To ask the Secretary of State for National heritage when he next plans to meet the Secretary General of the Arts Council to discuss Government funding for the arts.

My right hon. Friend meets the Secretary General of the Arts Council from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

The Minister must be aware that there is a mounting crisis in arts funding. For example, the proposed budget for next year is to be 2 per cent., or £5 million, less. That proposal will have a devastating effect. The former Secretary of State for National Heritage said only a few days ago in The Guardian that the reduction in funding will not be spread evenly across the board, but will fall heavily on the smaller companies, which means that some of them are likely to be put out of business. How does the Minister intend to ensure that those smaller companies are protected and are able to continue to make their cultural contribution to the community?

The hon. Member mentions an important point. This year there will be an increase in the Arts Council grant in aid of £5 million, or 2 per cent. Next year it will be cut by 2 per cent. At a time of economic difficulties, the Arts Council cannot remain immune to those difficulties but must shoulder its burden like everyone else. Much of the unease being expressed results from the Arts Council's deciding on new artistic priorities, not from the amount of funding that it has been given.

May I draw a comment from my hon. Friend on the reported decision of the Arts Council to ask three of the great orchestras to submit themselves, their musical standards and future programming to a judge for examination and for a decision on whether they should continue to receive public funding? If the musical experts at the Arts Council cannot reach a decision on that matter, what is the precise purpose of the Arts Council?

It is a matter for the Arts Council to decide how to deal with its funding. We want London to have world-class orchestras and I am afraid—or perhaps I am not afraid—that it is a matter entirely for the Arts Council.

Surely the Minister cannot be immune from commenting on such important matters. He actually set up the Arts Council, which was established to advise on where the funding should go. If it makes a botch of it and relies on a judge to take over such responsibilities, surely he has something to say on the matter.

I do indeed have something to say about it. There is a firm tradition of an arm's-length relationship between the Department and the Arts Council in these matters. If the Arts Council chooses to make its decision by taking outside advice, that is a matter for the Arts Council.

What is the latest position on Arts Council support for the London City Ballet?

My hon. Friend mentions an important subject. As I understand it, the Arts Council was perfectly prepared for the London City Ballet to go into liquidation. Now that a new company appears, possibly, to be rising from the ashes of the old, the Arts Council has said that it will not even pay the touring grant, which previously it was going to pay. I cannot openly give my views on the subject to the Arts Council because of the arm's-length principle, but I see no reason why my hon. Friend should not.

The Minister obviously has a convenient memory. At the last general election, the Conservatives promised to maintain support for the arts, but they have ratted on that promise, just like everything else. Does the Minister feel any concern about the probability that one, and possibly two, of London's orchestras will he forced to close, and that several of our famous regional theatres are now under threat of closure because of Government cuts, or is the Minister totally apathetic about the wreckage being inflicted on the arts by the Government's policies?

Perhaps I could remind the hon. Lady that funding for the arts has gone up by 45 per cent. under the Government. That certainly is doing our bit by the arts. It is true, as I said in answer to an earlier question, that next year there will be a cut of 2 per cent. only. The reason that so many provincial theatres are at risk is not the 2 per cent. cut but the fact that the Arts Council, in its wisdom, has decided that it does not want to concentrate as much on drama in the future. I hope that the Arts Council will read Hansard and see the strength of hon. Members' feelings about its decision.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, over the past five years, the Arts Council grant from the Government has actually risen by 20 per cent. in real terms? Will he state, particularly in relation to London City Ballet, that the Arts Council should be far more flexible about the way in which it allocates funding? It is disgraceful that, out of a classical ballet budget of £15 million, the council cannot find even £250,000 a year to give a touring grant to an established ballet company.

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I hope that he will make it forcefully to the Arts Council. He is correct in pointing out that the Government spend a great deal on the arts. At a time of economic pressure, the Arts Council grant this year is £225·6 million, which is a great deal of money.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he proposes to take to protect the independence of the smaller independent television companies; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the Independent Television Commission about the rules concerning the ownership of C3 franchises.

I am reflecting on the discussions I have had with both the Independent Television Commission and the ITV companies about the ownership rules and other issues.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the value of a genuinely produced and transmitted independent commercial television service to local areas such as my own in south-east Scotland? Will he say more about the discussions? Is he aware that the small independent companies are expressing great concern at the lack of protection that may exist for them after 1 January? Will he give an assurance that they will have a degree of protection similar to that afforded to the larger companies under the existing rules? Will he confirm that an article in today's Financial Times indicating that he will make an announcement in September is something like the truth?

I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in his commitment to, and endorsement of, the importance of regional quality. The Broadcasting Act 1990 was written in such a way as to ensure that the ITC made certain of that. As to protecting the small companies, the hon. Gentleman will know how the legislation is written. The meeting that I held on 14 June, on which I am still deliberating, obviously related to events after 1 January in a number of directions.

No, 7, Madam Speaker.

Questions Nos. 2 and 7 are linked.

Things are not always too good on a Monday, Madam Speaker.

The rules relating to ownership are written into the 1990 Act. I acknowledge—as I did to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—that my meeting with ITV companies on 14 June related to that and to other matters. As to the £100 million savings, that issue was raised at the 14 June meeting and I have had subsequent correspondence with a number of those present pressing just the point that the hon. Gentleman made.

My right hon. Friend will be well aware that there is, to put it mildly, some dispute between the chairmen of the various ITV companies over whether the moratorium at the end of the year is likely to lead to a greater risk of a foreign takeover of some of the smaller ITV companies. Does he have a view on that dispute and if he has concluded that there is some likelihood of a foreign takeover, does he propose taking any action to prevent it?

The issues that relate to what happens after 1 January came up at the meeting that I held on 14 June, so I was made fully aware of the views of individual Channel 3 companies about that proposition. We are of the view that our rules should be on all fours with those of the rest of the Community and we are taking an interest in those countries where we feel that the rules are not drawn up on the same basis as our own.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that immunity from takeover and protectionism for existing management do nothing for the quality of programmes or for the efficiency of companies?

I could not possibly disagree with my hon. Friend. On the other hand, if we were to proceed with the Broadcasting Act 1990 as currently written, companies in this country would be in a slightly different position from those in other Community countries after 1 January.

As there is some dispute, will the Secretary of State tell us the net amount he expects the ITV companies to pay to the Government this year compared with the amount paid under the old levy system? Is he aware that Yorkshire Tyne Tees Television is to axe a further 188 jobs in yet another cost-cutting exercise? Does that not confirm what the Labour party has repeatedly said about the discredited Broadcasting Act 1990 and the damage being inflicted on ITV? When will the Secretary of State understand that staff loyalty, staff continuity and, above all, adequate staffing levels are critical to maintaining programme quality?

I am, of course, aware of the commentary in one of today's newspapers about the specific amounts that ITV companies are paying in levy this year, although I have not yet done my own detailed cross-analysis of those figures. The hon. Lady knows that I share her views on the need to maintain the production base of television in Britain and that there are many aspects to that question beyond those that she has mentioned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that strict enforcement of programme obligations, the current ownership structure and the regionality of ITV make it all the more important that the House should have regard to the funding of ITV? Does he accept that commercial pressure is being brought to bear on ITV at the present time? As a constructive way to resolve that problem, would he consider bringing forward the review of the ITV franchise arrangements to coincide with the review of the BBC charter?

I understand my hon. Friend's proposition, but it would be premature to take a decision of that nature. On the other hand, I mentioned to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) a moment ago my concern that we maintain the production base in this country. That larger issue will certainly inform our thinking.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to seek to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990.

I have no present plans to amend the Act.

As the stability of commercial television is now threatened by takeover mania, and as Granada has expressed an interest in taking over London Weekend Television, as has Carlton, and in taking over Central, Yorkshire and Tyne Tees, will the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be no change in the legislation to enable major regional companies to be taken over by national monopolistic conglomerates? Should not people like Jerry Robinson, the tea boy at Granada, concentrate on programme making rather than on pushing up Granada's share price for his personal benefit?

In answer to an earlier question, I paid tribute to the issue of regional quality and to the fact that the legislation is written in such a way that the Independent Television Commission can ensure that that quality is maintained. On the rest of the question, I have made it clear that the issues that we discussed at the meeting with the heads of the Channel 3 companies on 14 June covered a wide agenda. It was a lively but good-natured debate. All aspects of the issue were discussed constructively by all parties.

In any future amendments to the Broadcasting Act 1990, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing provisions to ensure that the Arts Council continues to fund excellent municipal theatres such as the Theatre Royal in Plymouth, which has attracted more people per £1 of grant—

Order. What has this to do with broadcasting? The hon. Gentleman is referring to an earlier question.

In any amendment to the Broadcasting Act, is it possible to include a provision whereby the Arts Council can be made to ensure that it supports mainstream municipal theatres—

Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, but I think that we should. now move on.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the fact that the heads of a number of major independent television companies seek to change the fundamental terms of their franchises and the fact that Richard Branson is seeking to alter the waveband on which he has received his franchise throw into question the whole operation of the Broadcasting Act? Is that not a comment on the fact that the legislation is so misguided that it is creating an absolute shambles in the broadcasting industry?

Taking the second premise relating to Virgin Radio and the waveband first, in any negotiation for an exchange of the waveband, it would not be within the gift either of Mr. Branson or of anybody with whom he sought to effect such an exchange to make that exchange. Control over the wavebands remains with the Radio Authority, with which he should therefore treat. The purpose of the meeting on 14 June—at which, I hasten to say, the smaller companies were as interested in being present as the larger companies were—was to discuss a way forward, looking at the larger objective of maintaining the quality and the production base of British television.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of London hospital facilities are listed buildings.

There are some 90 hospitals in the 12 central London health districts, of which 25 are subject to 80 statutory listings.

Did not the 1987 report show that there were 770 listed hospitals in Britain, of which 11 were grade I—the equivalent to this place and Westminster abbey—a further 58 starred grade II and all the rest of historic significance? Has not Save Britain's Heritage been fiercely critical of the neglect of many hospitals, including the neglect emanating from the Government? Is not the position set to get a lot worse with the closure of hospitals in London? Will the Minister step in as part of his departmental responsibilities to save London's heritage hospitals such as St. Bartholomew's, or is the neglect part of a conspiracy with health Ministers, business-oriented health managers and developers, who see listed hospitals only as the source of a quick buck?

The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question. The answer is that the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for ensuring that the heritage aspects of hospitals are maintained. Only last week, we issued general guidance to those who find that they are in charge of listed buildings, but who find that there is no longer a commercial use for those buildings. We are trying to reach an agreement whereby people understand that for the buildings to be preserved for commercial use one or two of the statutory listings may have to be changed. My Department has also set up a task force between the Department of Health and ourselves to ensure that the considerations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are taken into account.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us appreciate the work being done by his Department in listing London hospitals and many other buildings? Will he proceed with extreme caution, however, before committing public money to buildings that clearly have no use or no useful life to come?

We will certainly be careful. That is why I mentioned that where it is possible to maintain a building with a commercial use, we quite understand that there may have to be one or two changes in the statutory listings in order that the building as a whole may continue. As to my hon. Friend's question about hospitals, that is primarily a question for the Secretary of State for Health.

Is the Under-Secretary of State seriously saying that those hospitals that have been maintained over centuries, such as St. Bartholomew's, will not be given any special concessions, and if it is in the commercial interests of the Secretary of State for Health to let that building go, presumably because it is a city centre site for which she can obtain a large amount of money, he will do nothing to ensure protection for existing buildings? If that is his implication, we shall begin to understand rather more clearly why the Secretary of State for Health is so anxious to get rid of that major centre of importance.

I am absolutely not saying that. I am saying that the Secretary of State for Health has a duty to look after the heritage buildings within her remit. Her Department spends £500 million a year on the maintenance of a current estate. Within that, the listed aspects of the building will be protected. If the buildings are sold off, that is a matter for her. The heritage aspects will absolutely not be neglected either way.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations his Department has received about the impact on British performing arts of local authority discretionary grant policy.

Since the establishment of the Department of National Heritage last year, we have received more than 300 letters about local authority discretionary grant policy and its impact on students of dance and drama.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the British performing arts make an enormous contribution not only to cultural life but to the economy? Is he aware that the local education authority discretionary grant policy in many counties, including my county of Hereford and Worcester, means that many talented young people are unable to play their full part in that success story? Does he share my concern at the damage that that is doing to the future success of the British performing arts?

My hon. Friend has been a persistent and assiduous campaigner for this important subject. It is certainly true that most of the letters and representations that we have had have shown that an awful lot of students are not able to take up places because local authorities have declined, for whatever reasons, to fund them—

Your lot did it.

The hon. Gentleman should wait. I accept that there is a serious problem. It may well be that there is a genuine shortage of money, although local authorities were given sums that the Department of the Environment thought sufficient. To settle the matter, the National Foundation for Educational Research will examine precisely what the facts are. Depending on what those facts are, the Secretary of State and I will speak to the Department for Education, which has a lead in the matter, to see what needs to be done to sort it out.

I welcome the Minister's response to the previous question—that there could indeed be a financial shortfall, which is having a deleterious effect on those young people who manage to gain the very few and highly contested places in drama schools—but does he agree that there is little or no point in any young person taking a place in a drama school if the Arts Council is allowed to pursue its stated policy of closing 10 regional theatres? Is there any aspect of the cultural life of this country for which the Government take responsibility?

We certainly take responsibility and the £225·6 million that we shall give to the Arts Council this financial year is proof of that. That sum will be spent at the decision of the Arts Council. It has taken decisions that are nothing to do with me. Indeed, I am prevented by the arm's-length principle from lavishing so much as a breath of praise or dispraise upon it. It is up to the Arts Council. If the hon. Lady disagrees with the Arts Council's policy of moving away from drama and music towards contemporary dance, she should lose no opportunity of telling it so.

Is the Minister aware that in the borough of Oldham, we have a theatre workshop, the Oldham Coliseum theatre and one of the best repertory companies in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that it is important not only that funding reaches those worthy causes but that all hon. Members who purport to support the arts should help the National Lottery, etc. Bill complete its passage through Parliament before the summer recess?

I hope that the Bill will get its Royal Assent before the recess. Otherwise, I agree, as so often, with my hon. Friend's words of wisdom.

Does the Minister care that 23 theatre in education companies in England and Wales, including the Collar and Tie in the constituency of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), have lost around £1 million in grants this year, mainly because of cuts in what the Government will allow local authorities to spend, and that they face further cuts because of money being taken from the Arts Council grant? Does he understand that this may see the end of the unique blend of theatre and educational drama, mainly for children in areas where no other theatre exists? Will he set up an independent inquiry into how theatre in education companies can be funded from next April or is he content simply to see another slice of our theatre wither away?

The issue arises on a later question and if the hon. Member will contain himself in patience, he will get a powerful answer at that point. However, I fear that I would be trespassing on your patience, Madam Speaker, if I gave a longer answer on that now.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects the first moneys to be paid out by the National Lottery Charities Board.

We hope that money will be available to be paid out by late 1994 or early 1995 for charities and the other good causes.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he know that I am being pressed by the local Liberal Democrats in my constituency to get that money through as quickly as possible? Can he ensure that all parties in the House understand that all my constituents, from whichever party they come, are keen to see that money come through as quickly as possible so that it can go to all the excellent sports and arts projects that they wish it to support?

I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrats of South Dorset are pressing to get the Bill through as early as possible, as their party in the House voted against Third Reading of the Bill.

Will the Secretary of State kindly tell us whether there is any particular significance in the archaic use of the word "monies" in the question as originally tabled, and more particularly in the archaic use of that form of the plural, or is it merely a dry run for the Government's English test for 14-year-olds?

As the hon. Gentleman may know, in terms of such textual criticism, his question should be addressed to my hon. Friend and not to me.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the promotion of tourism in West Yorkshire.

That is a matter for the English tourist board through its strategy for support to the regions, and for the Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board through its strategy for meeting local needs and priorities.

I accept the Minister's reply, but does he accept that there are problems with the Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board and the English tourist board over financing? West Yorkshire, with its loss of jobs both in traditional industries such as mining, textiles and engineering and in other sectors, is looking for Government help towards tourism. Is the Minister prepared to meet the leaders of West Yorkshire council to discuss tourism and allow them to put to him their concerns over lack of resources to promote tourism throughout West Yorkshire?

Yes, I will glady meet a delegation if the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring it along. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate his region on the fact that the latest figures show 7·2 million overnight visitors in his area. Other areas in the United Kingdom have been more badly hit during the recession, but the excellence of the tourist facilities in his area ensured that the number of visitors there were kept up.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the project to house the royal armouries in a brand new museum in Leeds will be, when completed, one of the largest and most important international tourist attractions in this country? Does he also agree that all political parties should come together to get the project built as soon as possible?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The armouries in Leeds would be a tremendous addition to the city's tourist attractions. I hope that the project will go ahead as my hon. Friend said.

The Minister is to receive a copy of the Coopers and Lybrand report that has been commissioned by the English tourist board steering committee, on which sits one of his representatives. If that report condemns the cuts in funding to the English tourist board that were made by the Minister's predecessor, will he take the best initiative to encourage tourists to Normanton, Bradford, Halifax and elsewhere in West Yorkshire by being bold, brave and sensible enough to restore the funding?

So far as West Yorkshire is concerned, I note that two applications for tourism renewal grants have been received from Wakefield and Dewsbury. No doubt both those applications will be considered properly by the tourist boards.

While continuing to promote tourism in West Yorkshire, will my hon. Friend also continue the campaign against deregulation? Does he agree that unnecessary regulation in the hotel and entertainment industries has been crippling, and has resulted in increased costs to the customer?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In West Yorkshire, and elsewhere in the country, there is no doubt that the competitive edge of our tourist industry—when compared with other countries—has been worsened by the heavy regulatory burden. I am determined to remove as much of that unnecessary burden as possible and to make our industry more competitive when compared with other countries.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet representatives of theatre in education to discuss funding.

theatre in education companies have traditionally been funded by local education authorities together with the Arts Councils and regional arts boards. Any discussions on funding are most appropriately undertaken with those agencies.

The Minister will be aware, from the question put some moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), that theatre in education companies are under threat. Some theatres have closed and others are facing closure because they have lost revenue, because of council tax capping placed by the Government on local authority spending, because of the lack of money that is available through the local management of schools and because of the threatened cuts in Arts Council grants.

No to the hon. Gentleman's last question, no to his second last and yes to his third. I agree that theatre in education can make an important contribution to schools, but those involved now must realise that they must sell themselves to individual schools because of the local management of schools process. If they do that, and if individual schools want to have theatre in education, the projects will continue.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received concerning the operation of the Independent Television Commission.

This year, I have received five representations from four hon. Members about various aspects of the ITC's activities.

I do not know whether any of those representations backed the ITC's position on "News at Ten". I hope that the Minister will support that position and that adopted by the National Heritage Select Committee, which wants the programme to remain at 10 o'clock, so that political news—including 10 o'clock votes from this House—sports news, news from America and hard-hitting news generally can be properly dealt with. We need news at ten, not nudes at ten.

The obligation of the Channel 3 companies is

"simultaneously to broadcast high quality news programmes dealing with national and international matters at peak viewing times".

To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of cases pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service in magistrates courts in the last 12 months have resulted in a conviction.

For the year ending 31 March 1993, 97·6 per cent. of cases that proceeded to a hearing in the magistrates court resulted in either a guilty plea or a conviction.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that those excellent figures have been achieved by the Crown Prosecution Service adopting the test of a reasonable prospect of conviction, not some higher esoteric standard?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am satisfied of that. It is extremely important to make it clear that when the CPS reviews the evidence to determine whether there is a sufficiency of admissible, substantial and reliable evidence, it applies the test of a realistic prospect of conviction—not, as is sometimes suggested, a higher test.

Is the Attorney-General aware that, despite a 50 per cent. increase in recorded crime since 1987, the number of cases that the police are instructed by the CPS to drop has nearly doubled? What role has the Treasury had in creating a situation in which arrested people are allowed to walk free because of the cost of bringing them to trial? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that 32 per cent. of cases are dropped on public interest grounds? Has he agreed to that? Will he define it in the context of decisions taken by CPS officers? Will he publish the instructions given to them; and what is the lowest grade of officer allowed to take such a decision on public interest grounds?

I am not aware of any case that has been dropped on the ground of cost. The shadow Home Secretary has visited the Crown Prosecution Service this morning, I am glad to say, and has been able to hold discussions and form his own views on these very matters. Meanwhile, I am glad to have been able to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly in this regard.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that our magistrates courts are capable of dealing with a great many more cases, especially those that go to the Crown court? Does he agree that the recommendation by the royal commission to end the right to trial by jury would end the scandal of 83 per cent. of those electing trial by jury pleading guilty? Is not the reason for that the fact that policemen are spending too much time writing up reports and preparing cases for court, which keeps them off the streets?

My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the 83 per cent. of defendants who choose to go to the Crown court and then to plead guilty once they get there. That imposes what the royal commission has suggested are unreasonable costs and a waste of resources on the system.

To ask the Attorney-General when the Crown Prosecution Service received reports from the Metropolitan police into two separate allegations of fraud within the social services and environmental health departments of the London borough of Bromley; and whether the Crown Prosecution Service now intends to prosecute.

An initial report concerning the social services Department was received on 17 October 1991. Following further police investigations, an additional lengthy report was submitted on 20 May 1993. Meanwhile a report concerning the environmental health department was received in February this year. Police inquiries continue and decisions on prosecution will be made as soon as possible.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that it is now almost two years since this matter was first reported to the Metropolitan police, and almost a year since it was first reported to the chief executive and monitoring officer of the London borough of Bromley? Is not it a disgrace that it has taken so long for a decision to be reached on a matter of such importance and significance, and that we are still told today that decisions are awaited? Will the Solicitor-General give an assurance that incompetence and corruption in local government will be pursued as vigorously as possible, wherever they arise, and not soft-pedalled in areas that the Government and the Conservative party regard as particularly sensitive?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that all cases ought to proceed with expedition. Where there are allegations of fraud and corruption, as in this case, it is doubly important that they are investigated rigorously. It is not unusual for such fraud to be carried out in a secretive way by those involved, and, for that reason, the police sometimes find that it takes a considerable time to investigate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is not in the interests of justice for defendants to he tried on half-baked inquiries, which are then found to be without substance when fully tested at trial.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that there is widespread concern about corruption in local government? Does he further accept that many hon. Members would like to see an inquiry into the corruption in local government, in view of the deplorable events in Lambeth?

A number of inquiries are being held up and down the country into local government dishonesty and fraud. There are two cases of alleged fraud in the Bolsover district council, in which one defendant has already been convicted and the other has been tried and a retrial of his case is awaited.

To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received in the last two years over the Nadir case.

I have explained to the hon. Member in a written answer this afternoon, of which I have given him notice, that a total of eight Members have written or spoken to me or my predecessor about this case. Of these, four have made representations during the past two years.

It is now eight hon. Members and not seven. Although the Attorney-General is reluctant to reveal their names, can he explain why the majority of hon. Members who made representations are very reluctant for their identities to be known? What were their reasons for making those representations in the first place? Is not there a particular responsibility on those who championed the cause of Mr. Nadir in the House of Commons, strongly to urge him to return so that he can put his case in open court? Does the Attorney-General accept that the money given by Mr. Nadir to the Conservative party should be returned promptly because it comes from a very dubious source?

I do not accept the factual premise of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Most people, I think, have made it clear whether they wrote—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, they have not. Name them."] However, as to contributions to any particular political party, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. This case makes it abundantly clear that it does not produce any favour or affection either way, whatever party may be involved.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while not condoning melodramatic practices by any of its operatives, hon. Members should not, in general, attack the Serious Fraud Office? Should we not all support it and give it greater resources in the fight against fraud?

My hon. Friend may have seen the remarks in the royal commission's report about the importance of the work of the Serious Fraud Office, both in maintaining high standards of financial probity in the financial services industry and in making it possible for anyone who abuses the privileges that apply to that industry, thereby damaging investors—often small investors—to be brought to justice more effectively.

To ask the Attorney-General how many cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal on grounds of leniency of sentences in the past 12 months.

In the 12 months to 30 June 1993, the Attorney-General applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to refer 33 sentences for review, including five in Northern Ireland. Of the 19 references so far determined by the court, 16 have resulted in an increased sentence.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the Court of Appeal's judgments in those referred cases have already been of considerable assistance to sentencers at first instance? In the spirit of open government, will he publish the letters that he received from Opposition Members who voted against the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which included that power, so that we may know that those who voted against it now seek to make use of it?

That power is now widely accepted as important and necessary and we often see it referred to by judges in their sentencing remarks. I shall resist the temptation that my hon. Friend has extended to me but, on Second Reading in 1988, an Opposition Member described that power as "sheer cruelty". He appears to have a poor memory because, only a short time ago, he wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend asking him to refer the sentence in the Newport case to the Court of Appeal and invite it to pass a severe sentence. However, following our usual custom of confidentiality, I shall spare his blushes and shall not publish his letter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources he will make available for elephant conservation projects during the current financial year.

We estimate that conservation projects supported by the aid programme, which may include benefits to elephant conservation, will amount to £2·85 million in the current financial year.

I noticed that the Minister said only "may". We need to know precisely how much money is being paid out to protect, wherever possible, the welfare of elephants. Is he aware that, because of drought, civil war and the continued activities of illegal ivory poachers in sub-Saharan Africa, enormous pressures are being put on herds of African elephants, a noble and magnificent beast which is close to extinction in some places? Will he please consider earmarking far more money for elephant conservation schemes? The people of this country would support that wholeheartedly.

We all know what the hon. Gentleman has done to save the elephant and he is to be commended. He must agree that the British Government have done very well. We did exceptionally well in 1992, when there was a further £600,000 specifically for helping elephant populations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to protecting endangered species is effective action on bio-diversity to protect their habitats? In that context, what has his Department done to help elephants?

We do a lot for bio-diversity conservation generally, including the protection of habitats. At present, there are 78 projects wholly or partly concerned with bio-diversity and those cost some £37 million a year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Kenya to discuss bilateral issues.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will visit east and southern Africa later in the year. Her detailed programme is not yet available.

When the Minister's right hon. and noble Friend visits eastern and southern Africa, will she note the fundamental changes in monetary and economic policy that the Kenyan Government are now following, adding to their increased problems with refugees from Somalia? Will the Government be sympathetic to requests for aid, should they be made, and for releasing funds earmarked for Kenya?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Kenyan Government have had difficulty with the International Monetary Fund, but reached a new agreement in May of this year called the shadow programme, which we and the IMF will monitor. If the shadow programme is successful over a period, the IMF and the British Government will consider their position on new balance of payments support and other such matters.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to reinforce the concern that has already been expressed by Her Majesty's Government about the official sabotage of the printing presses of Fotoform Ltd, whose managing director is a British citizen? Will he make it clear that enforced continued non-publication of various magazines by that press constitutes unwarranted interference with the freedom of the press?

We have repeatedly stressed the importance of a free press as one of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy and strongly condemn the police action against Fotoform printers. We are pressing for the court case to be concluded urgently.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effectiveness and economy of administration of the European development fun; and if he will make a statement.

The European Commission is responsible for administering the European development fund. We are in constant touch with the Commission and with other member states to improve its effectiveness.

Is it not true that Britain, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend, takes the lead in insisting on a more efficient and focused European development fund, and the co-ordination of its policies with member states' aid policies?

I hope so. We should certainly like to see in the European development fund greater concentration on countries in real need with a record of good government. Making multilateral programmes more effective is increasingly important, as they make up a steadily increasing part of the total aid programme.

The Prime Minister decided at Edinburgh last December to double the United Kingdom's contribution to the European development fund and the EC aid programme by the year 2000, while freezing the British aid programme for the next two years. In view of that, has the Foreign Office told him that such policies are throwing Britain's bilateral aid programme into turmoil? Is he aware that his own Department has released a statement declaring that the next two-year freeze will reduce Britain's aid programme by £150 million and that, in terms of value for money, after black Wednesday's devaluation, that figure will be nearer to £250 million? Will he confirm that his own Department is preparing contingency plans for major cuts in aid? When will the Foreign Secretary start standing up for the aid budget and stop being such a soft touch?

We are beginning, not ending, this year's public expenditure round and we all know the problems affecting that round. There will be pressures on the aid programme, as on other public expenditure programmes. As I said in answer to the first question, I believe that multilateral contributions, whether to the EC or the United Nations, are a steadily increasing part of the total aid programme. I believe that our bilateral programme is second to none in its quality and I intend to maintain an effective programme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on preparations for the international conference on population and development to be held in Cairo in 1994.

I understand that the United Nations preparations are proceeding well. The Overseas Development Administration will continue to work closely with everyone involved to help ensure the success of this important event.

I thank my hon. Friend for that positive statement. I congratulate him and the Prime Minister on persuading the G7 summit to agree to encourage the success of the United Nations conference, which reflects the growing concern over the population issue. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is growing concern that what is meant to be a conference on population and development is rapidly turning into a conference on development and a bit of population?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the conference must be about population, not development generally—it is essential to get that message across. My hon. Friend and the all-party group on population and development are to be congratulated on drawing attention to what is a great problem. There is no purpose in having aid programmes if they do not, in considerable measure, address the problems of population growth for the future of the world in the next century.

Does the Minister accept that, as we prepare to go to some of these conferences, some countries find it odd that this country and Europe still pay farmers to reduce production through set-aside programmes? Should not we try to use that food to help with the problems of population and development in other parts of the world?

All those questions can be considered at the conference. The important point is to understand the principles that are at stake.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet European colleagues to discuss continuing aid to the Russian Federation.

Aid from the European Community and member states makes up 70 per cent. of all western support to Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. I meet my European colleagues regularly, and support for Russia is often discussed.

Following the success of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister at the G7 summit, we are all aware that £3 billion will be given to assist the Russian Federation. Will my right hon. Friend expand on this and state the sort of aid that we give to Russia, especially for expertise on privatisation?

I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may touch on that in a few minutes. It was certainly an important result of his expedition to Tokyo. Through our British know-how fund and the schemes that were confirmed and extended at Tokyo, it is important to give special assistance to Russian privatisation and to small and medium enterprises in Russia. I think that my right hon. Friend will give details of the extra commitments that were made.