asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any further proposals to reduce the number of drink-driving offences; and if he will make a statement.

This year we have had the first-ever summer publicity focus. I am considering how to maintain the vital campaign against drunk driving. A quarter of all road deaths are drink related. About 5,200 people died on our roads last year.

Does the Minister agree that drink-driving offences are a scourge of modern society, as is demonstrated by that horrible figure that he has just given? Reports show that the estimate that one quarter of road deaths are drink-related is a conservative one.

indicated assent.

I see that the Minister agrees with me. Does he also agree that there is no excuse for drunken driving and that a conviction ought to result in a gaol sentence? What is he considering doing about that?

I do not want to take up the hon. Gentleman's point about an automatic gaol sentence, because that is not in my hands today. What is in my hands is a booklet called "The Facts About Drinking And Driving", which is available to anyone who rings 0800234888. Anyone who reads the information in that booklet will suddenly realise that he has no need to join the 100,000 people who are convicted each year and that he should not be one of the larger number who put themselves and others at risk.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a growing problem of accidents involving not only drunk drivers but those who are either unqualified to drive or uninsured? Does he agree that people indulging in such criminally irresponsible behaviour should be more harshly dealt with, and that there should be a better system of compensation for their victims?

Order. We should stick to the original question, which was about drunk driving.

Perhaps I may answer my hon. Friend briefly. Public reaction and involvement will make the greatest difference. Various things that we do on our roads are wholly unacceptable, including driving while unqualified, disqualified or drunk.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Transport Act 1981 does not specifically allow for drunk-driving convictions to be based on retrospective evidence and that the medical profession criticises such tests as unreliable? Will the hon. Gentleman amend the Act to prevent abuse and to confine such cases, if we must have them, to special circumstances?

Given the recent case, I had better not comment directly on that part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The point to remember is that people like us occasionally appear in court with the excuse that they went out for a social drink, even though they are convicted for having twice the legal limit of alcohol in their blood, which means that they have done a great deal of drinking. We must try to get away from our personal excuses for breaking the law and putting people at risk.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent campaign and I recognise that drunk-driving kills, but could my hon. Friend suggest ways of bringing in the breathalyser and random breath tests throughout the year? More than 1,600 people a year lose their lives in drink-related accidents, and something needs to be done. I know that the Government are committed to doing something.

Certainly something is being done, and it is worth remembering the summer publicity focus. Our campaign towards the end of the year appeared to be working, as the Home Office statistical bulletin showed. Police can administer breath tests when there has been a moving traffic offence, after an accident or when they suspect that a driver has been drinking. We cover all categories.

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I moved an amendment when the Transport Act 1981 was going through the House to apply what were termed the Blennerhassett provisions to give the police much more scope in evidential breath testing. Unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted by the Standing Committee, so we have the present system in operation.

That may be so, but if the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks he will see that I avoided mentioning a particular case— [Interruption.] Despite laughter from the Opposition, I regard it as my job to bring down the number of casualties. The rate has dropped in the past 30 years, but the biggest remaining killer is drunk driving. I speak for the civil liberties of those at risk.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning commercial vehicle drivers' hours.

The road transport unions have made representations to me, both directly and through right hon. and hon. Members, and I met union representatives, together with the hon. Members for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) on 3 July.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), the Minister responsible for road safety, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said:

"There is no clearly established connection between driving hours and fatigue."

The hon. Gentleman was involved in a delegation that he brought to me the other day. I listened carefully to what he said, but I do not accept his contention. The House will have the opportunity to debate the matter late tomorrow night when we discuss drivers' hours.

Attention has rightly been drawn to drivers' hours. When a driver is not driving, is he not meant to be resting? Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a personal log book such as that used by pilots so that a driver cannot continue driving for gain or profit? If we introduce such a system not the number of accidents be greatly reduced?

My hon. Friend will the opportunity to make that point in greater detail tomorrow night, but I shall certainly consider what he has said. We are introducing the new regulations to give greater flexibility, including less driving per fortnight, and more weekly rest, which is a critical factor.

Will the Secretary of State undertake to hold up the provisions that he plans to put before us tomorrow night until we have had longer to examine them? Has he met the drivers on the job? If he has, what did they say to him, and what did he say in reply? Will he exercise some authority and give the House of Commons a full chance of discussing this important matter—not late at night—because of the widespread concern about it?

I always listen with care to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), but the Minister responsible for roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), has had extensive consultation on the issue and it has been under discussion for a considerable time. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the undertaking which he seeks. So far my Department has received 130 letters from the public, compared with 45 letters from hon. Members. There will be an opportunity to discuss the matter again tomorrow.

Is the Minister aware of the written answer by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) alluded? He said:

"There is no clearly established connection between driving hours and fatigue." — [Official Report, 25 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 242.]

There is no difficulty in asking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who is responsible for roads, to read briefs, because he reads them extensively already. We are proposing a new pattern of regulations which will provide for less driving and more weekly rest. It is the end product of a long period of consultation. I am sure that the House will find the regulations acceptable tomorrow night.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria are used to determine whether driving conditions are sufficiently difficult to justify the establishment of a driving test centre in a particular locality; and if he will make a statement.

We need routes with the greatest variety of traffic conditions and hazards within the area.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend, but does he agree that my constituency more than meets the criteria for a test centre? We have the greatest number of applicants for tests in Essex, we have to travel long distances to Brentwood and Grays, and our shopping centre is so successful that our driving conditions are more than testing.

The problem is not just the number of people who want to take the test. The problem lies in the Basildon one-way system, its wide and open junctions and well planned roundabouts. It has few traffic lights, and I understand that the town centre is a pedestrian precinct. I would have thought that the four test centres within 13 miles of Basildon, at Brentwood, Grays, Southend and Chelmsford, would allow someone who is about to be tested to relax as he drives there, and perhaps be more successful in his test.

I am in no way suggesting that people drive tractors around Basildon, but I have a constituent who is seeking to get a driving licence to drive a tractor in the Rotherham area. He has been told that he must wait until there are several other applicants for tractor driving tests, and the delay is threatening his employment. Will the Minister look with a great deal of urgency at the letter I sent to him?

Yes, Sir. We are conscious that where employment is tied to passing a test it is up to us to ensure that people can take their test as soon as possible. We are also trying to reduce the general waiting list for tests.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to remove trunk road through traffic from Bath.

Trunk road traffic travelling in an east-west direction was removed from Bath when the M4 motorway was opened. We propose to provide a north-south bypass of Bath, linking the A46 and A36 trunk roads, in conjunction with the Batheaston bypass to the east of the city.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that a north-south bypass for this historic city must remain a top and urgent priority? Will he confirm that it is also the Government's priority to see that bypasses are constructed around other historic cities and villages and that the additional cost of doing that is on top of, and not at the expense of, other parts of the Government's road building programme?

I accept both parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Obviously, greater relief for Bath is important. We have added to the programme 81 bypasses and relief roads for historic towns and villages since 1979 and will continue to give high priority to the Government's bypass programme. The achievement of our plans will be greatly assisted by the increase in funds available for trunk road construction. The only difficulty would come, perhaps in Bath and certainly other places, if the national roads programme were dramatically reduced to what it was between 1974 and 1979.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what factors led him to bring forward amendments to the "Highway Code" relating to the safety of cyclists.

Both cyclists and other road users should be more aware of the vulnerability of cyclists in accidents. That is why we are proposing amendments to the "Highway Code".

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the efforts that he and his Department have made to recognise more the needs of cyclists as fellow road users. May I remind him that cyclists still face around 300 deaths a year and 6,000 serious accidents or injuries? Will he look again at the investigations by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and, perhaps more important, at the request by the Cyclists' Touring Club, which has its headquarters in my constituency, that greater diagrammatic emphasis should be given in the new Highway Code to the needs of cyclists, as all too many people learn through visual images rather than the written word?

I am conscious of the fact that my hon. Friend raised this important issue for her constituency and for the general public in an Adjournment debate on 16 May before my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). I am conscious of the important points that she has made. I shall certainly look at the points that she has made about graphical material, because that is a perfectly legitimate point to examine.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the growing numbers of cyclists who are deliberately disregarding traffic lights, driving through them, driving without lights at night and contributing to the large numbers of deaths and accidents which my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) has just mentioned? Will he ask the police to pay particular attention to that as it is putting other road users at great risk?

If my hon. Friend is factually correct, he is right in saying that those who injure and create injuries must obey the "Highway Code." Clearly one of the changes to the "Highway Code" proposed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is to include, for the first time, references with relevance to cyclists. Obviously that is an important change.

Is the Secretary of State aware that since the abolition of the GLC's cycling project team there is no co-ordination and development of cycle lanes around London? How many miles of cycle lanes would the right hon. Gentleman make his objective? What is his objective? The GLC set a target of 1,000 miles.

The GLC set many targets and did many other things that I would not wish to go into now. There is no need for us to do other than delight at the demise of that erstwhile irrelevant organisation. Having said that, I am interested in cycle lanes and will consider the particular point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I shall do so in the hope of coming up with a serious comment unlike the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

In considering the dangers in which cyclists find themselves, is my right hon. Friend aware of the jeopardy in which they are placed by drivers who use hand-held radio telephones while driving? Will he take urgent steps to dissuade drivers from this extremely dangerous practice?

My hon. Friend is making a legitimate point. There are references to the problem of hand-held radio telephones in the new "Highway Code", and we must concern ourselves with the obvious vulnerability of cyclists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said, over 300 cyclists—345, in fact — were killed in 1984. The figure was slightly reduced in 1985, when 295 were killed, but it is still unacceptable.

The Secretary of State knows full well that the main reason why he introduced these amendments to the "Highway Code" is that I persuaded him recently to join the all-party friends of cycling group. I am now awaiting the receipt of his £1. Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to a deplorable accident that happened recently in which a cyclist was killed by a lorry, when the coroner said that cyclists should not be permitted on the road on which the accident took place? Cyclists have as much right to be on any road as any other road user. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about that?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that cyclists must not use motorways. I have seen the hon. Gentleman pedalling around Parliament Square and I am conscious of his serious interest in the subject. I shall seek to draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to the point that he made.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make available the report on the impact of the proposed Channel tunnel on Kent.

The preliminary assessment report was published on 11 July, and copies have been placed in the Library. The second stage of the study will build on this initial report.

As one who supports and applauds the decision on the Channel tunnel, may I ask my hon. Friend, in the context of the report, whether he has yet made any assessment of the likely effect of the construction of the cross-Channel link upon employment opportunities in Kent in the years immediately ahead?

During construction we expect an average of about 3,000 people to be employed on the project. About half of them will be recruited locally. In addition, there will be a substantial number of jobs north of Watford as a result of the purchasing of about £900 million worth of goods, many of them from the engineering sector.

Now that the Japanese banks and the French investors have rather sensibly welshed on their commitment to produce even the first £200 million of equity for this $6 billion project, surely it is time to consider whether it is right for the taxpayer to continue to pay the bills for such expensive reports as the "Kent Impact Study", important though that is. Has not the time come to say that no more parliamentary time or public money should be spent on the project until the business men behind Eurotunnel have re-established their lost financial credibility?

My hon. Friend has somewhat exaggerated the position, and not for the first time. The timing of the decision when to go to the market for further equity is entirely a matter for the commercial judgment of the promoters and their professional advisers. They have decided that it will be best for them to do that after the holiday season, and that seems to make a lot of sense.

Will the Minister start to understand that this monstrous scheme will have a severe impact on areas other than Kent? When will he decide to take the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and scrap the whole damned nonsense?

The hon. Gentleman is misled to the extent that his fellow right hon. and hon. Members took a judgment on the matter by a vote of 309 to 44. I do not think that he should cast these aspersions on his colleagues and let them go unanswered.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider the feasibility of establishing a STOLport at Sheffield.

It is for potential developers to undertake feasibility studies for the establishment of new airports such as a STOLport at Sheffield.

Is my hon. Friend aware that south Yorkshire and Sheffield is the biggest industrial area with the densest population in Europe without airport facilities? In the past the Government have worked with local authorities to provide the climate to develop airports. As Brymon and British Caledonian would like to go ahead, will he act as a catalyst with the Secretary of State for the Environment so that European funds can be made available to put Sheffield and south Yorkshire on the air map?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistance with this idea. As he may know, there are four airports within 40 miles of Sheffield-Manchester, Leeds-Bradford, East Midlands and Humberside. If a local authority asked us to agree to the necessary capital allocation for a STOLport at Sheffield, we would need to be sure that the investment met our normal criterion of a financial return of 7 per cent. If an application were made for European funds, that would be considered on its merits.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now make a statement on the completion of the feasibility study into the proposed construction of a second Severn crossing.

The consultants are completing their study on time and their final report is expected any day now. It will be published and I shall be making an announcement shortly on its conclusions in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the Welsh economy is in a parlous condition, with heavy unemployment? Is he further aware that he could ease the position with an early announcement authorising the building of a second crossing of the River Severn and by accepting the recommendation of the Select Committee on Transport calling for the abolition of tolls on estuarial crossings? A favourable announcement on both matters would be well received throughout Wales and in many other hard-pressed areas.

I cannot comment on the Government's position in advance of our response to the Select Committee about estuarial tolls. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made it clear that, above all else, he is aware of the critical nature for the Welsh economy of an additional link to south Wales.

Will the Secretary of State give a guarantee that as it is three or four months since the Transport Select Committee reported on tolls, he will give an answer while the House is sitting so that he may be questioned on it?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Government's response to the Select Committee report. I cannot give a guarantee at this stage, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall do everything in my power to ensure that the answer reaches the House while it is still sitting.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the speed with which motorway repairs are undertaken.

No, Sir. The increased use of lane rental contracts, which give the contractor an incentive to complete early, is enabling us to speed up major renewal schemes, achieving in some cases time savings of about 25 per cent.

Will my hon. Friend explain why it appears to take so long to effect repairs to motorways? Will he also explain why so much of the motorway network appears to be under repair?

Part of the reason is that people forgot that motorways eventually need replacing and that we are trying to deal with the legacy from before 1979. Cones are needed for various reasons which are not always obvious: to protect the concrete which is still curing; to protect excavated areas or damaged safety fences; to provide a safety zone for workmen; and to provide access for contractors or emergency vehicles.

Is the Minister aware of the hardship experienced by my constituents because of repairs to the Barton high-level bridge on the M62, which are likely to take three years? This is causing unnecessary hardship to people living in Eccles, Swinton, Pendlebury and Worsley. What will he do about that?

I am aware of the strong representations that the hon. Gentleman has been making on behalf of his constituents and others who have been held up by the necessary widening of the bridge. I have also been receiving representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), whose constituency is nearby. I shall consider whether we can rearrange the work in any way, to allow all the work to be completed substantially faster. If I can, I shall make a public announcement and, I hope, send copies to the hon. Members concerned.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there seem to be so many cones down our main roads nowadays that one wonders whether the Common Market is giving a subsidy on cones, just as it gives a subsidy on barley? Can my hon. Friend ask those concerned to cone off less of the road so that a longer distance than necessary is not coned off, because it is overdone?

I accept part of what my hon. Friend says. We are getting better each year. I should like to quote from a letter that I received:

"I should … like to congratulate the contractors and Department of Transport for keeping the traffic moving in all conditions during the work."

"That has been no mean achievement."

Does the Minister accept that large sections of motorway are still coned off, with no workmen in sight, and in many cases it appears to happen week after week? Will the hon. Gentleman do something about it? Will he have a look at the M62 and M63, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) referred, because the chaos in that area is appalling and something needs to be done about it?

The chaos is far less than it would have been if we had not gone in for a massive publicity exercise. I congratulate the many road users, commercial and domestic, who have kept away from Barton bridge while some of the work has been going on. If they continue to keep away when they can, obey the direction signs and follow the advice, we shall be able to get the work done and allow traffic to keep moving. I appreciate the problems that it causes to some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he proposes to improve road safety, particularly in relation to coaches.

I shall be consulting very soon on requirements for new coach design and equipment. Later this year we shall be ready to consult on requirements for the fitting of devices to limit the speed of all coaches.

I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome decision. Has he seen the clever but misleading propaganda emanating from the Bus and Coach Council, which provides information on the number of people killed or injured in coaches? In spite of numerous requests, it refuses to give me the information on the number of people killed or injured by coaches. Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows unusual reticence on the part of an organisation, indicating either a lack of information or a deliberate cover-up? If the council cannot provide the information, will my hon. Friend do so, so that we may have some facts by which to judge the evidence of our own eyes?

I have not seen the exact publication to which my hon. Friend refers, but I understand that the Bus and Coach Council will shortly be replying to a letter that it received from my hon. Friend.

Given the importance that drunkenness plays in the number of accidents, will the Minister tell us which other Government Departments have an interest in reducing that problem? Can he tell us whether they attach the same importance as his Department does to that end? Is he happy with Government co-ordination on that front? Can he give the House an idea of when his Department will bring forward proposals that will attempt to reduce the number of accidents caused by drunkenness?

Among other Government Departments, the Home Office takes a special interest. I refer the hon. Gentleman to a question that the Prime Minister answered on 3 July. Needless to say, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who is responsible for roads, takes a special interest in that and in co-ordinating activities concerned with drunken driving.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to advise disabled people about driving.

The Department has set up MAVIS, the mobility advice and vehicle information service at Crowthorne in Berkshire, where disabled people can come for advice on their potential ability to drive and on finding a suitable vehicle. A wide range of adapted cars is available for test driving.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate the young lady concerned on her appointment? Can he tell the House about the aims of the new initiative and how much it encourages disabled people to look at the possibility of being able to drive, something which they might not have considered previously?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This may not be a subject which gets people shouting across the Floor of the House, but it is important to develop disabled people's ability to drive. That often means explaining where they can go for specialist advice and to try out cars and controls. I do not want to exaggerate, but if people can see, and if their minds are working, they can probably drive. MAVIS is the person for them to talk to and she can be found at Crowthorne. Those who want to make inquiries should contact the Department of Transport and we will put them in touch with MAVIS.

When does my hon. Friend expect to announce the results of the review that he has undertaken into the working of the orange badge regulations, which was announced in a recent parliamentary answer?

I cannot say precisely when, but I hope that it will be done without too much delay. If it is possible, I may circulate MAVIS' telephone number in some way.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest available figures he has for bus usage in London.

Provisional figures for 1985–86 show that some 1,150 million passenger journeys were made on all bus services operated for London Regional Transport.

Is it true that there has been a 10 per cent. decline in passenger mileage during the past 12 months? Why, when the London regional passenger committee, road users, bus travellers, bus drivers and the unions oppose the extension of one-person operated buses on the grounds that they lead to more traffic congestion and longer delays in journey times, do the Government insist on extending one-person operated buses throughout London?

As is so often the case, the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. London's buses now carry more passengers than they did in 1982 and 1983, and only 0·9 per cent. fewer than in 1984.

I was talking about this year.

These are the latest figures that I have. About 70 per cent. of buses are one-man operated. That figure is planned to increase to 74 per cent. by March 1987, but each stage is appraised on its merits. It is a management matter, not a Government decision.

Will my hon. Friend confirm, contrary to the impression created by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), that many of the late GLC'S fears about bus services have proved groundless and that, since the disbandment of the GLC, LRT has been much more responsive to the needs of passengers? Is he aware that LRT is examining the possibility of providing minibuses and other variations which were not considered by the GLC?

Rubbish.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, this is only part of a national regime in which we are witnessing a considerable increase in innovation and initiative. As for LRT, professional management and improved efficiency have meant that revenue support has halved. The result is a lower burden on London ratepayers, for which I am sure they will be grateful.

Will the Minister look again at a matter to which I have brought his attention before—bus services in the docklands of London? He will know that there is grave discontent at the reduction in services, at enormous delays and often missing buses. It is an area of growing population. The Government say that the docklands are being redeveloped. It is no use, however, if they are redeveloped but there are fewer bus services to enable people to get around. Will the Minister please reexamine that, and can we have a better service?

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the increasing population in the docklands, in regard to which I know he will welcome the Government's activities. I shall pass his comments on to the management of LRT.

Will the Minister consider the facts rather than the theory? Is it not a fact that, in certain areas of London, such as Stepney and Poplar, services are being cut? When asked why, local management says that it is overspending its budget and cannot afford to keep services going. Ministers set the budget for LRT, and it is then shared out. Is it not time that we had a re-examination of what is happening, instead of boasting about how much support is being provided, when funding is being cut at the expense of passengers, who desperately need bus services?

London Bus Ltd. is seeking to match supply and demand more closely. That means that in some areas where there is not much demand there are reductions, whereas in other areas there is an increase. Additional routes are being put into operation. It is just not the case that overall there is more than a very marginal reduction.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of British Rail, he will discuss with him the matter of rail links between the proposed Channel tunnel and the north of England.

The question of rail links between the tunnel and the north of England is a matter for British Rail to decide, but I know that it is anxious to exploit all the commercial opportunities offered by the tunnel. I understand that it is already considering the scope for through services to destinations north of London, making use of the west London line via Kensington-Olympia.

Is my hon. Friend aware that much of the latent opposition in the north of England to the concept of the Channel tunnel would evaporate if people were made aware of the fact that there will be a fast and convenient link between the north of England —particularly the north-east—and the continent? As my hon. Friend said, British Rail is already planning a link via Kensington-Olympia with the west coast main line. Will my hon. Friend ensure that Sir Robert Reid is very much aware of the considerable market that exists along the tracks of the east coast main line?

I shall certainly draw the attention of the chairman of British Rail to the point made by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend will know that, as well as considerable benefits for the north of England as a result of faster through services, there are significant benefits for exporters in the north of the country in terms of freight.

asked the Attorney-General if he was consulted prior to the decision to send the Solicitor-General's letter of 6 January 1986 to the then Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) relating to the legal position of Westland.

It is not my usual practice to disclose what communications take place between my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General arid myself in relation to legal advice tendered to the Government.

Surely the usual practice is that Law Officers' letters are treated with extreme discretion and most gingerly by the Downing street machine. Why did the Solicitor-General's letter ever go near Mr. Ingham and the press office, unless there was a Prime Ministerial instruction that it was to be leaked?

I am quite certain that there was no such instruction.

If there is to be a new political saga over the Westland affair, will the Attorney-General do all in his power to bear in mind that the company is now doing extremely well, is getting plenty of orders and has a very bright future? Therefore, will he do everything he can to make sure that Westland is allowed to get on with the job?

That is not a matter for me, but I welcome what my hon. Friend has said.

The report of the Select Committee on Defence into this matter is due for publication on Thursday week — just in time for the recess. Has the Attorney-General seen an advance copy of that report, and does he anticipate at least the possibility of prosecutions arising from the report's findings?

I have not seen the report.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on measures to reduce delays in the Commercial Court.

My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has warmly accepted the recommendations on changes in procedure and practice contained in the recent report of the practitioner members of the Commercial Court committee. It is intended to amend the rules of court before the end of this month.

That is a most welcome answer, but the truth is that some cases are taking up to two and a half years to come to trial in the Commercial Court. Given that the Commercial Court is a great foreign currency earner, will the Solicitor-General please ensure that the proposals are implemented as soon as possible?

I agree that in extreme cases there is a delay of the order that my hon. Friend mentioned. I appreciate his knowledge of the subject from his professional association with that court. It is important that all that can be done should be done to speed up matters, and I am very hopeful that the report of the practitioner members will be very useful in that regard.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that the Lord Chancellor feels that some of the delay is caused by the delay in producing a transcription of the notes? Will he take into account the fact that the equipment used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is useful in that respect, and will he look at it please?

I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's point is referred to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions have been brought in the last 12 months against members or former members of Lloyd's.

I take the question to refer to prosecutions of members of Lloyd's arising from transactions undertaken by them in that capacity. There have been no such prosecutions by the Director of Public Prosecutions during the past 12 months. I cannot speak for other prosecuting authorities.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that by far the best possible deterrent to potential fraudsters is the likelihood of being prosecuted successfully, leading to a conviction? Is he aware that it is offensive to many members of the public and Lloyd's that there are still at large individual former members of Lloyd's who appear to have milked their members of enormous sums?

I agree with my hon. Friend that prosecution and conviction is a good deterrent. Steady progress has been maintained by the fraud investigation group, and I am satisfied that the length of time taken is attributable to the complexity of the case and the nature of the problems, particularly of obtaining evidence from overseas, which must be overcome. All those concerned are endeavouring to bring the investigations to a satisfactory conclusion as expeditiously as possible.

Does the Attorney-General agree that part of the problem has been the inadequacy and lack of legal back-up facilities of solicitors? Does he hope that once the Crown Prosecution Service is both fully staffed and manned in London that sort of support service will be available and will enable prosecutions to be brought far more speedily?

We have not had any lack of suitable solicitors available. On the fraud investigation group problem, counsel has been deeply involved throughout, as well as FIG itself.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the matter of the PCW syndicate has been as scandalous as it has been damaging to the reputation of the City of London? Will he confirm that everything possible is being done to prosecute those who are responsible?

As I said, the problem has been one of obtaining evidence from overseas. That has been the most significant difficulty. We have now managed to overcome many of the problems that confronted us earlier.

asked the Attorney-General to what extent he intends to answer parliamentary questions on the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I ask the House to forgive me for the length of the answer, as this is an important question.

May I give a cautious welcome to that response? Is the Attorney-General aware that his recent convoluted written answer on the same subject to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) caused some concern?

I hope that I have now cleared up any misunderstanding that there might have been.

When my right hon. and learned Friend considers the Crown Prosecution Service, will he bear in mind the present widespread disquiet among the Bar about the difference in payment for days of prosecuting in a magistrates' court between barristers and solicitors? Will he, together with the Lord Chancellor, have a look at the matter in the near future to see whether a more just settlement of that problem can be reached?

A great deal of nonsense has been talked about this. The figure of £250 a day has been widely quoted as being the sum that solicitors are likely to be paid. That is rarely paid, and when it is, it is to an experienced equity partner who takes a whole day to deal with difficult cases. Solicitors have higher overheads, and that has been recognised by the Bar.

asked the Attorney-General in how many cases since 1979 involving charges under the Official Secrets Acts he has personally taken charge of the prosecution.

Since taking office in 1979 I have personally conducted three prosecutions for offences under the Official Secrets Acts.

Does the Attorney-General recall a film shown recently on Channel 4 called "Spying for the Comrades"? Is he aware that a Mr. Brian Gentleman, featured in that film, has since admitted on oath that he passed secrets that he obtained through his job at the Department of Trade and Industry to an official at the Czech embassy? Is he aware that, in the absence of any decision to prosecute that individual, there is a great deal of suspicion that there has been a cover-up because of incompetence by MI5?

I have not seen the programme, but I have read the exposé of the programme in The Sunday Times. I do not know of any occasion in which the person referred to gave evidence on oath. It is certainly not a cover-up.

asked the Attorney-General what was the outcome of the decision of the European Court on 3 July about the legality of the budget of the European Assembly; and if he will make a statement.

On 3 July this year the European Court declared void the adoption by the President of the European Parliament, on 18 December 1985, of the budget for 1986. The court further declared that this annulment of the President's act did not call in question the validity of payments made and commitments entered into, before the date of the judgment, in implementation of the purported budget. The remainder of the Council's application was dismissed.

Following this welcome judgment about the illegality of an excess of about £400 million in the budget, will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he was conculted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before my right hon. Friend went along with the other Ministers four days later and approved a budget four times as great as that originally approved by the European Assembly?

That is a matter entirely for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The most important point in this case was to establish that the budgetary procedure laid down by the treaty must be respected. This, in the court's judgment, has been done.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he proposes to allocate the £3 million rehabilitation grant for Ethiopia, announced on 26 November 1985, Official Report, column 515; and if he will make a statement.

Some £0·9 million of the £3 million we set aside for relief and rehabilitation was used earlier this year to provide seeds and agricultural hand tools. An ODA team visited Ethiopia in May to discuss the use of the remaining £2·1 million. Following this, pesticides and spraying equipment to a value of £0·6 million were provided in June to counter an emergency pest outbreak. We shall also be providing some £1·5 million for a well rehabilitation programme and for seed production and storage.

I am grateful for that answer and for the progress report. Is not the main problem the flight of so many Ethiopian refugees into Somalia and the consequent threat to the Somalian economy? Do we not have to face the problem that we must remove the fear of Ethiopians against the oppressive nature and policies of that regime? Does my right hon. Friend agree that for us to give money will not necessarily solve that particular and vitally crucial question?

There are many problems about Ethiopia and the nature of the regime. In the past year we have provided £750,000, through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Oxfam, specifically for refugees in Somalia. I have just allocated a further £800,000 for the same refugees.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met officials of the World Bank.

My right hon. and learned Friend and I had meetings with the then president of the World Bank on 13 March. My officials have also recently had separate discussions here with the two senior vice-presidents.

Bearing in mind that last year there was a transfer of resources from developing to developed countries, does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the implications of that position for debtors, creditors and the world economy? Will he undertake to support any initiatives proposed by the World Bank designed to reverse that position?

The World Bank is concerned with this problem, and so am I. We support a generous eighth replenishment for IDA and in due course there will be a new general capital increase for the bank. Also, we welcome the proposed role of the World Bank in implementing Secretary Baker's initiative, which is to make fast disbursing loans available to support the adjustment efforts of heavily indebted countries.

Does the Minister hope to have a meeting with the new president of the World Bank before very long? Will he take the opportunity to stress that it cannot be right for the Third world to be sending more money to the World Bank than it is getting from it and that therefore it is important to get new flows to the Third world—perhaps, for example, by increasing the involvement of Japan and Japan's surplus in the World Bank?

I hope to meet the president of the World Bank before too long. As I have just said, both the World Bank and the Government are concerned about this problem, and I have outlined some of the additional resources which we believe can and should be made available to the World Bank.

Has my right hon. Friend taken the opportunity to discuss with officials of the World Bank the problem that exists as a result of the debt problem, particularly in Africa, and the fact that the most optimistic forecast by the World Bank is that African countries will be in greater debt at the end of the next decade than they are at present? Is my right hon. Friend planning with the World Bank to make available additional funds on concessionary terms in an effort to solve that problem?

We are of course concerned about the problem. Our belief is that the best approach is to focus sums of aid on those countries that are able to make adjustments to their policies so that their economies can be made effective. We shall be very happy to support them.

Is the Minister aware that in its development report 1986 the World Bank referred to the need for an increase in bilateral aid and relief for sub-Sahara? Is the Minister's Department making progress in an effort to achieve those objectives?

I am very concerned about finding opportunities in Africa where we can give the kind of aid that will help to produce good results. Almost certainly that means aid that is matched by effective policy reforms.

Before my right hon. Friend authorises additional credit for developing countries, will he examine the extent to which their economic plight has been self-inflicted by years of mismanagement? Will he be very careful not to underwrite mistaken policies or to bail out those who are responsible for them?

It is very important to match aid with policies that are likely to prove effective. The encouraging aspect of the special session of the United Nations on Africa that was held in May was that the African countries themselves were prepared to be analytical about their own policies and in some cases their own policy failures.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to increase United Kingdom official development assistance to central America.

I have no plans to do so.

Does the Minister really think that it is right that inter-American Development Bank loans to Nicaragua should be frozen because of the concern of the United States to destabilise the democratically elected Government of that country? Further, does he oppose the United States Administration in their efforts now to gain a veto over all inter-American Development Bank lending? Does he think it right that a superpower should be able to dominate such a regional development bank, as if there had been no end to the Monroe doctrine? Will he take advantage of the coming recess to visit Central America, including Nicaragua, to evaluate the situation for himself?

I have no plans to visit Nicaragua, but our view about inter-American Development Bank loans has always been that they should be made on the basis of objective economic analysis.

Although it may not be appropriate to increase United Kingdom official development assistance to countries in that part of the world, does my right hon. Friend look favourably upon the prospect of increasing assistance through the European development fund or other European instruments?

The European Community is interested in giving aid to Central America and, among other countries, it gives quite a substantial amount of aid to Nicaragua. There is no doubt that the Community is looking in that direction, and with the accession of Spain it is likely that there will be more pressure to spend aid funds in Latin America.

What are the obstacles to Britain giving more bilaterial aid to Nicaragua?

I do not think that there are obstacles, but it is a matter of priorities. Our priorities are to aid the poorest countries and Nicaragua is not one of the poorest countries. We focus our aid to a considerable extent on countries with which we have a long, traditional connection.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to provide aid for the state of Gujerat, India for the year 1986.

In 1986 we expect to complete expenditure of the £43 million committed to the construction of two fertiliser plants at Hazira in Gujerat. We shall also continue our £2 million support for the integrated rural development project in Anand, which is helping to improve community health and family welfare in some 200 villages in Gujerat.

Is the Minister aware of the great concern felt among the Gujerati community in this country at the suffering being experienced in the state of Gujerat due to the ravages of natural miseries that keep occurring, and to which none of the Minister's proposed resources apply? Is there no hope, for example, of matching aid being made available if the community in Britain raises money in order to help those who are suffering in the state of Gujerat?

We consider joint funding schemes from charitable organisations, and are always willing to do so but in respect of official aid we have to respond to the priorities set down by the Indian Government, and we cannot go behind their backs and come up with our own programmes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the aid to Africa is designated for front-line states adjoining South Africa.

In 1985, 13 per cent. of gross bilateral aid for African countries was provided to those front-line states adjoining South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique.

Might not one way of helping the situation in southern Africa be to increase the aid budget to the front-line states, which would then be better able to resist any action by South Africa, should that country feel itself to be under any pressure as a result of policies that the Government may then, we hope, be able to introduce?

We have recently, both through the Southern African development co-ordination conference and bilaterally, stepped up our offers of aid to exactly those countries. That aid includes, for example, important transport projects in Mozambique.

Is it not preposterous of Opposition Members to call for more aid to states that are blackguarding Britain across the world? Will the Government give an assurance that there will be no extra aid granted because of sanctions against South Africa?

As I have said, our policy is to try to build up the economies of those countries in the region in order to decrease their dependence on South Africa. I expect that policy to continue.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise directly out of questions?

In the presence of the Attorney-General, I should like to give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to raise a point of order on the MI5 matter that was dealt with in the newspapers during the weekend.

If points of order do not arise directly out of questions, I shall take them after the statement and the Standing Order No. 10 application.