asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of London Regional Transport, he will discuss the expected effect of the January 1985 fares increase on passenger-miles travelled on its bus and underground systems.

Our discussions with the chairman of London Regional Transport cover a wide range of matters, including LRT's future business prospects.

Will the Minister tell the House why the Secretary of State is allowing the chairman of London Regional Transport to cut a further 39 bus routes in April? Is the Minister aware that if that cut takes place one quarter of all London's bus routes will have been affected by cuts since London Transport became a Government quango? When the Minister or the Secretary of State next sees Doctor Bright, can he be told that Londoners do not want any more one-person-operated buses because they consider them to be slow, inefficient and dangerous?

The hon. Gentleman must not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. As be hon. Gentleman is chairman-elect of the Greater London council, I have to tell him that the net effect of LRT's plans for the buses is a reduction of 0·6 per cent.—about 2 million passenger miles out of a total of 170 million bus miles. Of the routes which have been changed, only three are not covered by other buses. There has been a loss of 2·25 miles of bus route because of a change in demand. In other areas where demand has been established, new bus routes have been introduced. One-person-operated buses are a major contributor to cost savings. They are used across the country without any real difficulty. The hon. Gentleman ought to be looking for improved services for passengers instead of, as he seems to be doing, staying in the past.

I tend to share my hon. Friend's view of the partial remarks of the chairman-elect of the Greater London council. However, does she agree that the ratepayers of London will be much more enamoured of the professional stewardship of LRT than of the blanket subsidies which were being thrown at London transport by the GLC, since those were simply a drain on ratepayers' pockets?

My hon. Friend is right. Had the GLC gone ahead with its planned subsidy levels, the marginal external benefits at those levels would have been equivalent to only one seventh of the increased cost which would have fallen upon the ratepayers. That is exactly why business management was required in London Regional Transport.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the impact of a Channel tunnel on the traffic between London and Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels; and if he will make a statement.

No assessment has been made of the impact of a fixed link on specific intercity routes. That would vary according to the nature of the fixed link, on which no decision has yet been made.

Is my hon. Friend familiar with his Department's estimate that without the TGV or any new British Rail lines, up to 1·7 million air passengers from Heathrow would transfer to a rail tunnel if such a thing were built? With the TGV, the London-Brussels journey time would be reduced to three hours. In the light of my hon. Friend's rather surprising answer, will he give the House an assurance that, as the Government are now reviewing airports policy, full account will be taken of the Channel tunnel so that we do not find ourselves in a position where it takes longer to get from London to Stansted than from London to Paris?

We shall take my hon. Friend's point into account, but it is only fair to say that Paris is only one of the many hundreds of routes served from Heathrow.

Will positive consideration be given to siting any terminus for the Channel tunnel rail line in London docklands where, as the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, there is considerable interest in that terminus? Is that already on his Department's agenda for positive consideration, and will he encourage that development?

It is a little premature for us to know that when we do not know exactly what form, if any, the cross-Channel link will take, but I shall certainly keep the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

My hon. Friend will know that there have been many studies on the cost of linking the major cities of Europe once the Channel tunnel is built. May I draw his attention to the fact that I was the author of one called "Bridges and Tunnels of Europe, 1974", in which much valuable information is contained, although, naturally, it will need updating?

I shall ask my hon. Friend for a copy of that excellent document.

I assure the Minister that I have no books on this subject to peddle. Has the hon. Gentleman considered the impact that the Channel tunnel would have on railway freight carriage? Would it not give the railways a much better opportunity to compete on long-distance freight with other modes of transport? Will the Government consider the environmental aspects of the Channel tunnel before coming to a decision on any of the three schemes that they have before them?

Yes, we shall take that into account. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that substantial environmental considerations will be taken into account in the assessment of the relative options.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans any changes in his Department's arrangements for monitoring the nature and extent of concessionary fares schemes.

I see no need for the Department to collect information centrally. Under the Transport Bill, local authorities establishing concessionary fare schemes will have to publish details and supply copies on request.

Will the Minister take the opportunity, during the passage of the Transport Bill, to ensure that no elderly or disabled person suffers any detriment as a result of the Bill? Would it not be a good starting point to ensure that all pensioners and disabled people have the same concession as that which is good enough for people in London?

It is for each elected local authority to decide what it believes to be the right priorities for the people in its area. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I cannot give the sort of undertaking for which he is asking. I can only give him the undertaking that, if the Bill does not go through, the chronic decline of the bus industry will continue, leaving more and more people isolated without bus services. With the Bill on the statute book, there will at least be a substantial opportunity for the revitalisation of the industry.

Will my hon. Friend reiterate, perhaps for the umpteenth time, that Conservative Members are completely committed to the continuance of concessionary fares for the elderly? Will he take the opportunity to draw to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the fact that local authorities of another persuasion are still spending ratepayers' money advertising the fact that the Bill will abolish concessionary fares?

I join my hon. Friend in confirming that local authorities up and down the country will wish to continue concessionary fares.

I shall not be drawn into the question of money which the Government are spending on a measure of an overtly political nature. Apart from any arrangements for concessionary fares, does the Minister accept that the removal of £48 million that was available as subsidy for the aged and elderly will mean a continuation of the Government's mean and spiteful policy towards that sector of the community?

I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not intentionally confusing the House by comparing things which are not alike. He is comparing the outturn in one year with the provision in another year. As he will well know, the two rarely have much relationship to each other.

Is my hon. Friend aware that unscrupulous people in the London area are still trying to spread alarm and despondancy among pensioners and the disabled about the future of concessionary fares after the GLC is abolished? Will he make a further authoritative statement on the subject of concessionary fares in London, underlining the fall-back position enshrined in the Bill?

I can confirm that there is no such threat in the London area. I am glad to take the opportunity of reassuring my hon. Friend, and, through him, the many thousands of people who have been scandalously and unreasonably frightened in the matter.

If the Minister is really serious, what objection can he have to writing a guarantee of this kind into the Transport Bill? If we are to take him at his word, let him propose a Government clause to make sure that concessionary fares will be not only monitored but retained. If he does that, then and only then shall we believe that they are to be protected.

I would not wish to launch into such an attack upon the rights of local authorities — [HON. MEMBERS "Oh".]—to make their own decisions in the light of their own circumstances and what they believe to be the right priorities for people in their areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the effectiveness of the present system of penalties for traffic offences.

On 31 Janauary my right hon. Friend announced the setting up of a review body to consider certain aspects of traffic law, including penalties. We are most concerned to have a system of road traffic law that is both fair and effective.

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Will she take account of the widely varying disparities throughout the county, particularly with regard to construction and use? If, unfortunately, the rear light of her vehicle is not functioning as she goes through one county, she may be advised to present a note to the police station when the fault has been rectified, but in another county there is an immediate prosecution. I hope that the review will deal with disparities of that sort.

I am aware of the anxiety that my hon. Friend has mentioned. It is a matter for the review, under Mr. North. I am sure that the review body will look at that matter and at others where there seems to be inequality between one county and another. Some of the matters are for the Home Office, but it is a joint review between my Department and the Home Office.

Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that the review will cover the activities of motor cyclists? They seem increasingly to be attempting to commit suicide by driving in and out between moving vehicles. Will she give particular attention to that matter? A considerable number of motor cyclists drive on the outside of moving traffic and go on the wrong side of islands in the middle of the road.

Those activities are already outside the law. It is a matter of concern and of enforcement of the law. No motorist who ignores the "Highway Code" can be safe on the road. In the review we shall have to look at better ways of ensuring that the "Highway Code" is implemented.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as with all aspects of the law, sensible traffic law should be readily obeyed by motorists? Does she further agree with the Select Committee report on road safety that a trial speed limit of 80 miles an hour on our motorways would be one step forward along that path?

I wish that all sensible road laws were obeyed by motorists. Unfortunately, that is not so. I shall be coming to the House with our reaction to the Select Committee's suggestions on road safety. We are concerned to improve road safety, and that is why we are looking carefully at the range of suggestions made by the Select Committee.

It is a matter not only of the review of the system of traffic offences, but of policing. Will the hon. Lady be speaking to her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and asking for an increase in the number of traffic wardens in London so that illegal parking and illegal use of bus lanes can be eliminated? Do we not need more policing of such matters?

I think that the chairman-elect of the GLC knows already that the use of traffic wardens in the Greater London area is being discussed between his colleagues in the GLC, the London Boroughs Association, the Association of Labour Authorities and my Department, and we shall shortly be having a further meeting. Merely extending the traffic warden system will not necessarily improve the behaviour of motorists who park in a particular area.

Will my hon. Friend look at speeding offences, which seem to be on the increase, particularly on motorways, with 80 miles an hour now being the traditional speed? Will she also look at the offence of drunken driving, particularly as a number of garages now have an off-licence facility? Could the penalties for drunken driving be increased?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary updates maximum penalties, and there is a regular review of different penalties for different offences. The fines for drunken driving are £2,000, obligatory disqualification and up to six months in gaol. They are harsh, and if they need to be made harsher, I am sure that the review body will recommend that.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed the options for contracting out ancillary activities on the railways with the chairman of British Rail.

Last December BR published its new criteria for the supply of support services. At our regular meetings the chairman keeps me informed of progress in applying them.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. The existence of these criteria will come as a great surprise to most businesses. Will he ensure that the chairman of British Rail spends more time promoting the existence of these criteria than making half-baked proposals for denying second-class passengers access to first-class dining cars?

I do not think that all that my hon. Friend has read in the press about dining cars is true. I strongly support what he said about the need for industry to get to know about these new criteria, because literally millions of pounds worth of business is let out by British Rail, and there are opportunities for firms, for more jobs, for improving the service and for saving money for British Rail, of which I hope the whole of industry will avail itself.

In view of the privisation of certain sections of the Health Service, where money is shamelessly being made out of the elderly and sick—and by some hon. Members — and when people are being put on the dole and work is not being done, can we be assured that any consideration of privatisation of the railway service will be abandoned?

The hon. Gentleman must not ask me about the Health Service. If private contractors can do work for or supply goods or services to British Rail that are cheaper and better, the hon. Gentleman, like every other hon. Member, should be pleased to hear about it.

Does the Secretary of State accept that for those skilled tradesmen who formerly worked in British Rail Engineering Ltd. at Shildon, Horwich, and some at Swindon, privatisation has meant only a one-way ticket to the dole queue? When will he get British Rail to invest in the skills of its work force and give us a railway that is similar to railways in the rest of the developed world instead of seeking to destroy it?

The hon. Gentleman is not right. BREL will always be able to tender for British Rail orders that are put out to competition. The main reason for the decline in the work force at BREL has been the high level of investment in British Rail rolling stock, which is of a superior quality and requires less maintenance.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress in preparing legislation to implement the second European Community directive on motor insurance requiring compulsory insurance for third party injury and property damage.

At the request of some organisations, we extended by six weeks the consultation deadline of 31 December. A number of points still have to be sorted out before we can bring considered proposals to the House for extending compulsory motor insurance to include third party property damage.

I am grateful for that encouraging reply. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will seek amending legislation well before the end of 1988? Since the directive explicitly gives uniform minimum protection to third parties in motor accidents, but implicitly encourages more than the minimum protection, will my hon. Friend look sympathetically at the need for our legislation to be much tighter than that laid down in the directive?

My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in this matter over a long time. He is right in implying that the legislation will not have to come into effect until 1988, according to the directive. Our intention is to bring the necessary secondary legislation before Parliament during the present Session.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has now considered the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee on lowlands airport policy; and if he will make a statement.

I have read the Committee's report with interest. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to make a statement about Scottish lowland airports policy shortly.

But the Minister said that months ago in exactly the same words. Will he confirm that, since the bulk of the evidence to and the report of the Select Committee and the report of his own working party favour retaining Prestwick as Scotland's transatlantic gateway, the only reason for delay is an internal battle between the political dogma of his Secretary of State and the interests of Scotland as represented by the Select Committee, Scottish Members of Parliament and the Secretary of State for Scotland? When shall we know whether sense triumphs over political dogma?

I understand the anxieties expressed by the hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman has made it out to be a simple matter, but it is very complicated and perhaps more complicated than we anticipated originally. All I can say is that we hope to make our decisions known in the next few weeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimate of the cost of the coal dispute to British Rail; and how the money is to be recovered.

British Rail estimates lost freight receipts at £240 million. It is for British Rail to devise ways of recovering these losses and to achieve the financial target for the freight business.

If such losses were made by a private sector company, obviously they would not be made up by the taxpayer. Will my hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that the money lost by British Rail will not be forced as a burden on the taxpayer in any way?

British Rail has not approached us for any financial recompense, and it is not expected to do so. But the losses may mean that it has to increase its borrowing. If it comes to us with that request, we shall consider it carefully.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the chairman of British Rail that part of that money could be recovered from the British Rail unions which took illegal secondary action during the coal strike? Will my hon. Friend also make it very plain to the chairman of British Rail that if he wants extra borrowing powers and Members of Parliament to vote for them, we expect some genuine productivity gains to be made on the British Rail network?

It is regrettable that some £60 million of the losses during the coal strike were caused by railway men themselves. Action of this kind can do nothing but damage their own industry, the jobs which depend upon it and the future of freight carrying by rail.

As many economists consider that the figure of £60 million is a considerable underestimate, why did my hon. Friend the Minister not advise the chairman of British Rail—as he did the south Wales road hauliers — that he could take legal action against secondary picketing? My hon. Friend would not then have to announce such a staggering sum to the House after the coal industry dispute, which will presumably have to be picked up by the taxpayer.

I must reassure my hon. Friend that the taxpayer will not pick up the bill. That is a problem for British Rail. British Rail is running a commercial freight business, and the consequences will be felt by those who work in it. They damage themselves, and there is nothing that the taxpayer can or should do to bail them out of the results of their own actions. The question of taking legal action during the strike was entirely a matter for the management of BR to decide. It must make its own judgment as to what is best for its business.

Does the Minister accept that the alarming cost of the coal dispute, which is now becoming evident to everyone, is due to the Government's shortsightedness in not resolving the issue when they had an opportunity to do so?

The sum lost by BR was £240 million in revenue, of which £60 million was lost as a result of railwaymen's actions and not as a result of anything that was outside their ability to control and influence.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish a response to the report by the Transport Committee on the financing of public transport services, the buses White Paper.

The Select Committee report acknowledged the serious state of the bus industry and suggested as an alternative policy competitive tendering for all services. This is a much more restrictive system even than the present one; and will not secure the gains in productivity, and—more important—the concentration on the needs of the passenger, which deregulation will provide. We shall reply to the report as soon as possible.

My right hon. Friend has already referred to the Select Committee's main recommendation, but, as it has gained some support since the report's publication, why is he opposed to it?

The system of competitive tendering for franchises on all routes would mean that once a franchise had been let, an unbreakable monopoly would exist on that route for the period of the contract. Consequently, passengers could be exploited, and the productivity gains and improvements in efficiency which we should be able to obtain could not be achieved. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that if a major operator lost a franchise, it would be extremely difficult and wasteful if hundreds of buses and drivers were suddenly without occupation. The consequences for redundancy of a franchising system on that scale must be borne in mind.

Is not the main thrust of the Select Committee's report highly critical of the Government's policy and of the main provisions of the Transport Bill? In view of that, why on earth are the Government and the Secretary of State pursuing such crazy policies?

The hon. Gentleman may not know that the Select Committee was split four-four on whether to approve the report. However, I do not think that the Select Committee will find that the system of franchising that it advocates is by any means popular with large sections of the bus industry.

Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend has said, will he give an assurance about the position in rural areas, given the substantial increase in the price of fuel that has occurred in the past few months and the increase that may sadly result from tomorrow's announcement in the House? Is he aware that where bus services do not now exist the abolition of the current regulation will not result in any more public transport? In addition, people may not be able to afford to run their cars. Will he consider the problems that will face rural areas as a result of that policy, and perhaps give some assurances to the House?

My hon. Friend will know that buses receive a fuel duty rebate. In addition, it is proposed to give a rural bus grant of £20 million in the first year, which will be added to that rebate to make the costs of running buses in rural areas that much lower. That represents an improvement for rural services. When he adds to that the powers of county councils to call for tenders to subsidise uneconomic routes in such areas, he will see that our proposals are likely to lead to an improvement in the quality and quantity of rural bus services.

Has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to the article in The Observer on 10 March which shows that the Hereford experiment has been a complete failure? Since that experiment was the launching pad for the Secretary of State's proposals, what other evidence does he need to show that his policy is based upon a misconception?

One of the astonishing omissions of the article was that it neglected to ask any of the passengers. When passengers in the Hereford area are asked what they think about the experiment, they will be seen to be opposed to any change in the system there. Those who seek to knock the experiment in Hereford and Worcester have ulterior motives based upon vested interests. What we can learn from that experiment is useful in designing a bus policy, but it is by no means the only basis upon which that policy is founded.

If the Secretary of State's proposals are so self-evidently supported, why are the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the National Association of Local Councils so much against them? Why is it that at a meeting in Teesdale on Friday night not one member of the right hon. Gentleman's party could be found to support them?

The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. The Association of County Councils supported the principle of the Bill, although it had some qualifications about some of the details. The Association of District Councils and many of the municipal and metropolitan counties are interested parties because they run bus companies themselves. That is why they are opposed to the policy.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the widest possible distribution of his Department's excellent paper setting out the problems associated with franchising?

I recommend that paper to all hon. Members. If they believe that a system of competitive franchising might work, they should study the report to which my hon. Friend refers. They will find that there is severe objection to the course set out by the Select Committee.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he should not try to mislead the House about the Select Committee's report? Is he not aware that out of 44 Divisions the Chairman had to use his casting vote in only four and that when the report was presented to the House no vote was taken on it? Is the Secretary of State aware that the Committee found that there was no evidence that regulation had been an inhibiting factor to progress in the bus industry? However, the Secretary of State took no notice of that. May I ask the Secretary of State not to preempt the debate in Committee on competitive tendering? Will he keep an open mind so that we can fashion a better Bill in Committee?

The vote of which the hon. Gentleman must take account is that on Second Reading. The Bill was given a Second Reading by a substantial majority in the House. All hon. Members had the right to participate in that vote. Only eight members of the Select Committee voted on the issue. The vote that matters is that in the House of Commons.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he can now give a date for the privatisation of British Airways.

It remains our firm intention to proceed with privatisation as soon as practicable within the next financial year. No date has yet been set.

I understand the legal problems facing my hon. Friend with litigation, and I understand also the financial prudence involved in placing the shares. Does he appreciate that he has very warm support from behind him on the Government Benches and from a wide range of the electorate for the next further extension of wider share ownership?

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. As he rightly says, there has been some slippage due to the uncertainties arising from current anti-trust cases related to the Laker failure. I assure him that as soon as those are out of the way we intend to proceed with privatisation as quickly as possible.

Will the Government allow a privatised British Airways the right to operate twin-jet aircraft on long-haul routes across the Atlantic?

We shall have to consider that in the light of various arrangements which the Civil Aviation Authority is currently considering.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on aircraft noise at Gatwick airport.

The noise climate around Gatwick has improved significantly over the last 10 years. Air transport movements have increased by 91 per cent. over this period, but the area in which people generally experience annoyance has decreased by 29 per cent.

Does my hon. Friend accept that although aircraft noise has considerably decreased, it is still very disturbing for those who live around international airports? Will he assure the House that he will release the report on aircraft noise as soon as conveniently possible?

My Department has recently received the report and will be making it public by the end of the month. It will be sent to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available. The ill health of the CAA technical adviser has, I am afraid, caused a month's delay.

asked the Attorney-General if any decision has been reached on whether any prosecutions are to take place arising from the film, "MI5's Official Secrets".

I announced on 5 March that there would be no prosecutions under the Official Secrets Acts in connection with this film.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the makers of the film and the two former employees of MI5 will view that as an undoubtedly wise decision? Is he further aware that the serious allegations in the film about the malpractices and abuses carried out by the security service should be a matter of concern to his Department as well as to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary?

I am very much aware of the allegations contained in the film. I obtained a copy, watched it, and asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to request the Metropolitan police to carry out an investigation. That is now under way and the Metropolitan police will report to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who, in turn, will report to me.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the debate on the Interception of Communications Bill last week a former Home Secretary gave it as his opinion and his knowledge that one of the allegations contained in the film was absolute rubbish?

I am aware of that. It is fair to say that many of the other allegations were vague and unspecific. However, I am sure the House will agree that the allegations should be investigated, and that is taking place.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Lord Rawlinson, a former Attorney-General, expressed concern in another place on 28 February about The Times report that Ministers were saying that there was to be no prosecution in this case? Will he explain what ministerial consultations have taken place? Will he dissuade his colleagues, including the press officer at No. 10, from giving guidance in matters that are solely his responsibility?

That criticism may have been apt then, but I do not think that it applies now.

asked the Attorney-General how many cases have been heard by the courts and how many are outstanding in connection with the recent coal mining dispute to the latest available date.

asked the Attorney-General if he will update the information given to the hon. Member for Christchurch on 25 February, Official Report, column 13, concerning cases outstanding in the courts about offences alleged to have been committed in relation to the miners' strike.

During the period from 13 March 1984 to 5 March 1985, 7,917 persons were charged with a total of 10,372 offences alleged to have been committed during the course of the miners' dispute. Of these, 5,653 defendants had been dealt with by the end of that period and the cases of 2,262 remained to be heard.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that, although the miners' dispute is now over, the 2,262 cases waiting to be heard will be severely dealt with, that any amnesty for those people will not be considered until they have been convicted or acquitted and that the sentences will be properly and publicly detailed throughout the country?

I should make it clear at the outset that I have no responsibility of any kind for the sentences imposed by the courts, and at no time would I seek to influence or interfere with the decisions of the justices. On the question of amnesty, whether to proceed with a case must be a matter entirely for the chief constable of the area concerned, and again I would not seek in any way to influence the decision.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in some coalfields men have been dismissed simply because they face a charge, not because they have been convicted? Does he agree that that is scarcely a helpful contribution from the NCB to the reconciliation that is needed in the industry?

That cannot be my responsibility. It must be a matter for the National Coal Board.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, with respect to him, not all of us share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) on this? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, however, that with all the demands for amnesty it would be most helpful if the NUM and leading members of the Labour party took a lead in ensuring that those making vicious and violent attacks on people who merely exercised their right to go to work in the absence of a ballot do not continue to hound those workers in a manner that gives affront to many millions of people?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I should have thought that the worst way of trying to persuade those considering whether to grant an amnesty would be to behave in the way that my hon. Friend has described.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assist by providing the facts to the NUM and the NCB when individual applications for reinstatement are being considered? Is he aware that at present a conviction ipso facto constitutes dismissal in the eyes of the NCB and that when cases are reviewed under the appeal procedure the NUM and the NCB put forward different versions of the facts? Does he agree that it would be helpful if a short précis of the facts of the case were available, either through the Attorney-General or through the Home Secretary, when the appeals take place?

Yes, I shall certainly arrange for that to be considered, but I would hope that the magistrates' clerk would have kept a sufficient note, which would be available to the appeal tribunal.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that industrial tribunals are set up to deal with dismissal cases, and that the impartiality of those tribunals is guaranteed by existing employment law?

That is right, but I think that what the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) was suggesting was that there may be occasions when there is a conflict of evidence, when the tribunal's task will be assisted if there is an impartial note from, say, the magistrates' clerk.

As one fifth of those arrested have never been charged and two-thirds of the offences involve relatively trivial matters such as obstructing the highway, and as the acquittal rate in Nottingham is running at about 38 per cent. of the cases that eventually come to court, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not feel that a conciliatory statement and intervention from himself would not only alleviate the present situation but would restore respect for law and order in mining communities which consider themselves to have been savagely treated by the forces of law and order over the past year?

The acquittal rate varies enormously. In one or two areas, it is nought. The hon. Gentleman has picked the largest one — Nottinghamshire. It is very important that Law Officers —indeed, Ministers of all kinds—should not be seen to intervene in any way in questions of conviction or sentence. Those are matters for the courts and perhaps subsequently for the NCB.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have any plans to restore development aid to Ethiopia.

We provide development aid to Ethiopia mainly through our contributions to the European Community and the World Bank. We have also agreed to support postgraduate medical education and English language training in Ethiopia accompanied by appropriate training programmes in the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister agree that his answer will not be acceptable to people throughout the country? There has been a massive goodwill exercise towards Ethiopia in terms of emergency aid from private sources and, of course, from the Government. Has not the time come when a massive effort must be directed towards development aid to make sure that Ethiopia does not face a crisis in the future? A blockage on that aid, caused by the ideological position of the Government, is in no one's interest.

It is not just a question of ideological differences. It is difficult to give aid in a country where the whole approach to agriculture — a collectivist approach—is very different from ours, and where a civil war is raging. However, aid will be provided through the medium of the World Bank and the European Community, towards both of which we make substantial contributions.

Is it not true that aid to the agricultural centres of Ethiopia needs to be directed towards the poor farmers in arid areas, who need support for small agricultural enterprises, and that the Government of Ethiopia are totally opposed to that obvious developmental need?

I agree with my hon. Friend's definition of developmental need, but I must repeat that there are great difficulties connected with the attitude taken by the Ethiopian Government towards the nation's agriculture.

Is the Minister not disappointed with the less than robust response from British industrialists towards development aid to Ethiopia? For instance, has he recieved any representations from the CBI?

I cannot recall offhand having received any representations from the CBI. However, overall, British industry is capable of playing an important part in development across the world, and I have done what I can to encourage it to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will increase the level of assistance to the British volunteer programme.

I propose, subject to parliamentary approval, to allocate £6·95 million to the British volunteer programme in 1985–86. This represents a 15 per cent. increase on this year's grant.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and also for the extra money allocated to the programme. However, will he acknowledge that there are an immense number of young people in this country who would very much like to go abroad to do their bit to assist the disaster areas and other places in the developing world? Will he bear in mind that this is a most attractive and useful programme to which the Government could perhaps devote a little more money in future?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the value of voluntary work overseas. However, from 1979–80 to 1984–85 we have increased our spending on the British volunteer programme by 94 per cent. in real terms.

I, too, am grateful for this increased support for the British volunteer programme. May I suggest that, in this year of all years —International Youth Year—it would be a token of the Government's good will if they allowed the enormous numbers of young people who are unable to get work here but who have expressed a desire to help in areas such as Ethiopia and Sudan to do so through a special programme, with additional funding?

The figures that I have announced show our commitment to the programme. The figure for the coming year will allow a small increase in overall numbers, although most of the extra money will help to meet increased costs overseas.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure continued finance for the international fund for agricultural development.

We have been taking a full part in the negotiations for the second IFAD replenishment and we hope that agreement will be reached early next month. We would expect to contribute to it on a basis to be decided following the usual burden-sharing discussions among donors.

The Minister will be aware that IFAD needs between $500 million and $650 million—that is what it is asking for. It is the only United Nations agency which is concerned exclusively with agricultural development and, if we are to avoid storing up trouble or, indeed, starvation for sub-Saharan Africa, it must be supported on a sizeable scale. How much will the Minister be able to give?

I expect that the figure that is likely to be agreed will be about $600 million, which is within the range of that the hon. Gentleman quoted.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend has just said. Is he any closer to a decision on whether to untie assistance promised in connection with the World Bank's facility for Africa?

There is a question about this matter later on the Order Paper, but I do not think that it will be reached so I can tell my hon. Friend that the answer is yes, it will be untied.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the amount of grain sent by the European Economic Community to Sudan in 1984; and what was the price paid for it.

The European Community delivered 13,000 tonnes of cereals, together with 3,117 tonnes of milk powder and 1,355 tonnes of butter oil to Sudan in 1984. The cost was about £6·8 million.

Is the Minister aware that there are now enormous stocks of grain in the EEC? Does he agree that it is deplorable that the figures that he has just given were the same last year? Can he assure us that this year much more grain will be sent to Sudan from EEC countries and that the price will be advantageous to Sudan? Can he assure us—this has happened with other commodities—that grain will not be sold at the cheapest possible price to eastern Europe? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those who have given generously to help alleviate the famine in Africa look for such action from the Government? Will he ensure that it takes place?

The quantity delivered last year was not very large, but the House must remember that it was only late in the year that the Sudan Government asked for assistance. The Community and its member states have now committed almost 170,000 tonnes of grain for this year. That is a substantial amount. I have stressed to the Community, and the Commissioner, whom I saw two weeks ago, that it is important that large quantities should go and that they should go as soon as possible.

I am aware that my right hon. Friend has a special knowledge of the Sudan. May I ask him, following his recent visit to that country, whether he hopes that larger quantities of grain from the EC can be got to that country? Is he satisfied with how it is distributed to the starving people there?

It is important that large quantities go from the EC. The committed amount is substantial. It is crucial to get on with delivery before the hoped for rains come in June. I believe that the grain will reach those who most need it, but one must always be careful about the business of distribution.

Does the Minister remember that in the early 1970s the Euro-fanatics were telling us that one reason why we should go into the Common Market was that if the 10 nations got together they could help the Third world and enable the starving millions to be fed? Has not that dream faded as rapidly as the SDP has faded from our Benches?

The hon. Gentleman is exactly wrong. The European development fund—the Lomé convention —is one of the most valuable and positive aspects of the European Community. Whatever one may think about grain mountains and so on, they mean that substantial quantities of food are available to be sent to famine-struck areas, and that is now happening.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of the problems of Sudan are the result of the civil war in Ethiopia. Will he avail himself of any opportunity that he may have to talk to the Ethiopian Foreign Minister, who is in London this week, and to impress upon him the fact that the House would be delighted if the Ethiopian Government would initiate peace talks with the Eritrean and Tigrean rebels, with a view to establishing a ceasefire that would allow food aid to get to all parts of Ethiopia and stop the people of Ethiopia from simply killing themselves?

The House will agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. He knows that there would be great difficulties in persuading the Ethiopian Government to have formal talks with the representatives of the liberation movements. On the other hand, many people have made clear to the Ethiopian Government the great importance of making sure that food reaches all the people who are suffering so badly at the present time.