To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met representatives of the Rugby Football Union to discuss discrimination in sport.

I meet representatives of the Rugby Football Union and the Rugby League on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues.

Is the Minister aware that one of the finest qualities of the Secretary of State is his sense of humour? Is he aware that in his previous post at the Treasury the Secretary of State told me in a parliamentary answer that top rugby union players did not pay income tax because theirs was strictly an amateur sport? In view of the money now accruing to the Government as a result of the Inland Revenue investigation of rugby union, would it not be right and proper for that funding to be passed directly to the Rugby League for use in ground improvement, in recognition of the discrimination that that sport has suffered in the past 100 years?

It is true that the Inland Revenue is currently investigating the income of not only rugby league but rugby union players. As for the safety of sports grounds, I am trying to find a way to help rugby league and not just association football.

Does my hon. Friend agree that rugby union is a game played nationwide by men and boys aged six to 60—

And women.

and by some ladies, and that relations between the Rugby League and the Rugby Football Union have never been better since the Rugby League was formed at the George hotel in 1895?

My hon. Friend is right. Relations between the Rugby Football Union and the Rugby League are at an all-time peak. The meeting on 27 January between Mr. Walker and Mr. Lindsey, representing rugby league, and Mr. Pugh and Mr. Rowlands, representing rugby union, was of great symbolic importance. The gangways between rugby union and rugby league are opening up. That is a good thing. I should also point out that Wasps rugby football club has provided the ground for the amateur rugby league final in London for the past five years. That is a good thing and typical.

In view of that encouraging reply, is the Minister aware of the case of my constituent, Adrian Spencer, who played amateur rugby league football with Woolston? He played a few games for London Crusaders, for which he received no payment; yet when he played in the Varsity match he was suspended for 12 months. Will the Minister note the contrast between him and Mike Catt, the England player, who admitted receiving £140 per week expenses when he played in South Africa but was exonerated? Will he seek a meeting with the Rugby Union to condemn the injustice to my constituent and ask for his reinstatement forthwith? Will he also ask it to apply rules for 1995 and not those more akin to 1895?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Adrian Spencer, who played for only a few minutes; he was on and off the field so quickly that I hardly noticed him, but the hon. Gentleman's point is none the less important and I will draw it to the attention of the rugby union authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to allocate funds to promote gardening.

The Department of National Heritage, its agencies and sponsored bodies do not give grants to gardening as an activity in its own right. However, through a number of its agencies and bodies the Department supports the maintenance and preservation of gardens of historic and heritage interest.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the outstanding success of Benfleet horticultural society, of which I am a member? Does he agree that the national heritage of Great Britain is characterised by ordinary front and rear gardens and allotments and not by men in tights and large Italian singers? Will any funds be available from the national lottery for our great garden institutions, such as Kew gardens?

I agree about the great importance of allotments. In fact, the Department of the Environment gives £35,000 per year to the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners. On the national lottery, it would be appropriate for applications to be made to the National Heritage memorial fund for historic gardens and I saw in the newspaper this morning that Kew gardens is applying for £41 million from the millennium fund.

Is not the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) right in saying that our gardens are a great tourist attraction? The Secretary of State said that he would announce the strategy for tourism—promised before Christmas—on St. David's day at the Tower of London. While the choice of day is admirable, why on earth is it not being presented to Parliament so that we can debate in detail many of the controversial issues in that statement? When will the House hear what our strategy for tourism is?

I have no doubt that a proper opportunity will be found for the House to express its views on that important matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received on cross-media ownership; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to announce his proposals on cross-media ownership.

The Government have received 64 written representations since the review was announced last year. We shall announce our conclusions when we have completed consideration of the issues that they raise.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the series of separate boxes within which the different aspects of the media are regulated are looking as outdated as a 1950s television set? Would it not better reflect the interaction of rapidly developing technologies if considerations of monopoly and limitations on ownership were determined by reference to a more fluid, across-the-board assessment at national or local level or both?

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which he will know has been the subject of an investigation by the British media industry group. He will also know that if we pursued the train of thought that he suggests, the most difficult questions would arise in terms of the measurement of the value of a share in one part of the media compared with the value of a share in another part of that market. In other words, how much is one newspaper share worth as against one television share? Those are difficult and intricate issues to which I do not think that anyone in the industry believes that we have a convincing solution.

Will the Minister bear it in mind that in this consideration it is more important to get it right than to get it quick? Will he bear in mind primarily the need to stop any further erosion of the regionally based ITV companies, which have already been far too undermined by the Broadcasting Act 1990? Secondly, will he bear in mind the need to avoid local media monopolies of any kind? Thirdly, will he bear in mind the need to attract more money into programme production rather than any struggle for transmission facilities?

I certainly agree that it is more important to get it right than to get it quickly. That is why we are taking our time to ensure that the issues are properly teased out. Having said that, however, it is also important to bring the process to a close because important issues to do with the structure of the market, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) referred, need to be resolved. As regards the hon. Gentleman's emphasis on the importance of regional diversity and of ensuring that monopolies are avoided at regional as well as national level, I agree with him and it will be one of the aspects covered in the Government's conclusions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that mobility of labour within the media is tremendously important? Does he not think it a little rich and rather worrying that the head of news at BBC Westminster is leaving to become director of campaigning and elections for the Labour party?

I do not intend to get involved in offering career advice to an employee of any part of the public sector. Clearly, it is important that anyone who takes a job as campaigning officer for the Labour party should have career plans beyond the next election because the Labour party will not provide them.

The Secretary of State will agree that one of the main strands of a fair and sensible cross-media ownership settlement is to ensure that self-regulation of the press works and is seen to work. Does he also agree that, above all, a fair-minded and impartial weighing up of sensitive evidence is needed from the Press Complaints Commission? How can that possibly happen when a man as rudely opinionated and irrational as Sir Bernard Ingham is proposed for membership?

I am not sure that press privacy regulations arise directly out of cross-media ownership, but I am happy to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government have made it clear that we would prefer a model for regulation of the press built on the principles of self-regulation. It follows from that proposition that responsibility for appointing people to the self-regulatory body rests not with the Government or the Opposition but with the press itself. None the less, the effectiveness of any model for self-regulation depends on an effective policing body. Whatever else may be said about Sir Bernard Ingham—for this purpose, his views are frankly irrelevant—no one can deny that he is effective. If we want an effective regulator, effectiveness is the criterion that we should apply to potential candidates.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review the requirement for all-seater stadiums at league football matches.

The issue was most recently reviewed in 1992 when it was decided that the all-seater requirement would apply only to clubs in the Football Association premier league and the first division of the Football League. Virtually all those clubs now have all-seater stadiums. All other Football League clubs are being allowed to retain standing accommodation. I have no plans to review the matter again.

Is the Minister aware that the majority of football fans seem to agree that the exciting character of football matches has been seriously undermined by the removal of standing areas? In view of recent initiatives on safe standing areas, is there not a case for the Minister to review the matter, particularly for clubs in the first division which have not completed their all-seater arrangements?

I am sorry to say that the short answer is no. As for football fans enjoying standing on the terraces, it is true that they did and there are arguments in favour of terraces, but they are not so great as the arguments for all-seater stadiums which, although not a panacea, have helped to increase the number of people watching football matches over the past 10 years by 1.2 million.

As one who supports all-seater stadiums, does the Minister agree with me that their purpose is not only to make football more accessible and allow people to see matches properly but to have some control over crowds? What action will the Government take to offset the current rise in racism in sport?

The right hon. Gentleman is certainly correct to say that all-seater stadiums appear to have helped to control violence, from whatever source, at grounds. They do not stop it but, combined with measures such as closed-circuit television, they are of great benefit. I am in the process of holding a number of meetings with the premier league, the Football Association and the Football League to see what more, if anything, can be done.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only right and proper that in the 1990s people should he able to watch football in comfort and safety, and that all-seater stadiums provide both? Does he agree that, where people can choose between attending an all-seater stadium or a stadium in which there is standing room only, they usually prefer the all-seater stadium?

I think that, on balance, my hon. Friend is correct. It is interesting that a number of clubs which do not have to go all-seater, such as Birmingham, Huddersfield and Northampton, have chosen to do so because their fans find such grounds better for watching football matches.

The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made a strong point about safe standing areas at football grounds. Is the Minister also aware of the need for more flexibility towards clubs attempting to relocate their grounds outside town centres, as recommended in the Taylor report and by the Sports Council? Does he appreciate that unless he resolves the differences between his Department and the Department of the Environment as the planning Department, many clubs will go to the wall and that our national game will be the poorer for the loss of clubs already in difficulty such as Southampton, Portsmouth, Exeter, Bristol Rovers, Sunderland, Oxford United and Grimsby, to name but a few?

It is certainly true that a number of clubs want to relocate, but have been unable to do so. I believe that Southend wants to relocate, but has been unable to find a place to relocate. The recent decision about Portsmouth is a good example. A balance must be struck between the needs of the planning authorities and those of the football clubs. We shall do our best to see that a fair balance is struck.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from organisations which wish to relieve the Arts Council of its responsibilities for distributing funds from the national lottery.

I have received no such representations.

In view of some rather puzzling criticism that has appeared in the newspapers, notably the Evening Standard and The Independent, about the distribution of lottery funds by the Arts Council, will the Minister undertake to consult Lord Cowrie to satisfy himself that the procedures laid down by the Arts Council are set at the highest possible standard?

Yes. My hon. Friend has made an important point. I also noticed the article in The Independent, which seemed to suggest that some members of advisory panels on the Arts Council, or their institutions, had been in receipt of funds from the Arts Council. Now that the national lottery is more than doubling—or is at least likely to do so—the amount of money that the Arts Council has to distribute, it is only right that the financial procedures should be absolutely above all suspicion. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the National Audit Office expects shortly to announce its validation—or otherwise, I suppose—of the Arts Council's suggestions.

Does the Minister accept that the Arts Council would have more money to distribute from the national lottery if Camelot was not taking such huge profits, which were not taken into account when the regulations governing who should get the contract to start with were drawn up? It is about time that the Minister addressed that problem and forced Camelot to pay back its start-up costs immediately.

No, I do not agree. Camelot agreed to bid and accept the franchise on the basis of a return of between 5 and 6 per cent. of the franchise. That was the risk that it took and that percentage is a perfectly fair return. In fact, it was the lowest return offered by any of the companies which bid for the franchise.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the importance of the arts in attracting visitors to the United Kingdom.

The arts play a vital role in bringing visitors to this country. In the 1993 London overseas visitors survey, 69 per cent. of overseas visitors cited the heritage as one of the main reasons for their visit and 45 per cent. mentioned the arts and museums and galleries as being among the main reasons for their visit.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that on top of the figures he has already quoted, on average one theatre seat in three in London is filled by a foreign visitor? Does he agree that that illustrates the importance of his support for the arts, and particularly the extra £7 million for cultural causes that he announced recently?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about London theatres. He might have added that not only are one third of London theatre seats sold to overseas visitors, but a further third are sold to visitors from out of London who buy theatre tickets during their visit to the city. That is a good example of the circular and benign relationship which binds the arts and the tourist industry, giving each a vested interest in the expansion of the other.

Does the Secretary of State agree that regional arts are extremely important in that context? Will he specifically consider Wakefield sculpture park, which is a world leader and desperately in need of assistance?

I entirely agree that the principles illustrated by the London case apply with equal force across the United Kingdom. The example of the Wakefield sculpture park is regularly cited to me as an arts venue that attracts visitors to a region to which they might not otherwise go.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to establish a new national centre for athletics; and if he will make a statement.

The establishment of a new national centre for athletics is essentially a matter for the British Athletic Federation. However, I am concerned that proper sporting structures should exist to enable our young sportsmen and women to reach their potential.

Bearing in mind the great distinction that our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), achieved largely without support, would it be possible to encourage and support future athletes? During my hon. Friend the Minister's visit to Australia, did he manage to visit the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra? If so, what does it cost to run and who profits, and would such an institution in Britain be eligible for national lottery funding?

It would certainly be possible for an organisation in this country comparable with the Australian Institute of Sport to be funded by the national lottery. From memory, I believe that the cost of the Australian model is about £10 million per year.I am sure that the relevant organisations will want to consider that closely.

May I persuade the Minister not to be diverted by the suggestion that a national centre is the way to increase the standard of performance in athletics once and for all? Will he accept from me that proper opportunities at school, a vibrant system of club athletics and the provision of adequate facilities—especially indoor facilities, given the climate of the United Kingdom—are much more likely in the long term to produce the type of performances that we would all wish?

I agree 100 per cent. with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the benefits which would flow from obtaining the school, university, club and indoor facilities that he would wish. However, I do not think that any of that means that we should not consider something more central as well, but that is a matter for the British Athletic Federation to consider.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his investigations into the connection between the Penwyn Pinc Company, the Welsh Rock and Folk Music Company, the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority-S4C.

My Department has received reports from ABSA and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority on the circumstances of an award to the Welsh Rock and Folk Music Council under the business sponsorship incentive scheme. It has commissioned a separate review, independent of the bodies involved, from a senior Treasury official, Mr. John Beastall. Both ABSA and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority will be closely involved in the review.

Notwithstanding that answer, does the Secretary of State agree that there is the whiff of cultural money laundering about the entire episode? In the light of previous unhappy experiences with aspects of ABSA's management and the insider trading that went on in that organisation, will he agree to accelerate the review and announce its results to the House at the earliest opportunity?

It was because we were concerned about reports in respect of the Welsh arrangements for BSIS distribution that we asked Mr. Beastall to conduct the investigation. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that his report will be made available to the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what criteria or benchmarks are used to measure the quality of service provided by his Department.

We have performance targets for the key areas in which services are delivered to ensure that they are of high quality and that they support the Department's aims and objectives.

Why does the Minister not use the year 1979 as his benchmark? Does he agree that our cherished buildings are falling into decay, we cannot excel in international sporting competitions and the quality of our performing arts is being diminished as a result of lack of funding? Is he aware that the Library Association is especially worried about the serious cuts in the public library service in recent years and the fact that the Treasury projects a further two years of cuts in that area? How does the Minister intend to ensure that public libraries are enhanced, improved and reopened instead of being closed, as has been the hallmark of the Tory years?

I will deal with as many of the hon. Gentleman's questions as I can remember.

Has the Minister actually read the Library Association's survey, which shows the cuts that are taking place in library authorities controlled by all political parties throughout the country? Does he not understand the damage that cuts in public libraries do to communities, to the education of children and of adults, to literacy and to the information revolution that the Government surely want to take place? How can people take full advantage of the information revolution coming through the super-highways if, as a result of the stupid cuts that the Conservative Government are implementing, access to information cannot be obtained through public libraries, which are the one means of access that everyone—small companies and individuals—can have to the information revolution?

On the hon. Gentleman's main point, I share his views on the importance of public libraries. My Department will shortly be publishing our response to the review and opportunities will no doubt be found in the House to discuss both the review and the Department's response to it.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to give additional help and support to the British film industry.

The Select Committee on National Heritage is currently conducting an inquiry on the subject and I have undertaken to set out the Government's approach in my response to the Committee's findings.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that British-production films such as "Four Weddings and a Funeral" and "Shallow Grave" are excellent? Will he agree to promote the British film industry as much as he can and to try to encourage as many British business men as possible to invest in that worthwhile venture?

I agree with my hon. Friend on all counts and I look forward to responding to the invitation from Mr. Michael Grade to attend the launch in Britain of "The Madness of King George". My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the flowering of the British film industry which is taking place at present. We must now ensure that we take advantage of the skills and resources available within the British film industry, not merely to promote the development of British films—although that is important—but to attract to our shores internationally mobile film-making projects. That is why the Government continue to support the British Film Commission and why I was so pleased to be able to tell the Select Committee that last year's expenditure on films made in Britain was higher than in any year since 1980.

Does the Minister agree that Channel 4's "Film on Four" is now the cornerstone of the British film industry, both by virtue of the budget made available through it and because films shown on that channel are eligible for nomination for Oscars and BAFTA awards? Does he accept that the number of films commissioned from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for "Film on Four" is unacceptably low? Will he give the figures and undertake to do something to ensure that that serious imbalance is corrected?

I recognise that Channel 4 has played a distinguished role in the resurgence of film making in Britain and I hope that that process will continue. As for assistance to specific forms of film making—whether through Channel 4 or another film-making agency—we shall have to wait until the response Ito the Select Committee report, which I mentioned in my initial answer.

Notwithstanding the considerable success that the British film industry is enjoying—which many of us hope will he reflected in the academy awards ceremony next month, with an Oscar for Mr. Nigel Hawthorne, the former civil servant—does my right hon. Friend agree that the Irish have captured much of the potential market for film making in this country as they have a much more liberal tax regime? Will my right hon. Friend bear that point in mind and go and see for himself what the Irish are doing before he responds to the Select Committee report?

I will certainly take account of the package of support and the environment available to film makers working in Britain compared with what is available in comparable countries. Before we go overboard in our praise for the Irish film-making regime, I should remind the House that the amount spent on film making in Ireland last year was roughly £100 million while the amount spent on film making in Britain last year was roughly £400 million, so the imbalance is not quite as is sometimes suggested.

In recognising the distinguished role of Channel 4 in film making, would not the Secretary of State do well to listen to the channel's chairman, Sir Michael Bishop, who advocated a change in the funding formula, which currently results in about £60 million per year being siphoned away from programme and film making by Channel 4? The right hon. Gentleman should listen particularly to the offers to recompense any companies in the independent sector which have not made the income that they predicted to the Independent Television Commission in 1991.

What the hon. Member describes as siphoning off money is a payment by Channel 4 to the Channel 3 licensees—the people who took the risk associated with Channel 4.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent meetings he has had with officers of the Football Association to discuss the behaviour of football players during matches.

I have regular meetings with the various footballing bodies and I have made my concerns about the behaviour of football players clear. Responsibility, however, rests with the Football Association, which has firm disciplinary procedures to deal with player misconduct.

I welcome the Minister's reply, but, sadly, we see more and more pretty despicable behaviour by players during football matches. If we condemn so-called football supporters for their deplorable behaviour, we must be equally tough on footballers. Will the Minister assure the House that he will continue to press the appropriate football authorities about the need to get really tough with players who bring this great game into disrepute?

Yes, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The Football Association's response to the incident involving Mr. Cantona—whereby it doubled the fine imposed and greatly lengthened the amount of time that he will be out of football—showed that it is prepared to act in a way that the hon. Gentleman and I would like.

I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. At a future meeting with officers of the Football Association, will he make it quite clear that professional footballers have a duty to set a much better example in terms of their behaviour both on and off the pitch to the youth of this country?

Professional footballers—indeed, professional and amateur players of all sports—have a tremendous duty to provide proper role models for young people, and I think that the overwhelming number of them do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received on the timing of distribution of national lottery funds for good causes; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a number of representations from members of the public and others expressing a variety of views.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he bear it in mind that the historic success of the national lottery—which has so captured the public's imagination and is an enormous credit to the bravery of those in the Government who decided to push ahead with it in the face of much carping and unfair criticism from the Opposition—must be reinforced by ensuring that the funds raised are distributed in a timely manner and to good causes?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I assure him that arrangements are proceeding to ensure that the distributer bodies make the first announcements of lottery distribution decisions within the next few weeks. As my hon. Friend said, I am confident that they will reflect a major step forward in funding not only sport, the arts and heritage but, ultimately, through the millennium fund and the charities board, those activities that will result from the decision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to introduce the lottery.

What has happened to the lottery moneys that are waiting to be distributed to those bodies? How transparent are Camelot's accounting procedures? What is happening to the interest that is accruing on the millions of pounds that are still waiting to be distributed?

Each week Camelot pays the amount available for good causes into the national loans distribution fund, where it is invested in public sector instruments and collects interest which accrues to the benefit of the distribution fund. So far, that interest amounts to more than £1 million.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the projection for the sums available for good causes is substantially larger than originally forecast and, if so, should we not all take credit for what is a brilliant national achievement?

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the amounts being raised by the lottery week after week are substantially greater than the estimates that were offered when the legislation was introduced. They are also higher than the more ambitious figures that were published around the time when the licence was granted. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the lottery is a substantial success which has unlocked a new source of funding for various good causes that could not reasonably be anticipated to come from any other source.

To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure the future maintenance of the buildings currently occupied by the Royal Naval college at Greenwich.

My Department is currently responsible for maintaining these important historic buildings. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will ensure that there is a suitable occupant to secure their future. Proposals, including one from an organisation outside the Ministry of Defence, are being evaluated by my right hon. and learned Friend, in consultation with my Department.

Will the Minister ensure that his Department does rather better with buildings currently occupied by the Royal Naval college than it has in respect of the adjacent building, the Dreadnought seamen's hospital, which has been empty for almost nine years and the condition of which, despite it being a historic building, is deteriorating badly? It is costing the taxpayer an enormous amount to maintain. Will the Minister ensure that a similar fate does not befall the historic buildings occupied by the Naval college?

Yes, I will do everything that I can in respect of the Royal Naval college. As to the Dreadnought hospital, I will look at the papers again after this Question Time.

To ask the Attorney-General how many cases he has referred to the Court of Appeal for review of an apparently over-lenient sentence.

Since 1989, 181 cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and 11 in Northern Ireland; 19 were subsequently withdrawn. Of the 166 cases heard to date, 136—or 82 per cent.—resulted in an increased sentence.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me and the whole House in expressing condolences to the family of Tony Martin, a 17-year-old who died in my constituency? In the words of the judge, a knife was opened and plunged into the boy's body. Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand the sense of great outrage in the community that I represent because a six-year sentence only was passed on the 31-year-old man, Mr. Osborne, who committed that crime? Although I entirely understand—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman on a serious issue, but this seems to be a constituency matter on which representations should be made in writing, or should be the subject of an Adjournment debate. In Question Time, questions must be brief and the Minister concerned must be fully aware of all the circumstances.

I was coming to the point, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate your help.

The whole House will have the deepest sympathy for the family of the victim in that tragic case. The sentence imposed by the learned judge depended on the facts as found by the jury. It found proved a case of manslaughter, but found the defendant not guilty of murder. In those circumstances, there can be no doubt that the sentence imposed was well within the range available to the learned judge.

Does the Attorney-General think that his powers to appeal against sentences should be extended to those imposed by magistrates?

No. That jurisdiction must he exercised with great care, with individual attention being given to each case. If one extended it to the just over 1 million cases dealt with by magistrates courts each year, it would not he possible to apply the detailed care and consideration that the jurisdiction requires.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the death of Leon Patterson in Stockport police station; and what discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on this matter.

The Attorney-General received a report on the death of Leon Patterson from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Following an investigation by Greater Manchester police, the headquarters of the Crown Prosecution Service carefully considered all the facts and decided that the evidence did not provide a realistic prospect of convicting any person of any criminal offence against the deceased.

Does the Solicitor-General realise that that is an appalling response to a terrible tragedy? It is nearly two years since the inquest on Leon Patterson returned a verdict of unlawful killing. Eventually, an investigation was mounted by Greater Manchester police, who apparently claimed that they could not find the culprits responsible, even though Mr. Patterson died in a police station and there was a verdict of unlawful death.

The hon. Gentleman omitted a very important statement of fact from his recitation. The coroner's verdict of unlawful killing was quashed by the High Court on 25 October 1994. The divisional court ordered a re-hearing, and all these matters, which have given rise to understandable anguish among the family and the community, can be ventilated at that coroner's inquest.

To ask the Attorney-General to what extent the families of victims are taken into account by the Crown Prosecution Service during the prosecution process.

When taking a decision to prosecute, the interests of the victim and his or her family are an important factor in determining the balance of the public interest.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it is of paramount importance that the Crown Prosecution Service keep in close contact with the families of victims at each stage of a prosecution? Does he further agree that that is particularly important when a case is not brought to court, so that the families may understand the precise reasons why?

Yes, my hon. Friend makes two good points. It is very important that both the CPS and the police, who are often the main point of contact, keep in touch with the victim on all sorts of matters in relation to a crime and potential prosecution—bail, compensation, dates of hearing and progress of the case. In particular, as my hon. Friend says, this is most important where it has been decided not to prosecute, so that that decision can be properly explained to the victim or the family.

We welcome the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions will now record the views of victims for bail purposes, but will the Attorney-General go further and allow the trial judge—who, after all, is aware of relations between the victim and the accused—to direct, in cases of sexual offences and of violence, that the victim and family be informed before the accused or convicted person is released on parole or on licence? Indeed, in cases of violence and of sexual offences, perhaps the trial judge should even direct where the convicted person should go on home leave.

The hon. Gentleman raises important questions, but they are, as he realises, matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I quite agree with him about the importance of keeping victims in touch, especially when a dangerous convicted person is likely to return to a neighbourhood.

Is the Attorney-General aware that the anguish of a victim's family is particularly acute during the court proceedings, when they may be treated by court officials merely as witnesses? They need to be kept informed of progress, and perhaps to be taken aside and informed of important developments in the case or its outcome. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman feed the experience of his Department into that of the Home Office when considering this aspect?

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It can be very muddling for family members who go to court, and it is important that prosecutors and police try to find time to explain to the family of the victim, or to the victim himself, what stage a case has reached. The same applies to court staff.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on trends on appeals against lenient sentencing.

As the Attorney-General's power of review has become more widely recognised, the number of sentences that he has been asked to consider has increased.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the power to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal has begun to impact on sentences in the first instance? As that matches the public mood, it is greatly to be welcomed.

I can indeed confirm that. In the past 12 months or so we have referred about 12 cases arising out of deaths on the road. The Lord Chief Justice has taken the opportunity in those cases not only to increase the sentence but to update the guidelines in Boswell to take account of the decision taken in the House to increase the maximum sentence from five years to 10 years. As a result of these decisions, general sentencing for causing death on the road has increased nationwide.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the head of the Crown Prosecution Service to discuss racial attacks.

I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions regularly. Cases with a racial element are discussed as and when they arise.

Is the Attorney-General aware of the concern in the black and Asian communities about the failure to bring people to book for a number of notorious racist killings and attacks in recent months?

Yes, I am aware of the concerns raised by the hon. Lady. I am aware too of the specific concerns that she and two of her hon. Friends have raised with the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Crown Prosecution Service takes any case with a racial element especially seriously. I urge the hon. Lady to accept the invitation given to her by the director and the chief Crown prosecutor for London to visit the chief prosecutor to discuss these cases with him so that she may understand fully the lengths and efforts that have been gone to and the background to the cases.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding has been allocated for this year to help the Government of Kenya with the problems caused by street children in that country; and if he will make a statement.

We have allocated £150,000 for a shelter, education and feeding programme run by the International Child Care Trust in Kitale, £30,000 of which has been allocated for this year.

I welcome the Minister's reply, but is he aware that the problems are on-going in Kenya? Does he accept that there is no more depressing sight than to see young street children roaming without any stability in their lives? Is he further aware that many people—not necessarily within organisations, but members of the general public—seek to help these children? They need advice, however, and resources. Will the Minister seek to pursue the matter via the Kenyan Government and to offer them resources?

The whole House shares the hon. Gentleman's concern about street children in Kenya and elsewhere. We have a substantial aid programme in Kenya; we donate £31 million of bilateral aid to Kenya. The purpose of our aid programme in Kenya is to reduce poverty and to promote economic growth. We think that that is the most effective way to tackle the underlying causes that make the life of street children so desperate. When we are discussing the forward aid programme with the Kenyan Government, we shall certainly discuss what further initiatives might be taken to tackle the problems of street children.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the funds that have been made available for dealing with the problems of street children in Kenya. I recommend that he bears in mind the successful work that has been done in Brazil with street children following the recent visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the home concerned in Rio de Janeiro. Should we not be learning the lessons of that work—that providing a stable and secure home for youngsters, along with education and training, will enable them to go on and make successful lives for themselves?

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that, sadly, the problem of street children extends worldwide. He is correct to say that 18 months ago our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched an initiative for street children in support of a consortium of non-governmental organisations working on behalf of street children in developing countries. I am glad to say that we are providing financial support over a five-year period to carry forward this important work. We are working to tackle the problem of street children worldwide.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional funding has been made available to South Africa for educational purposes since April 1994.

We have agreed new education projects and bursaries for tertiary education in South Africa at a total cost of more than £3.3 million since April 1994. Total expenditure on education and training projects in South Africa is expected to exceed £6 million in this financial year.

Will the Minister give the undertaking that at the United Nations social summit next week the British Government will commit themselves to allocating 20 per cent. of their aid to basic needs, including education? If they did that, would not they be able massively to increase basic education in South Africa?

We have a very substantial bilateral aid programme for South Africa. We are giving £60 million of bilateral aid to South Africa, of which education and training activities account for about 40 per cent. Our commitment to assisting the improvement of education and educational development in South Africa is there for the whole world to see.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while South Africa may be suffering from a crisis of rising expectations, its political and economic changes will succeed only if it creates the circumstances in which overseas private investors are encouraged to invest?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Of course, trade and investment is crucial to South Africa. We are the largest foreign investor in South Africa. Indeed, during a visit to South Africa last year, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced a new ODA-backed scheme to encourage further UK investment in smaller businesses. Circumstances that attract investment to South Africa are fundamental to the country's future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he is able to announce in respect of funds from the Overseas Development Administration budget reallocated from the Pergau dam project.

We are using the reallocated amounts this year for additional emergency aid, primarily in Bosnia, Rwanda and Chechnya, for additional contributions to multilateral organisations in health and population, and for additional country programme spending, including mine clearance in Cambodia.

That will clearly be welcomed by all the various organisations that will benefit from the projects to which the Minister referred. In debates in the House following the courts' finding that the Government had acted illegally in their funding of the Pergau dam project, the Government undertook to provide funding in the next two financial years, but not beyond that. Will the Minister commit the Government to going that bit further and confirm that mistakes made with respect to the Pergau dam refer to more than just the next two years and, for the first time on behalf of anyone in the Government, will he apologise for what happened?

We have debated this matter at considerable length in the House. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was present for a debate the other day on Pergau. The settlement, under which an extra £65 million has been made available to the aid budget over a two-year period, is seen by most reasonable people in this country as fair and to be commended. The fact that so much money this year is now being spent on additional programmes in Malawi, on mine clearance in Cambodia and on relief in Chechnya, Rwanda and elsewhere, is also widely welcomed. The whole House generally sees that settlement as fair.

Will the Minister try to ensure that as much aid as possible is bilateral, so that British goods may be exported as part of the deal?

Yes, we have a substantial aid programme in this country: some £2.2 billion. We want to ensure that we have a robust, bilateral British aid programme, under which, wherever possible, we use UK know-how and goods.

To add to the confusion over the Pergau dam, which I think the Minister will find will not go away, may I say that earlier this month the Minister for Overseas Development shocked Europe and dismayed the developing world when she announced the Government's intention to slash their contribution to Lome by 30 per cent.? If the Government really intend to cut that contribution—I hope that they will change their mind—to concentrate on the British bilateral aid programme, what additional aid programmes does the ODA plan to fund with the unexpected windfall, which will result unless he is prepared to change his mind?

The facts are straightforward. The United Kingdom bilateral aid programme worldwide is widely recognised as being of high quality. However, multilateral aid is now growing to unacceptable levels; it will be 60 per cent. of total aid in three years' time. Our EC aid alone will be more than 40 per cent. That will be made at the expense of the British bilateral programme unless we can achieve a better balance—hence our offer to EDF VIII. However, our contribution to EDF will still be substantial. Our aim is to set the right size for the UK contribution, one that reflects the means at our disposal, our aid priorities and the need to ensure a robust and sizeable British bilateral aid programme.