To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives his Department is taking to promote tourism in London.

Government support for tourism is channelled through the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board. Through the English tourist board, support is also made available to the 11 regional boards, including the London tourist board.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Is not our greatest tourist asset our capital city? The people whose job it is to promote the capital and to guarantee the huge amounts of revenue that flow from tourism feel at a disadvantage because of the lack of coherence and structure that govern their ability to present London as a city. Will the Minister look at ways to ensure that, in future, we can present the tourism potential of London strategically rather than piecemeal?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, because 54 per cent. of foreigners who visit this country come to London and tourism is responsible for more than 200,000 jobs and £4·8 billion in revenue. He is entirely right to stress the importance of tourism. I also accept that bringing all the tourism effort together is an important consideration, but it is not always appropriate to have one body to deal with everything. London First has been launched to try to improve the quality of life for Londoners and the London tourist board is primarily responsible for tourists. Those organisations meet and we certainly try to achieve the maximum co-ordination.

As tourists come to London not for our weather but because London is one of the arts capitals of the world, with an unparalleled range of opera, ballet, concerts, museums, historic buildings and heritage, not to mention the monarchy and our royal family, are not those the things which we should continue most to promote among tourists?

Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely right: London is the arts capital of the world nowadays. I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said and, through the British Tourist Authority, the English tourist board and the London tourist board, we shall do everything possible to do what he wishes.

Was not London so far behind in the race to host the Commonwealth games that it was humiliating? If London had won, that would have brought in a lot of tourists. That bid was put forward by a quango that had been set up by the Government, of which no one in London had ever heard. Is not it about time that the Government admitted their mistake and re-established a Londonwide authority to represent London properly?

I think that the whole House will congratulate Manchester, including even those hon. Members who represent London and Sheffield, which did not win. We certainly do not want to return to one body like the former Greater London council.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to encourage greater participation by children in competitive sport; and if he will make a statement.

I am talking to a number of organisations and practitioners about ways of promoting competitive sport more widely, and will be holding a consultative seminar on this issue very shortly.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Was not the positive response from many leading sports bodies to the report produced by the Conservative Back-Bench committee on sport extremely welcome? Will my hon. Friend be having further discussions with our ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education about enhancing the opportunities for competitive sports in our schools?

I congratulate my hon. Friend and all those who produced the report "Team Games and Competitive Sport in Schools". It is an extremely valuable contribution to an important debate. The Department for Education is well aware of the importance of team games and competitive sports. I hope that, together, we can produce a plan for even more team games and competitive sport in schools.

If the Minister genuinely wants to encourage more competitive team sport in schools, had not he better start winning some battles with the Department for Education? For instance, is there to be one hour a day for physical education in the national curriculum, as the Minister advocated to sports writers last month, or is there to be the totally inadequate time of one hour a week, as advocated by Sir Ron Dearing? Is the Minister battling with the Secretary of State for Education to scrap regulation 909, which resulted in £70,000-worth of playing fields being sold off every day of last year? Unless that regulation is scrapped, few playing fields for any sports will be left. Unless the Minister's tough words are matched by strong ministerial action, his credibility in the sporting world will decline even faster, and that is saying a lot.

I am having no battles with the Department for Education, just a series of friendly and genial conversations. I hope that, in the end, much more time will be given to physical education in schools, by which I mean not just lectures on the history of sport but team games and competitive sports.

After England's magnificent and comprehensive victory against the Scots on Saturday, will my hon. Friend take time to consider encouraging the playing of rugby union in schools? Will he also support the many local junior clubs that encourage and coach the youngsters, often in the parents' spare time and on a voluntary basis? If he encourages them, may not we hope for even more magnificent victories at Twickenham in the future?

Having seen the match, I thought that England was very lucky to win and it was a heart-breaking result. None the less, I congratulate rugby union on what it has done for those youth sports. It has made tremendous strides. All the home countries can learn from rugby union's promotion of rugby among young people.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions he has had with the ITV Association over proposals to move the timing of "News at Ten".

None. The scheduling of news programmes is a matter for the ITV companies and the Independent Television Commission.

Does the Minister recall the Government's stated commitment in the Broadcasting Act 1990 to the importance of national and world news? Will he now make it clear that he backs the Prime Minister in objecting to plans to move "News at Ten" to a much earlier time slot?

The matter that the hon. Gentleman raises has latterly gone on the back burner. Following the exchanges between the ITC and Channel 3 licensees, the ITC has made it clear that "News at Ten" will continue to be broadcast at 10 o'clock.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments and am glad that he accepts that it is primarily a matter for the independent television contractors. Does he agree that, were it not for a Conservative Government, we would have neither ITV nor "Sky News", because the Labour party voted against the formation of independent television and the implementation of satellite television?

As a Conservative, I pay close attention to history, and I share my hon. Friend's view that the Opposition occasionally suffer from amnesia about what has gone before.

Is not it clear that ITV beat only a tactical withdrawal from its plans to move "News at Ten" to an earlier slot last year, the better to counter the livelier scheduling of Channel 4—which runs its news between 7 and 8 pm and which can therefore get its evening film on earlier—and the better to attract the audience that it needs? Is the Secretary of State simply going to let the provisions of the Broadcasting Act be tinkered with in a piecemeal way, as he did with ownership? Would not it make more sense to announce a review of the Act, to sort out the sorry mess that it is creating?

The hon. Gentleman speaks of a "tactical withdrawal". The fact remains that the rescheduling of "News at Ten" would require the ITC's approval if all the regional licensees are to remain in compliance with their general licence conditions. Given that that is how the Act stands, it sounds to me as though we are better off with the Act than with what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met representatives of the Rugby Football League to discuss rugby matters.

I met representatives of the Rugby Football League on 22 November 1993 and discussed a number of issues with them. I was also pleased to attend the annual dinner of the all-party rugby league group on 13 December.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I am also pleased that he did not give us a detailed report of what went on at the dinner of the all-party rugby league group.

I had a meeting with the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence on 16 December and wrote him a letter following up the meeting. I told him that I wanted a new and fair deal for rugby league in the armed services. He gave me what I thought was an extremely positive and helpful reply. He is now conducting a review of the way in which not just rugby league but all sports are financed and dealt with in the armed services. I very much hope to have an answer on the results of that review by Easter.

That is a helpful reply. I welcome my hon. Friend's sustained efforts to reconcile the two codes of rugby—at the local level, co-operation, not conflict, is generally the rule.

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Although all sports grounds, whatever sports are played on them, need to be safe, most of the regulations that have to be observed came about as a result of the fact that soccer grounds generally have much larger and occasionally much more obstreperous crowds than do rugby league grounds, where people are well behaved and average crowds tend to be much smaller. So the rugby league grounds are paying the price of that. I am trying to find new ways to avoid financially disadvantaging rugby league as a result of what happens at soccer grounds.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what criteria he would expect to be used in deciding the location of the national lottery operation.

The location of the national lottery operation is a matter for the applicants for the main licence to operate the lottery to consider in making their applications to the director general. I cannot comment on the criteria that they might use in making their decision.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the national lottery will be a success only if, as well as distributing its funds to good causes, national economic and employment objectives are met? Does he agree with the view of the Minister at the Department of Employment, who said this week that there are sound labour market reasons for locating the headquarters of the lottery in Cornwall? Does he accept the view of all the people of Cornwall, of all parties, backed by the county council which took the initiative, that this should be a case of Cornwall first?

Some of my hon. Friends might think that the hon. Gentleman was leading with his chin by asking that question, as his party and his colleagues voted against the Bill on Second and Third Readings. Having said that, I recognise that he has joined my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) to press Cornwall's cause.

Will not many new jobs be created by the establishment of the national lottery headquarters? When making recommendations about the relevant criteria, will my right hon. Friend be able to suggest that they entirely exclude the constituencies of Members such as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who asked the question and is a member of a party which was against the idea? Also, will he consider including Eastbourne in the list of potential sites?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the contribution that the national lottery will make to the economy. To be fair to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), he avoided voting on the matter on Second and Third Readings. His is yet another of those cases to which I have referred of running with the hare and then apologising to the hounds when they catch up.

Will the Secretary of State consider carefully Merseyside's claims to be the home for the national lottery, in recognition of the high unemployment rates in the region and especially as the House had long and important debates about the effect that the lottery will have on employment in the football pools industry?

The case that the hon. Lady raises was mentioned frequently during our debates. The Act states that it is for the director general to decide on the site, but contractors who are bidding to run the lottery will no doubt take the considerations that she mentioned into account when formulating their bids.

Besides excluding the constituencies of hon. Members who have demonstrated their opposition to the national lottery, would not it be sensible to consider areas of the country where there is a reasonable chance of finding staff trained in information technology and which have good communication links with London? Can he think of any other criteria that I might suggest to help with Swindon's bid?

I said in my original answer that it was for the bidders to make their decisions, but my hon. Friend is right about the scale of the opportunity. I have been criticised for making conservative forecasts of how successful the lottery will be and I am delighted that other people think that it will be still more successful.

As the Secretary of State has made it clear that he will abdicate on the criteria for the location of the lottery and as he is clearly going to abdicate on the criteria under which the five funds that have been set up will allocate the money, will he at least assure the House that, when the announcements are made for the Millennium Commission in the near future, we will not get the sort of sleaze that we have had with other quangos and that the commission will not have a majority of Tory sympathisers?

I found the language in the first part of the hon. Lady's question slightly curious, given the way in which the Act is drawn. It is all very well for the hon. Lady to say that I am abdicating my responsibility. The Act makes it perfectly clear where the responsibility lies and that is with the director general.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that those who work for the national lottery will tend to be doing office jobs and that London is the part of the country where people have the greatest experience of office work? The logical place for the headquarters of the national lottery is therefore London.

It is difficult for me to find another form of words to say that those matters are not my responsibility. The invitation to apply reflects the intent of the directions that I have issued to the director general, by drawing attention to the importance of location because of its effect on operating costs and therefore on the contributions to the national lottery distribution fund.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of his Department.

My Department has contracted out nearly all its new central services and installed a departmental-wide computer network. Those and other arrangements will support improvements in departmental efficiency.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the steps that he has taken. Will he ensure that the national lottery is run efficiently and effectively? Does not the country expect the highest standards of efficiency from its public services?

Section 4 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 makes clear the responsibilities that fall to the director general. I am confident that he will fulfil them in making the lottery a tremendous success. I share the view that my hon. Friend expressed in the second half of his question.

In terms of the efficiency of his Department, will the Secretary of State tell the House when he will reply to the two submissions from the Select Committee on National Heritage—one on the BBC and one on the invasion of privacy by the press? Those reports have been with him for some considerable time. When will he report to the House?

The hon. Gentleman has asked two fair questions. I hope to issue a White Paper on the press shortly, in response to the Select Committee's report. The Select Committee will recall that it asked me to delay any action on my side until it had a chance of reporting. As to the BBC, my duties flow out of a consultation paper that we issued last year. It has been helpful to have the Select Committee's observations on that as well. It might be a bit later before I reply to the report on the BBC.

Has not the time come for my right hon. Friend to exercise closer supervision over the activities of the Arts Council?

The examination that Price Waterhouse conducted of the Arts Council last year, at my suggestion, made a number of suggestions on how the Department and the Arts Council might behave. One of the matters to which my hon. Friend may have been referring was increasing the sense of accountability of the Arts Council. The Arts Council has come forward with suggestions of ways in which that accountability might be made more public.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when an announcement will be made on the Government's policy toward the British film industry.

I shall make an announcement when conclusions have been reached on the various options that emerged from last year's consultation round with representatives of the industry. It is unlikely to be before Easter.

Would not accelerating tax relief on film production costs encourage more films to be produced in this country and thereby, in the long term, put more money into the Treasury coffers?

That suggestion was made to us during the consultation period. The specific question is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we shall discuss with other Departments our overall response to the consultations.

Will my right hon. Friend reassure the film industry that, in the disbursement of the lottery money, which I believe will be done by the Arts Council, its wishes will not be ignored?

My hon. Friend is right to raise that question. The guidance afforded by myself to the Arts Council includes reference to film and the need for the Arts Council not only to take film into account in its decisions about distribution but to decide how it will receive expert advice on those decisions.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the annual expenditure of his Department on children's play facilities.

The Sports Council, which we fund, provides a central support service on children's play. The 1993–94 budget for that work is £300,000. In addition, the Sports Council's Trust Company has this year given a grant of £25,000 to the National Voluntary Council for Children's Play.

Is the Minister aware that the National Playing Fields Association estimates that for every £100 that his Department spends on adult leisure activities, only 3p is spent on children's play? Given that 20 per cent. of the population of this country is probably under the age of 16, he cannot agree that that is a fair distribution of money. What will he do about it?

I was not aware of that statistic. It is interesting and I will look at it. I am currently looking at the way that the Sports Council, which has taken over the matter from the Play Board and the Play Unit, is handling children's play. The facts that the hon. Lady has put forward will be part of that consideration.

In recognition of the important role of the Sports Council—and, indeed, other independent organisations such as the Foundation for Sport and the Arts—in funding children's play and sporting activities, will my hon. Friend repeat the advice that he recently gave the foundation? He said that it should take more cognisance of competitive sport in schools when allocating grants; a by-product of that would be its ability to give greater priority to the important regional sports facility between Kidderminster and Stourport, in my constituency.

I do not think it appropriate to comment on the specific example given by my hon. Friend, for which I know that he is working very hard. However, I think it extremely important for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts to take account of the need for young people to engage much more in team games and competitive sports.

Is the Minister aware that every pit village contains at least one miners' welfare facility? There are children's play facilities, as well as football grounds and cricket pitches. It is now being suggested, however, that under the Coal Industry Bill, the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, which runs those facilities, will be either taken over by the Government or split into God knows how many parts. Will the Minister give an assurance that CISWO will remain intact, whatever happens to the Bill, so that all those amenities can be retained?

I am acutely aware of the importance of the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Last week, I went through a list of all the sports facilities attached to all the collieries, and I agree that it is an impressive list.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the current operation of the Press Complaints Commission.

We welcome the further improvements in press self-regulation announced by the Press Complaints Commission on 20 January.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is widespread public concern about the way in which the commission currently deals with its own affairs? Will he join me in urging it to consider appointing its own voluntary ombudsman?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the current concern about the way in which the Press Complaints Commission works, as now constituted. However, I welcome the appointment of one of its lay members, Professor Pinker, as privacy commissioner. It is up to the industry to ensure that Professor Pinker is given the powers and backing that he needs to be fully effective in performing his duties and capable of commanding the confidence of Parliament and the public.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the commission makes changes only as a result of pressure from hon. Members or outside events? Could it not make a significant step forward if it were more willing to initiate complaints itself, and to follow up cases such as the recent Germaine Greer case, in which it appears that journalists gained access to her home without her consent and then ran inaccurate stories? Should not the commission take the initiative in such instances, rather than waiting for people to complain and thus being set up as a sort of defence counsel for the press?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman would be gracious enough to include me among the Members of Parliament to whom he referred. I think, however, that all hon. Members will welcome the movement and adjustment that the commission has achieved over the past year, although some may feel that it has not gone far enough. As for the specific case raised by the hon. Gentleman, such cases occur from time to time and I think that the commission will be judged according to how it deals with them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would make sense for editors, publishers and proprietors to copy the BBC by publishing and making available to the public the standards by which it hopes that its staff and freelancers will abide?

There is something in my hon. Friend's suggestion, but he will be aware that the Press Complaints Commission is itself responsible for producing a voluntary code that it devised for itself.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many regulations affecting the hotel and catering industries in the tourist sector will be dispensed with during the current Session of Parliament.

My Department will be formally consulting the tourism industry about the two tourism-related regulations for which it is directly responsible. In addition, each of the seven main areas of regulation identified during my Department's inquiries as being of the greatest concern to the tourism industry, is being examined by the Departments responsible with a view to reducing the burdens they impose. It is too early to say how many regulations will be dispensed with altogether, but I am confident that we shall achieve significant deregulatory gains for the hotel and catering sector and other tourism-related businesses.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his vigorous attempts to reduce the regulations affecting the tourist industry. Does he agree that the performance of music by more than two players in pubs and restaurants should be encourged? Will he ensure that local authorities do not instigate punitive registration fees and that regulations are modified to make it easier for there to be live music on licensed premises?

The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is yes. The answer to his second question is that I will certainly do my best.

In reviewing the various regulations relating to the hotel and catering industry, will the Minister make it clear that the Government do not intend to throw everything out? A number of regulations need to be maintained. We do not want a wholly deregulated industry, but one that resembles more the well-run hotel and catering industries found on the continent. Will the Minister ensure in discussions with the Minister for Transport in London that hotels do not call private minicabs rather than black cabs late at night? That is another danger which worries people in London.

Of course we shall keep whatever regulations are sensible. Where they are stupid, we shall stop them. As to the cab problem, I shall certainly be in touch with my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to find out what he thinks is the situation.

Will my hon. Friend examine in particular all the forms that hoteliers have to complete and the records that they have to keep? Will he ensure that the industry can operate according to best practice rather than having a lot of inspectors going around checking records?

My hon. Frind makes an extremely important and sensible point. I will seek to do what he requires.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of the loss of jobs resulting from the announced levels of Arts Council funding to clients for 1994–95.

I have made no such estimate.

The Secretary of State will be aware that arts organisations throughout the country have to decide between those whom they employ and the performances and services that they offer the public. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the sake of a small saving to the Exchequer great damage is being done to arts enterprises throughout the country? That policy short changes not only the public but the country because of the shortage of arts provision. It is a disgrace.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point about the small saving to the Exchequer—but my Department, like every other, is subject to the country's overall economic and financial conditions. The grant that the Arts Council will receive from my Department next year will still be 11 per cent. larger in real terms than that of five years ago.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome Opera North to London this week, with two performances of its brilliant production of "Gloriana" tonight and on Thursday? Does he agree that that demonstrates the value of supporting through the Arts Council regional opera companies such as Opera North? Will he see to it that Opera North is not disadvantaged by comparison with the Welsh National Opera and Scottish Opera, which receive extra money from the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office?

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming Opera North to the royal opera house in my constituency. I am particularly delighted that Opera North was the first arts performance that I saw on taking my present office. My hon. Friend referred to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales—my hon. Friend asked in particular about Wales—having larger budgets from which to find funding. I hope very much that we shall be able to resume the upward rise in Arts Council funding in the near future.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding Government support for brass bands; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of letters about brass bands. As I made clear in my reply to my hon. Friend on 3 February at columns 844–45, I see brass bands as an extremely important part of our artistic and cultural heritage.

Has my hon. Friend ever heard "The Flight of the Bumble Bee" or other similarly exciting tunes played by brass bands or other bands? Does he agree that brass bands and other bands are not confined to the north of England and that they are valuable in the opportunity that they offer to the public to attend concerts and to players to play in concerts? Will he do all that he can for brass bands?

Yes, I certainly will. I have not heard "The Flight of the Bumble Bee" played by a brass band, but I look forward to it. My hon. Friend makes the extremely important point that we should not allow what we consider to be the cultural and artistic part of our heritage to be too narrow or rarefied, as occasionally happens in certain artistic circles.

To ask the Attorney-General what involvement his Department has had with Customs and Excise and the police since 1991 in combating criminal importation of drugs.

My Department has contributed fully to the development of the comprehensive range of measures introduced by the Government to combat drug trafficking. As Attorney-General, I also have a general responsibility when matters are properly brought to my notice in relation to the fairness and effectiveness of the prosecution process.

Will the Attorney-General explain the extraordinary circumstances in which he agreed, along with the Solicitor-General, to meet counsel for a Mr. Charrington, who was in custody on serious drug charges on 21 December 1992? What was so different about that case, as distinct from the cases of all the other people awaiting trial, what was the involvement of the Customs and Excise and why were the charges almost immediately dropped following that meeting?

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman, who has taken some interest in the matter, has not bothered to read the detailed answer that I gave on 26 January at column 246 to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I made it perfectly clear that leading counsel for the defence made an application to see me about the case because he felt that, in the special circumstances of the case, his client was not necessarily being treated as he should. I arranged for a meeting which was attended by counsel for the prosecution. The independent prosecuting authority was the Customs and Excise. The matter was discussed and explained. Customs and Excise said that it was already reconsidering certain aspects of the evidence. It went away and considered the matter further. The decision to discontinue the case against Mr. Charrington was taken entirely by the commissioners of Customs and Excise on the advice of their leading counsel without any further reference to me.

Irrespective of the facts of that peculiar case, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether, as the Government's chief Law Officer, he pays special care and attention to the prosecutions that Customs and Excise wishes to bring and those that the Crown Prosecution Service wishes to bring and makes certain that there is no conflict of interest between those two prosecuting authorities?

As my hon. Friend may realise, there is a distinction between the position of the Crown Prosecution Service and that of the Customs and Excise as an independent prosecuting authority. Under statute, I superintend the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service. I do not have the same statutory relationship with the Customs and Excise. I have an overall purview in relation to the prosecution process, but I can become involved in cases by other independent prosecuting authorities only if those cases are properly brought to my notice.

I am sure that the Attorney-General will concede that the circumstances of that conference were extremely unusual. What was the involvement of the Attorney-General's Parliamentary Private Secretary in the matter? Why, as reported, did he try to suppress a report that the meeting had taken place? Did he have anything to do with the leak or any other connection with the case? Does the Attorney-General have any advice to offer about the liaison between the police, as a prosecuting authority, and Customs and Excise? It seems extraordinary that the case should have proceeded for several months with one hand not knowing what the other hand was doing.

There are a number of different strands, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to be confused about them. Liaison between Customs and Excise and the police is an operational matter for the heads of those two organisations, who doubtless take liaison matters extremely seriously; such matters are not for me. As for the specific meeting, although such meetings are not regular, they are not exceptionally unusual. From time to time, such worries about cases are properly raised with me. The one that we are discussing was such an example. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) had no involvement in that consultation, and no involvement in the case vis-à-vis my Department. I was not aware of his constituency involvement until after the matter appeared in the press.

To ask the Attorney-General what information is required by the Crown Prosecution Service from the police in relation to guilty pleas in the magistrates court.

In cases where the defendant has indicated that he will plead guilty, the Crown Prosecution Service requires only sufficient information from the police to be satisfied that the charge is appropriate and to provide the court with the information necessary to sentence.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that the arrangements made were fully discussed with the police? My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the great concern felt about any danger of over-bureaucracy or over-complication of bureaucracy in such matters.

My hon. Friend raises a good point. I am aware of the concern that we should not have over-bureaucracy. My hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to say that the forms used by the police in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service were designed by the police with the assistance of the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, and were agreed by the Crown Prosecution Service but not initiated by it. There is an important distinction between what is required in relation to guilty and not-guilty pleas. In a not-guilty case, it is necessary to take statements from all the witnesses required for the trial. In the case of a guilty plea, it is necessary to have a statement only from the victim, as well as any other statements that have already been taken.

Does the Attorney-General agree that, wherever possible, the views of the victim should be obtained as a matter of course whenever it is intended to accept a plea of guilty to an offence lesser than the charge and whenever it is intended to drop the case?

It is important to try to involve the victim in those circumstances. The victim does not have a right to be consulted. The Crown Prosecution Service must stand back and consider the matter objectively. The Director of Public Prosecutions and I are keen that there should be good liaison between the Crown Prosecution Service and police at headquarters level, right through to the officer on the beat and the victim so that all understand what is being done and why.

To ask the Attorney-General how many sentences were referred to the Court of Appeal as being over-lenient in 1993; and how many of these resulted in an increased sentence.

During 1993, I sought leave to refer 29 cases to the Court of Appeal, including one to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. Of the 18 cases decided to date, in which leave was granted in every case, 14 have resulted in an increase of sentence.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those 14 cases show how important a part that power plays in ensuring that the punishment fits the crime in every case? Is he aware that a warm welcome has been given to the extension of that power to a wider category of cases? Would he care to reflect that if we had listened to the view of the Opposition on criminal justice we would never have had that power at all?

My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition opposed the power, but never mind: there is more joy in heaven over sinners who repent, and so on. Opposition Members also recognise that the Court of Appeal has been given a valuable power. Its objective is to seek to ensure that cases are sentenced in the range that the Court of Appeal criminal division regards as proper.

What does the Minister think of the decision to give a penalty of community service to Roger Levitt for stealing millions of pounds from his own clients? Is his advice to fraudsters that if they want to steal they should steal big?

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not proper for any Minister to make a comment on a judicial decision on sentence in any individual case. The House will be aware that the question of the power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient in cases of serious and complex fraud is under active consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of possible economic benefits to United Kingdom industry from the provision of funds for the training of students from developing countries in United Kingdom colleges.

The main purpose of providing training under the aid programme is to benefit developing countries. I believe that schemes such as the British Chevening scholarships will also bring valuable economic benefits to the United Kingdom.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that it would be wrong to be seduced by those siren voices who would argue against providing places for people from overseas countries to study at British institutions of further and higher education? Does he also agree that educational links with overseas countries more often result in enduring trade links? Will he give some indication of how many foreign students are currently studying in the United Kingdom?

I agree with the tenor of my hon. Friend's question. There are two main schemes for bringing students here—the Foreign Office scheme and the Overseas Development Administration scheme. Combining the two, about 21,000 students in all are studying in Britain at any one time, at a cost of £160 million. That is money well spent and my hon. Friend is right that it ultimately leads to the enhancement of our trade potential.

Will the Minister comment on the position of the British Council, which is heavily involved in many of the areas—aid, trade and education—to which he has referred? May I highlight the example of the Scottish international resource project, which is proving beneficial to many overseas students? What guarantees can he give that the funding for such projects and for the other work of the British Council will be maintained in years to come?

I cannot comment specifically on the hon. Gentleman's point about the Scottish international resource project because I do not have the facts at my fingertips, but I can tell him that, wherever possible, we expand schemes that bring people to the United Kingdom. I can also tell him that the British Council has had enhanced funding in the past year for its activities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the balance of spending as between (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral aid.

In 1992–93, multilateral aid was 44 per cent. of our total aid to developing countries.

Has not the trend increasingly moved in the direction of multilateral aid? Is there not a feeling in many parts of the House that that should be stopped and reversed?

It is true that over years the trend has been increasing, but it fluctuates from year to year; how significant the increase has been over the past three years, I cannot say. Much of our multilateral expenditure is by agreement with other parties—it is not entirely determined by ourselves. For that reason, we must accommodate it if we wish to remain in forums such as the United Nations, international institutions and other areas where there is multilateral spending. The most important thing is to ensure that multilateral spending is money well spent. We certainly take a great deal of trouble with the European Community to assist in that process: for example, the "Horizon 2000" declaration, which was agreed in December 1992, set out procedures to improve the way in which EC funds were spent and we currently have five officials seconded to the Commission to try to improve its spending plans.

Does the Minister accept that the reputation of Britain's bilateral aid programme has been sullied by the decision to fund the Pergau dam project in Malaysia when his own civil servants and colleagues advised against it? Is not £234 million of British taxpayers' money being wasted in Pergau with the sole purpose of boosting the arms trade? Does the Minister agree with Sir Timothy Lankester that that was an outrageous abuse of our aid programme?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter will be fully discussed by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, but I must make one or two points. First, our aid programme is not, and will not be, linked to arms sales. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says that our reputation is sullied, but British aid has contributed to Malaysia's rapid economic development and to the productive relationship that we have with Malaysia in many spheres of activity, including trade. Our trade today is three times what it was in 1988.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this question is a matter for the aid and trade provision? Should it not be made clear that the aid and trade provision is a system of soft loans and has nothing to do with our basic aid programme—our bilateral aid programme—which is based on helping the poorest countries first?

My hon. Friend is right. I should add that the aid and trade provision is about 5 per cent. of our total aid programme and, under new procedures, is to be directed to help the poorest countries. I remind the House that the aid and trade provision was invented by the Labour party.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about the delivery and distribution of aid to those most in need in Angola.

Britain's contribution of £10 million to the international humanitarian effort has been widely welcomed.

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the information coming out of Angola about the scale of the tragedy there: hundreds of thousands of people are starving and hundreds of thousands are going to starve. Does the Minister really believe that this country is doing enough, not only in terms of the amount of aid but in ensuring that it is distributed fairly? Is the co-ordination between the United Nations agencies and the voluntary agencies which are doing such good work there ensuring that the aid is getting to the people who need it and not being diverted to the armed soldiers of UNITA?

I know that the hon. Lady is familiar with Angola and is an expert on this subject. She does the House a service by drawing our attention to the tragedy there, which is quite as bad as that of former Yugoslavia, or perhaps worse in terms of deaths. Since October last year, there has been better access to the provinces to deliver aid and, as a result, we are now providing £400,000 to finance two field officers to assist the in-country office of the United Nations department of humanitarian affairs and to help with the distribution of aid.

Bearing in mind the neglect and destruction that have occurred in Angola as a result of years of Marxist rule followed by civil war, would not one of the major contributions that we can make to Angola's redevelopment once the conflict has come to an end be to rebuild the infrastructure for which our country's engineering expertise is so well suited?

I have no doubt that that will be so in due course, but at the moment our priority is to provide emergency assistance—food, health care and nutrition. They must be the demands of the moment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the United Kingdom and the Group of Seven leading industrial countries are providing to promote economic reform in Russia.

The United Kingdom has consistently supported the process of reform. To date, about £1·2 billion of United Kingdom funds has been pledged. The G7 programme of phased support linked to progress on reform is worth more than $46 billion.

With the increasing reports of problems of Russian companies and organisations, one of which manifested itself in relation to Aeroflot flight SU242 when citizens' lives were put in danger by an apparent disregard for international safety rules, does the Minister agree that we should do even more to help the economic reforms and the transition to a market economy in Russia?

I agree with my hon. Friend that without the successful transition to a market economy in Russia all the political developments that have taken place in recent years will be threatened and as naught. In our large overall programme of bilateral support to Russia, we are giving quite a lot of help through technical assistance, as Russia's biggest challenge is to acquire the necessary expertise in that area. Our present funding of about £140 million per annum will be very helpful in that direction.