who is this week addressing a political meeting in Cleveland at which all Conservative and alliance Members have been refused the opportunity to speak?

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman talking about buses?

That is exactly what my question is about.

The dreadful thing is, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend was talking about buses in connection with the bishop. However, if the bishop is interested, I should be very happy to meet him and to take him through the Bill clause by clause.

Might it not be in the interests of the House, and certainly those of the Secretary of State, if he could substantiate his case—if, indeed, he has one—by publishing all the responses and placing copies of them in the Library, so that we could see all those who are in favour of the proposals, all those who are against and the reasons why? The right hon. Gentleman should have nothing to fear if people support him to the extent that he claims.

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that if responses are sent privately to me it would be quite wrong to publish them without first gaining the consent of those who wrote them. Anyone who wishes to publish his response to a consultative document is at liberty to do so himself.

I am sure that most people will welcome the policy of added competition if it follows the example of Hereford, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and by the article that appeared today in The Times. However, may I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider greater competition for hire cars in the London area?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am acutely aware of the point that he raised. It is a difficult issue, with arguments on both sides, but we can debate it at length in Committee. I do not have a closed mind about it.

The Secretary of State must be all too painfully aware of the representations that he has received on the content of the White Paper from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils, the Womens Institute, Rural Voice and the Taxi Drivers Association. If he had any sense he would listen to them instead of dispatching the Under-Secretary of State to travel round the country wining and dining local newspaper editors in order to create propaganda in favour of his Bill.

If the hon. Gentleman had any sense he would listen to the voices of the consumers, to those of the National Consumer Council and to the people on the buses in Hereford. He would also stop taking the side of vested interests and come down on the side of the customer.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Is it directed to questions?

Directly, Mr. Speaker. May I apologise to you if I shouted and did not make it clear that the public rally to be addressed next week in Cleveland by the Bishop of Durham is exclusively to do with buses and has nothing to do with religion?

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I queried his question. I am glad that the matter is now straight.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has for his assertion that safety standards will be improved by implementation of the White Paper, "Buses".

The provisions in the Transport Bill reflect the Government's determination to maintain and tighten safety standards.

Is not the truth of the matter that the claim that deregulation will lead to better safety standards is as bogus as the claim that deregulation will lead to cheaper, better and more efficient transport services? Is it not about time that the Secretary of State, who is generally seen as a walking disaster area for good transport, tore up the Bill and allowed public authorities the proper level of resources to run improving and expanding public transport services?

Deregulation itself does not affect the safety level. We have never suggested that it would lead to higher safety standards. We have said that we shall put extra resources into ensuring that safety standards are properly maintained even though there may well be more operators than at present. The hon. Gentleman referred to better and cheaper services, and I should point out that our experience of the test areas is that deregulation produces more, better and cheaper services, and is liked by the customer.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that al the last count 60 per cent. of National Bus Company buses had failed the first test? Will he also confirm that Lancashire county council is needlessly worrying many people by publishing figures that will frighten them off the buses? Will he further confirm that many of the representations that he receives are merely in the form of cut-out bits from newspapers that are paid for with £135,000 of ratepayers' money?

My hon. Friend has got the figures slightly wrong. Perhaps I can help her and the House. A total of 60 per cent. of the National Bus Company's buses passed on their admission, but 56 per cent. of the private sector buses passed—slightly less than for the National Bus Company—and 47 per cent. of London Transport buses passed, which is substantially less.

Does the Minister understand that his Bill is bound to lead to cowboy operators with clapped out buses driven by part-time non-union drivers racing from stop to stop? Does he agree that that is bound to lead to lower safety?

The experiment in Hereford and Worcester shows that as soon as unsafe vehicles appear on the road they are put off by Department inspectors. We shall devote adequate resources to ensure that that system continues and is dealt with effectively. The Bill contains powers to deal with racing.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that under the Bill there will be more safety checks, because 2,300 buses and coaches failed their special inspection test in 1983–84, and at the annual inspection a staggering 21·4 per cent. failed? Will he assure the House that the consumer will have better safety protection?

We are taking the necessary steps to ensure that adequate resources are available for the task. I have not said that there will be a significant improvement in existing standards, but steps are being taken by most operators to improve the level of passes. There are some unfortunate gaps. A recent chance survey of 5 per cent. of London Transport stock resulted in half the buses being put off the road immediately.

When the Minister visited Herefordshire, did he discuss the many complaints about parking offences, the allegations about wilful damage to coaches and the allegations about coaches operating without proper licences granted by the chief constable? Did he discover why such complaints were not followed up and why prosecutions were not followed through?

I went to hear the views of the county council, the city council and the users. Their views were clear and emphatic. The county council is well pleased with what it has. The Liberal city council adopts the somewhat illiberal view that it does not like a lot of buses in the city centre. The customers are thoroughly pleased with what they have and do not want to go back to the previous system.

Will my hon. Friend note that some of the buses that we saw in Hereford last week on our recent trip with the independants, were more modern than the equivalent National Bus Company buses? Does he agree that there was strong evidence to suggest that existing safety standards and inspection were biased towards the independants, and not against the National Bus Company, which has been guilty, perhaps, of just as many misdemeanours?

I travelled on as many bus services as I could and I found better standards in the private sector than on some of the Midland Red buses operating in the town.

Nonsense.

If the hon. Gentleman goes there he will see that what I say is so. Moreover, the customers seem to like the softer seats and the greater comfort in the private sector coaches.

Will the extra resources to which the Minister has referred enable private operators to purchase buses which have the same ease of entrance and exit as public service vehicles?

The ability of private sector operators to purchase buses and to dispose of them is unaffected by the Bill. The requirement in law already is that buses have to be submitted for tests and that the operator cannot operate without an operator's licence with all its conditions.

Will my hon. Friend take it from me that private operators come to my constituency surgeries urging that the measure be passed? Is he aware that in view of their high standard of excellence and the high standards of private enterprise activity in my constituency, they resent Labour Members referring to them as "cowboys"?

I note my hon. Friend's point. I am sorry that the word "cowboy" has been coined, because it seems to be applied only to operators starting up new businesses. I should have thought that the House was interested in seeing more people having the chance to start businesses, so creating employment.

If the hon. Gentleman resents the use of the word "cowboys", perhaps he will say how he would describe a Hereford operator who maintained his buses in a lay-by and an operator who had his licence taken away because 47 immediate dangers were found. How will the Department be able to monitor safety standards when he is reducing the number of people involved in examining vehicles and when the number of traffic commissioners is being reduced from three to one?

The hon. Lady is wrong to say that we are cutting down on the numbers. The number of faults found in the case of the Hereford operator to whom she referred is an indication that the system is working effectively. [Interruption] Those vehicles were stopped, were identified as being inadequately maintained and were put off the road. That is what the House should want in the interests of safety.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his response to the proposals for improving and accelerating trunk road inquiry procedures contained in the recent report on the subject by the National Economic Development Council.

My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment are considering the Civil Engineering Economic Development Committee's report and hope to give their response by the spring.

Should not the findings of all public inquiries be published at the earliest possible moment? Why is the Secretary of State sitting on the report on the Severn bridge relating to the proposal to increase tolls by 150 per cent.? Will the Minister take note of the Prime Minister's recent assertion that direct questions need direct answers?

I shall do my best to give the hon. Gentleman a direct reply. He clearly does not understand the system of or legal background applying to public inquiries; otherwise, he would not ask for the publication of reports at the earliest opportunity. They are often weighty tomes, as we have seen in recent years, and all the elements with which the inspectors deal in them need careful consideration, and that we certainly give to them.

Any move to improve and accelerate trunk road inquiries procedures is to be welcomed. Does my hon. Friend agree that a sufficient number of inquiries need to be completed so that, if additional resources become available, work can go ahead without being held up by planning considerations?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In addition to the 55 schemes currently under construction and two at public inquiry, 273 schemes are in preparation, so creating a shelf of schemes which can be brought forward when resources permit.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the percentage increase in passengers that has taken place since the deregulation of the long-distance coach industry.

Comprehensive statistics are not available, but the number of passengers carried on NBC's National Express services, which has about 70 per cent. of the market, increased by 45 per cent. between 1980 and 1983. As independent operators undertook very little long-distance coaching before deregulation, they must have increased their carryings by an even greater figure.

Is it not a fact that deregulation has produced cheaper fares, better services, more passengers and more jobs for the British long-distance coach industry? Is that not evidence enough to suppose that the same will happen to the British bus industry, given the safeguards and standards contained in the Transport Bill?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in his catalogue of the benefits that have come from deregulation of long-distance coaches. Similar benefits came from deregulation of long-distance internal air services. The principle seems to hold good.

What has been the parallel reduction in NBC services over and above the 42 million passenger miles by which they were reduced in the first year after the deregulation of long-distance coaches came into operation?

What we have seen has been a change in the pattern. The overall effect has been to satisfy more people because more people are using the services than before to a very substantial extent—rather more than 40 per cent.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's airports policy.

When my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport announce the decision on the Stansted/Heathrow terminal 5 planning inquiries, we intend also to make a statement dealing with some wider aspects of the Government's airports policy.

I welcome that comment. In the light of the rejection by the House of the Eyre report, will my hon. Friend make it clear that in future decisions on airports policy in this country will be made as a consequence of, and not as a motivating factor in, regional and economic planning policy? Does he accept that other transport infrastructure developments such as rail links to Heathrow are part of the environmental price that we have to pay for trying to civilise air transport in this country?

I agree entirely that regional airports should be developed as fast as demand in the region allows. The regional airports have become a great success story. As a whole, they are now in profit and the Government have made capital expenditure allocations of above £30 million this year and next year. We intend to build on that success.

In view of the rejection of the inspector's recommendations on Stansted by so many Members on both sides of the House in last Wednesday's debate, is there any action that the Minister can take to stop cross-subsidisation of Stansted airport by the British Airports Authority? Is he aware that that unfair competition causes not just exasperation but anger among other airport authorities?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are very much aware of the representations that have been made and the feelings that have been expressed, but these matters will have to be part of the total decision taken as a result of the report.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the current review of tourism policy will not take place in isolation from consideration of airports policy?

My hon. Friend has made his views on the promotion of toursim in relation to aviation policy very clear and I am sure that his views are being well noted.

With regard to airports rather further north than Stansted, does the Minister agree that the Government's recent climb-down after their abortive efforts to sell off the civil aviation airports in the Highlands and Islands shows the strength of local feeling and the effectiveness of the CAA's campaign, the level of public support for the socially crucial airports of the Western Isles and the Highlands generally and the fact that blind pursuit of dogma favouring privatisation where it is clearly not applicable makes no sense at all?

We received several offers for those airports but none met the criteria that we had laid down—that the airports should continue to meet the social needs. Nor did they contribute satisfactorily to reducing the current annual subsidy of £3¼ million.

Will the Minister make it clear that there is no question of the House having rejected the Eyre report? Does he agree that it would be tragic if the Government abandoned progress on Stansted and other developments because of a procedural vote representing a minority of the House? Is he aware that many Members of Parliament and many people in Essex would regard it as a tragedy if the Stansted proposals were abandoned?

My right hon. Friends will take into account all that was said in the Stansted debate, but they will have to make their own judgments.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that, despite the views of the exiled and Southend-based Scotsman who has just spoken, a majority of the House will not sanction a third London airport at Stansted or anywhere else, but will demand that a greater share of Britain's financial resources be put towards the development of regional airports?

I have already answered the point about regional airports. With regard to the decision on Stansted airport: the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, will have to wait for my right hon. Friend's decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information and assistance has been supplied to the shipping, aircraft and motor industries on protective measures against the effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he gives to local authorities to ensure that their essential transport for emergency purposes will not be affected by nuclear electromagnetic pulse.

A report by an interdepartmental working party on the effect on communications will be available to Ministers later this year. Advice about measures to counteract electromagnetic pulse is given to shipowners by the Ministry of Defence, to airlines by the Civil Aviation Authority and to local authorities by the Home Office.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that there are places available on training courses so that those who are concerned with those matters may have an opportunity to learn about the effects of nuclear electromagnetic pulse?

I shall certainly consider that matter and perhaps write to my hon. Friend about it later.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities which have declared themselves nuclear-free zones in the misconceived notion that they will escape the holocaust will take the advice that is given to them about safeguarding their vehicles?

The advice that local authorities take and the giving of advice to them is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the peak hours traffic density on the A127 and the A13 in the latest year for which figures are available; and how these densities compare with those on similar trunk roads in conurbations elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Average peak hour flows on the A13 and A127 inside Greater London are 4,000 and 3,700 respectively. Those densities are comparable with those for similar trunk roads in conurbations.

Are there any long-term plans for a motorway to serve south-east Essex, bearing in mind the high traffic density on the A13 and A127? Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the dualling of the A13 will be speeded up and that some attention will be given to the London end of the A13 and the A127, where traffic congestion is unacceptable?

There are no plans for motorways in Essex in the way that my hon. Friend describes. However, we are conscious that until the M25 is fully open there will continue to be usage of the A13 and the A127 by traffic which might otherwise use the M25 and other routes. There are plans to improve the A13 at its junction with the A117. That was added to the programme in May 1983. At the moment we are checking over alternative routes at Rainham on the A13 to try to help the congestion that occurs in the narrow areas of the A13 where it has not yet been dualled. Further than that, we have plans, but they will gradually come together over the coming months, and when the review of the trunk road network is complete I shall have more information for my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department is looking into alternative road crossings to subways.

Alternative road crossings, including footbridges, pelicans and zebras, are available, and the choice is for the highway authority depending on the local circumstances. The matter is kept under constant review.

Is the Minister aware—I am sure that she is—of the great fears experienced by many people, especially women, when they use subways, where violence, muggings and so on might occur? Will the hon. Lady instigate a survey into the extent of the problem? Does she agree that the provision of surface crossings and the cost of planning and producing them is negligible by comparison with the protection of women and elderly people?

I share the hon. Lady's concern about what sometimes goes on in subways, where not only women are affected. The policing aspect is a matter for the Home Office. In recent years, we, for our part, have done what we can to improve the design of subways. I shall send the hon. Lady the design specifications for new subways, but I agree with her that the cheapest form of helping people cross the road is an island in the centre of the road, followed by zebras, pelicans and footbridges, all of which work out more cheaply than subways, but sometimes are not a feasible answer in view of the land in the area and the junctions near the main crossing points used by the local population.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fashion for building subways, particularly as pedestrian crossings on busy suburban roads, has now largely passed, but that many local authorities are left with these landmarks to past theory? As a consequence, will she make the advice of her Department available to those authorities which, over the next few years, would like to replace these white elephants but are to some extent concerned about the cost of doing so?

My hon. Friend raises a valid point. Advice on subways already exists, and I shall send him copies of it. Sometimes it is almost impossible to widen the entrances to subways or to straighten existing subways, and in those cases local authorities may need to look at surface crossings, as the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) intimated in her supplementary question.

asked the Attorney-General if, pursuant to his reply of 17 January, Official Report, column 191, he has any information as to whether the officers of the students' union of the North London polytechnic have now given any undertaking regarding their readiness to comply with the injunction granted by the High Court on 11 December 1984, restraining them from making or authorising payments from the funds of the students union to striking miners; and if he will make a statement.

The officers of the North London polytechnic students' union offered to give certain undertakings and at the same time asked for a revocation of the orders made by the court restraining them from doing certain acts and appointing a receiver and manager of the union funds. Their application came before the court this morning. While accepting the officers' undertakings, the court considered them insufficient in the light of the officers' past conduct and it therefore ruled that its previous order appointing the receiver should remain in force for the time being.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the restraint placed by the law upon the students union officers of the polytechnic of North London from giving a further £10,000 of public money out of student union funds to the striking miners? Will he use every means that he can to recover the £3,000 already wrongly applied by the same people to the same cause and in defiance of their charitable status?

The purpose of my application to the court for the appointment of a receiver was to prevent the misuse of union funds. I prevented the payment of two cheques, each of £5,000, although in one case £2,150 in cash was drawn by the officers from the bank and handed over to a particular miner. Previously, another sum of £1,000 was handed over. It may be that the court will order them personally to seek to repay that.

Does the Attorney-General not accept that members of a student union or any other democratic organisation have a right to express their support for those who are fighting for their jobs and communities and that there have been an unwarranted and unfair series of press attacks on the leadership of the polytechnic of North London students union because of this matter, not least by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)?

If, of course, these people wish to use their own money no one will complain, but they are trustees of large sums of public money given to them by the Government, and that can be used only for the purpose for which it was given.

asked the Attorney-General how many cases are still outstanding in the courts in relation to offences alleged to have been committed in relation to the miners' strike; and if he will make a statement.

During the period from 14 March 1984 to 29 January 1985, 7,653 persons were charged with a total of 9,901 offences alleged to have been committed during the course of the current miners' dispute. Of these, 4,874 defendants have been dealt with and the cases of 2,779 remain to be heard.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for those figures. Is it not a fact that had there been no foregathering of members of Arthur Scargill's private army at many of the coal mines, intent on intimidating those who merely wanted to work, there would have been no need for the police presence in the first place? Does he therefore agree with this morning's statement by the leader of the Social Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), that this sort of thuggery should have no part whatever in industrial relations organisations in this country?

I have no hesitation in agreeing with that. Picketing, as approved by the TUC and as part of the miners' own rules, is limited to six. If there are hundreds or, indeed, thousands of pickets, at best it is a demonstration and, at worst, a riot.

Will the Attorney-General tell the House how many of the 4,874 miners who have already been dealt with have been found not guilty? In Rotherham magistrates' court 75 per cent. of cases in which miners have been charged have been dismissed by the magistrates.

The total number acquitted by all the courts trying miners is 1,169.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that recent experience tends to show that those whose cases still remain to be dealt with will get a fair hearing by magistrates or juries, and that, if the evidence is sufficient, there will be a conviction and that otherwise there will be an acquittal? Does he agree that the criminal justice system is sufficiently resilient to deal with violent pressure put upon it, no matter who exerts the pressure?

I do not doubt the independence of the courts or the juries which try these cases. Many of the cases still awaiting trial will be heard in the Crown court.

Will the Attorney-General, in concert with the Home Secretary, call upon the chief constables in the coalfields to have the fingerprints and photographs of the 1,169 miners who were arrested and acquitted of all charges erased from police records, in order to clear the records, reputations and characters of those miners?

I shall make certain that that comment is passed on to my right hon. and learned Friend. It cannot be a matter for me.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that, as the strike peters to an end, if and when violence increases in certain areas within the coal mining areas, the most vigorous action will be taken to ensure that the public are protected and that the cases that are brought before the courts are dealt with as quickly as possible?

Obviously, it is desirable that there should be the least possible delay. It is equally desirable that those who are awaiting trial on cases unconnected with the miners' dispute should not lose their place in the queue. This is a matter entirely for the chief constables, as they are absolutely independent of the Government.

Without having to repeat to the House my view of 19 December, that everyone who breaks the law must be answerable for it, will the Attorney-General consult the Home Secretary about the extent of the damage that has been done to respect for the law in the mining communities, arising from the fact that breaches of the law have not been entirely one-sided, and arising from such things as the operation of restrictive bail conditions and the stopping of innocent travellers on their way to work, which has left considerable bitterness? Will the Government consider how they intend to rebuild confidence in the law in those areas, and will they encourage everyone within the Government to be particularly sensitive to that aspect in handling their legal responsibilities in mining areas?

I accept that there will be many wounds that will need healing. I suspect that there will be an equally large number of wounds that need healing between working and striking miners. If one considers the endless demonstrations, which amount to intimidation, and the various charges that have been brought, it seems ridiculous to put any blame for that on the police.

asked the Attorney-General what arrangements Her Majesty's Government have made to monitor the effects of the means assessment and contributions system introduced into criminal legal aid by the Legal Aid Act 1982.

Statistics returned by magistrates' courts will now include details of contribution orders made by the courts.

Although I welcome the decision to begin to monitor these arrangements, will the Solicitor-General tell us in more detail how the monitoring will be carried out, bearing in mind that many believe that means-testing is a waste of time because the high administrative costs involved exceed any savings that may be made?

The principal way in which the monitoring is being carried out is through the more accurate and simpler form of return that has been in use since 1 March last year. The magistrates' courts are returning those forms, but unfortunately we do not yet have all the forms for last year. However, the courts are providing better information. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is also considering the use of survey research over relatively small areas.

Is not an enourmous amount of public money wasted by giving legal aid to wealthy criminals who say that they cannot liquidise their assets between committal and trial? Would it not be fairer to give money to poor defendants, who genuinely cannot afford legal representation, and to force rich defendants to pay for their own defences?

Although I have much sympathy with the underlying thought of the hon. Gentleman's question, it would probably be impossible to devise a legal aid scheme which could be operated with absolute certainty that there was no waste. Since legal aid is as much in the interests of justice because it enables the court to do its work efficiently, we must err on the side of liberality. However, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's question is brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Her Majesty's Government's plans for long-term development aid to Ethiopia.

I consider that the World Bank and the European Community, to whose aid funds we contribute largely, are in the best position to provide appropriate long-term development aid to Ethiopia. We shall also be considering what we can do bilaterally, but meanwhile we shall constinue our plans to support education and training.

In view of the still urgent need for immediate help to Ethiopia, does my right hon. Friend agree that long-term funding and sustained aid to that country must remain a foremost priority of our overseas aid programme? Essential to the success of such aid must be the co-operation of the Ethiopian Government. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Ethiopian Government are providing the necessary co-operation?

No one can doubt the need for long-term development in Ethiopia. However, we must recognise that it will not be easy to achieve, partly because of the raging civil war in that country, and partly because the Ethiopian regime has collectivist ideas about agriculture and other matters, alongside which it may be difficult to work.

Does the Minister recognise that often in the wake of famine people who are directly affected are much more likely to listen sympathetically and encouragingly to the idea of development on new lines that will make their position more secure? Therefore, in view of British expertise in tropical agriculture, will the Minister consider seriously the possibility of a well-mounted bilateral programme?

Under the pressure of the appalling circumstances in Ethiopia, a more open-minded and receptive approach may develop in its Government. I hope that that will be so. But we must consider carefully how much of our effort can be done bilaterally and how much of it through the multilateral agencies. A large proportion of our aid programme goes to those multilateral agencies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be long-term development in Ethiopia and sub-Saharan Africa the co-ordination of all aid givers will be essential, together with political and economic reform? In that case, does he agree that the World Bank and the special fund for Africa are the obvious means with which to effect that objective? How then can he defend Britain's position in Paris on Friday in not contributing to the special fund?

I fully agree that co-ordination and policy reform are essential. We have told the World Bank that we shall make available £15 million a year for five years, which will be used to work closely with its special facility and with exactly the same objectives as the World Bank has.

What best estimates can the Minister give about the numbers of refugees who are likely to be in danger of their lives as a result of the continued famine in Ethiopia? What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the Ethiopian authorities about the firing of shots at refugees trying to flee the country?

It is difficult to give figures about the numbers of refugees who might leave Ethiopia in the coming months. When I was in Ethiopia I made it clear to the Ethiopian Government that we believe that they must do all that they can to allow food to reach those who need it. We are also talking to the International Red Cross to see whether it can take steps to bring about some further relaxation of the hostilities which are making the transmission of food more difficult than it need be.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received about further aid for sub-Saharan Africa.

I continue to receive many such representations.

In view of the weekend report that as many as 34 million people in 20 African countries are at risk of dying from starvation in what has been described as potentially the greatest catastrophe ever to have visited this planet, and bearing in mind that in response to the Ethiopian appeal the great generosity of the British people was not, unfortunately, matched by the British Government, will the Minister ensure a far more generous response to the World Bank's special fund for Africa, along the lines of early-day motion 323, which has the support of over 100 Labour Members?

Nobody would deny the gravity of the situation in central, eastern and southern Africa, although happily in southern Africa there has been an improvement in the rainfall. I wholly reject the suggestion that the British Government have not made an adequate response to the problem. We have given large quantities of aid, both before October last year, when the television films brought to everybody's attention what was happening in Ethiopia, and since. We shall continue to play a full part in this.

Why is it that the Government are prepared to give funds to run alongside the World Bank programme but not to give funds to the World Bank programme? That distinction has escaped a large proportion of hon. Members.

Both my right hon. and learned Friend and I have often said that we are anxious to maintain within our overall aid programme a fair share of the bilateral element, and that is essentially what this is about. We are prepared to work for the same objectives, but on the other hand we wish to keep this within the bilateral framework and to make certain decisions ourselves rather than hand them over to the World Bank. We should be able to come up with a successful scheme.

What will history make of a Chancellor who considered the billions spent on the mining dispute as a good investment, but at the same time refused $50 million a year to avert the human catastrophe in Africa? Will the Minister confirm that there is not one penny of new money in the £15 million that he has mentioned, and that we, alone in Western Europe, have not contributed to the special fund?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The arrangements which Japan and Germany are negotiating are similar to the arrangements which we are discussing. As to the new money, in planning ahead in our aid programme we made special allowance for exceptional contingencies and disasters, and we would be foolish not to do so. Whether this is new money or not is an abstraction. The important thing is to provide effective aid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action Her Majesty's Government are taking to assist drought victims in the Sudan.

Some 15,000 tonnes of our own cereals aid will shortly reach Port Sudan through the world food programme, and we expect the European Community, which has already committed 51,000 tonnes, to allot further substantial amounts from the 1·2 million tonnes agreed at the Dublin summit.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. He will be aware, from the television coverage over the weekend, of the problem of refugees coming from Ethiopia into Sudan. Will he consider visiting Sudan to ensure that the assistance being given is used in the most effective manner?

I am very much aware of the great public concern about the situation in the Sudan, and I intend to visit the Sudan this month.

Does the right hon. Gentleman share the obvious disappointment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who said in the House last week that the Foreign Affairs Council had not met anything like the target that it had in mind for helping these areas? Given that view, will the right hon. Gentleman, as a Minister, add his support to the voice of the British public in saying that they will not accept that the food mountains are growing and that we are not making the contribution of which we are capable?

The contribution agreed by the European Community is a very substantial one, because 1·2 million tonnes of food grain is a very large amount. What remains to be done is to make sure that that food aid is allocated to those places where it is most desperately needed, rather than be used somewhat indiscriminately, as has sometimes been the case.

By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.