To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet the chairman of the Independent Television Commission to discuss the licence of Granada Television.

None. That is a matter for the Independent Television Commission.

Can the Minister explain why Sir George Russell, the chairman of the Independent Television Commission seems determined to give in to Granada Television's slippery and disingenuous response to the meticulously researched document produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), which outlines breaches in its licence? Is he aware that Granada has expressed an interest in buying into Yorkshire Television? Will he halt all developments in that sphere, pending an inquiry into the reasons why Sir George Russell granted that company a licence when his staff presented him with a document questioning Yorkshire Television's viability?

In the context of the hon. Gentleman's extravagant language, the phrase "give in" is irrelevant, not least since the Independent Television Commission is fulfilling a quasi-judicial function. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is also a matter for the ITC.

Instead of listening to those hon. Members who have no connection with the north-west of England, which is the area served by Granada Television——

I worked for the company.

Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that I have not received one word of criticism about the quality of Granada Television from my constituents in Bury, South who, like me, will warmly welcome the fact that the ITC has roundly and completely rejected the unfounded criticism from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and other Opposition Members?

The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has declared his interest in the matter in his own inimitable way. I am grateful for the endorsement that my hon. Friend gave in his question.

When very senior Granada personnel come to me and detail breaches of the company's licence, and when those same people are totally unconvinced by Granada's response, surely the ITC has a statutory duty to act rather than to accept wholesale misleading information? Why does the Secretary of State not admit that the Government and the ITC have made a complete mess of the licence applications, so that there are serious problems at Granada Television, Yorkshire Television and Tyne Tees Television? If there is a secret and explosive document—I know that there is, and that it relates to the financial viability of those companies—should it not be published so that we can see for ourselves whether the ITC has acted lawfully and with integrity? Or is there something to hide?

The hon. Lady referred to the ITC's statutory duty to act. She submitted a series of charges to the ITC, to which it responded and effectively disagreed with her. In that respect, the ITC has fulfilled its statutory duty.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received about the site for the headquarters of the national lottery.

My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations about the siting of the headquarters for the proposed national lottery. Recent representations have been received on behalf of Penwith district council, Liverpool city council, Princess Dock Development Co. Ltd., Craven council, Clacton-on-Sea, Devizes and East Cheam.

If my hon. Friend shares my desire for our national lottery to be the biggest, best and most exciting in the world, will he take my advice and have a word with the people responsible for the siting of its headquarters to encourage them to place it in Basildon—a town for a gamble and a town for winners?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he is, of course, such a winner. We shall see where the headquarters go. It will not be for Ministers to decide their location, although companies may wish to consider favourable schemes which may be on offer under the Government's assisted areas programme.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next intends to meet the authorities of the rugby football unions to discuss public funding for that sport.

It is for the Sports Councils to decide how much, if any, financial support they wish to give to the rugby football unions. I have no immediate plans to meet the English Rugby Football Union.

Will the Minister consider changing those plans in order to meet the rugby union authorities? When he does so, will he discuss not only funding, but lifting the ban on the Neath player, Stuart Evans, a former Welsh rugby international whose rugby league contract with St. Helens expired two years ago? Is the Minister aware that France and Australia interpret the rules more flexibly than our own authorities? Moreover, to end the hypocrisy of shamateurism and to avoid the likely humiliation of the rugby authorities, should Mr. Evans take his case to the European Court, will the Government press for changes in the rules so that rugby players can play rugby union and the oppressive and anachronistic bans may be ended?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise this issue. It is, of course, for the rugby authorities to set and apply their own regulations and for players to decide which code they wish to play by and ensure that they are fully acquainted with those regulations. Only the courts can decide whether any breach of the law has occurred and it must be for the individual to decide whether to pursue the matter. The chairman of the Sports Council, Sir Peter Yarranton, has expressed his disappointment at this. He is a distinguished former English international and the immediate past president of the Rugby Football Union.

Does my hon. Friend agree that national rugby football unions should be self-funded? With respect, Wales would be better able to fund itself if it played better rugby and won more matches. Does my hon. Friend also agree that those authorities have a function in helping school children into the game more widely through the clubs and should be funded to that end?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of sport for young people, both rugby union and rugby league. That is why a number of programmes of the Sports Council and other bodies fund such schemes.

Is the Minister aware of the contents of my early-day motion 1342, which has attracted 130 signatures from hon. Members of various parties, relating to the case of Mr. Steve Pilgrim, the Wasps rugby union player who was banned for a year by the rugby union for having an amateur trial with Leeds? He has not been signed by Leeds and now finds himself in a sporting no-man's-land. Is such an attitude appropriate for a sport which receives extensive public funding and in which players are already paid for playing rugby union, and rightly so? There are people in the Chamber now who have been paid for playing rugby union football.

The latter point is a matter for dispute. The Rugby Football Union and the other rugby organisations are responsible for their own rules, but I accept the general tone of the hon. Gentleman's remark and I, too, am disappointed about that particular case.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects the final decision on the form of restoration of Windsor castle to be made.

I hope to make a statement of progress on this shortly.

Does the Minister think it makes good sense to spend millions of pounds of public money on this scheme when the nation was told last week that it is so poor that pensioners' fuel bills must be taxed? Can the Minister defend that order of priorities?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, matters of public expenditure across the whole range are looked at individually. The commitment to Windsor castle goes back to an obligation undertaken by the state in 1831.

I hope that a decision to start the restoration work will be made as soon as possible. Might not the Queen decide on the form of that restoration as she has to live there?

I join my hon. Friend in hoping that we shall be able to make an early start. The decisions on restoration would be taken by Her Majesty the Queen on advice from the Government.

The Secretary of State has confirmed that the taxpayer will have to find between £30 million and £40 million towards the cost of restoration. Where is that money to come from? Will it really come from the hard-pressed national heritage budget? Is it to come from increases in value added tax which the poor and the old will be paying? How much money has come into the trust fund that the Secretary of State set up when taxpayers objected to the large blank cheque that he was signing on their behalf? Why did the Minister say to me in his letter of last week that

"no representations have been made to the Royal Household about a contribution towards the costs"?

The immediate emergency expenditure on the castle, which runs to about £1·5 million in the current year, has been met from my departmental budget. I am discussing with colleagues how we would fund the subsequent restoration. Contrary to what the hon. Lady has said, the trust fund was not set up by the Government. It is run by independent trustees, to whom she should address her questions. As for the answer that I gave when the hon. Lady raised the issue with me on 11 March—when she appeared to be ignorant of the fact that a public inquiry had been set up—the reason why I gave her that answer was that it was true.

Will not the restoration of Windsor castle provide thousands of hours of employment for some of the best artisans in the world?

My hon. Friend is right in terms of the skills that will be required from craftsmen of every sort in the restoration of the castle.

Does the Secretary of State realise that some of the greatest British architects have constructed important public buildings abroad, but have not been recognised in this country? In the context of the new opportunities for the display of the royal collection of paintings and other art works, will the Secretary of State give particular attention to the possibility of combining those challenges to provide an exciting new building at Windsor which would be representative of the best in Britain today?

I join the hon. Gentleman in saluting the achievements of British architects abroad, and I am delighted to say that those same British architects also design buildings in this country. The substance of his question forms part of the general debate on restoration, on which I hope to make an announcement shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect on the tourist industry in the north-west of the level of service on the west coast main line.

According to latest available figures, 13 per cent. of visitors to the north-west staying one night or more travelled by train. Improvements to the west coast main line will encourage greater use by everyone, including tourists.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but what plans does he have for talks with his colleague the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that such improvements actually take place so that day trippers and overseas visitors using the channel tunnel, other forms of transport and the west coast main line can visit exhibitions such as the Beatles exhibition and the Tate of the north in Liverpool?

The hon. Lady is right to say that it is important that the improvements take place. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has announced, those improvements will take place as soon as resources allow.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the announcement last week that the main channel tunnel terminus for routes to the north will be at St. Pancras will be of enormous benefit to tourism in the north-west, including my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy)? That is because the links between the north-west main line into Euston and the line from St. Pancras already exist, as was confirmed to me at a meeting as recently as this morning by the senior manager in charge of InterCity services for the north-west.

I know of no one—apart, perhaps, from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson)—who is as well informed about Blackpool as my hon. Friend. He has hit the nail on the head. Of course it is true that a night service will run from Paris and Brussels up the west coast main line to Glasgow. There will also be daytime services from Paris and Brussels to Manchester, and a service between Paris and Birmingham. These trains are due to start towards the end of 1995. I understand that British Rail intends to run a connecting service between Manchester and Waterloo, to begin when regular train services commence from London in mid-1994.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the current year's revenue support grant on public library provision; and if he will make a statement.

I collect information annually from English library authorities about their expenditure plans for the coming financial year and their actual expenditure in the previous year. This year's planned spending total was higher than the previous year's outturn.

Does the Minister accept that public library services are declining and that closures of libraries and reductions in opening hours are becoming commonplace under local authorities of all political persuasions? Is that not the inevitable result of the Government's financial pressure on local authorities to cut spending? What does the Minister intend to do to help local authorities to deliver efficient library services?

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Total gross expenditure on public libraries in England rose by 17 per cent. in real terms over the past 10 years. I have looked carefully at actual and proposed cuts and there is no current evidence of a breach of statutory duty. Book issues were up 3 per cent. in the last year for which figures are available, issues of children's books were up by 8 per cent., and a staggering 489 million books were issued that year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities such as Derbyshire see libaries as a soft target and will propose to close them or to curtail opening hours rather than trying to control expenditure in other areas? Will he undertake to keep such matters under careful scrutiny so that constituents such as mine in Erewash get the services that they require and pay for?

Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and to the Conservative county councillors on her council, for keeping me so well informed about the situation in Derbyshire. I have looked at it carefully and I am confident that there is no breach of statutory duty. I will not, therefore, be setting up a public inquiry, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are keeping the situation under careful review, especially in Derbyshire, and if there is any such evidence my chief library adviser will, of course, advise me accordingly.

If the Minister intends to keep library services in Derbyshire under review, why does he not also guarantee that Derbyshire county council—which has had a mandate from the people against the Tory party, including the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight), since 1981—has returned to it the £40 million of cuts in Government grant? Then no library in Derbyshire will be affected and the community education system will prosper. Let us have less hypocrisy from the Dispatch Box and from Tory Members about what is happening in Derbyshire, given that the Conservative Government are responsible for all the cuts.

It is always a pleasure to be questioned by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), although I wish he would change the record once a year or so. I recall a similar exchange with him before. Standard spending assessments are set to take account of library services. Derbyshire, along with other authorities, has one problem: it contains a lot of reactionary people who seem to think that libraries should not change to match the changing requirements, aspirations and demands of their people. When libraries do change, they flourish—as has happened in the past few years, with more books and more expenditure on public libraries.

May I refer my hon. Friend to the good interview on LBC this morning, in which the non-statutory service offered by Westminster city council—the Westminster music library—was discussed? Will he consider the possibility of a national music library which might take over some of the funding responsibilities from Westminster, which currently provides a service—scores, compositions and other printed music—for most of the country's amateur and semi-professional orchestras?

Not for the first time, my hon. Friend has come up with an interesting idea. I should like time to think about it.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what support his Department gives to the sport of coarse fishing.

Most Government funding of sport is made through the Sports Council. In 1991, the Sports Council paid grant of £20,000 to the National Federation of Anglers, the governing body for course fishing. The grant paid so far for 1992 is £15,000, but final levels of grant for that year and this are likely to be decided in May.

The Secretary of State will be aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is setting up the Environment Protection Agency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, I am.

Order. That is just the sort of confession for which I have been waiting. The hon. Gentleman knows that during Question Time hon. Members do not read.

Will the Secretary of State ask his right hon. and learned Friend to confer with the 4 million anglers—it is the most popular sport in Britain—about the work of the proposed agency so that we can ensure that it benefits both the environment and the anglers who enjoy that most popular sport?

The hon. Gentleman makes what appears to be a wholly unexceptionable request. I will certainly talk to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Does my right hon. Friend not find it slightly ironic that the cheers in favour of angling and fishing come from those who, on every other occasion, are against any form of blood sport?

That particular contradiction has been remarked on by others. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning it again.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he is taking to support or promote children's play and recreation other than in regard to direct and organised sporting activity; and what steps are being taken towards the fulfilment of the United Kingdom's obligations in respect of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

We recognise the importance of play to children's development and are fully committed to providing appropriate funding and other support for it. From April 1993, the Sports Council will take over the play unit's responsibilities for the national play information centre and playwork education and training along with seven of the unit's current staff. Our obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child are also being met through the work that both the Arts Council and the Sports Council are doing to promote wider leisure opportunities for young people, and through the policies of the Departments of the Environment and of Employment.

In the light of that answer, and following the recent and not unhelpful meeting held with hon. Members from both sides of the House, may we take it that the Under-Secretary of State is confirming that the Sports Council fully recognises the importance of children's play and that no lesser dedication of resources will be provided than under the previous arrangements?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who rightly said that the all-party group had a constructive meeting. I assure him that the Sports Council takes its commitment seriously. It has already earmarked £220,000 as a base figure. It is also considering further funding for the four national centres for playwork education and the National Voluntary Council for Children's Play.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the right of a child to recreation is preceded by the right to life? Does he therefore regret the fact that 4 million children have been murdered under the Abortion Act 1967, introduced by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)?

No.

How can the Under-Secretary of State be satisfied that adequate resources will be made available to local play providers by the Sports Council at a time when that body is undergoing a major restructuring exercise following the Atkins review? Surely this is not the time to put at risk the good work of the play unit by merging it with the Sports Council—an organisation, incidentally, with no history of involvement in children's play other than that of accounting officer.

If that were true, I should be inclined to think again, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the decision was reached after substantial consultation over many weeks. I recognise our responsibilities under article 31 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, on which the Children Act 1989 is based. The Government's commitment is underlined not just by the public money spent by the Sports Council, but through the Department of Employment. Its out-of-school care grant, paid via the training and enterprise councils, will be £45 million over three years and will give rise to 50,000 child care places.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate he has made of the likely proceeds from the proposed national lottery which will be available for distribution to the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the millennium fund.

That will depend on the total turnover of the lottery and the amounts devoted to prizes, expense; and taxation.

What does the Minister say to the many people who have high expectations of the national lottery, and who now realise that the Chancellor will take nearly three times as much of the proceeds as charities—and, indeed, any other beneficiaries? What will he tell those people, who realise that when—as is inevitable—the Chancellor raises the rate of taxation on the lottery, more money will go to the Exchequer than to all the other beneficiaries combined?

The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is pure speculation. In answer to the earlier part, let me say first that it was always thought right for some taxation to apply, as it was always envisaged that some expenditure would be displaced from other goods and services bearing tax. Secondly, let me say that I am delighted that the level of tax has been set at only 12 per cent., although the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have been telling us for some weeks in Committee that it would be between 20 and 30 per cent.

I trust that my hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, will note that once the lottery's proceeds are distributed, the Treasury will make a considerable amount from VAT on capital projects and the like.

We are making progress as rapidly as we can, but we can make little further progress until the House has agreed to the legislation. We hope very much that we shall be able to do so before too long: following Royal Assent, which we hope will take place by the summer, we shall be in a position to make the appointments to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Given what the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has called the Chancellor's "sheer greed" in taking 12p off the top of every £1 ticket, will not the five good causes have to share a maximum of between 25p and 26p? As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), that will leave the charities with 5p between them. Will the Minister join me in recognising that we made a mistake in Committee—that we should have nailed down a minimum of 35 per cent. for good causes on the face of the Bill? Will he now undertake to table an amendment to that effect on Report?

No—for the very good reason that we debated that precise point at some length in Committee. I well recall explaining that putting a fixed figure on the amount to go to good causes would not necessarily be in the interests of those good causes, among whom the overall amount raised would then be distributed.

I know that my hon. Friend wants to be helpful to charities. Will he give an undertaking to monitor any displacement of charitable giving that may result from the national lottery, and also to monitor the net impact of the lottery on charitable giving?

Yes, of course. That is precisely why we have laid down on the face of the Bill that the 20 per cent. to he received by each of the five categories of good cause should be reviewed by the House of Commons in the lifetime of each Parliament.

Will the Minister confirm that regional orchestras will receive money from the lottery's proceeds?

Fortunately, that will not be for Ministers to decide; it will be decided by the committees of the arts councils responsible. That is why I think that the establishment of a separate arts council for Wales will benefit Welsh orchestras.

If the proceeds of the national lottery are as generous as my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members hope, will my hon. Friend consider adjusting the ring fence that he has placed around it? It might then be possible for the money received to replace taxpayers' funding of the arts, sport and so forth. Public expenditure would be saved and sport would benefit, because, on that calculation, it would receive more than it receives now.

I think that my hon. Friend must have had lunch with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what examination his Department has made of the impact of the proposed national lottery on fund raising for non-league soccer clubs, rugby union and other sports clubs; and what representations he has had by or on behalf of such clubs.

We received a number of representations from sports clubs and have amended the Bill. We do not anticipate that the national lottery will have any demonstrable impact on the fund-raising activities of football or sports clubs. Participation in those activities is primarily motivated by an interest in or association with the organisation concerned.

Is the Secretary of State aware that thousands upon thousands of people enjoy and benefit from watching soccer at the level below the Football League—the Vauxhall conference, and the Diadora Isthmian, Beazer Homes and HFS Loans leagues? The clubs who play in those leagues, and other non-league clubs, are very much dependent on local lotteries and scratch cards. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that those clubs will not be prejudiced in their fund raising by the impact of the lottery Bill and may continue to raise funds by a combination of scratch cards and their own lotteries, as well as benefiting from the spot-the-ball competitions that fund some of the clubs' activities?

The National Lottery Etc. Bill contains measures to increase the maximum proceeds in any one society or local authority lottery, to increase the maximum prize, and to amend existing registration requirements for lotteries. All those measures will make small lotteries more attractive. My hon. Friend the Minister and I listened to constructive criticism in Committee and have sought to make those changes more attractive.

Will the Secretary of State introduce further amendments on Report? Is he not aware that many small football clubs, from Tranmere to Rochdale, and many small charities are concerned about the national lottery's effects on them? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to use proceeds from the national lottery to finance Olympic projects in the Manchester bid? If so, is that not money which otherwise might have been used for sport and the arts?

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and I will look at observations that were made in Committee before the Bill reaches Report stage. When I watched Bolton Wanderers score a notable victory over Leyton Orient, Bolton Wanderers took the opportunity to make representations to me. I have not yet replied to them. In the context of the Olympic bid, it is important first to secure the nomination of Manchester in September.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment his Department has made of changes in public library opening hours.

I continue to assess the provision of public library services in England, including opening hours, by analysing statistics and by listening to users and providers of the service.

Is the Minister aware that public libraries provide a great deal more than books, music and pictures for borrowing? They provide a safe, warm environment for many elderly people. As the Government have imposed value added tax on fuel, which will preclude the elderly and those on low incomes heating their own homes in future winters, will the Minister ensure that local authorities are encouraged to expand and extend public library opening hours, and are funded accordingly?

I should love to, but the hon. Lady ought to have a word with her own Labour council in Camden. It was Camden's misfortune to have to take a vote on whether its libraries remained open. It was a close-run thing. They remained open on the casting vote of the chairman, with the Conservatives in favour, but the Labour party voting against the libraries remaining open.

Does my hon. Friend agree that flexibility is the most important factor in library opening hours? Rather than having simply nine-to-five opening hours, libraries should open when it is sensible for them to open and when the public want them to be open.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is as true of rural areas as of urban areas. The flexibility shown in rural areas by the use of mobile public libraries proves just how much library professionals are moving ahead of some who seek to govern them.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has held with staff at the Sports Council concerning the creation of the United Kingdom Sports Commission and the Sports Council for England.

I have had no such discussions. The Sports Council is responsible for its own day-to-day management, including employee relations, and I understand that it is currently discussing the implications of the reorganisation with its staff.

When will the Sports Council be given the go-ahead to engage in the reorganisation that it proposed, which involves staff restructuring? The Secretary of State's answer was disgraceful. He should be involved in the discussions. Some people do not want to dither and dodge, as the Secretary of State's Department does, so the Sports Council should be allowed to go ahead with the reorganisation.

I received broad proposals regarding the functions and resources of the successor bodies towards the end of last year, and the detailed staffing proposals in support of them during January. My officials have been involved in detailed discussions with the Sports Council to ensure that the proposed package provides the best value for money. In the light of these discussions, I expect shortly to receive revised proposals from the Sports Council.

To ask the Attorney-General if it is his practice to review other similar cases involving any police officer convicted of concocting or giving false evidence.

Whenever a police officer is convicted of such an offence, the Crown prosecution service reviews all pending prosecutions and appeals, of which it is aware, in which that officer is involved.

The House will be glad to have heard my right hon. and learned Friend's answer. He will not know that one of my first cases 17 years ago was that of a young man who had been wrongly convicted on the false evidence of a detective constable. It was only by chance, five years later, when the detective constable had become a detective sergeant in a different police service, that we saw a newspaper report about his conviction, which led to the quashing of an unsafe conviction some time before. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider consulting the prosecuting authorities and the chief constables to find out whether it would be possible to re-examine concluded cases, sometimes going back over many years, in order to ascertain whether there have been miscarriages of justice which might be detected?

It is not necessarily easy to trace back in every case to find out exactly which officer gave evidence. However, in any case where the Crown prosecution service has reason to believe that such an officer's evidence may have adversely affected the safety of a conviction, the Crown prosecution service will take steps to ensure proper disclosure to the defendant so that he may take such action, by way of appeal, albeit out of time, as he thinks fit.

To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of cases pursued by the Crown prosecution service in the magistrates courts in 1991–92 resulted in a conviction.

Of the 1,068,750 defendants tried in the magistrates courts during the year 1991–92, 1,040,997 were convicted or pleaded guilty, representing a conviction rate of 97·4 per cent.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the increasing anxiety among police officers that attacks and assaults on them during the course of their duty are not being prosecuted with the necessary severity by the Crown prosecution service, which often downgrades the charges made, or even drops them altogether? Given that 239 officers in Surrey were assaulted in 1992 alone, is that not an outrage and should not people who assault police officers in the course of their duties automatically be locked up?

I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that things are not as gloomy as the picture that he has just painted. Whenever offences are reduced in gravity, it is always done consistent with the interests of justice. There is a wide range of penalties to deal with assaults and obstructing the police. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, as compared with assaults on other victims, the use of custody as a penalty for police assaults is consistently higher—nearly twice as high for a section 20 assault, three times as high for a section 47 assault and five times as high for common assault.

In view of the appalling and worsening crime wave, what is the explanation for the apparent reduction in the number of cases coming before magistrates courts? Have any instructions been given that there should be greater use of cautioning and, if so, by whom? And is that connected with the Government's attempt to limit costs in the courts?

The Crown prosecution service is not responsible for the number of people charged or arrested. Last year, the discontinuance rate in the magistrates court was 13·3 per cent. and in the Crown court it was 7·8 per cent. Those rates were not gravely different from those of the preceding year. The purpose of the Crown prosecution service is to weed out weak cases. There is absolutely no point in the Crown prosecution service conducting cases that are going to result in an acquittal. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that discontinuance does not take place on ground of cost.

To ask the Attorney-General how many cases have been brought to trial by the Serious Fraud Office since its inception; and how many defendants have been convicted.

The Serious Fraud Office has brought 103 cases to trial, involving 221 defendants of whom 139 were convicted.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that that is some comfort? Is it not the case that, by concentrating so heavily on a small number of very well-publicised cases in which defendants have been acquitted, we are receiving a wholly distorted view of the important work of this office?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The SFO prosecutes cases that previously would not have been prosecuted because they were too complex and unmanageable. It is at the leading edge of criminal jurisprudence. A disproportionate amount of publicity is given to a few isolated acquittals. In the last year, 43 defendants were tried and 29 were convicted. That gives a conviction rate of 67 per cent.

Is the Minister aware of public dissatisfaction with the work of the Serious Fraud Office, especially in the Guinness trial, when all manner of crooks and spivs were able to walk free? Why should there be one law for rich people who swindle millions of pounds of other people's money and another law for the poor?

The hon. Lady seems to have lost contact with reality. In the case that she quoted, a number of defendants were convicted. In fact, the argument that we hear about the powers of the Serious Fraud Office is that they should be extended to the fraud investigation group.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that many believe that there are a few very lucky men in this country, and some people would like the Roskill report's recommendations on fraud trials to be brought into operation?

Most of the recommendations of the Roskill commission were brought into effect. One that was not brought into effect was the replacement of trial by jury with trial in some other way. That was a very serious step which the House decided not to take. Most people take the view that we should perfect existing means of trial before considering a trial other than by jury.

To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions Mr. Alan Moses QC has appeared as counsel to Her Majesty's Government.

Alan Moses QC has appeared frequently for the Crown in civil and criminal proceedings. From 1985 until 1990, he was Standing Counsel for the Inland Revenue.

Why did he say that he had read the relevant documents and did not consider them to be of any use to the defence for the foreseeable future? What explanation can there be, other than that so able and experienced a lawyer was trying, quite improperly, to protect Ministers, even though it meant that directors of Matrix Churchill could land up in prison? And, please, do not hide behind the skirts of Lord Justice Scott.

Alan Moses is independent counsel of high standing and integrity. Instead of casting aspersions in his own way, the hon. Gentleman should await the outcome of the careful and independent inquiry being conducted by Lord Justice Scott.

Is not it the case that the defence counsel in the Matrix trial wrote to The Times and stated specifically that Mr. Alan Moses for the Crown had behaved perfectly properly in every way and had performed in accordance with decided cases? Is not it, therefore, an appalling slur on Mr. Moses that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has totally refused to consult the defence counsel before making his allegation?

My hon. and learned Friend draws attention to a letter which is in the public domain and which could well be consulted by the House generally. I suggest that it gives a more balanced view than that of earlier questioners.

In view of the totally unsatisfactory reply, I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

To ask the Attorney-General what submission his Department has made to the Royal Commission on criminal justice on changes to the right to silence; and if he will make a statement.

I discussed this issue with the royal commission at a meeting at which it sought my views on a range of issues. My personal thoughts on the ability of the court to draw inferences from silence in appropriate cases were set out in my speech last October to the Howard League for Penal Reform, a copy of which is in the Library.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer and I welcome his views, as far as they go, set out in that speech. Many people would like the Government to go further and to remove altogether the right to silence in cases in which people have been killed, such as cases in which children have been killed at home. The country looks to the Government and not to the liberal consciences of the Runciman commission to take the ultimate view on the matter.

We should not anticipate the advice of the royal commission. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Murray case, a recent case in the House of Lords, which shows the proper balance to be considered when discussing the right to silence. It points to the fact that inferences can be drawn only in a case in which there is already a prima facie case and in circumstances in which it is proper, in the legal sense of that word, to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British and EC aid to Russia.

Since 1991, the United Kingdom has committed almost £400 million in bilateral help for Russia to support political and economic reform. We have also contributed one sixth of the EC's assistance programmes.

As I recently visited Russia in the company of Lord Healey, will the Minister accept from me that the reports of Russia's economic crisis are certainly not exaggerated and that the crisis is considerably worsened by the political paralysis there? Does he agree with the view of the German Foreign Minister, Klaus Kinkel, that international aid needs to be increased radically if Russia's economic reforms are to have any chance of success? Will the Minister accept the view of the French Government that an emergency meeting of the G7 countries should take place to organise that effort?

The Government strongly support President Yeltsin's economic and political reforms, which are going through an extremely difficult period. The G7 countries are urgently considering how best to demonstrate support for President Yeltsin, both politically and substantially, and that includes consideration of meetings at some stage in the early future.

What assistance, other than technical assistance, is this country giving to the Russians?

Russia will, for example, receive the lion's share of our know-how fund, worth £100 million over the next six years, £13 million of which has been used in Russia so far with many projects now in the pipeline.

Will the Minister accept that whatever the needs of Russia are, the need of sub-Saharan Africa, which contains two thirds of the world's poorest 50 countries, is far greater? Why, then, does he propose a large real-terms increase in British aid to Russia and to eastern Europe at the expense of a large real-terms cut in British aid to Africa? Why does he also propose to triple the proportion of British aid that is channelled through the European Community over the next five years when EC aid policy does not concentrate on the poorest countries, but prioritises eastern Europe and when Commissioner Marin, the Spanish EC aid Commissioner, is now downgrading Africa in favour of Spanish-speaking Latin American countries?

The hon. Gentleman should accept—as he never will—that the increase this year in aid generally to the poor world is 1 per cent. in real terms. Our contributions to European Community aid are determined by our share of European Community aid and are not for decision by the British Government in the first instance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he will give Tools for Self Reliance in providing practical help to poorer countries.

Tools for Self Reliance is welcome to apply to us for assistance.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Tools for Self Reliance, which has its headquarters in my constituency and runs some 165 centres for the collection and refurbishment of tools for export to third-world countries? As the Government's philosophy is that the intention of overseas aid should be to assist other countries in helping themselves, will my hon. Friend give favourable consideration to an application, if received, in respect of assistance for the refurbishment and export of tools to make tools, such as lathes and blacksmiths' equipment? If my hon. Friend has seen early-day motion 1050, which has all-party support, will he get the message across to other Departments of State—particularly the Ministry of Defence, which is unfortunately likely to have a large number of spare tools available in the near future?

As I have suggested to my hon. Friend privately, I think that it would be a good idea if Tools for Self Reliance contacted the Overseas Development Administration and entered into discussion with it. Of course, British non-governmental organisations such as the one to which my hon. Friend refers have received strong Government support under the joint funding scheme, whose budget has increased rapidly over the past few years—indeed, it has more than doubled over the past four years. We do, indeed, help such projects, although we should clearly have to discuss what was proposed.

Did the Minister see the exhibition in the Jubilee Room about tools for third-world countries? I agree absolutely that those countries need tools, but does the Minister agree that the reference made at that meeting to the young people of African countries gaining dignity through being able to work could apply equally to the young people of Birmingham, Nuneaton and the west midlands, or anywhere else in Britain, and that we should really be giving the young people of this country some dignity through work?

As regards Tools for Self Reliance and other similar organisations, the Overseas Development Administration gives significant help and certainly helps through grants in support of appropriate technology projects that help underdeveloped countries in Africa with tools. We certainly make a large contribution in that respect.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the fate of Bosnian orphans; and if he will make a statement.

We have received a number of representations and share the deep concern felt by many in this country about the fate of children who have been orphaned in the tragic conflict in Bosnia.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the concerns of British couples who are prepared to adopt orphans abandoned by mothers who have been raped by Serbian soldiers? Will he confirm that up to 20,000 women were so violated?

I cannot confirm the figures that my hon. Friend cites, but I can say that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health has taken a close interest in this particular tragic matter and has made it clear that, in appropriate cases, his Department will help with the adoption of children who have been conceived as a result of rape.

Does the Minister recall the suggestion of His Holiness the Pope that Bosnian Muslim women who had been raped should bear their children? Given that many of us found that offensive, what steps do the Government propose to take now to counsel those women who decide to take the Pope's advice?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a report was carried out by Dame Anne Warburton into that dreadful area. The ODA has commissioned Marie Stopes International to examine the practical problems of managing and implementing the recommendations made by the Warburton mission in Bosnia.

To ask the Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the present level of British aid being sent to Somalia.

Britain has pledged almost £43 million worth of emergency relief assistance for Somalia since January 1992, including its share of European Community aid.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the United Nations has stated that British aid is the most effective in the western world? Is he further aware that Britain has peculiar and special expertise in the sourcing and finding of fresh water supplies in villages in Africa? What are we doing in Somalia?

Britain is the third largest bilateral donor to the relief effort in Somalia: some £43 million has been pledged in the past 15 months. I would add that there is £5·5 million worth available immediately on the table for suitable non-governmental organisations and United Nations projects that may apply for it. The British Government have also given substantial money to the north of Somalia which includes, as my hon. Friend referred to it, rehabilitation of water supply projects.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that I must impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.

The Budget sets in place one more step in our strategy for industry. When coupled with the autumn statement, it must be seen as a comprehensive response to our industrial needs. First, it provides a sound economic background against which our companies can more effectively enhance their competitiveness. Secondly, it backs our drive on the export markets. Thirdly, it addreses a range of specific measures that industry has raised with us. Fourthly, it recognises the vital role that small and medium-sized firms play in economic vitality.