To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on safety standards in the aviation, railway and shipping industries; and if he will institute an inquiry into the safety aspects of public passenger transport.

I regard safety as an overriding priority. Safety standards in the railway and shipping industries are the subject of continuous review by my Department. Safety in civil aviation is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. I see no need for a special inquiry.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the public are demanding a thorough look at the way in which the pressure of continual competition is prejudicing public safety, particularly following the revelations in the Daily Mirror on Friday that only nine months after the original disaster another P and 0 ferry sailed with its bow doors open, precisely because of the pressure to make up time? That caused the original disaster, which was the worst, apart from the Titanic, in British maritime peacetime history. In the light of that revelation, does the Secretary of State agree that he must now look at this whole question? The public are demanding that he sets up a proper commission of inquiry.

I am conducting an inquiry into that important allegation, as is P and O. The hon. Gentleman rather overstates the matter when he says that the vessel put to sea. As I understand it, the ferry was moved from one berth to another inside the harbour.

As aircraft cabin fires are by far the largest cause of death in otherwise survivable air accidents, has the CAA reported to my right hon. Friend on its assessment of the effectiveness of cabin sprinkler systems, which offer the best chance of saving life?

Water sprinkler systems are under investigation and tests have recently been carried out by the CAA. My hon. Friend raises an important matter and one on which I hope progress can be made.

Will the Secretary of State also look into the fact that on 10 May 1988 the Pride of Bruges ferry did not have sufficient crew on board with the proper marine evacuation certificates and had to use its catering staff to make up the number?

The Pride of Bruges must have had the right number of crew on board with sufficient qualifications, or my surveyors would not have allowed it to sail.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing public anxiety about the number of near misses in the airways over the United Kingdom? Is he sure that air traffic controllers are properly trained? Does he feel that there should be more of them, or that different systems should be used to ensure the safety of our skies?

I disagree with my hon. Friend's analysis. If he looks at the figures he will see that the number of air misses is decreasing, not increasing, and that is an important point to bear in mind. The training of air traffic controllers is for the CAA, and the Select Committee on Transport is undertaking a full investigation of this and all relevant matters. Obviously, we shall wish to see what its report says. I have no evidence to suggest that the training of air traffic controllers is in any way inadequate.

It seems that almost everyone in the House and elsewhere is worried about ferry safety, except the Secretary of State, who is strangely reticent from time to time. Will he advise the House whether his Department sent a confidential report to the International Maritime Organisation? If so, will he publish it? Has he seen the other reports from an institute in Bradford about ferry safety and fatigue? Does he realise that the matter will get worse with commercial pressures, not better?

The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were most unreasonable. He knows perfectly well that since I have been Secretary of State for Transport we have taken more measures on ferry safety than were taken in perhaps the previous generation. I resent and repudiate what he said on that score.

We have taken international action with the IMO to ensure that foreign and British ships coming into our ports are safe, and we are conducting a programme of research into all these matters and the allegations that have been made. It is regrettable that many Opposition Members make vague allegations, rather than specific ones, and never send us any evidence.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

I shall be meeting the chairman on 24 May to discuss matters of current interest.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the conclusions of the "Better Rail" report published in March by National Economic Research Associates? Will he ensure that he discusses the findings of that report with the chairman, and will he commend the initiative of the rail unions, which led to this report on punctuality and other matters that are vital to rail users? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the findings of that report are injected into the current studies of rail services in London and the south-east?

There have been several recent reports, and the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers was one in which the National Union of Railwaymen played a prominent part. I look forward to discussing the report with the union in early June, and I shall certainly discuss it with the chairman of British Rail. The Government and British Rail share a common objective—better quality of service on the railways.

Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to the chairman of British Rail that he will encourage inland customs clearance depots when the Channel tunnel is built so that freight traffic from the north can be customs-cleared in the area where it is manufactured and need not be trans-shipped at some point in the south-east?

I shall certainly discuss that subject with the chairman of British Rail. I am anxious that the benefits of the Channel tunnel should be felt in the north and in areas other than the south-east. Indeed, I am awaiting a special report by British Rail on rail links for the Channel tunnel. I hope to have it within the next month.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he ask him to institute an inquiry into the way in which British Rail makes such arbitrary changes to its timetables? Is he aware that in Balcombe in my constituency, where many people bought houses because of the ease of commuting to London, several timetable changes have greatly inconvenienced rail users?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that timetabling is entirely a matter for British Rail, but I shall draw the chairman's attention to that matter when I see him.

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious concern in Wales about the fact that neither mid Wales nor the south of the Principality will benefit fully from the Channel tunnel unless there is a significant upgrading of the track from the south coast? This is an urgent matter. Will he do his utmost to bring pressure on British Rail to respond fully to the feelings in Wales and in the north, which it does not appear to do at present?

That is a little unfair. My hon. Friend knows that I am expecting a report from British Rail next month. I shall study it with interest and bear in mind what he said.

Will the British Rail report on improving access to the Channel tunnel from the north and the midlands include provision for a new rail crossing of the Thames to the east of London in view of the necessity for such a facility to improve access to the Channel tunnel?

It is difficult for me to say what is in the report when I have not seen it.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he mention the Rugby road railway bridge at Hinckley in my constituency, which is causing great anxiety? British Rail proposes to raise it by only a few millimetres, yet it is the unanimous opinion of the district council that it should be raised by much more. Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter?

I shall ask the chairman of British Rail to look into that important matter.

Does the Secretary of State accept that there is widespread anxiety on both sides of the House about British Rail's future investment proposals in the light of the Channel tunnel? Without wishing to be castigated for being unduly alarmist, may I ask the Secretary of State to accept that projects in connection with the Channel tunnel should be outside the normal, strictly laid down investment criteria for British Rail—

Why?

Because even the most Neanderthal Conservative Back-Bench Member should appreciate that the true potential for the railways of the Channel tunnel will not be realised unless those facilities are in place before the tunnel opens.

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Government will support any worthwhile investment proposals that have a sound prospect of improving railway finances. I shall look at British Rail's proposals in that light. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should get too depressed, because we have not yet seen the report, let alone decided whether to accept it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the last major emergency exercise took place in the Solent.

The last major emergency exercise was conducted on 6 November 1986.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable expertise gained by the land-based emergency services from the major exercises involving road, rail and air incidents. I understand that my hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the fact that a large ship recently lost its main propulsion engines while manouevring in the Solent. Given the problems of real-time exercises involving large ships, will he mount an exercise to give the emergency services the necessary expertise to deal with a large-scale emergency?

There is a major joint emergency plan for the Southampton, Portsmouth and Isle of Wight area known as Solfire. It is well prepared—it was updated in February—it is exercised from time to time and it will be exercised again in October 1988. It falls under the command of the harbour master and I have every confidence in it.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Bristow Helicopters on tendering successfully for the air-sea rescue services for that area? Will he confirm that those services will be as good as, if not better than, those previously supplied by the Ministry of Defence? When are those services likely to come into operation?

The new service, operated by Bristow Helicopters, will be better equipped for night and all-weather flying than ever before. I am happy to announce that the new civil search-and rescue helicopter took up its post at 8 pm last night and was in operation at 11.06 this morning, when it was scrambled to pick up a sailor from HMS Newcastle who had suspected appendicitis.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Basildon seeking the introduction of a higher standard of driving proficiency test for taxi drivers; and if he will make a statement.

None that I am aware of.

Will my hon. Friend recognise that some of my constituents not only feel that the present test is inadequate but are fed up with having to travel over 15 miles to the nearest test centre? Will he accept that the present test does not teach taxi drivers how to defend themselves against the increasing number of incidents of violence against the person? As two taxi drivers have recently been murdered and one seriously assaulted in Essex, will he please introduce an emergency service for taxi drivers?

Basildon is not a typical place, and we like to have typical places for driving test centres. It has an extensive one-way system, wide open junctions, well-planned roundabouts, few traffic lights and a pedestrianised town centre. There are four alternative test centres within 13 miles. My hon. Friend had an Adjournment debate on the safety of taxi drivers on 15 February. I announced an extension to allow taxi drivers to be represented on the standing panel on assaults on bus crews. It met on 5 May, and I much regret that taxi drivers were not represented.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest assessment of the effect of deregulation of buses under the Transport Act 1985 on the introduction of minibuses.

There were about 40 places served by minibuses prior to the enactment of the Transport Act 1985, involving 400 vehicles. By the end of 1987 a further 5,200 minibuses were serving an additional 350 places. It can therefore be seen that the end of over-intensive regulation and local monopoly has brought visible benefits to the users of bus services.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be welcomed by all hon. Members. As to the term "minibus" in its wider sense—by that I mean anything up to 25 seats; some people refer to them as midibuses—will he comment on the obvious uses for such buses in rural areas and the benefits of having smaller vehicles operating within and linking council estates? We are experiencing an enormous growth in urban areas in this sector.

As operators must satisfy customers, rather than have an automatic monopoly, they are finding many innovative ways of doing so, and my hon. Friend drew attention to one of them—the operation of varying sizes of smaller buses, including midibuses, which operate on estates and call much closer to people's homes. They are much valued by the users.

Does the Minister accept that the whole industry believes that the boom in minibuses is over and is going back to double-deckers? If public transport is so good following deregulation, why has the first independent survey concluded that the number of passengers carried has fallen by between 10 and 12·5 per cent. in metropolitan areas. which means a loss of 185 million journeys per year? Does that not show the failure of deregulation?

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that decrease is associated with the reduction in the subsidising of fares in the metropolitan areas. As for his allegation that the growth in minibus use is tailing off, I must tell him that, if anything, interest seems to be growing. For instance, I am pleased to note that a new operator—Merry Hill Minibuses Limited—has started work in the Birmingham area.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, like the deregulation of coaches in 1980, the deregulation of local bus services has brought benefits to the public which outweigh the previous restrictive system in terms of more routes for passengers, greater flexibility, more jobs for people in the bus industry and more buses being built in this country?

My hon. Friend has hit the nail neatly on the head and I thank him for doing so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the report of the City Commuter Services Group; if he will discuss it with the chairman of British Rail; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has had several discussions with the chairman of British Rail about the need for new rail investment in London and the steps that British Rail is taking to improve reliability and quality.

If the Minister does not believe what he has been told by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport Users Consultative Committee about the state of the railways in the south-east, will he believe his friends in the City? Will he give a categorical assurance that when the Channel tunnel opens and international trains come to London, City commuters will in no way be inconvenienced by the extra traffic?

The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions. I recognise that in much of Network SouthEast the quality is not as good as it should be, although on many lines it is very good indeed and up to continental standards, and I pay tribute to the staff for what they are achieving. I shall shortly be meeting the director of the south-east sector to see what can be done about the laggard lines. Very substantial investment is taking place in new rolling stock, signalling and track improvements designed to deal with the problems.

As for City commuters and Channel tunnel trains, I am expecting from British Rail early next month a report looking into that aspect over the next decade.

What discusions has my hon. Friend had with the chairman of British Rail about the principles of park and ride schemes? At the next meeting, will he raise with the chairman the social value of such schemes to medium-sized towns such as Swindon in trying to supplement the existing public transport infrastructure in those areas?

My hon. Friend makes a valuable and useful point. Park and ride schemes have not only social advantages but substantial commercial advantags. British Rail is alive to that and is looking for suitable sites. I am sure that if my hon. Friend has one in mind he will write to the chairman of British Rail.

Has the Minister seen the proposal to use alternative rail routes around London—through the midlands of England and over Settle and Carlisle, on which I understand he is to comment later, and up to the Kilmarnock line—as ideal routes for Channel tunnel traffic? Is he seriously considering that proposal? If so, will he consider siting one of the customs clearance depots at Kilmarnock, which is an ideal centre for the whole of the west of Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that British Rail is currently studing carefully the pattern of freight movement and where it will be brought together in all regions of the country. British Rail will be reporting on that in due course, and when it does I shall bear in mind the attractions of Kilmarnock. I shall be in Scotland later this week and will take the opportunity to discuss the matter with Scot Rail.

In addition to discussing matters concerning London, will my hon. Friend find time to convey to British Rail the thanks of those of us in the north-west for the improved timetable, the increased investment in traction units and the improved track maintenance facilities that are benefiting services on the west coast main line? Will he also take time to ask the chairman of British Rail to take into account the needs of tourism in the north-west in planning his future train capacity?

I shall be happy to draw the chairman's attention to those points, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising British Rail's considerable efforts to improve the time-keeping and efficiency of the west coast main line, the benefits of which are now beginning to appear.

Will the Minister also discuss with the chairman the restoration of local railway facilities, which can be beneficial commercially and environmentally? Does he appreciate that many local authorities would like to go ahead with various schemes but are prevented from doing so by the Government's control of the purse strings?

The hon. Gentleman knows that British Rail has opened 50 new stations in recent years—including a number in Wales. If he knows of any commercially beneficial services that could be run but are not being run, perhaps he will let British Rail know, as it is always on the lookout for commercially viable opportunities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further measures his Department is taking to ensure better value for money in its awarding of contracts for road maintenance.

New regulations have been made requiring more works to be put out to competitive tender. We are also extending lane rental contracts to a wider range of works. Better design standards should ensure that roads last longer.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful answer. On behalf of all M1 users, may I ask what he does to balance the concepts of value for money on the one hand and the time taken to effect repairs and maintenance on the other? For example, is there any possibility of doing more repairs at night to try to minimise the disruption caused on the M1—and no doubt by future repairs on other motorways?

We try to use the value of motorists' time as an incentive to those doing the work to complete it more rapidly. Lane rental has led to a 30 to 40 per cent. speeding up of the road works on the M1. I look forward to the day when we have caught up with the backlog that we inherited from the last Labour Government, and I hope that we never get such a backlog or such a Government again.

What steps does the Minister take to penalise contractors who close lanes for unnecessarily long periods? Does he appreciate the frustration caused to drivers—as well as the losses to companies—when cars, buses and lorries are held up by the thousand for an hour or more by the closure of a lane in which there is no sign of any work taking place?

The hon. Gentleman has correctly analysed the whole purpose of the lane rental scheme. However, many of those who use our roads need to realise that with 120,000 vehicles a day passing through some contraflows it takes only one person to make a mistake for people to get killed. I pay tribute to the motorway maintenance people, who do much dangerous work while the rest of us scoot past pretending that they are not there.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to get value for money from maintenance is to build motorways properly in the first place; for example by making the Oxford to Birmingham section of the M40 three lanes all the way?

My hon. Friend will want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for ensuring that motorways are now built to last for 40 years without serious work, as opposed to the 20-year period that we inherited from the last Labour Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the board of London Regional Transport to discuss safety standards on London Underground.

I met the chairman and managing director of London Underground Limited on 18 April, when he briefed me on the action the Underground is taking following the fire at. King's Cross.

The Secretary of State will have seen London Underground's "103 points for greater safety". While that contains many good points—begging the question why they were not implemented before—it leaves many problems unsolved. For example, instead of messing around trying to service wooden escalators, should not London Underground replace them, and should not the staff reductions that have made the Underground more dirty and dangerous be reversed immediately? Will the Minister answer the safety points and put up all the money to make the improvements to which I have referred?

I am anxious that the Underground should be safe and be seen to be safe. I welcome the 103 suggestions made by London Underground Ltd., covering removal of wooden cladding from escalators, installation of fire-resistant materials in stations and a host of other matters of which the House will be aware. I support what London Underground is doing. There is a question about staffing on the Order Paper, so I shall leave that matter. There is no question of expenditure being a constraint on the Underground carrying out its work. Safety is a top priority.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must be grateful to The Evening Standard for yet again, today and last week, highlighting the dangers revealed in the King's Cross inquiry concerning the regrettable inadequacy and old-fashioned nature of some of the fire prevention equipment on Underground stations, including those in the open air, which can be a greater fire hazard than we often imagine? The existence of a few dilapidated sand buckets at stations is no substitute for ensuring that there is proper fire prevention equipment at frequent intervals. Notwithstanding LRT's direct responsibility in these matters, will my right hon. Friend have further discussions with LRT on this important issue?

I am in continuous touch with LRT on this matter. There is to be a new post of senior fire officer in LUL. His first duty is to review the fire equipment and procedures. Under the present rules there is a daily check to ensure that there are extinguishers in each carriage, a fortnightly check by engineering staff and a full annual overhaul. I shall certainly draw London Underground's attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm, or deny, that of the 103 points in the action plan none concerned a recommendation made to London Underground before the King's Cross fire and none was prevented from being implemented because of lack of finance?

I made it clear that LRT had taken action on several matters in advance of the investigation, including those that I have raised. There is no question of the inquiry making recommendations yet. We shall have to see what recommendations to improve safety emerge from the King's Cross investigation. The House will want to take that matter extremely seriously. In the 12 years before the King's Cross fire there was only one accident involving a passenger fatality in some 35 billion passenger miles travelled. London Underground's safety record should be studied in its entirety.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to public funds so far of the inquiry into the King's Cross fire.

The cost to my Department has so far been £498,000. In addition, the Treasury Solicitor is responsible for payment of fees to counsel for the investigation.

Why did the Secretary of State, through the Treasury Solicitor, refuse to cover the legal costs of the Association of London Authorities, which wished to give evidence to the inquiry? Was it because the ALA intended to raise some serious matters about safety and the Government's position in terms of the investment requirements that they impose on London Regional Transport? While the hon. Gentleman is considering the response to that part of the question, will he tell the House whether the Secretary of State intends to insist on a 7 per cent. return on capital investment from LRT—which effectively rules out many investment schemes with a direct safety aspect—or does he make a capital return calculation on dead bodies?

The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that those offensive remarks are wholly unjustified. I emphatically reject any suggestion that any question that should have been asked has not been asked. No one who has followed these matters can conceivably accuse counsel for the inquiry of having used kid gloves. In any case, the inspectors said that, on the evidence so far, the presence of the ALA has been of marginal assistance to the investigation. It did not appear to us, therefore, that it was warranted to incur those charges on the public purse.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has discussed with the chairman of London Regional Transport the programme of cuts in station staff now being implemented on the London Underground; and if he will make a statement.

No. It is for the boards of London Regional Transport and London Underground Ltd. to decide staffing arrangements in the light of LRT's statutory duty to have due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation.

I thank the Minister for that reply. He must be aware that substantial staff cuts have occurred since the King's Cross fire disaster and that London Underground is embarking on a scheme whereby staff numbers will be reduced by one third by the 1990s. Does the Minister agree that he must be concerned about such matters? Surely the safety of the travelling public depends on staff in uniforms, rather than on machines on walls.

When we introduce new technology and modern working practices, we often do not need as many staff as there were before. Indeed, that is much of the justification for investment of that sort. Moreover, when new ticketing machines are introduced, fewer ticket-selling staff are needed. That has nothing to do with the safety of the Underground's operations. More effective use of staff, and ensuring that they are available to help the travelling public, are more important ways forward, and LUL is pursuing them.

Will my hon. Friend consider the safety of members of the public at London Underground stations and ascertain whether a member of staff or a member of the police force could constantly be at stations, so that the public, particularly the elderly and the young, would always he protected from violence?

Yes. Indeed, we have already given London Underground Ltd. £15 million for crime fighting. As a result of the activities that it has been pursuing, particularly in respect of alternative ways of policing the southern end of the Northern line, there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in muggings. I am sure that the House will welcome that.

The Minister said that it is the duty of London Regional Transport to conduct its operations with due regard to economy and safety. Is it not a fact that there has been too much regard for economy and too little regard for safety, particularly in respect of personnel on station platforms, and, conceivably, deep-level tube crews? With the new financial objectives that the Secretary of State will give LRT after the King's Cross inquiry, will the Minister pay much more attention to balancing safety with economy, without prejudice to the latter?

I can only say that London Underground Ltd. and LRT have a statutory duty to have regard to safety. Nothing that we do will in any way damage or inhibit that—

The Minister has done so already.

The Minister has cut the subsidy.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong if he is implying that the Government have in any way denied London Underground Ltd. the resources that it needs to fulfil its statutory duty in regard to safety.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss improvements in railway safety in the light of the report by the railways inspecting officer on the Colwich junction collision in September 1986.

No, Sir. The British Railways Board will be formally reporting to the Secretary of State on all aspects of the report in the near future.

It must be a matter of some concern that the passion for economy that pervades British Rail management can lead to a reduction in the number of locomotive inspectors who are available to travel on west coast main line trains. Is it not a worrying aspect of modern technology that a train travelling a few yards past a red signal can come into head-on collision with a train travelling at 100 mph? Is it not a tribute to the skills of those who work in British Rail Engineering Ltd. that, despite the severity of the accident described in the report, not a single passenger lost his or her life?

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying full tribute to British Rail's improved standards in the rolling stock that it is manufacturing these days, compared with the designs of some years ago. Indeed, that is and should be a matter of some considerable pride to the railway supply industry. On the hon. Gentleman's point about locomotive inspectors, I am informed that the ratio of drivers to inspectors is lower in recent years, and, thus, efficiency of supervision has improved.

When the Minister is discussing improvements in safety with the chairman of British Rail, will he ensure that some attention is given to the worries expressed on the Cambrian coast line about open and unmanned crossings, in view of the number of accidents that have occurred? Will he impress upon the chairman of BR the need to take into consideration not only railway matters but the feelings of local communities when such problems arise?

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are clear rules as to what form of level crossing is appropriate, and in which circumstances. Those rules have recently been revised in light of the Stott inquiry. I am also conscious of the fact that it is incumbent on BR to explain what it is doing to the people in the vicinity where change is proposed, because whenever change comes there is fear. I am satisfied that the arrangements are perfectly safe, but I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is right to want BR to explain that to the local people.

To ask the Attorney-General what further representations the Lord Chancellor has received seeking the establishment of a family court; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord Chancellor continues to receive representations from both hon. Members and others, and the Government are actively working on the issues comprehended by the concept of a family court. High priority is being given to the rationalisation of the law relating to the care and upbringing of children, which is an essential precursor to any reform of court structures.

Bearing in mind that it is 16 years since Finer first raised its report, and recognising the Lord Chancellor's commitment to the rationalisation of family and child law, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this is a necessary first step, not a final one? So long as many family cases are heard in courts that primarily exist for criminal purposes there is little likelihood of proper justice being done in such cases. When does the Lord Chancellor envisage responding officially to his own consultation document, to which many have made representations?

I well understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. A response will be forthcoming. Some of the answers are to be found in the White Paper of January 1987. Once we have the rationalisation of the law well in train, we hope to come forward with a formal response, as my hon. Friend has requested.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that the profession that is generally most opposed to change, the legal profession, is virtually unanimous in the belief that a family court system is urgently required? Immediate attention should be given to the dual jurisdiction of magistrates' courts and to the hostility that county court matrimonial proceedings inevitably engender because of the adversarial system that is still retained in those proceedings.

Yes. The rationalisation of the law will provide a helpful first step in the process, and then we can look to the court structures. When the hon. and learned Gentleman refers to unanimity within the legal profession, he may refer to unanimity over the belief that something should be done, but there is less unanimity within that profession about what should be done.

If it is the view of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that changes in child care legislation should precede rather than follow changes to set up a family court, may we have an assurance that such changes, particularly legislation on child care, will form an essential part of the Queen's Speech later this year?

I can say that they will be given high priority.

To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has had on prosecution policy relating to deaths caused by car drivers; and if he will make a statement.

Representations have been made to me by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and on behalf of the campaign against drinking and driving.

I thank the Attorney-General for that reply, and I also thank his staff for the sympathetic way in which they have handled the case with which, as the Attorney-General is aware, I am involved. Is he aware that there is a great legislative gap between death caused by reckless driving and driving without due care and attention? Is he also aware that the North committee on road traffic laws has reported to the Government on that omission? When does he believe that the Government will bring forward proposals to fill that gap, so that tragedies such as that which befell my constitutents, whose small daughter was killed by careless driving, may be remedied?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. I express my thanks to him for the whole tenor of his approach to this sensitive and difficult matter, which causes much sadness and distress to the relatives of people killed in road accidents. The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies the difference between reckless and careless driving. He knows that an offence of causing death by driving is an offence only where recklessness can be shown. He knows also that the prosecution service must be satisfied that there is a proper case.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the recommendation of the North committee that there should be an offence of causing death by bad driving while under the influence of alcohol. He will know that the decision to introduce that is for my right hon. Friends, not for me, but they will heed what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the depth of feeling that exists, not only in families, but in constituencies countrywide, about the small sentences of fines and totting-up points imposed upon people who while under the influence of drink, have killed ordinary citizens. The depth of feeling is strong and the Government will have to do something about it. Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the Crown Prosecution Service is accepting fewer pleas of guilty to careless driving in such circumstances? Is he satisfied also that the North recommendation to uprate charges from careless driving to reckless driving in such a situation will be adequate to satisfy public demand?

I understand the depth of feeling that there is in the country, and I have said what I think I can sensibly say about the recommendation of the North committee. The judiciary must be responsible for deciding what penalties it shall impose out of the range that is made available by Parliament. However, my hon. and learned Friend will remember the guidelines laid down by the Lord Chief Justice regarding death caused through driving. I believe that sooner or later we shall arrive at a scale and practice that will meet the proper anxieties of all our constituents.

Is the Attorney-General aware that a prosecution can pass without the family of the victim knowing what has happened? I have come across cases where the trial has been taking place on a plea of guilty without the family knowing about it. Will he ensure that the families of victims receive more consideration? When it is a borderline matter of whether to prosecute for careless driving or causing death by reckless driving, although the decision must rest with the prosecuting authorities, will they consult the families of the victims before coming to a conclusion?

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said. Of course, primarily it is the responsibility of the police to notify the families of victims of the outcome of prosecuting decisions and of cases. The Director of Public Prosecutions is alive to the need to treat this issue sensitively. Accordingly, local offices of the CPS will, on request, inform relatives of victims of the basis on which a decision was taken. The CPS is prepared also to offer the opportunity of a meeting with a senior member of the CPS staff. I cannot agree with the suggestion that the question whether to prosecute should rest with the opinion. of the relatives.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on progress on extradition arrangements with the Irish Republic.

The Attorney-General for the Republic of Ireland and I had positive discussions in Dublin on 10 May. We discussed the basis upon which extradition from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom of suspected offenders can be undertaken in the light of changes now effected by the Republic's legislation. We have now reached a clear mutual understanding in respect of matters of concern and we confidently hope that in all proper cases extradition will now take place, in conformity with the new Irish legislation.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend say that the Irish Republic is no longer treating the United Kingdom as the least-favoured nation for this purpose? Is not one of the consequences of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that undue pressure is constantly being put upon Her Majesty's Government, without any obligation to make concessions on the other side? Is it not time that the Agreement was replaced by an equal treaty?

My hon. Friend will allow me to comment that questions as to the merits of the agreement go rather wide of the original question. The British Government resisted the proposal to pass the new legislation, but it is now in place. Accordingly, we must recognise that any request for extradition from the Republic, if it is to succeed, must conform with the requirements which the Irish law imposes upon the Irish Attorney. It is in that regard that we had the discussions to which I referred, and it is in that context that we mutually hope, with confidence, that, in proper cases, extradition will now take place.

Does not that understanding or agreement with Dublin give the lie to all those on the Government Benches who have argued that Dublin is not interested in reaching agreement on extraditing to Britain those who are suspected or accused of terrorism? Is it not a fact that there is now a serious responsibility on the Attorney-General himself, whatever views he may have of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to make sure that the agreement on extradition works?

All of us want to see that there is no hiding place for guilty offenders in either of our countries. I do not believe that it is fruitful to harp upon unhappy differences in the past, even in the recent past. We now have to see how we can best co-operate to ensure that, in conformity with our own legislation, guilty or properly suspected offenders are extradited to face justice.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of gross national product was provided as official development assistance in 1987; and if he will make a statement about his policy on progress towards attaining the United Nations 0·7 per cent. of gross national product target in 1988–89.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of gross national product was provided as official development assistance in 1987; and if he will make a statement about the Government's policy on progress towards attaining the United Nations 0·7 per cent. of gross national product target in 1988–89.

We do not yet have the figure for 1987.

As to the attainment of the 0·7 per cent. United Nations target, I can only say that, like previous Administrations, the Government are not able to set a date for achieving this. But, as the House will know, the aid programme is now growing in real terms and its quality is high.

Can the Minister explain how he knows that the aid programme is now growing in real terms if, as he told us at the beginning of his answer, the figures are not available? Can he tell us why there is that delay? Surely he has the figures for the aid budget and for the GNP, and surely he can add the two together. Does the Minister have something to hide?

First, I am afraid that, in her engaging supplementary question, the hon. Lady was making confusion. We know the public expenditure figures, which have already been published. They show that our overseas aid programme is growing in real terms. To establish what proportion of GNP was represented by aid last year we have to take, first, the growth figures for last year and, secondly, the figures for official development assistance, which we announce to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We shall do that, as usual, at the beginning of June. Because of the record growth rate last year, I would expect that the percentage figure for this year to be lower, even though the aid programme is growing in real terms.

May I equally engage the Minister in further deliberation on this matter? First, the figures were published in April and early May in the past. I am a little perturbed about the delay in publication. Is it because the revised figure that he gave last week in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) showed that the proportion given previously for last year had fallen rather than risen? Secondly, as the Minister has already announced the figures for the SADCC countries for 1987, is it not unbelievable that he is unable to do the arithmetic to which he has already referred and give us the figure that we are all seeking, so that we can begin to see what progress, if any, we are making towards the United Nations' target?

I think I am right in saying that the hon. Lady is confusing the 1986 figure to which my hon. Friend referred in a reply to the House last week and the 1987 figure, which, as has been customary, will be provided for the OECD in early summer—in this case, in early June. I repeat what I said earlier to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam)—perhaps the hon. Lady did not hear what I said—that I expect the figure to be lower for 1987 because the economic growth rate was 4·5 per cent. I imagine—this is one of the perverse consequences of using the percentage of GNP—that if the Labour party were in Government the economic growth rate would be lower and therefore, without changing our aid programme, the proportion of GNP taken by aid would be higher.

Does my hon. Friend, as one who, by voice and vote, has continued to press for an increase in the overseas development budget, agree that when it comes to our principal policy of aiding the poorest people in the poorest countries, what is important is not always cash resources, but human resources—people who will work in those areas to achieve the change that we desire?

My hon. Friend is right. That is why I am pleased that we have made yet a further increase in the grant for the Voluntary Service Overseas and other organisations which send young and not so young volunteers to work in other countries. I should also draw attention to the fact that the last review by the OECD commended the quality of the British aid programme, and particularly the fact that we provide more aid to poorer countries than do most other OECD members.

Surely it is more important to target our aid so that it increases the value given to each country than to chase after a mythical United Nations figure of 0·7 per cent. Is it not the quality of the aid projects and what they achieve that is important, rather than a simple statistic? Is it not time to think of reversing the decline over the past 15 years in real terms of our aid programme in the Caribbean?

I wondered where that question was going to finish up, and I was not surprised when it was the Caribbean. It is extremely important that we have a good quality aid programme in the Caribbean. It is also important to provide Caribbean countries with the trade opportunities that they need—for example, for bananas and sugar. I was arguing that in a meeting between the ACP and EEC countries only last week. As to targets, my hon. Friend knows that we shall have exceeded the UN target for official and private flows in every year except one since 1979. Our total private investment in developing countries is almost as great as that of the rest of the European Community put together.

Is the Minister aware that this week marks Christian Aid week, when millions of British people will be reaffirming their commitment to development and growth in the developing world? Is he further aware that many are looking to the Government to exhibit a similar commitment to increasing opportunities in the Third world? Will the Government make an announcement this week which will support and encourage this voluntary giving?

I am happy to tell those people that this year the British Government will be spending £70 million more through our aid programme than last year and that in 1990–91 we shall be spending £115 million more than we are this year. I also refer those people to the extremely important initiatives that we have taken in the context of African debt.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Textbooks for Africa project.

The Textbooks for Africa project aims to make available surplus O-level textbooks from Britain for secondary schools in Africa where they can be used to good effect. The project is being run by the British Council, the Ranfurly library service and Rotary International. I have agreed to provide up to £75,000 this year to the Ranfurly library service to help with the work load involved.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this project has caught the imagination of a considerable number of people, incuding many of my constituents, who want to make a personal and private contribution to assisting education in Anglophone Africa? It is a project that fully deserves his support, for which we are grateful. I hope that, eventually, it will not be limited to Africa. Is there not an enormous potential in this idea, involving Churches, schools, local authorities, higher education, private individuals and Her Majesty's Government? Will my hon. Friend give a commitment that he will continue to give it his full support?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I assure him that we shall continue to give this important project our full support. I have written to the local education authorities and to bodies representing independent schools. I am delighted that the response has been very encouraging. For example, we have heard from 44 local education authorities so far, and 41 have agreed to contribute books to the scheme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding aid to sub-Saharan Africa.

I have frequent discussions with representatives of sub-Saharan African countries. It is the subject of a large proportion of my mail bag.

Despite the fact that Japan has significantly increased its aid budget, does my hon. Friend share my view that not enough Japanese aid goes to sub-Saharan Africa?

As my hon. Friend says, the Japanese Government have made a welcome increase in their aid programme, a point that Mr. Takeshita made during his visit the other day to the United Kingdom. I think that Japan would like to do more in Africa and I intend, I hope later this year, to go and talk to the Japanese Government about how we can, perhaps, do more with them in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, I should like the Japanese Government to put some of their funds through British non-governmental organisations such as the Save the Children Fund and Oxfam.