asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss the performance of his industry.

I meet the chairman of London Regional Transport at regular intervals to discuss various aspects of the performance of his industry. He is to be congratulated on cutting costs, reducing revenue support and attracting record numbers of passengers to use LRT services.

The many improvements are attracting passengers, but is my right hon. Friend satisfied that everything is being done to reduce the consequent overcrowding? Will he have a word with the chairman about the modernisation of the Central line, and particularly the signals, especially as only this morning many of my constituents were appallingly delayed and suffered great inconvenience?

I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of the chairman, Keith Bright. My hon. Friend is right, in that as a result of LRT's success overcrowding means that the frequency of trains on four lines has had to be improved in 1986. I was pleased to be able to approve last month a major new investment programme, involving £45 million of investment in new trains for delivery in 1987–88.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the shambles that his transport policy is causing on the No. 24 bus, which is supposed to bring me to the House of Commons from Hampstead? Is the principle that he applies that it does not matter what happens to the passengers as long as a few more people are thrown out of jobs?

The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, written to me on that subject. I do not accept his criticism, and should like to remind him of two facts. He keeps drawing my attention to the operation of buses by one person. That is a matter for LRT, but it should be remembered that staff on crewed buses are three times more likely to be assaulted than those on one-person buses. The right hon. Gentleman is a fair man, and he should remember that.

Are there not lessons to be drawn by both sides of the House following the success of LRT? The lesson for the Labour party is that politically motivated people who try to run transport services do not do a very good job. The lesson for us is that the nationalisation of London Transport, by this Government, did not necessarily have undesirable results.

The lesson to be drawn is that excellent management which has clear objectives and a clear set of disciplines can attract increased custom, and can lead to greater efficiency, a reduction in unit costs and an overall improvement for the passenger.

Is the Secretary of State aware that many of my constituents are once again complaining of being kept waiting for a long time at bus stops for buses that never come? On investigation, the reason is usually that LRT simply did not have a driver available to operate the service. When he next meets the chairman, will the Secretary of State point out to him that we all want a lean and hungry service, but not one that is so emaciated that it cannot deliver a service to the customers?

The hon. Gentleman has written to me, and we may later reach his question on the Order Paper concerning the quality of services. I shall talk to the chairman about the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am sure he will remember that many of the difficulties concern crewed buses rather than those manned by one operator. The problem of staff failing to arrive for those buses creates considerable difficulties and cancellations.

Is it not significant that all the Greater London council's forecasts at the time when my right hon. Friend's Department took over transport responsibilities have been proved to be completely untrue? Is it not the fact that by running the business on proper businesslike lines it has been possible to attract more passengers, to provide a much better service for them and to put more investment into London Regional Transport?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. There has been a major increase in patronage—by 4 per cent. in 1985–86 compared with 1984–85. He is right to remind the House of the scaremongering of the erstwhile GLC. That body said that 33 tube stations and branch lines would be closed, but none has.

There appears to be a great difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and those who use the service. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should conduct a proper investigation into the matter. It he aware of the engineering dispute that is taking place within London Buses Ltd., which is having a greater impact each day on the travelling public? Is he taking active steps to try to get the dispute resolved?

I shall remind the hon. Gentleman of what the London Region Passengers Committee, the consumer watchdog, said. The following passage appeared in the 1985–86 annual report:

"The year…may go down in history as having seen the reversal of the long spiral of decline in London's public transport."

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Regional Transport; and what subjects were discussed.

I met the chairman of London Regional Transport last Tuesday at a meeting of the London passenger transport group, where a number of LRT and BR issues were discussed.

Did the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of London Regional Transport the crisis in LRT Builders? He will no doubt be aware that there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in personnel there through voluntary redundancies and a great increase in productivity, yet the organisation is still heading for a loss. The feeling of the work force is that it has been let down badly by management. For example, five contracts worth £2·7 million were won by LRT Builders in open competition, which the LRT board gave back. The staff would like the Government to call for an inquiry into the management of LRT Builders. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking that course?

That is not one of the subjects that was discussed. This is a matter for LRT management, but to put the matter into perspective I draw attention to the fact that this is a fringe business with a turnover of £15 million with losses that are running at between £5 million and £6 million. Following an internal audit, it was recognised that a number of recent tenders would have recovered only 60 per cent. of costs. As for the hon. Gentleman's specific request, I see little justification for diverting public subsidy from its proper purpose of supporting the transport operation to funding losses in fringe activities.

Did my right hon. Friend discuss the appalling delays that are caused to buses by the completely unnecessary construction of barriers to traffic, of which the worst examples are to be found at Aldwych and at the south end of Westminster bridge? In addition, there is the proliferation of traffic lights, which seems to be taking place at a tremendous rate. Will my right hon. Friend discuss these matters and take corrective steps?

I shall, of course, because my right hon. Friend has in the past drawn my attention to the last product of the GLC.

Irrespective of what the Secretary of State has just said, does he agree that the majority of passengers in London want crew-operated buses in central London? As for the engineering dispute, is it not a fact that management was trying to be too clever by half and was requiring conditions that would be prejudicial to the success of the bus service, and that the men on the job knew it?

In considering the operations of London Buses Ltd., we must take into account the advice that was given by those who seek to manage the bus services on our behalf. I shall not add to what I said earlier. A few engineers have been involved in a dispute in conflict with the settlement that was arrived at by the majority of LRT employees. The dispute has inconvenienced passengers, and I apologise for that on behalf of LRT.

I reassure my right hon. Friend. His earlier statements have already made it clear that the threats and fears expressed by Opposition Members have not been proved true in the performance of London Regional Transport. I ask my right hon. Friend when he meets the chairman of LRT, to bear in mind a matter which is causing concern—the recruitment of workers within LRT bus operations. A number of services seem to be suffering from a failure to run to timetables. This causes considerable aggravation and annoyance to my constituents.

I shall draw my hon. Friend's last point to the attention of London Regional Transport. I have to reiterate that, as my hon. Friend said, we are talking about a transport undertaking that has seen a significant growth in the number of passengers. It is a great success, despite the scaremongering from the erstwhile GLC.

Is the Secretary of State aware that there seems to be a gross shortage of staff on the London Underground? Announcements on the Northern line say, "Sorry, there are far fewer trains today due to shortage of staff." At a time of high unemployment, why is this so? Can the right hon. Gentleman also get the computer indicators to work properly, without management always apologising from central control at Euston?

I shall be delighted to make sure that those points are brought to the attention of London Regional Transport. It is interesting, in regard to some of the comments that we hear—I am sure the hon. Member, with his interest in transport will know this—that approximately 75 per cent. of total London Regional Transport costs are staff costs. They are a critical factor in the success of London Transport.

How can the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and extol the virtues of London Regional Transport management and then, in his next answer, admit that it apparently won contracts on the open market, which, on checking, show that it recovered only 60 per cent. of its costs? How can the right hon. Gentleman say that that is good management? How can we possibly have confidence in the other figures?

I obviously did not make myself clear. The contracts in question, which LRT did not seek to secure, were those which followed an internal audit and showed that LRT was recovering only 60 per cent. of its costs. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked why it did not proceed with those contracts. I was stating the advice that I had been given by London Transport as to the way in which the contracts in question had not covered its costs. In so far as they had not, they were not pursued.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to increase public awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving.

The latest step in our continuing campaign against drinking and driving is our Christmas advertising. From today, 2,000 poster sites will tell the public that at least 1,100 people a year are killed by drivers who have been drinking. The posters brand drinking drivers as a menace to society. The clear message is, "Do not drink and drive."

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer and for the new campaign to try to deter people from drinking and driving this Christmas. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to have a sustained campaign throughout the year? The problem of drinking and driving does not appear only at Christmas, but exists throughout the year and, most of all, when people have forgotten the warnings given at Christmas.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Drinking and driving is a menace to everybody in society. We need a campaign, not just to get at the person who knows that he is a drinking driver—there are not that many of those—but to get all those around us to remind us every month and week of the year that drinking and driving do not mix.

As it is probably agreed that drinking drivers are potential murderers, will the hon. Gentleman accept that there will be widespread public support for a more robust attitude to this problem? Will he ensure that his writ extends to Scotland, because one of my constituents was killed by one of these drivers? All that the offender got was an admonition and five years' suspension of licence.

The hon. Member will be pleased to know that, at the launch of the anti-drink driving campaign, we had an assistant chief constable from Scotland with us. I am glad that we are working in partnership with the police in getting the message across. The key point, although sentences and court procedures are important, is to stop people from offending. That is what cuts out the accidents, injuries and fatalities.

Would it not be appropriate for those who kill when they are drunk and driving to be automatically charged with manslaughter?

My hon. Friend will know that that is not a point for this Department. Florence Nightingale talked about the effects of alcohol as an anaeshetic. On her deathbed in 1910, she said that it was a killer. People need to appreciate that point and not just look on the courts or the law as an excuse for doing what too many peeople do, and that is knowlingly to drink and then to drive.

I welcome the clarity of the Minister's message for this Christmas and his promise to keep up a sustained campaign. Does he agree that the problem will be made worse by the growth in the number of hand-held telephones in cars? Some drunken loonies will be driving at the same time as making a phone call. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has inserted a strong paragraph in next year's edition of the "Highway Code", but does he agree that it is time to outlaw hand-held telephones now that a suitable and adequate alternative is available?

I think that if I went into too much detail I should be slightly out of order, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the clear advice which will be in the "Highway Code"—not only do not drink and drive, but do not use a hand-held telephone when driving.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to remove the offence of drinking and driving from the criminal justice system and to stop it causing conflict between the police and the public would be to adopt the new technology, on which some motor manufacturers are working, whereby it is impossible to start a car engine when the breath has been analysed and revealed evidence of drink or drugs? Will that not solve the problem? Will my hon. Friend encourage that technology?

I shall certainly consider that technology carefully. Even if such a device were introduced within, say four years, for the next 24 years most cars would be unconverted. We need to convert the more than 20 million licence holders who at present are killing 120 people a month to the idea that they should not be doing that. They are the ones who can stop it.

I am sure the Minister is aware that Labour Members share his concern and are fully behind any Government measure that will deter people from drinking and driving. Will he ask his hon. Friend the Minister responsible for public transport—the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell)—how he can believe in the deregulation of our bus system in view of the fact that the evidence so far leads us to believe that there will be no public transport on Christmas day or Boxing day and, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) tells me, no trains in England and Wales? This cannot be good for the hon. Gentleman's campaign, which we support. Will the Minister have a word with his hon. Friend to get the buses on the road on Christmas day. In addition——

Order. Briefly.

I shall do my best, Sir. In a written answer to me, the Minister revealed that throughout this year his Department spent £1·5 million on a drink and drive campaign, but last year the Department spent £1·4 million at Christmas alone. That represents a serious drop in the amount that his Department is spending on this campaign. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is a good idea to reduce expenditure at such a time?

Deregulation of buses means more minibuses, so more people are likely to be able to get a ride to where they live. The Brewers Society—[Interruption.] If the Opposition would care to listen to the answer, they might find that they can help to reduce drinking and driving in their constituencies. They might want to draw more attention to the Brewers Society campaign, "Don't get a ban. Get a bus, taxi, mini-cab, train, tube or a lift." There has been greatly increased spending on reducing road casualties. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman would welcome the £2 million that the General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation has spent and will hope that this is a growing trend.

rose——

Order. We are making very slow progress. We must speed up a little.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received following deregulation of the buses.

As might be expected with such a major change, I have received a diversity of representations.

Does the Minister accept that, far from deregulation causing just a few initial problems, many people have suffered from a deterioration in the services available to them? When will he take action to do something about that? Does he accept that there has been a deterioration in employees' working conditions, in addition to the many redundancies?

Deregulation has been in operation for just over one month. Unfortunately, in some bus companies it has shown up a lower standard of preparation than in others. However, over much of the country it is proceeding very well. There are gainers and losers in deregulation. The losers will complain, but very rarely will the gainers come out and say that they are gainers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the problems that arose in Lancashire were caused by the incompetence of the Labour-controlled education authority? It would be much appreciated if the pupils from Kirkland Church of England school could be assisted by the provision of a socially necessary bus to take them to school, because they have to cross the A6. Will the Lancashire county council kindly co-operate?

Those matters are entirely within the competence of Lancashire county council. It has saved over £5 million by deregulation. It has enough money to bathe in when it comes to providing additional services.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on delays on British Rail in the past year.

Separate records are not kept for representations on delays. On quality of service generally, I estimate that some 400 representations have been received by my Department in the past year. That is about one complaint for every 2 million journeys.

Is the Minister aware of the steadily escalating incidence of complaints from all parts of the United Kingdom about the inter-city service? Why does he not keep lists and refer to them? Why does he not keep lists and take them to the chairman of British Rail and present them as complaints, because everyone wants something to be done? Is it not the role of the Minister who has responsibility for those matters to ensure that the public interest is preserved? Why does he not do his job properly?

As I said, one complaint for every 2 million passengers does not seem to be as excessive as the hon. Gentleman tries to suggest. The operation of local services is a matter for British Rail management. The Government's job is to set the objectives. We set the objectives and have included in them particular reference to quality standards.

Does my hon. Friend not deplore the comments of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who constantly seeks to deplore the activities of British Rail, which is most certainly on the right path? When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss the dichotomy between the operator's timetable and the published timetable, so that the gap is widened to a realistic one? Secondly, will he see whether telephones can be provided much more frequently on 125 trains and that they operate within tunnels in the unlikely event of a delay on a train?

My hon. Friend is correct to suggest that sometimes the rail services attempt to provide the fastest possible service. If British Rail went a little slower on the timetable it would more frequently achieve punctuality in the provision of service. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remark about telephones on trains to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.

Many of my constituents in Croydon are commuters to London. Apparently, they are going to put up with a small increase in prices, but the main concentration needs to be on the quality, reliability and frequency of service. Can my hon. Friend give some reassurance to south London commuters that those matters will be concentrated upon?

My hon. Friend can have the assurance that he seeks. I need hardly add that as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also represents a Croydon constituency, it is a matter that does not escape his gimlet eye. [Interruption.] British Rail staff on Network South East should be substantially praised for what they have achieved. Punctuality has improved from 87 per cent. within five minutes in the spring, to 91 per cent. at present. The staff should be given credit for that.

Does the Minister agree that fares have risen dramatically on British Rail since 1979, at a much greater rate than the rate of inflation, while punctuality standards over the seven years have fallen away equally dramatically? Is he aware that BR's response to the falling away in punctuality is to deny the available statistics to the central transport users consultative committee, supposedly on the ground that the statistics are being misused? Would it not be a good idea to have for once some action from Ministers, rather than flannel in the Chamber?

The average fare increase on British Rail is 4·9 per cent. That is only 1 per cent. or 1·5 per cent. above the rate of inflation. If the hon. Gentleman looks back over the past five years, he will find that the rate of fare increase has been little different from the increase in the level of inflation.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the current situation following the deregulation of bus services under the Transport Act 1985.

Deregulation has gone well in most areas, and local teething problems are being solved. There are service improvements in many places, for example, the introduction of minibuses, and worthwhile savings in subsidy have been made by many local authorities.

Is the Minister aware that there are differences of view about deregulation? Does he accept that it should be common ground that there are problems of timetabling and the booking of through services? Does he accept that local authorities have a part to play, if he will instruct them to do that and provide finance to allow them to carry that out?

The hon. Gentleman is correct. There is a clear role for local authorities to play. However, the question is whether that should be voluntary or statutory bound. In a recent debate the hon. Gentleman drew our attention to the west midlands, where one operator is running 90 per cent. of the services, and where there is no apparent difficulty. I will examine the hon. Gentleman's point. I do not think that there is a need for cash, but there is a need and an opportunity for authorities to co-ordinate.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the management of Midland Fox on the introduction of its new fox cub service, which has brought a successful minibus service to the county of Leicestershire, reduced the fares on its buses and brought in a better frequency of service and reliability which the Leicester city council bus service could not offer.

As is so often the case, my hon. Friend is right in every detail.

Does the Minister accept that the truth about bus deregulation in south Yorkshire is that it has resulted in major fare increases, a loss of passengers, a worse service in the towns and disastrous services in rural areas? Who, therefore, has benefited?

The ratepayers might question the right hon. Gentleman's point. For some considerable time south Yorkshire has been paying £60 per head for each man, woman and child for its subsidised services.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what comparative studies have been carried out to the knowledge of his Department on the respective advantage of passenger-vehicle segregation as against passengers remaining with their vehicles on the Channel tunnel shuttle service, particularly from the point of view of safety in the tunnel.

No comparative studies of this kind have been carried out. The Anglo-French bodies concerned with safety in the Channel tunnel will consider whether the arrangements that Eurotunnel has proposed are acceptable, rather than analysing variations which have not been proposed.

Does the Minister accept that there is considerable public concern on this issue and that it would be appropriate for comparative studies to be carried out to make sure that, whatever mode is proposed for transport through the Channel tunnel on the ferry vehicles, the safest possible mode of transport is employed? Does he also accept that Lord Pennock the chairman of Eurotunnel, has said that he would be perfectly happy for such evaluations to take place? Would it not therefore be sensible for the Government to agree an amendment to the Bill to allow that to happen?

I do not know how widespread is the public concern, although I am very much aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern. Naturally, safety is a vitally important part, to which considerable attention has been given. The safety authorities are gathering information worldwide on, for example, fires in tunnels, on board ships and in multi-storey car parks. They are gathering information with which to make a proper assessment when an application is made to them.

Will the Minister give authority for British Rail to release for publication the report comparing London termini for the Channel tunnel so that we may see the detail of what led British Rail to state that Waterloo was its preferred choice?

The release of internal British Rail documents is for British Rail to decide, but I will draw the chairman's attention to the hon. Gentleman's request.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the efficiency of London buses; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend receives representations from time to time from hon. Members, interested organisations and members of the public about the efficiency of bus services in London.

Notwithstanding the problems of traffic congestion, what is London Buses Ltd. doing to make its services more efficient and regular and to avoid bunching? Will he tell my constituents why a one-man 207 bus should be more efficient than the previous two-man service, which did not cause a bunching of traffic behind it or delays to long queues of people waiting to get on?

Whether particular routes should be one person operated is a matter for London Buses Ltd. It has invested in 260 buses with easier access for elderly people, which I think my hon. Friend will welcome. He should also be aware that there are three times as many boarding and alighting accidents on open platform buses and four times as many assaults on crews of two-man buses as on OPO buses.

Is the Minister aware of the amount of violence on the 52 and 16 bus routes in the area known as the Kilburn triangle? I welcome today's statement about steps to be taken to deal with violence on public transport. Will the hon. Gentleman give special attention to protecting conductors on those routes?

I very much concur with the hon. Gentleman's views about the protection of bus crews and indeed, passengers, but details of the 52 bus service are matters for management, not for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will specify in detail his plans for improving the A46 between Lincoln and the A1.

Investigations into the possibility of improving the standard of the existing road to provide greater opportunity for overtaking are continuing. There are no specific schemes at present.

As the road is an essential link between Lincoln and the A1 and the midlands, and its bad state has destroyed many jobs in Lincolnshire, does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time the studies were completed and the improvements made? Will he undertake to work out the exact detail of where and when the much-needed improvements will take place?

Perhaps it would be best for me to have a talk with my hon. Friend when the studies are completed. I fully understand his concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning his policy for funding extensions of the Docklands light railway.

Expenditure contemplated by London Regional Transport on extensions of the Docklands light railway would have to meet the Government's criteria for public sector investment.

That does not answer the question. Who will fund the extension? Will the funds come from public or private, sources, or a mixture of both, or has the Minister not decided yet? Has he noticed the mutually incompatible statements by the director of the London Docklands Development Corporation and from his office as published in the press?

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that the Bill has been deposited. The Government have been assured by the London Docklands Development Corporation that, in its view, the project could go ahead without any expectation of Government contribution to capital or running costs. Before the Bill proceeds to Second Reading the Government will wish to examine the specific arrangements to be made by the LDDC to ensure that there is no significant risk that any of the cost would fall as a burden on LRT. We shall also want to see a full financial and economic appraisal of the railway project from LRT.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the implementation of the Transport Act 1986.

As I have already said, I am encouraged by the way deregulation of local bus services has been implemented. I have also been greatly impressed by the way in which local authorities have implemented the system of competitive tendering for subsidised services which is provided for in the Act.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new system is already beginning to show savings to local authorities over subsidised services? Has he had time to consult my hon. and close Friend the Minister responsible for roads and traffic about his inaugural ride on the Haslemere town bus, which is one of two new bus services in my constituency, which have been introduced since deregulation, with a considerable saving to the ratepayers?

My hon. Friend is right. There have been substantial savings of approximately £40 million a year. The savings in the Surrey area appear to be about £1 million a year. I do not have such a close relationship with the Minister responsible for public safety, roads and traffic as does my hon. Friend, but despite that we have communicated on that subject.

As the Minister of State has admitted that there has probably been an over-registration of commercial services, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the authorities concerned the possibility of providing more money to make up the existing shortfall as well as the expected shortfall in socially desirable services?

In the debate last week my hon. Friend the Minister of State made it quite clear that there might be some marginal impact on costs, but nothing like the £40 million in savings that has already come from the more effective tendering for subsidised services.

asked the Attorney-General when he expects to make an announcement on the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's consultation document on family courts.

asked the Attorney-General how many responses he has received to the "Interdepartmental Review of Family and Domestic Jurisdiction" paper.

The responses to the consultation paper, which was published by the Lord Chancellor's Department on 13 May, were due by 31 October. One hundred and seventy four have been received and, as one would expect in an exercise of this nature, different views have been expressed on the whole range of issues canvassed in the consultation paper. The Government will make an announcement as soon as possible when the responses have been analysed and the resource implications of the main options for a family court have been assessed.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is high time that we had action rather than words on family courts? We need an integrated, coherent and accessible system of family courts. More than 160,000 children a year are involved in divorce cases, and there are 20 different ways of going into local authority care. It is, therefore, time for action. Without jeopardising my overwhelming case, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend has had time to consider the situation in Australia, where progress has already been made towards a federal family court system?

As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, we think of little else. With regard to the former part, in fairness to the Lord Chancellor I should remind my hon. Friend that the consultation paper was issued only in May this year and that the consultation period finished only on 31 October. There is much criticism of the present system, but there needs to be a proper analysis.

Has the Solicitor-General looked at the representations from the Social Democratic Lawyers Association? Has he noticed that, with reasonable economy, it has advocated a system of family courts which enables child care cases to be more sensitively handled than they can be at present and also allows couples to seek to settle their differences without full adversarial proceedings in court?

The Social Democratic Lawyers Association has achieved immortality by being referred to in this report. Its recommendations will, of course, receive the same serious consideration as all the others.

My right hon. and learned Friend has suggested that there are different views on the form that family courts should take. Will he assure us that those views will not be taken as an excuse for inaction? I commend to him the initiative of the family courts campaign, which has sought some consensus.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be aware of that suggestion. A variety of options are available and they were set out in chapter 8 of this report. Most people would agree that there are defects in the present [Interruption.] I do not wish to take up unnecessary time. Most people agree that there are many criticisms to be made of the present system, but there is less agreement on what is a desirable alternative.

asked the Attorney-General on how many possible prosecutions he has sought the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions over the last two months.

I regularly meet the Director of Public Prosecutions. The last meeting took place on 25 November 1986.

Does the Attorney-General accept that there is no Government indivisibility on questions of criminal prosecution and that those decisions are uniquely and exclusively decisions of the Attorney-General?

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. When I am wearing my hat as Attorney-General and prosecutor, nobody can influence me and I would not accept any attempt to influence me from anybody. When the Government are acting as Government in civil proceedings I happen, by tradition, to be the nominal plaintiff and that is what has happened here.

Did one of those occasions to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred concern the successful action against the book "One Girl's War"? Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us about the principles on which he acts in such cases?

The principle concerning the book of the late Mrs. Miller is exactly the same principle as that on which we have started the proceedings in the Australian courts.

Does the Attorney-General agree that when all the spy froth has disappeared, the important fact is whether his office remains inviolate and is not dominated by the Prime Minister or any so-called collective decision?

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for many years. I am quite able to look after my independence, and I always have. The hon. Gentleman must realise—and as a lawyer I am surprised that he does not—that this was a Government decision and, of course, like my fellow Ministers, I accept collective responsibility.

May I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that most, if not all, of us in the Conservative party feel that he has behaved with honour and dignity throughout these proceedings? Does he agree that none of this sorry saga would have occurred if one former intelligence officer had not put greed before principle, and one leader of the Opposition had not put ambition before his country?

On the last point, I am not responsible for the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition. On the first point, the idea that we can allow officers or ex-officers of the security services to write books would probably end with us not having any important secrets which should be preserved.

Will the Attorney-General confirm that the decision to prosecute a receiver as well as a supplier allegedly in breach of the Official Secrets Act is a matter solely for the Attorney-General? Will he also confirm that it is the Attorney-General's duty to determine the public interest before commencing the injunctive process to ban a book, and not the duty of Ministers collectively, according to the precedents of the Gouriet case and the Crossman diaries? Why was he not consulted on the Pincher book? Is it another example of the Prime Minister flouting the conventions, as in the leaking of the Law Officer's letters in the Westland case?

If I answered all those questions, the next Minister would never get to the Dispatch Box. It is the same old story of the right hon. and learned Gentleman becoming too party political on occasions. Just as he accuses me of kow-towing to the Prime Minister, which is wholly untrue, I suspect that he may be responding to the Leader of the Opposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution he intends to pledge to the United Nations international children's emergency Fund and the United Nations development programme for the forthcoming year.

At the annual United Nations pledging conference last month we announced contributions for 1987, subject to parliamentary approval, of £21·5 million for the United Nations development programme and of £6·5 million for the United Nations children's fund. In addition, I have agreed a further £1 million for UNICEF's special appeal for Africa.

I welcome the £1 million for the UNICEF special appeal, but does the Minister recognise that those levels of contributions mean that Britain is giving only half as much to UNICEF as is Norway, which has a population that is only one tenth of ours? Is he aware that we receive three times as much money to be spent by the United Nations development fund in Britain as the British Government give to that fund. Surely the Government can do better than that?

I think I am right in saying that we make the second largest contribution to UNICEF, in the European Community. I value the work done by UNICEF, which is why we make a contribution not only to the regular programme but to special appeals. We have made a reasonable contribution in the past two years and I am sure that we shall continue to consider the fund's special appeals. I am meeting the director of the UNDP later this week.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the special programme of innoculation of children will be extremely expensive? I think that it would work out at about £5 per child. Nevertheless, will my hon. Friend sympathetically consider making further money available for that project, because it will capture the imagination and win the support of the whole British people? They will appreciate that something practical can be done, to the eternal benefit of future generations.

I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said. This year we made an additional contribution to immunisation and I am sure that we shall make an equally generous response to future special appeals. I should like to put on record our support for UNICEF's work on spreading oral rehydration therapy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will put more aid into health and population projects in the Third world.

I have recently reviewed our policy in this respect. In 1985 we spent about £38 million on health and population. We shall be giving more emphasis in future to primary health care and associated population programmes.

I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that there is a close connection between the limitation of population and economic and social development? As that is the case could priority be given to programmes on family planning in our aid to the Third world?

My hon. Friend may have noticed that at the Development Council meeting of the EC, which I chaired, on 11 November, we agreed guidelines on population policy for the first time. They are firmly based on principles of individual choice and of refusal to accept coercion. They move in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister follow and further develop the policy of his two predecessors of ensuring that there is a population component in every major overseas aid project, wherever it may be?

That is a valuable policy development. Last week I saw what we are doing to help a population programme in Pakistan. There is an intimate relationship between population programmes, primary health care and drives for greater literacy.

Has my hon. Friend yet had time to assess the impact on our overseas aid programme of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and is he satisfied that the forecast growth in the budget will be able to take that on board?

We have already made a contribution to the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS. I share my hon. Friend's considerable concern about the subject. Officials from my Department attended a conference on that issue at Brazzaville a couple of weeks ago. We were one of the few donors to be represented at that conference and we shall be considering our policy when I am able to talk to the officials who went there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to alter expenditure on overseas aid; and if he will set a limit on the aid and trade provision.

As a result of this year's public expenditure survey the revised aid baseline for 1987–88 will be £1,235 million. There is a limit each year on the aid and trade provision budget.

Does the Minister's trite answer not show the Government's rather complacent attitude? Since 1979 there has been a 15·8 per cent. real reduction in the overseas aid, budget. Is it not a function of the ATP to reduce that? Is it not about time that there was real direct Government aid in order to bring our figure nearer to the figure which was designated as realistic by the United Nations?

The ATP has the same purpose now as it had when it was introduced by the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart), that is, to allow British exporters to compete for contracts that are part of sound projects in developing countries.

Will my hon. Friend's recent negotiations on the EC's food aid programme result in a change in expenditure in the overseas development budget? If so, where will he put the savings or increased expenditure on effective food aid?

The changes that we were successful in pushing through at the Development Council meeting last month will not reduce the amount of money that is spent on food aid through the EC. We still have to deal with one or two institutional problems, but the changes should ensure that that money is sensibly spent in a developmentally sound way.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total sum expended in the current financial year under the aid and trade provisions; and what are the maximum and minimum estimates of the outturn for the year 1986–87.

For the current financial year aid and trade provision expenditure up to the end of October 1986 was £64·08 million. The amount available for expenditure in 1986–87 is £90 million, which is expected to be fully spent.

Do not those figures, and the additional figure of about £100 million that the Minister has just mentioned, throw further light on the controversy relating to the aid and trade provision? The Minister used the words "developmentally sound". Would it not be better to use even £2 million or £3 million to restore the vicious and arbitrary cuts in the scientific services of the overseas development fund, which could be important in the relief of famine and the prevention of hunger?

I do not accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall explain the figure for this year. This year the ATP budget was increased, exceptionally, to cope with the large Malaysian rural water supply project which slipped into this year and resulted in an underspend of ATP last year. The increase came from within the existing aid budget, but it did not affect other planned programmes, because we brought forward annual payments to some international bodies into last year.

Instead of spreading the available money thinly over thousands of projects—however much moral satisfaction that gives us—will my hon. Friend consider concentrating the assistance on fewer projects, especially rural water supplies, which, fundamentally, will benefit the recipients much more than will the accumulation of minute quantities of aid?

I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the importance of a sensible balance in a programme. I totally agree also with what he said about the importance of rural water schemes. Last week in Pakistan I saw what we have successfully achieved in irrigation and drainage schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what way he intends to increase the United Kingdom aid programme to Central America and the Caribbean.

We intend to continue our substantial aid programme in this area. The needs of each country will be considered on their merits.

The Minister will be aware that the World bank and the Inter-American Development Bank recently have lent nothing to Nicaragua, leant on as these institutions have been in turn by the President of the United States. The President seems to have the same attitude towards multilateral lending to Nicaragua as he has to the decision of the International Court of Justice at The Hague or recent finance to the Contras via arms sales to Iran. Will the Minister take this opportunity to dissociate himself from that discrimination by one of the world's biggest powers against one of the world's least developed countries and initiate a bilateral programme for Central America and the Caribbean area, of which Nicaragua can be a beneficiary?

I am delighted to have the opportunity to make our position absolutely clear. We judge loans by the World Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank entirely on their economic and technical merits. It is important to consider the programmes in the entire area in terms of what we do bilaterally and what the European Community does. European Community aid to Central America was £25·8 million in the last year for which we have figures. The EDF VI allows more for the Caribbean—about £109·6 million. We contribute about a fifth of those figures. Our contribution to the Central American and Caribbean countries bilaterally is about £46 million. That is a substantial programme.

And Nicaragua?

Nicaragua does not receive as much as other countries, such as Honduras, because it is not as poor.

Application under Standing Order No. 20.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Is it relevant to questions?

No, Mr. Speaker.

In that case, I shall take it later.