asked the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements exist for formal budget consultations between the London boroughs and London Regional Transport.

None, Sir. As with other nationalised industries, London Regional Transport's budget and external financing limit are matters for determination, in the course of the annual investment and financing review, between the Government and the industry.

Has not the initial operation of LRT shown that there has been no consultation with the London boroughs before major decisions have been taken about fares, services and the level of rate, or, indeed, about the Secretary of State's level of subsidy to London's transport? Has not the Minister set up LRT as a completely undemocratic quango, immune from influence from the public or London's local authorities? Is it not a case for the ratepayers of taxation without representation?

The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee stage of the London Regional Transport Bill and he knows only too well that it is up to the Government to make the decisions for a nationalised industry and for debate to take place, as it did on the levy order, in the House. It was because the GLC deliberately used up to £200 million of the balances in the financial year 1984–85 in order to keep its precept down in 1984–85 that it has left the Government to take the rap for the LRT levy in 1985–86. The £200 million that it used up equates almost exactly with the £212 million which is the ratepayers' levy for 1985–86.

Far from LRT being unrepresentative and undemocratic, does that not apply to the GLC, which is still precepting the same amount from the boroughs this year as last year although it now no longer has responsibility for London's transport?

My hon Friend is right. The GLC has nobody but itself to blame for its budgeting. It is responsible for the debts that it has built up and for using ratepayers' money in a way that local government never intended to use ratepayers' money. It should be made clear that by manipulating the finances of the ratepayers it is doing a disservice to Londoners everywhere.

The Minister referred to London Regional Transport as a nationalised industry. Is there any other example of a nationalised industry which, through its appropriate Minister, levies local government on a rate precept?

None of the other nationalised industries were set up in the way that LRT has been set up. Because of that, the London Regional Transport Act required LRT to make available comprehensive information, to consult upon and publish a three-year statement of strategy, to publish an annual business plan, an annual report and accounts, and, indeed, to inform local authorities and the London regional passengers committee each year on what it is doing. That consultation goes far further than of any other nationalised industry.

Nevertheless, is my hon. Friend aware that the liberalisation of coach services in London has caused LRT a problem on the timekeeping of its buses in central London? If she cannot and will not consult the GLC, for reasons that we all understand, will any machinery be set up whereby LRT's transport problems can be discussed with the Government?

It will interest my hon. Friend to know that the GLC has been present at the meetings that I have held with the London Boroughs Association about the way in which coach parking in London can interfere with the passage of buses through London, and we shall continue to discuss that matter together.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has conducted since June 1983 into the optimum allocation of transport policy functions between the different tiers of local government in England.

In the months leading up to the publication of "Streamlining the Cities", and during the subsequent period of consultation, considerable time was given to the allocation of transport functions in the metropolitan counties.

Which professional or academic bodies came out in favour of those proposals? How far can those proposals guarantee to my constituents in Stockport and Tameside that buses will run more frequently, and on time, and that fares will be cheaper?

Where districts are talking to the regional offices of my Department, it is possible to make progress on detailed matters such as the running of buses. The districts that refuse to talk to the Government, as so many are doing, do nothing but harm to the passengers in their areas. The Association of County Surveyors has asked for more information. Seeing that the Bill was going through, it has made helpful suggestions on ways in which matters may be arranged for the highway authorities to take over their responsibilities on abolition of the metropolitan county councils.

In transport, as elsewhere in local government, should not local authorities be restricted increasingly to the control and oversight of policy rather than the provision of services, particularly as it is patently obvious that in many areas of local activity the local authority is unable to provide a fair balance between the demands of the public sector unions and the needs of the public.

I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend said. As he knows, the subsidy for public transport rose from £10 million in 1972 to £520 million in 1982. We are not against subsidy, but we favour it only where it is a sensible use of money. Local authorities have muddled up the running of a transport service with their use of ratepayers' money.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive proposals from the National Bus Company for the restructuring of that company.

I expect to begin discussions with the NBC about restructuring and associated matters soon.

Will my right hon. Friend favour proposals that will encourage share owning by employees, so that as many as possible may participate in the fruits of deregulation and in their own companies, bearing in mind that if we split up the NBC there could be 50 or 60 companies?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be most desirable for employees of the subsidiaries of the NBC to be able to buy their companies through an employee buy-out or to participate in share schemes if they do not wish to take part in a buyout. The Bill includes a provision to that effect.

My question has already been put, but I will ask the Secretary of State—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman would rather not ask a question, I shall call someone else.

As I am on my feet, may I ask the Secretary of State to give an assurance that priority will be given to management buy-outs if the privatisation scheme has to go through? I do not believe that it will go through, because I do not think that there will be as many buyers for the companies as the right hon. Gentleman expects.

I look forward to having the hon. Gentleman in our Lobby on that point, if on no other, when we reach that clause in the Bill. When I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I was happy to seek provisions in a Finance Bill to help employees borrow money with tax relief for that very purpose. I hope that those provisions will be helpful in this case.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Maidstone in my constituency we run a successful local authority bus undertaking? When he considers the restructing of the NBC, will he work out why it is proposed that the Maidstone undertaking should have to declare itself a company long before the NBC locally has to do anything of the kind?

I know the point that my hon. Friend is making, but it is not quite like that. The National Bus Company will have to be organised into separate arm's length subsidiaries at the same time as the municipal operators, such as Maidstone, do exactly the same thing. The question of ownership involves a separate and later stage. Although we seek to privatise the National Bus Company subsidiaries, we are not seeking to privatise the municipal undertakings. Thus, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that there is nothing unfair about the timing, as the different sorts of company will have to be at arm's length.

What criteria will the Secretary of State use in judging the viable size of the companies into which he wants the NBC to be broken down? What effect will it have on the municipal bus companies if the National Bus Company can run over certain routes because there is no protection? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman accept that various stockbroker firms have given evidence to the NBC that there is a viable number of companies which is much larger than the 40 or 50 companies that he seems to demand?

Competition will depend on what plans are put forward by the NBC in relation to the letter that I wrote it—which the hon. Lady has no doubt read, and knows intimately—in which I said that the first priority must be to consider how the bus industry can be made competitive. I am surprised that the hon. Lady, of all people, should proxy stockbrokers in aid of her argument. It is highly desirable to make competition the first requirement and to ensure that that competion is fair as between the private sector, the NBC subsidiaries, the municipals and the passenger transport executives.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce legislation to privatise any part of the British Rail network.

We have no present plans to do so.

As the basis of paying transport supplementary support grant has now been changed, how does the Minister intend to finance uneconomic rural rail services?

The normal system for uneconomic rural rail services continues with a PSO grant. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the PTE areas, I must tell him that it is for the PTEs to decide their priorities within their own areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people believe that it is only when British Rail is subjected to the full discipline of the private sector that the deep-seated problems of overmanning will be dealt with?

We have set BR very tough requirements in its objectives. It is for it to decide on the most effective way of pursuing them.

If the Minister should ever think of privatising any section of BR, will he bear in mind that there was a time when the bus and rail services were subject to the "full discipline of the private sector"? They failed the British people to such an extent that it became necessary long before the war to municipalise the buses, and absolutely essential to nationalise the train network, as it just was not functioning properly.

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is living in the past. A considerable number of private bus operators are in existence, and have been for many years.

I was talking about the past, not living in it.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the two sets of proposals to privatise the branch line from Slough to Windsor, and of BR's rather discouraging reply? Will he urge BR, in his most persuasive manner, to look seriously at those proposals to turn a loss-making branch line into a profitable private undertaking?

Having set British Rail very tough objectives, including a reduction of about £200 million in the amount of subsidy that it receives from the taxpayer, it must be for it to decide the most effective way of pursuing them. If it feels that it can achieve its objectives more effectively in the way that my hon. Friend has outlined, we shall certainly not discourage it from doing so.

If my hon. Friend will not consider privatising the network, will he at least acknowledge that one section of British Rail, the catering services, is positively crying out for privatisation?

British Rail has recently drawn up criteria for competitive tendering for services. I do not doubt that many in the private sector will seek to tender for catering and other services against those criteria.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport which cities he has taken as models for the style and extent of public service for fare stage bus services he expects to emerge upon enactment of the Transport Bill.

Our proposals for the bus industry are based on a wide body of evidence from throughout the economy that the customer gets the best deal in a competitive market. This is certainly so in the city of Hereford.

I presume that there is no major city in the world that my hon. Friend can quote me as an example of where that policy may work. Having voted reluctantly for the Second Reading of the Bill, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that we need evidence that the Government's proposals can and will work? Otherwise, there is a danger that, if the outcome does not match the intention, some of our cities will become public transport deserts, as Los Angeles has done.

We make no claims that these are not new and radical policies, but the present policies of protectionism, supported by more and more taxpayers' money, have failed. In 10 years the number of passengers on buses has fallen by 30 per cent., while in real terms the taxpayers' money spent on revenue support has increased thirteenfold. All the evidence from Hereford, from Guildford and from the express services points to the fact that our policies will give the industry and the travelling public much new hope.

The evidence from Hereford may give some indication of what deregulation may mean in the rural areas, but how can the hon. Gentleman claim that that provides any evidence about what deregulation may mean in the urban centres, which depend upon integrated bus services?

Hereford and Guildford are cities, and there have been extensive studies in Guildford showing that there will be considerable savings to the taxpayer if our proposals are introduced there.

Is the Minister aware that the officers of Hereford city council were extremely worried by the environmental damage and that it was considered that 25 years of progress had been wiped out by that one short, chaotic experiment? The Minister cannot tell us of any major city in the world which operates such chaotic ideas. If it is such a marvellous scheme, why does he not intend to introduce it in London?

The hon. Lady forgot one element in Hereford—the passengers. All the evidence in Hereford is that they are very satisfied with the experiment there.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the contribution of local rail services to the effectiveness of the transport system in the metropolitan county areas of England.

Such assessments are the responsibility of the passenger transport executive of each metropolitan county.

I do not think that anyone will be satisfied with that answer. Will the Minister now explain what guarantees he can give to rail commuters in metropolitan areas that their services will continue after 1986? Is he prepared to give such guarantees in amendments to the Transport Bill, which is now under consideration?

As for guarantees to rail commuters, the decision about the priorities of locally elected people for services in their local areas is for them to take and not for the Government to dictate.

Is the Minister aware that in many metropolitan counties, including my own county of West Yorkshire, considerable progress has been made towards the integration of bus and rail services? How on earth can that integration survive once deregulation takes place, as it will undermine the whole principle?

If the integrated services are along corridors on which people want to travel, they will be able to compete successfully against other forms of transport. On the other hand, if people are being made to fit a planner's blueprint, there will be trouble for them.

How will the Transport Bill affect the Tyne and Wear metro service?

The Tyne and Wear metro service will be able to retain not only its existing service but the feeder services to it. I judge that with that arrangement it will be able to compete very successfully.

Now that the hon. Gentleman has replied to the question from his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) about the Tyne and Wear metro, will he tell the House the difference between the feeder service to that metro and feeder services to other PTE operated railway services around our major conurbations? Will he further tell us what is the similarity between those conurbations and their transport problems and the cities of Hereford and Guildford?

Feeder services—whether they are in PTE areas or anywhere else—will depend for their success on the number of people who want to use them. That is the criterion against which any business success should be judged.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what effect he expects abolition of the metropolitan counties to have on the use of section 20 grants.

Abolition of the metropolitan county councils should not have any effect on support for local rail passenger services under section 20.

I am as satisfied with that answer as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) was with his. Is the Minister aware that the current Molotov cocktail that the Government have been mixing in respect of the TSG reshaping, the abolition of the metropolitan counties, rate capping and bus deregulation must at least pose some element of uncertainty regarding the continuation of section 20 grants?

I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the Bill being discussed in Committee. When he looks at it in more detail, and when we come to discuss the relevant clauses, he will discover that the broken down companies of the PTEs are not responsible for providing subsidy under section 20. That will remain a matter for the PTA and the whole PTE, not the bus operations.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on (a) trunk road and (b) motorway (i) building and (ii) maintenance since June 1979.

From June 1979 to 1 February 1985, £1,290 million has been spent on construction and improvement of trunk roads and £1,480 million on motorways. The corresponding figures for maintenance are £370 million and £530 million.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that the Government have spent far more on maintenance and construction than have any previous Government? Is that not good for all motorists and lorry drivers?

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have been reversing the shortsighted cuts of the previous Labour Administration. Capital spending on roads is now 123 per cent. higher in cash terms and 30 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79. The return on investment will be £1·70 for every pound spent during this and the next three years. There are no cuts in the programme resulting from last year's public spending review. That shows the Government's commitment to the programme, including both building and maintenance.

While those figures are good, is my hon. Friend aware that they do not include expenditure on a Worthing bypass? Is she aware that the case for a bypass was accepted some time ago, but that the route originally suggested went through the centre of the town? When is Worthing likely to have a proper bypass?

My right hon. Friend is only too well aware of the very difficult position that affects his town, which is surrounded by a very pleasant rural area and has a fairly busy and dense route through the centre. He also knows that we are considering the matter most carefully and will come back to him as soon as we possibly can.

Is my hon. Friend aware that because of the success of Felixstowe and the growth of the East Anglian economy, the A12 in Suffolk is now carrying as many heavy vehicles as the A2 in east Kent, but certainly does not receive the same level of investment?

With the building of the Orwell bridge and the bypasses in the area, East Anglia has not suffered from a lack of investment in recent years. There are problems as ports develop faster than might have been predicted. We are looking carefully at the entire road network in East Anglia, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is being done on the basis of the new traffic figures published in December.

Is the Minister aware of the severe congestion affecting the M6 motorway where it passes through the Birmingham and west midlands conurbation? Is she further aware of the urgent need for an orbital route to relieve this overburdened stretch of motorway, and can she give encouraging news of action in that respect?

My hon. Friend shares with me concern about the amount of traffic on the M6 in that area of Birmingham. The road can carry a substantial amount of traffic, but it has become necessary to consult the local councils and others about the possibility of another road. I shall be meeting my right hon. and hon. Friends shortly to discuss the matter in further detail.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what benefits to the consumer he expects from immediate implementation of the Transport Bill.

Implementation puts the customers first and brings a better standard of service, lower fares on many routes and the prospect of ending a 30-year decline of bus services. The main provisions of the Bill will be implemented during the course of 1986.

Is not the opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said in fact the truth—that not only will it eliminate early morning, evening, weekend and rural services, but will put in jeopardy the Tyne and Wear integrated system and threaten pensioners' concessionary passes?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. It will do none of the things that he alleges. It will, indeed, improve rural services and allow concessionary fares and other such concessions to continue. If the Tyne and Wear metro is as good as he and many others think—myself included—I do not see what the threat to it can be. The hon. Gentleman may not know that I have asked my officials to consider with the local authority associations whether the GRE formula can take account of the extra revenue support costs of the metro. That is already the case, as he may know, with BR services under section 20. We are prepared to look at the problem, but I do not believe that it would be right to deny customers the freedom to go how and where they like just because a metro is in existence.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Avon the bus subsidy has increased from £66,000 to over £4½ million in 10 years, representing a real increase of 2,100 per cent., while services have declined? As exhortation has failed in the past, is it not now time for legislation?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I visited Avon last Friday and discussed the matter with representatives of Avon county council and others in the area. It appears to be breaking on party lines, with the Labour-controlled councils, with their usual reason of resistance to change and new thinking, now being the main opponents of the Bill.

As the Bill states that, when inviting tenders it is not possible to lay down conditions of employment, is it the intention of the Secretary of State that the main benefits to consumers shall be achieved on the backs of the workers in the industry by way of poor working conditions and low pay?

Not a bit. The local authority associations asked, and we were happy to agree, that there should be greater flexibility in the rules of tendering, and that is allowed for in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman may know that the Midland Red Bus Company in Hereford and Worcester achieved a 25 per cent. increase in productivity without any of the scare stories that he is now peddling.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been besieged with protests from ratepayers in my area at receiving through their letter boxes—every ratepayer in Lancashire has received one—a copy of this expensive looking glossy leaflet which I hold in my hand, which tries to mislead the public about the situation applying to buses? Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of my rural constituents are looking forward eagerly to the day when we get more frequent and more flexible bus services and when we do not have 72-seater buses running round country areas, each carrying only one or two people?

I entirely share my hon. Friend's views. If the money that has been spent on publicity by some county councils had been spent on improving rural services, we might have a very much better system of services.

In view of the considerable volume of correspondence that the Secretary of State has received from those protesting about the Bill, will he drop it? Is it not true that it will provide a worse deal for the consumer? Many consumers will have no bus services and there is a risk to safety because of the pirates that the right hon. Gentleman will put on the road.

I never understand why the Labour party is incapable of thinking that anything new can be done. It is unable to contemplate actions that are taken on behalf of customers. Is it dominated totally by interest groups and the unions?

If the Bill is so marvellous, why has the Women's Institute produced a number of surveys showing that over 40 per cent. of women in rural areas have no access to cars during the day, and in many instances do not have cars available to them at the times that would be most useful to them? As we know from the Hereford experience that many rural areas will not have any services, why does the right hon. Gentleman think that communities are protesting if they can see that the Bill will be of benefit to the consumer?

It is because so many people in rural areas, especially women, are dependent upon bus services that we seek to improve rural bus services. Perhaps the hon. Lady will take on board the representations of consumers. The National Consumer Protection Council has welcomed the provisions in the Bill. It believes that they will lead to better rural services, as in Hereford.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations on the White Paper, "Buses", he has received from taxi drivers and taxi associations; and what were the main points made.

We have received over 300 representations from individual taxi drivers and their associations. About two-thirds of these took the form of circular letters. Ministers have also met many delegations from the trade. The taxi trade generally accepts the opportunity for new types of business contained in the Bill but is principally concerned that the quantity of taxi vehicle licences may be increased.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents who are taxi drivers are concerned that the value of their investment in a licence will be dramatically reduced if there is no provision in the Transport Bill for a transitional period? Has my hon. Friend any words of comfort for them?

My hon. Friend has taken a close and continuous interest in this matter on behalf of his constituents. We believe that the taxi trade generally accepts that something is wrong with a licensing system where it is necessary to pay large sums to enter the trade. Licence holders already stand to lose the plate value of their licence because district councils may refuse to renew them or because a council may issue more licences.

Will the Minister recognise that, besides being bothered about its future, the taxi trade is extremely bothered about the prospect of all sorts of crooked outfits, some of them financied by experience gained in Hong Kong, moving into the British market, ripping off the public and providing a very poor standard of service? Their financial probity is, to say the least, in doubt.

One of the worries is quantity licensing. After many representations from the industry, to which we have listened carefully, we have set out in the Bill that district councils can withold the granting of licences if they are satisfied that to issue more licences would have an adverse effect on the general availability of taxi services.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is currently considering any proposal for investment by British Rail on the St. Pancras to Sheffield line.

Inter-city HST services, running at speeds up to 100 mph, were introduced in 1982–83 between Sheffield and St. Pancras. There are no further investment proposals for this line awaiting our approval.

Does the Minister appreciate that the big cities along that line — Derby, Nottingham, and specially Sheffield—feel that they are being demeaned and demoted and that the line is being run down? As a regular user of the line, may I ask him to accept from me that what he has just said is not the proper answer? Individual trains are faster, but there are far fewer of them and fewer carriages per train, with the result that over the day the service is much worse than it was before. Will the Minister talk to the councils, which have repeatedly met to discuss this because they believe that the line is about to disappear due to lack of investment?

The hon. Gentleman claims that the line has been demeaned and demoted. Having introduced 100 mph high-speed trains and improved the journey time from Sheffield to St. Pancras by 20 minutes, and having achieved an improvement of 15 to 20 per cent. in the number of passengers using it, I can only say that many other services would like to be demeaned and demoted in the same way.

asked the Attorney-General when he will respond to the 34th annual report of the Lord Chancellor's legal aid advisory committee.

The report was published on 28 January. The Lord Chancellor wishes to consider carefully the committee's recommendations before taking any decisions on them.

Does the Minister agree that it is urgent to act on the recommendation of the advisory committee about the threat to the future of law centres and citizens advice bureaux consequent on the possible abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan councils and on possible uncertainties in urban programme funding? Will he take urgent action to give law centres and CABs security for the future?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has formulated proposals for transitional and supplemental financial support for voluntary bodies, which would include the law centres, as a basis for further consultations with those concerned. It is, of course, right that there should be a viable and sensible basis for funding the law centres, but this must be got right and there are conflicting interests.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether there is not a good case for a contingency legal aid system, as at present recourse to the law seems to be available only to the very poor and the very rich?

I do not wholly accept the terms in which my hon. Friend has framed his question, but there is certainly room for improvement. He will recall that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor introduced a regulation, which took effect in March last year, to raise the thresholds for legal aid, thus meeting a need. I will, however, pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. and noble Friend.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree there is a great need, not for transitional arrangements, but for certainty of funding for the law centres? Only a year ago, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), we were told that the matter was receiving urgent consideration. Given the rundown of urban funding, is there not a dispute between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of the Environment about the future of the law centres? How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile the Government's support for citizens advice bureaux nationally with the fact that they do not do so locally? With the additional danger of rate capping, will there not be a considerable diminution of advice for hundreds of thousands of people?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to an answer given "only a year ago", which puts the matter in context. The demands made on legal aid and advice services, including law centres, tend to vary between localities. It is not easy to resolve the conflicting interests, but local circumstances are best identified at local level. The Government therefore see advantage in local diversity in funding arrangements, but this and other matters are kept under review.

asked the Attorney-General if he will update the statistics on cases outstanding in the courts in relation to offences alleged to have been committed in relation to the miners' strike, which he gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch on 4 February, Official Report, column 606.

During the period from 13 March 1984 to 19 February 1985, 7,785 persons were charged with a total of 10,153 offences alleged to have been committed during the course of the current miners' dispute. Of these, 5,329 defendants have been dealt with and the cases of 2,456 remain to be heard.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Now that the strike looks as though it is crumbling—or, indeed, has crumbled—and in so far as it is within his power, will he do all that he can to see that a differentiation is made between the tiny minority of miners and their politically motivated leaders who have been involved in much of this violence, and the overwhelming majority of miners who, I am sure, have found it as distasteful as the rest of us? On that point, has he anything to say to the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) in reply to the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made in the last few weeks?

The figures speak for themselves. A total of 7,500 over nearly 12 months indicates a great deal of restraint from the police.

Will the Attorney-General now update the figures relating to all those miners who have been charged and since been acquitted? Will he, in league with the Home Secretary, now publicly advise the chief constables to call in those miners so that they see their fingerprints and photographic records destroyed, thereby giving them a chance of continuing work with the NCB without embarrassment or difficulty?

I have absolutely no control in any way over chief constables. This is a matter for the Home Secretary, and I shall ensure that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to his attention.

What about the numbers acquitted?

The Attorney-General did not give the figure for the number of cases dismissed. Given that a large percentage of the charges have been dismissed, will he request that a review of outstanding charges be conducted so that the time of the courts is not wasted?

The number acquitted is 1,306 up to the end of last week—much less than 75 per cent.—but I shall bear in mind what has been said.

Has not the number of charges withdrawn been increasing in recent months, and does not a problem therefore arise in as much as the NCB has been dismissing people in that category? What consultations has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had on that aspect of his figures?

It would not be for me to consult. Practically all those cases would be cases that were not drawn to the attention of the DPP at all.

I welcome the fact that so many miners have been dealt with successfully, and the speed with which this has been done. Will my right hon. and learned Friend in some way arrange for publicity to be given to the large number of offences that have been committed so that it will act as a deterrent to other miners intent on following the same course?

The variety of charges is enormous, as is the variety of those who have been charged. The bulk are miners, but also included are students, lecturers, manual workers and the unemployed.

Following—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Attorney-General's reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Following the answer that the Attorney-General gave my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), when this matter was raised on 4 February—

Order. I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) has, by his action, prevented any further questions arising on this matter and, therefore, I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue his question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central has gazumped the Opposition Front Bench.

asked the Attorney-General what information Her Majesty's Government gather about the level of charges made by solictors in the context of monitoring public expenditure on legal aid.

The average cost of solicitors' bills for legal aid work is monitored on a monthly basis.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that many people find it extremely difficult to obtain legal aid? Is it because of the cost? Is he further aware that in the London area the going rate for legal advice on immigration matters from solicitors is around £75 an hour? Against that background, will he inquire into, and publish a report on, the charges that solicitors present to their clients, which are often outrageously high?

I shall ensure that the Lord Chancellor considers the hon. Gentleman's point. The part of the legal aid scheme for which the Law Society is responsible is monitored. Results of cases, charges and fees paid are fed into the Law Society's computer, and referred to the Lord Chancellor's Department. Statistics derived from that information are already published in the annual legal aid reports. There are other monitoring exercises carried out for the Crown and county courts.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of total United Kingdom Government aid to Ethiopia since 1982; and how much of that has been since 1 October 1984.

Our aid to Ethiopia since 1982 amounts to about £52 million. That includes actual and estimated expenditure and recent commitments which, since 1 October 1984, total about £26·6 million. The figures include our share of European Community aid.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom Government have probably given more aid than any other Government to that unfortunate country, and in particular that they started giving aid before the media reported the extent of the famine? Will he assure the House that sufficient food is available for the needs of the people in Ethiopia, at least for the foreseeable future?

It is difficult to draw precise comparisons between different countries, but our record is good. Regarding my hon. Friend's final and important point, Mr. Jansson, the United Nations' co-ordinator, told me on 12 February that shipments are sufficient until the end of May. A further 600,000 tonnes pledged for delivery after that should meet most needs until the end of the year. Clearly, we need to keep in close touch.

Has the Minister seen the telex from the Tigré Relief Society, which suggests that 3·8 million people are at risk in that northern province of Ethiopia and that 1,500 people have died there? Will he assure the House that additional aid will be sent there? Is he aware that 750,000 people have signed the Oxfam petition asking for additional aid to sub-Saharan Africa?

I am aware that many people are rightly worried about sub-Saharan Africa. There is no doubt that the position in Tigré and Eritrea is difficult, largely because of the civil war and the drought. Substantial food aid is coming from the Ethiopian side. The best way to try to help meet the problem is to work through international and voluntary agencies.

To put into proper perspective the generosity of aid from this and other Western countries, will my right hon. Friend arrange to place in the Library such details as he has available of aid from all sources to Ethiopia, especially those from the Soviet Union, within whose empire Ethiopia presently rests, and whose aid, so far as one's own research shows, seems to be limited to arms and ammunitions to allow the present Government there to continue repressing the people?

A later question on the Order Paper will provide some of the facts for which my right hon. Friend asks. It is notoriously difficult to discover the figures for Soviet bloc aid. I have no doubt that in so far as they exist, they show that the record of the Soviet Union is greatly inferior to that of western countries.

The Minister said that he was anxious to work, as far as possible, with and through international agencies. Can he tell the House why he continues to refuse to co-operate fully in contributing to the special fund for sub-saharan Africa?

That is a little outside the scope of the question. The fact is that we have offered to make available for exactly the purposes of that special fund £15 million a year for five years. I believe that that will prove to be a valuable contribution towards the objectives that the special facilities seek to achieve.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Sudan.

My visit enabled me to see the relief programmes being mounted for the Sudanese famine victims and for the very large numbers of refugees who have entered Sudan. Very substantial food supplies are now beginning to build up. I have decided to allocate a further 30,000 tonnes of bilateral food aid now so that this can arrive before the June rains. In addition, I am making a further £1 million available to be divided between Oxfam and Save the Children Fund.

I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the speed of my right hon. Friend's response following his visit to the Sudan. The problem in that country is not so much the supply of relief but the means of getting it to the places where it is needed. During his visit, did my right hon. Friend examine that aspect to see whether there was any way in which Britain could help with transport?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about my announcement. It is helpful to note that many lorries are available in the Sudan, but that does not mean that all the transport problems can be solved. Diesel and petrol are in especially short supply and the position must be watched carefully. We are providing help at the port and to the railway system.

Will the Minister confirm that what is most important for the Sudan and the entire region is not simply energy aid, important though that is, but a guarantee of long-term development projects, especially for reafforestation, the prevention of soil erosion and the provision of adequate water supplies? Should not such projects be at the forefront of Government thinking?

I confirm that in the Sudan the problem is not just one of short-term famine relief. It is extremely important that there should be long-term development. During my visit I examined projects financed by Britain and the EC covering exactly the activities to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Britain has a substantial development programme in the Sudan.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his priority objectives for food aid and its distribution in the drought-affected countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

The relief of famine victims most in need in Africa is our priority. We shall provide bilaterally at least 110,000 tonnes of grain in 1985, of which 25,000 tonnes have already reached Ethiopia and Sudan. We meet the costs of internal distribution, and have financed improvements in handling capacities at the ports and inland.

While those sums sound impressive, and while we are glad that the Minister has been able to visit Sudan, he must realise that his earlier reply about Tigré is inadequate. It is not true to say that substantial food aid from Ethiopia is reaching Tigré. It is receiving less than 2,000 tonnes a month, when it needs 20,000 tonnes a month. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that Mr. Jansson of the United Nations is most concerned that food aid should go to those areas, but Mr. Jansson has stressed that food aid is not being adequately distributed. Further, in terms of the EC aid to which the Minister referred, when will he see the Commissioners and ensure that the aid is distributed rather than simply awaiting distribution?

The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. He has ignored the fact that substantial quantities of food go into Eritrea and Tigré from the Ethiopian side. I fully accept that not all needs in the rebel-held areas are met from that source, which is why we stress the importance of other sources being created. I hope soon to visit the newly appointed Commissioner at the EC who is responsible for development activities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Nations Organisation should have the same priorities as this country? Is it not a scandal that it is spending millions of pounds financing a conference centre when the money could be better spent on food aid or agricultural development?

I agree that that venture is entirely uncalled for now, and we have opposed it. However, I do not argue that all the activities of those who work for the United Nations in this area are abortive. I have seen good work carried out by several agencies and by Mr. Jansson, the co-ordinator in Addis Ababa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision is made in the aid budget for contingencies such as the famine in sub-Saharan Africa.

The bulk of the aid programme is focused on longer-term development, but an element is held back at the beginning of each financial year — some £45 million in 1984–85—to enable us to respond to urgent new requirements, including emergency relief, arising within the year.

Do we not need an increase in the overall aid budget in total? Will the Minister press this on his skinflint colleagues in the Treasury so that unexpected needs, which are likely to loom larger and larger as the years go by—not merely in Africa but in other parts of the world—can be met without cutting back on other essential parts of our development budget?

The Government are committed to the control of public expenditure, but within our aid programme we set aside substantial sums of money to meet famines and disasters such as those that we have been seeing, and we shall continue to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are most appreciative of the generosity of the Government and of the leadership that he has shown in this matter, but that they would also want him to be aware of their hope that, in the face of this unprecedented crisis, an arbitrary restriction on the aid budget will not be allowed to stand in the way of humanitarian relief?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said about our contribution. As to our aid budget and the humanitarian considerations, it is obviously essential, as I have already stressed, to make sure that within that budget there is proper provision for emergencies. That is what we have done, and that is what we intend to continue doing.

Will the Minister confirm that he and his Department expect that the horrific experience of Ethiopia and the Sudan in recent months is likely to be repeated, perhaps more intensely, in the years ahead? Will he guarantee that there will be even more attention to prevention rather than to the necessary relief?

It is always important to stress the vital importance of long-term prevention and the development programme. I have given figures for relief. Our total aid expenditure in Africa last year was about £225 million. In other words, we have a substantial development programme and a great deal of that is directed towards building up the agriculture of that continent.