asked the Attorney-General if the Director of Public Prosecutions is currently considering prosecutions against any persons alleged to have been responsible for persistent obstruction or abuse of speakers at Hyde park, London.

Earlier this year the Metropolitan police sought the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions as to the institution of proceedings under the Public Meeting Act 1908 against persons responsible for disruption of proceedings at Speakers' Corner. The director took the view that these traditional gatherings which are not called together to transact business fell outside the scope of the 1908 Act. I agreed with that view and have invited the Home Secretary to consider the problems raised by this case. The police have since been provided with legal advice about their powers under the Royal and other Parks and Gardens Regulations 1977 and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment are monitoring the situation to see whether the provisions are sufficient to deal with the mischief.

The Speakers' Corner is visited by many people from outside London. I note the Attorney-General's remarks, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that further action is needed to deal with those who persistently try to obstruct free speech by abuse and obscenities? Is he further aware that according to a report in The London Standard three weeks ago, one of the main offenders is the political secretary of the Kensington young conservatives? Is this not yet another illustration of the extremist element in the Tory party being determined to stop free speech?

Another of the bad hecklers is a Marxist, so the problem is fairly wide-ranging. Last Sunday the tougher approach by the police under the regulations was put into effect and two well-known hecklers, who have been behaving very badly indeed—not just obstructing, but seeking to bring meetings to an end—were told that they had to leave. They left quietly. The phrase that the chief inspector used was that it "worked like a charm."

I commend what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, but is he aware that when I spoke on a young conservative platform at Speakers' Corner I was constantly subjected to abuse and obscenities but that I never complained to anyone?

The distinction is between ordinary heckling, which is part of the "fun", and heckling by a group of people scattered round the audience whose intention is to disrupt and bring the meeting to an end. That cannot be tolerated.

asked the Attorney-General whether those who attend police stations voluntarily and the friends and relatives of those held by the police under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will have access to the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme.

The 1984 Act provides for those attending police stations voluntarily to be covered by the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme. The Lord Chancellor plans to make an announcement about the scheme very shortly.

The Minister's answer is welcome in relation to those attending voluntarily, but may I press him further about the friends and relatives of those who have been either arrested or who are attending voluntarily? Would it not be helpful to the police and the accused if the scheme were extended to include those people?

I undertake to ensure that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor takes note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I cannot say more than that today.

Does the Solicitor-General agree that for this scheme to work properly it is necessary for a duty solicitor, when in attendance at a police station, to inspect the detained person's book. thus allowing him to verify who is or is not detained at the police station at that time?

There are many detailed matters to be considered in the implementation of the scheme and they are the subject of current consultation and consideration.

Will the Solicitor-General tell the House about the remuneration of solicitors under the scheme? In particular, in order to attract the very highest calibre of solicitors, do the Government intend to give solicitors a pay rise in line with that proposed for the Lord Chancellor?

The hon. Gentleman is in danger of forgetting that the Act under which the scheme will be introduced has for the first time brought police powers to detain without charge under a statutory absolute limitation and under judicial control. Those are great advances, and no Labour Home Secretary introduced a Bill to bring them about.

We certainly wish to ensure that the scheme provides maximum protection. We have difficult decisions to make, and we are in the middle of doing that.

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the recommendations of the Coopers and Lybrand report concerning complaints against solicitors.

The Law Society has now published the exposure draft of the report, together with a report of its steering committee and a statement by the council, as the basis for consultation. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will await the outcome of that consultation.

Do the Government accept the central recommendation that it would be desirable to have a single entry point for those with complaints against solicitors, and that the complaints should be made to a board independent of the Law Society?

We are awaiting the results of the consultation paper. We are concerned to maintain the independence of the profession, but we are equally clear that the public must be confident that complaints against solicitors are dealt with effectively. The Government have a completely open mind on the principle of an independent body.

As there is even greater concern in Northern Ireland about misappropriation by members of the Law Society in the Province, will the Attorney-General ensure that his study extends to the solicitors' profession throughout the whole of the United Kingdom?

I am afraid that I cannot give that assurance, but I shall ensure that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is made aware of the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties.

asked the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received concerning the introduction of legislation concerning latent damage.

My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any recent representations on this subject, but representations were made on 16 July 1985 on behalf of the construction industry to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is great concern in all parts of the construction industry about the recommendations in the report of the Law Reform Committee? If the Government are minded to recommend putting on the statute book the recommendations in the report, will he give an assurance that he will consult the construction industry? This affects not only architects and builders who are concerned about the law relating to length of liability and latent defects, but local authorities and owners of buildings. Every section needs a satisfactory conclusion to these problems.

My hon. Friend assiduously represents an industry and its problems which he knows well. He knows that on 18 June my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor stated that the Government had accepted the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee. When my hon. Friend last asked me this question on 13 May, I said that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor would be very willing to see anybody from the industry who wished to consult him further, but that substantial consultation had already taken place. However, I certainly reaffirm the undertaking that I gave on behalf of my noble Friend.

asked the Attorney-General on how many occasions the Prevention of Corruption Act has been used against a newspaper: and if he will make a statement.

The relevant records do not distinguish between defendants by reference to their occupation or business. One prosecution of a newspaper company for corruption is at present pending, but I know of no previous cases of that kind.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that when a newspaper exposes gross extravagance and waste in a Government Department such as the Ministry of Defence, it would be preferable and cheaper to eliminate the waste rather than take that newspaper to court?

The essence of the offence of corruption is the use of financial or other inducement to a person to subvert his loyalty to his principal, whether in the public or private sector. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's question, the means, not the end, is objectionable.