To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will next meet the chairman of the Independent Television Commission to discuss television company mergers.

I shall meet the chairman of the Independent Television Commission on 2 November. I expect to discuss a number of broadcasting issues, including ownership.

It is clear that, following its purchase of Central Television, Carlton is asset-stripping it, with massive job losses and the abandonment of the commitment to keep two studios for regional programmes and news in Birmingham. When the Secretary of State meets the chairman, will he ask whether it was known when Central Television bid for the franchise that, with only £2,000 a year on offer and no competition, Carlton Television was waiting in the wings to buy it up and strip it?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman is concentrating on the wrong issue. What matters to residents of the midlands region is the quality of television output that is available to them. The ITC is there to monitor the standards set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990 and in the licence, and that is what it will do.

When my hon. Friend meets the chairman, will he bear in mind the fact that BBC I and BBC2 can both provide nationwide services, as can Channel 4? Is it not about time that we had a radical review of the ownership of television companies, which are prevented from undertaking mergers at present?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, a review of the ownership provisions for Channel 3 television companies is being undertaken. When we have had an opportunity to assess our views, and the responses that we have received from others in the industry, we shall publish our conclusions.

Cannot the Secretary of State appreciate that, six short years ago, there were four thriving studios at Central Television in Birmingham—three large ones and a news one—and a whole range of specialisms and professional groups covering the film industry? We now face the prospect of there being one small news studio, and there has been a haemorrhage of jobs. Surely it is common sense to review the decision that was made last year to allow the takeover of Central by Carlton. It is viewers and, indeed, people who work in the industry who matter, not those who seem to have been the only concern of the Government so far—the owners of the industry and a few people who have made a huge amount of money out of it.

The hon. Gentleman was right in at least one respect when he said that it is viewers who matter. The ITC is there to police standards set out in the Act and the licence, and to ensure that all Channel 3 licensees observe those standards. That is precisely what it is doing. Of course, companies are much better placed to be able to deliver those commitments if their finances are strong and they are looking forward to a secure commercial future.

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new duties. As I have been in my present position for all of four days, I shall ask what is perhaps a naive question—it may not happen again. When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chair of the ITC, will he discuss what seems to be an obvious trend towards coalitions of regional companies, perhaps resulting in one company only for independent television in this country? Is that something that the Secretary of State would facilitate, is it something that he would discourage or is it something that he feels should be left entirely to the free market?

As I said in my original answer, we shall certainly discuss a range of broadcasting issues, including ownership. As the hon. Gentleman will know, even after the changes that took place earlier this year, there are still substantial restrictions on a trend, which he may fear, towards a single Channel 3 broadcasting combine. That is certainly not the direction in which the Government expect broadcasting to go.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the progress of the national lottery.

Everything is well on course for the launch of the national lottery on 14 November. The press advertising campaign began yesterday, and ticket sales are due to start on 14 November for the first live jackpot draw on 19 November. Money for the good causes that the national lottery has been established to support will flow through just a few days later.

That was not an answer to a question but a statement.

It was the first time I had ever listened to such a long reply from a Minister to such a simple question.

I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, if my answer took the form of a statement. I was asked what assessment I had made of the progress of the national lottery and I was anxious that the House should have a full impression of that assessment.

I, too, am anxious that the House should have a full impression, but I am also anxious that questions and answers should be brisk and to the point.

The hon. Lady asked who decided that Mr. Hinton's employment should be terminated. The answer is the Millennium Commission. She also asked why. The Millennium Commission believed that differences of opinion had arisen between itself and Mr. Hinton that would not allow his employment to be a success.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending good wishes to the thousands of lottery ticket sellers and operators throughout the country? Will he join me in congratulating the football pools on responding to the competition so magnificently, as a result of which we have better pools and a new national lottery? Will he join me in saying how pleased we are that at last we are beginning to take the guilt out of gambling?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The launch of the national lottery is a great success story. In the months since the lottery licence was awarded, almost 11,500 outlets have been prepared for the launch of the national lottery and almost 33,000 employees have been trained to ensure that it is a success when it is launched.

Did the Secretary of State participate in the dismissal of Mr. Hinton from his position? Will he give us a clear understanding of whether he intends to maintain an arm's-length relationship from all the bodies that will be funded and the distribution of their funds?

I am not in a good position to maintain an arm's-length relationship with the Millennium Commission, as I am its chairman. The answer to the question whether I was there when the decision was taken is yes.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received about potential uses of receipts from the national lottery.

I have received many representations from a wide range of individuals and organisations.

May I have an assurance from my hon. Friend that any advertisement placed by the national lottery in The Guardian will be neither a forgery nor placed on stolen newspaper?

That is a matter for Camelot and The Guardian.

What provisions have been made for those who make losses on the national lottery? I ask that question because I read in the paper today that, for that posh gambling den, Lloyd's, taxpayers in Britain will have to find £1.3 billion, including for 51 Tory Members of Parliament who made losses in that—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the question. I am sure that the Minister can deal with it.

If it is all right for the toffs—

Order. I am sure that the Minister is capable of dealing with the first part of that question.

None.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the issue of guidelines for applications for funds from the proceeds of the national lottery.

As I have already said, I understand that most of the distributing bodies intend to publish their guidelines for applicants in November.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the success of the national lottery is dependent on the widest possible spread of applications being made and, indeed, on many of them being successful? Does he agree that user-friendliness should be the key to the applications? When he reviews and gives his view on them, will he ensure that people are encouraged to opt in, rather than in any way to opt out, by making the guidelines on who may apply and be successful as wide as possible?

It is obviously important that the guidelines communicate the purpose for which the lottery was established and the rules that the distributing bodies will apply in making their decisions. With that proviso, I agree with my hon. Friend that the lottery's success will be determined, in part, by the quality and range of the applications received by the distributor bodies. I would encourage any organisation that feels that it has a project that could benefit from lottery funding to get in touch with its distributor body and ensure that its project meets the criteria laid down.

When issuing guidelines to the various sports councils about how the money will be distributed, will the Secretary of State make it clear that they should not give money or grants to any sport that discriminates against women's participation?

I am sure that it is the sports councils' policy not to distribute resources from the lottery or any other source to sporting bodies that engage in such discrimination.

Does my right hon. Friend think that more funds will be raised than was thought in the original, and apparently rather cautious, estimates?

I have very good news for my hon. Friend. Our original estimates were quite cautious when set against those offered by Camelot in its offer for the licence. It estimates that, at its peak, the lottery will raise £1.6 billion a for the five good causes—an increase in resources for those activities in our national life on a scale that could not have been envisaged from any other source.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the success of the national lottery will depend very much on whether the public feel totally confident that the maximum amount of money is going to good causes? Will he assure us that he will keep a careful watch on Camelot's profits, as other bidders wanted to run the lottery without making a profit? How will he monitor that?

Opposition Members have a unique capacity to focus on the wrong thing. In an earlier question, we discussed television ownership, and concern was expressed not about the rights of the viewer but about profits and shareholders. In the lottery, the key is not the profits earned by Camelot but the scale of the resources raised for good causes as a result of the lottery. The director general of Oflot is bound to apply that criterion when selecting licensees, and it is precisely the criterion that he applied when reaching the conclusion that Camelot offered the best deal to the distributor bodies of the various applicants for the lottery.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of the proceeds from the national lottery is to be used to retain in Britain more of the artistic heritage.

The allocation of lottery proceeds is a matter for the distributing bodies. The distribution of lottery funds to the heritage will be the responsibility of the national heritage memorial fund and it will be for it to decide which grants to make. It will receive 20 per cent. of the proceeds going to good causes, which could amount to more than £300 million a year when the lottery reaches its peak.

In view of the failure to retain many works of art that met the Waverley criteria, will my hon. Friend make it clear to the national heritage memorial fund that the retention of Waverley standard works of art in this country should be a priority use of lottery proceeds?

I know that my hon. Friend has a long and distinguished history of interest in and grip of the subject, and he is right to say that artefacts that the Waverley committee deemed should have a deferral whacked on them should be eligible for lottery funds. I will ensure that the fund understands that.

Does the Secretary of State share his predecessor's view that a substantial proportion of lottery funds should be used to support scientific projects and those that promote public understanding of science?

Yes, that will be taken into full consideration.

I appreciate the importance of purely artistic heritage, but will the guidelines be wide enough to include such excellent projects as museums—for instance, the imperial war museum at Duxford in my constituency? Will the Minister accept an invitation to come and see the good work that goes on there?

I certainly will accept such an invitation, but I gather that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done so for tomorrow. The answer to the main part of my hon. Friend's question is yes.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to what extent the lottery distributors bodies have been required to consult his Department when setting up their operations.

The distributing bodies have kept my Department and other Departments with lottery responsibilities closely informed about the development of their systems. The bodies will be required to have their systems certified by the National Audit Office before they will be allowed to draw down lottery money to make grants.

Does the Minister agree that publishing the financial regulations today—two weeks before the lottery begins—was too late? Will the financial regulations be made available to us, and not just to the lottery bodies? Does he further agree that publishing the regulations just two weeks before the lottery begins is mismanagement and incompetence on a par with the payment of bills at the Ritz hotel in Paris?

The answers to the hon. Lady's questions are no, yes and no.

Returning to the question of the millennium fund, is it not astonishing that the commissioners saw fit to sack Mr. Nicholas Hinton—who had an absolutely outstanding reputation at organisations where he had previously served—before he had even taken up his formal post? Surely that must suggest that something is seriously wrong with the way in which the commission is going about its work. Does not that bode ill for a process that, so far, has no ground rules, no application criteria, no proper guidelines and now, it would seem, no one in charge?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities.

Has my hon. Friend received any representations from the Opposition that would help us to understand why they are whingeing and griping about something that is clearly going to be a great success?

It will be a great success, and I welcome my hon. Friend's support.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he is next due to meet the chairman of the Independent Television Commission to discuss the future of Central Television.

I shall meet the chairman of the Independent Television Commission on 2 November and expect to discuss a number of broadcasting issues. The future of Central Television is a matter for the company itself.

Given the inadequacy of the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), does the Minister understand that there is deep concern in the west midlands, not only about the 180 redundancies but about the breach of the licensing application promises to build a new studio? Does regional television now mean nothing? Is Birmingham to be just an outpost of the lucrative empire that Carlton runs from London?

No, it will not be simply an outpost of the Carlton franchise in London. It will be a separate and free-standing franchise, which the ITC will police. The key issue for viewers in the west midlands—and, indeed, for my constituents in the east midlands—is the quality of the output that is broadcast by Central Television. That must determine the future of the Channel 3 licence in the midlands.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that the quality of the output of regional television is extremely important, but is it not also important that production takes place within the regions and within the biggest city of a region? Is it not at least regrettable, therefore, that Central Television is now reconsidering its decision to site production at Birmingham rather than at Nottingham?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Broadcasting Act and the licence, granted to Central require the production of regional material, and that that material is produced within the region of the franchise. That is laid down in principle in the Act and in detail in each Channel 3 company's licence. That licence will be enforced.

It is breaking the franchise agreement.

The hon. Gentleman says that Central is breaking the licence agreement. If that is true, the hon. Gentleman should report the matter to the ITC, which is responsible for enforcing the licence. If he can substantiate his charge, I have no doubt that the ITC will take appropriate action.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to encourage inward tourism to Britain, with particular reference to north-west England.

My Department is providing a grant in aid to the British Tourist Authority of £33.2 million in the current financial year to promote the United Kingdom overseas as a tourist destination. It is an objective of the British Tourist Authority to encourage the distribution of tourists throughout the United Kingdom.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the most important tourist attraction in the north-west is the world-famous Blackpool illuminations? Will he join me in condemning the irresponsible action of Blackpool's Labour council, which has proposed to cut three quarters of a mile of those illuminations in my constituency? I thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) to consider a more constructive way of addressing the problem than that so far suggested by the Labour council.

My hon. Friend makes his own point extremely effectively. Every Member of the House is fully aware of the importance to Blackpool of the illuminations and of their economic effects during the autumn of each year. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to pursue that argument vigorously with his local Labour council.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the tremendous industrial heritage of Burnley and north-east Lancashire in the north-west, which attracts many people? Will he consider promoting that industrial heritage as part of the campaign to attract tourists to the country?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that our industrial heritage is a tourist resource that could and should be more effectively exploited than it has been. I look forward to receiving his support in making economic sense of some of those proposals.

As someone who was brought up in the north-west, I naturally share the interest the House has shown in Blackpool tower and tourism throughout that region, but does my right hon. Friend recognise that those who are involved in tourism in my constituency in the south-west are extremely anxious that the English regions should be able to compete on a level playing field with Scotland and Wales to attract tourists? Will he address that important issue?

I agree that every region of the country has an important interest in ensuring that its tourist industry is vigorously and successfully expanded. As I have told representatives of the industry, the key responsibility for doing so rests, of course, with the industry itself. It is an enormously successful industry, which accounts for roughly 7 per cent. of our national income, and it does not need a pension-taxpayer subsidy. What it needs is the clear and vigorous support of the Government, and that it will have.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the provision of sports facilities in Hampshire.

Provision of sport facilities in Hampshire is in line with that for other counties in the region.

Is the Minister aware that planning permission has now been confirmed for a new community stadium at the northern edge of Southampton, which will not only provide a 25,000-seater stadium for the Saints football club, but an international-class athletics stadium, all-weather pitches and an indoor sports hall? As that project would make Southampton the sports capital of the south of England, does the Minister agree that everyone concerned in the project, especially the county council, should join in the efforts of the Saints football club and Southampton city council to complete it at the earliest opportunity?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a keen interest in this matter for a long time. I was interested to see that the crowd at the Dell on Saturday was more than 15,000, which is jolly near capacity. That makes the point for moving to Stoneham. I hope that that important project will be successful and that all the complexities that have bedevilled it for so long will reach a conclusion so that Southampton football club can move to a new, decent ground with lots of athletics facilities for other sports for the wider community.

On the subject of sports facilities, was it not a bit rich of our supposedly sports-loving Prime Minister at the Tory party conference to deplore those who are selling off playing fields—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this question relates specifically to sports facilities in Hampshire. Will he relate his question to Hampshire?

including playing fields in Hampshire. Why did not the Prime Minister say instead that the Government would scrap the circular that allows councils to do just that?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Hampshire and the rest of the country. I am extremely keen to ensure that so many school sports pitches are not sold off in future. We shall look again at the 1980 regulation and the planning policy guidance note of September 1991, and see what we can do to improve matters.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he plans to take with regard to deregulation in the tourist industry.

My Department has already taken up a number of regulatory issues of concern to the tourist industry and some progress has been made. We shall continue to seek the easing or removal of administrative and bureaucratic burdens that impair the industry's ability to compete effectively with other countries.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the relief that that will bring to many of my constituents given that tourism is important in the Vale of Glamorgan, where we have several miles of lovely coastline, some beautiful scenery and a number of beaches? Barry island has been much improved in recent years with the help of a grant from the Welsh Office. When an opportunity arises, would my right hon. Friend care to visit the Vale of Glamorgan and experience for himself some of the excellent hotels and guest houses available at a reasonable price?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation. He makes an important point, because any industry that is subject to a regulatory burden is subject to costs being imposed on it by Parliament or the Government. It is essential that, before imposing those costs, we ask whether good value will be incurred as a result. That is the test that we shall apply to each regulation, existing and proposed, that affects the tourist industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to deal with discrimination against rugby league players by the Rugby Football Union.

The regulations of independent and properly constituted governing bodies of sport are a matter for them, but I have met representatives from the Rugby Football Union, the Rugby Football League and the International Rugby Football Board to discuss the issue of discrimination, and I remain hopeful that there can be positive dialogue between the two codes for the benefit of the sport as a whole.

In the course of the Minister's welcome efforts to deal with that matter, has he had an opportunity to study the comments of Mr. Mike Catt, the England rugby union international who is currently under investigation for receiving payments for playing rugby union? He is reported as having said this weekend that, if he is banned, everybody else will have to be banned as well. Given that the only real difference now between top league and union players is the fact that league players pay national insurance and income tax, is it not about time that the rugby union authorities recognised the utter nonsense of its proposed three-year ban on league players who choose to return to union?

I had the great pleasure and privilege this weekend of speaking to Mr. Mike Catt and the rest of the Bath team—and what a team, what a club! I agree that we have a serious problem with professionalism and amateurism. I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman did on the Sports Discrimination Bill, which concentrated minds on the matter and as a consequence of which we are making progress. I also saw Mr. Vernon Pugh, who said that we must all be "reasonable" about this matter. I hope that he will be. I am sure that the authorities will be and that we shall make real progress—it is to be hoped, next year, which is the centenary year of rugby league.

Has my hon. Friend noticed recent legal developments in Australia which have evidently caused the International Rugby Football Board to consider a change in its position relating to those players who have formerly played rugby league? As the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, among the best-paid sportsmen in this country are some top rugby union players. Might it not be reasonable to conclude that a ban on former rugby league players would be a restraint on trade?

I have studied the cases of Brett Papworth, Tony Melrose, and Brett Iti in New Zealand, and it would be interesting if those were to provide precedents for what happened in our courts.

But does the Minister agree that discrimination between the two codes extends not only to payment but to investment? Perhaps he and his Department will bear in mind the needs of rugby league, and especially the effects on rugby league grounds of the Taylor committee's findings, which now restrict the sport.

I agree, and there is a basic unfairness about the central point that trouble at football grounds is mainly caused at soccer matches and soccer receives all the help, whereas no trouble is caused at rugby league matches and rugby league receives little help. I want to find a way of sorting that out.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure that sport plays a regular part in the life of every (a) child and (b) adult.

The Department of National Heritage supports the provision of sporting opportunities for both children and adults through the grant in aid that we give the Sports Council and the funding that we provide for Sportsmatch. The Department has also been responsible for the establishment of the national lottery, which will provide a significant new source of funding for sport.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it is most valuable for children to play games outside the school curriculum, in clubs where adults also play and enjoy them, it is extremely valuable and important for children to play games at school, in the school ethos, with all the civilising influences that that has? Does he agree that there is something in team games for every child at school, including the rabbit?

Yes. Nothing has been said in the House this afternoon with which I agree more. It is extremely important that team games be taught, not only through governing bodies and outside sports clubs—which is vital—but in the ethos of schools. Team games are just as beneficial for rabbits as they are for anyone else.

Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment the gap of provision that occurs in the context of medium-sized towns such as Ellesmere Port, where, because money has tended to drift towards the larger centres in and around the north-west, there are enormous gaps? The Minister can tackle that in consultation with his friends in the Department of the Environment and the Department for Education. It is about time that they did something about it.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. At this moment, we are having extremely helpful talks with the Department for Education, which are advancing steadily. We also have a register of sports pitches for the first time—we got it at the end of last year. I would be glad to have a talk with the hon. Gentleman to discuss any detailed proposals that he has in mind.

In emphasising the importance of sport in school, will my hon. Friend accept that a sport such as cricket is especially difficult for many schools to handle out of hours because of transport problems and so on, and that it is therefore important, if that sport is to receive the boost that it deserves, that support be given to the voluntary clubs that are willing to play a part in coaching and encouraging youngsters to develop and extend their love of what is, after all, one of our most traditional games?

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely true. I have asked the Sports Council specifically to make recommendations as to how sports clubs can help young people—how they can link with schools more to achieve the ends that my right hon. Friend and I wish to be achieved with regard to cricket and other team games.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which bodies will be responsible for distributing national lottery funds to organisations seeking to promote and assist children's play in England and Wales.

It is for all the national lottery distributing bodies operating in England and Wales to consider the eligibility of projects submitted by children's play organisations in the light of the requirements of the National Lottery Etc. Act 1993 and the policy directions issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under that Act.

Does the Minister accept that, now that we are a fortnight away from the introduction of the national lottery, it is unacceptable that organisations supporting children's play still do not know which distribution body will deal with play? Is it not outrageous that, literally 14 days away from the start of the national lottery, those many organisations throughout England and Wales do not know to whom they should apply?

No, it is not outrageous. In practice, applications will be received from 4 January so there is plenty of time. The overwhelming majority of the 11 distributing bodies will issue their guidelines this month. The matter will then be clear. To be fair, a difference of opinion exists as to whether children's play comes under the Sports Council but it certainly comes under charities and the Millennium Commission. We shall sort out the Sports Council point in good time.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is gratifying that hon. Members on both sides of the House—even the Liberal Democrats—are keen to see money from the lotteries that have been set up by the Government being spent? Will he take the warmest congratulations of the House on pushing forward with that policy? All hon. Members look forward to having the opportunity on 14 November to buy a ticket and to donate to a charity at the same time.

Yes.

To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received in the last month about the impact of decisions he has made on the former workers at Matrix Churchill.

I have received only one representation on this matter. It arrived from the hon. Gentleman this morning.

I just wanted to be sure that the Attorney-General did not forget, as national newspapers seem to have forgotten, that hundreds of Matrix Churchill workers lost their jobs as a result of his decision to prosecute the directors. If he has any sympathy for those workers, many of whom are my constituents, will he say that, if the Government are criticised in the Scott report, he and the Government will take steps to ensure that those workers and their families are compensated for the loss of their livelihood which arose as a result of their decision?

Without being unsympathetic to the workers, I should like to say that the hon. Gentleman should not start rewriting history. First, he knows that Customs and Excise is an independent prosecuting authority and took its decision in that capacity some 18 months before I became significantly involved. Secondly, he has understandably already ventilated his views on the matter—in a debate on 14 April this year involving his hon. Friends, my hon. Friends and the Department of Trade and Industry.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm and make it clear to the House that the decision to prosecute in this case was taken early in 1991 before any reference was made to my right hon. and learned Friend? Will he also confirm that, in any case, he would not normally be involved in such a decision to prosecute, given that Customs and Excise is an independent prosecuting authority?

My hon. Friend is right on both of those two points. There was an 18-month gap between the two. Any future questions on this matter must await the views of the inquiry and Lord Justice Scott.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about progress in the case of Mr. Asil Nadir.

Mr. Asil Nadir remains outside the jurisdiction in circumstances which make it impossible at present to execute the warrant for his arrest or to seek his extradition. Interpol has been notified of the warrant.

Is it not about time that the Government started to progress with a little bit more enthusiasm and energy? Will the Minister accept that, if they do not, there will be considerable suspicion not just in the House but in the rest of the country that they do not want Mr. Nadir back because they are afraid that he will do the same to them as Mr. Al Fayed did?

The Serious Fraud Office and I would welcome Mr. Asil Nadir's return at once to face trial on the charges on which he stands charged. The SFO is ready to prosecute him as soon as he returns.

While investigating the case of Mr. Asil Nadir, will my right hon. and learned Friend also ask the SFO to investigate the case of the editor of The Guardian who has used a stolen letter heading—

Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat. Her comments do not relate to this question.

Will the Attorney-General assure the House that—unlike what happens with many other wealthy defendants—there will be no question of legal aid being granted in this case? As the Lord Chancellor is investigating the whole question of criminal legal aid being granted to people with considerable resources, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman is consulted on this matter, will he bear in mind the criteria of fairness and efficiency in the courts on the one hand and the lack of civil legal aid for many of our constituents on the other?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman—

That is disgraceful; biased.

Order. If there is a point of order for me, perhaps the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) will raise it at the end of questions. I did not quite hear what he said, and I should like to hear it clearly then.[Interruption.] Order. I shall hear the point of order at the end of questions.

As the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) knows, although legal aid questions used to be answered by Law Officers, they are now a matter for the Lord Chancellor. I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will want to raise his question on a more appropriate occasion.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the operation of the War Crimes Act 1991.

Police investigations in seven cases have now reached the stage where they have been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider whether or not to seek my consent to prosecute. Investigations continue in these and other cases.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that those prosecutions will be brought speedily while the witnesses are still alive and that the war crimes unit will be retained until decisions are made in each of these cases?

As my hon. Friend realises, these cases are extremely complex, but they are being pressed forward as fast as is reasonably possible. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's important points in mind.

Will the Attorney-General recognise that what the hon. Member for Hendon, South {Mr. Marshall) has said is right? The longer time goes on, the more difficult it becomes to prosecute people even if there is sufficient evidence of personal involvement in mass murder. What sort of time scale does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have in mind for these cases to come to him?

Of course I recognise what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. Not only did these events happen a very long time ago but those involved are necessarily quite old—and that does require that the cases be pushed forward as fast as they properly can be. That is how they will be pushed forward.

To ask the Attorney-General what requests his Department has received to give further evidence to the Scott inquiry.

Since 12 May 1994 when I last answered a question on this subject, three officials in the Departments for which I have ministerial responsibility have been asked to give some further evidence in writing.

In consideration of that further evidence, does the Attorney-General now agree with Lord Justice Scott that it is unthinkable that public interest immunity was used to cover documents in the Matrix Churchill affair? Will he answer my question with a straight yes or no?

The answer to the hon. Lady's first question is a matter for Lord Justice Scott, so I shall not answer that one. And I do not believe that she correctly quotes him in any event.

To ask the Attorney-General how many offices of the Crown Prosecution Service he has visited in the last six months; and if he will make a statement.

Since April I have visited four offices of the Crown Prosecution Service—in Maidstone, Newcastle, Chippenham, and Camberwell.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Is he wholly satisfied that the relationship between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service is all that it might be, particularly when it comes to preparing cases for prosecution?

A good and close working relationship between the police and the CPS is essential if cases are to be brought speedily and efficiently to trial. I know from my visits that in most parts of the country that is well realised. The challenge is to bring the standard in both services up to the level of the best in both services. That done, we shall be doing very well indeed.

Does the Attorney-General agree that in the 13 areas in which the CPS and its offices are contained there is a wide divergence of prosecuting policy? Quality control, for want of a better word, is not always the same in one area as in another. Would it not be a good idea to take steps to strengthen that side of the service, giving staff more input, so that people prosecuted in Newcastle and Exeter are prosecuted on the same basis?

The hon. Gentleman is thinking along the same lines as the Crown Prosecution Service in the sense that it and the police are working to establish high standards of charging practice, to cut paperwork and bureaucracy to that which is strictly necessary for the task, and to see that high standards of liaison exist between the police and the CPS and vice versa. They are making significant progress in those directions.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the recent extension of his powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient sentences.

My power to apply for leave to refer a sentence which I consider to be unduly lenient was extended in March 1994 to cover offences of indecent assault, making threats to kill, and cruelty or neglect of a child. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has now announced the Government's intention further to extend my power to include sentences imposed in cases of serious or complex fraud.

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's answer. Can he confirm that, so far, sentences have been increased in 83 per cent. of cases referred to the Court of Appeal under the measure? The Labour party voted against that measure in 1991. So much far being "tough on crime". Will my right hon. and learned Friend further confirm that one of the sentences that it may be possible to refer is that for the crime of forgery? Will he look carefully at forgery offences, even those that are committed by editors of national newspapers?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the Court of Appeal has increased sentences in about 83 per cent. of those cases for which it has given me leave to refer to it. It is also worth pointing out that the legislation has produced a significant increase in sentences in areas where it bites. That is valuable, and should be recognised by all hon. Members irrespective of whether they voted for the legislation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of British Government aid to Bangladesh.

I estimate that Britain provided more than £55 million in aid to Bangladesh in the financial year 1993–94.

Is the Minister aware that, through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, an all-party delegation went to Bangladesh in September and looked directly at the way in which that country is tackling some enormous problems? As a member of that delegation, I impress upon the Minister the crucial role of British aid for many of the projects that are helping Bangladesh to recover from some extreme difficulties. Will he look specifically at the impact of British overseas aid on Bangladesh and, in particular, will he defend our contribution in the current budgetary process?

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in Bangladesh, which is the recipient of Britain's second largest, bilateral aid programme. That shows that we are focusing our efforts where they are most needed—on the poorest. That is why nearly 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries.

What proportion of the aid for Bangladesh is spent on preventive health care? I am thinking particularly of the outcome in Bangladesh, with reference to British aid, of the recent world population conference in Cairo.

I cannot give my hon. Friend exact figures, but clearly the international conference in Cairo on population and development was a notable success. The conference agreed strategies for better reproductive health, which include access to family planning facilities. Over the next two years, we intend to approve 50 new health and population projects and commit more than £100 million to help to ensure that mothers are better able to have children by choice and not by chance. Some of those projects will certainly be in Bangladesh.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given to the new Government of Rwanda to help with rehabilitation and reconstruction; and if he will make a statement.

Since April, we have provided £60 million of emergency aid. Of that, almost £2 million has gone to non-governmental organisations involved in programmes for immediate rehabilitation in Rwanda, mainly concerned with seeds and tool provision, the restarting of health care services and tracing and registration of unaccompanied children.

That help is welcome, but can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government plan to cut bilateral aid to Africa by £60 million over the next three years? Does he understand that money invested now in long-term development will save lives and money in future emergencies?

The hon. Gentleman heard me say that we have just committed ¢60 million to Rwanda alone. British aid has grown significantly during recent years—by 10 per cent. in real terms since 1987–88. This year's budget is almost £50 million higher than last year's. Indeed, in 1993 the United Kingdom was one of only seven countries in the world to increase its aid in real terms. We are the sixth largest aid donor worldwide.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the speed of reaction and the generosity of this country in responding to tragedies such as that in Rwanda is second to none? Is it not positively churlish to suggest otherwise.

I hope that our achievements in Rwanda speak for themselves. The United Kingdom can be proud of what we have been doing in Rwanda. We have provided considerable support to a number of voluntary and non-governmental organisations; ODA cargo-handling teams have been working in the region since the start of the crisis; and since mid-July the ODA has organised more than 30 relief flights from the United Kingdom to Goma, containing vehicles, blankets, high-energy biscuits, water tankers, plastic sheeting and specialist staff. The water tanker team daily provides a third of a million litres of clean, life-saving water to refugee camps around Goma. We have contributed £60 million to relief aid in Rwanda. Britain is playing her part in the reconstruction of Rwanda and is helping to save lives there.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for water. Is he aware of the report in the Daily Mirror today, which has been confirmed by Oxfam, to the effect that a fleet of water tanker lorries intended for Rwanda and already painted in the United Nations white colours is rotting away on a disused airfield in Diss in Norfolk? The Minister must be aware, as the whole country is aware, that in Rwanda in July, 6,000 people a day were dying from lack of clean water. The use of those water tankers could have saved the lives of people who died from cholera and waterborne diseases.

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new post on the Opposition Front Bench. We are investigating the allegations, as we want all humanitarian actions to be as effective as possible. However, she may have been misled. I have a copy of a fax showing that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees told the Daily Mirror on 28 October—some three days ago—that the UNHCR owns no water tankers in Britain, is not negotiating to purchase any in Britain and has never been in any negotiations to purchase any in Britain. My understanding is that the water tankers to which the hon. Lady referred were bought by an American firm from the Soviet army some time ago. That firm has never been in negotiations to sell them to the UN.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not the quantity of aid to Rwanda that is significant but its quality? In any case, the British overseas aid programme is one of the finest of its kind in the world.

I entirely agree. All independent assessments of overseas aid programmes have concluded that United Kingdom programmes are of high quality, and we are determined that they will remain so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support is being given to help non-governmental work in Rwanda.

Since 6 April we have specifically provided£15.5 million to non-governmental organisations implementing emergency relief programmes to displaced and refugee Rwandans.

Does my hon. Friend agree that NGOs are providing effective assistance in Rwanda and that their work is the best way of getting assistance to the people in that unhappy country.

I entirely agree, which is why we have been providing considerable support to NGOs for CARE's emergency relief operations in south-west Rwanda, and have part-funded Oxfam's water provision programme in Goma and the Save the Children Fund's health and child-tracing programme in north-west and south-west Rwanda. Often, NGOs can get to areas that recognised Governments or Government bodies cannot reach, which is why we have increasingly been working with NGOs in Rwanda and elsewhere in the world.