To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss City fraud; and if he will make a statement.

Primary responsibility for the prosecution of commercial fraud rests with the Serious Fraud Office. I expect to meet the director again shortly to discuss matters of departmental interest.

What action is the Attorney-General taking on the sale of the National Bus Company—as reported by the National Audit Office—which was sold off by Government spivs at less than half price? Has not he learnt the lesson? We hear now that the regional electricity companies are being sold off for £5 billion when their asset value is more than £16 billion. What is all this talk about a classless society? This is a casino society run by spivs like the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends in the Government.

Order. To refer to an hon. Member as a spiv is not a parliamentary expression. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw it?

It is not in "Erskine May".

It may not be, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Government spivvery.

I am grateful that in this classless society the hon. Gentleman did not describe me as a first-class spiv or a spiv of any category. I think that the hon. Gentleman is confused. Privatisation is a case of the state wanting to divest itself of that which it no longer wants to hold. Fraudsters want to divest other people of what fraudsters want to hold. I am enjoying embarking on an area of responsibility that is not mine, but the hon. Gentleman overlooks the extreme popularity of the privatisation programme—he cannot forgive that.

To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to transfer the enforcement of cases against individuals involving debts of less than £25,000 from magistrates courts to county courts.

The rules for the enforcement of debts in the magistrates courts and the county courts are currently under study by the Law Commission, which expects to report in the early spring of next year.

Does the Solicitor-General agree that there is no need to wait for that report? Under the present system and under the community charge or poll tax regulations, ordinary people can be dispossessed of their vital goods and essentials by private bailiffs as a result of liability orders dealt with by magistrates courts. Those private bailiffs are unqualified people, any Tom, Dick or Harry, and they could be thugs or have criminal records. Is not it about time that the regulations were changed so that county court qualified bailiffs could bring at least some professionalism into this dastardly business?

The hon. Gentleman will have read the National Consumer Council report, which I suspect lies behind his question. That report contains constructive suggestions. The council recognises that any question of transfer of all such debt collecting to the county courts is a long way down the road. The report makes constructive suggestions about monitoring and control of the present bailiffs who, after all, have been collecting the rates for a long time.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss prosecution policy.

I last met the Director on 9 November when we discussed a variety of matters of departmental interest. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General met him for the same purpose on 28 November.

Did the Attorney-General and the Director discuss the flood of racist and anti-Semitic material that has been coming through the post, the latest of which is entitled "Another 'Blood Libel' or Ritual Murder"? Why have there been no prosecutions for such matters since 1986? Is it because the law is too weak, in which case it should be changed, or is it because the Attorney-General and the Government do not wish to enforce it? It must be one or the other.

It is certainly not the latter, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well. The Law Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions, for whom they are responsible, take extremely seriously the writing, publication and distribution of such odious material. In the past three years some 20 cases have been referred by the Board of Deputies of British Jews to the prosecuting authorities. In only seven of those cases has it been decided to bring no prosecutions, in each instance because there was insufficient evidence to justify proceedings. In the remaining cases police inquiries are outstanding, or have been unsuccessful, or the police have decided not to refer the case to the Crown prosecution service. There has been a considerable increase in that literature—to dignify it with that word—in the past year, and police inquiries are now outstanding in 16 cases.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while the Government, with the support of the whole House, have put on the statute book legislation that was thought to be adequate for the prosecution of racial offences, it is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is not a member of the Government, to decide whether there is sufficient evidence in a particular case to initiate a prosecution?

I agree. It would be damaging to bring a prosecution that was outside the criteria that are applied by the DPP to every other case and which failed. As the bona fides of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Law Officers have been called into question, I am entitled to remind the House of a letter from the acting Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir John Dellow, in The Times last week. He said:

"I know that due and proper consideration is given and cases prosecuted where there is a sufficiency of evidence."

Will the Attorney-General discuss with the Director progress on the hearing of the appeal by the Birmingham Six? While the Crown and the defence must have adequate time to prepare their cases—

Order. This would be more appropriate on Question 31, the next question.

I am putting a general question about the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The right hon. and learned Member is encroaching on the next question, but go on.

Will the Attorney-General convey to the Lord Chancellor the need for an expedited hearing when the cases are ready?

I can say that as soon as the grounds of appeal of the six appellants are lodged and the Crown has had an opportunity to consider them, the case can be expected to be listed, but listing is a matter for the court authorities.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the inability to prosecute those responsible for some of the offensive literature to which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) referred underlines the need for a change in the law?

That is arguable, but it would be difficult, as those of us who laboured over what is now the Public Order Act 1986 and previous legislation will remember, to incorporate such provisions in the 1986 Act. It is difficult to put into statutory language the sort of criteria that perhaps my hon. Friend and others wish to see in legislation. The relevant legislation is pretty comprehensive and my hon. Friend will recall its terms. In a substantial proportion of the outstanding cases that have been referred by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the police have been unable to identify any individual who was responsible for writing the material, distributing it or publishing it.

To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to bring forward legislation on the proposals of the working group on commonhold.

The Government published "Commonhold—a Consultation Paper" on Wednesday 28 November. The Command Paper includes a draft Bill and in part IV a series of questions on which the Government are seeking views.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the question relates to a group of leaseholders that has been especially disadvantaged in recent years? Will he hurry forward his consultation and, I hope, his implementation of the recommendations of the working party?

I know of the close interest that my hon. Friend has taken in that matter over many years, along with other of my hon. Friends. If he can make constructive suggestions to deal with one or two rather knotty issues that are raised in the consultation paper, I am sure that that will help hurry the matter forward.

To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to meet the Hillsborough disaster victims support group; and if he will make a statement.

No. I have written to the organiser of the petition presented by the Hillsborough families support group.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the major concerns of the group about the need for justice. Is he further aware that I appreciate that he recently wrote to me to express his views on the matter, which I shall convey to the group? I should be grateful if he ensured that in all respects the families of those who died at Hillsborough got justice. That is what concerns them above all.

No one has more faithfully represented those whom my hon. Friend mentioned than he has. Every one of the interests and concerns that he mentioned is extremely important and deserves to be taken with every seriousness.