To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many non-pensioners with annual gross incomes below £10,000 a year would be affected by the imposition of national insurance contributions on income from savings in excess of £3,000 a year.

We estimate that for the United Kingdom, in 1991–92, some 230,000 non-pensioners with gross incomes below £10,000 a year would have to pay national insurance contributions on their income from savings.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the use of national insurance contributions as an underhand tax is fundamentally dishonest and that early retirers, widows and those on limited incomes would be hurt by the imposition of a savings tax as proposed by the Labour party?

My hon. Friend is certainly right to identify the type of people who are likely to be hit—in all, more than 1 million people. What is more, they would get absolutely nothing in benefit entitlement for this purported contribution.

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating my constituent, Archie Heptinstall, on his 80th birthday this week? Will the right hon. Gentleman further explain to my constituent why people who reach that age end up in the appalling position of having all their age allowances clawed back by the Government?

I would wish warmly to join in congratulating the hon. Gentleman's constituent on his 80th birthday, particularly as, next month, the income support premium for the over-80s will be raised in real terms for the second time in three years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the average cost to a non-pensioner basic rate taxpayer of the imposition of national insurance contributions at 9 per cent. on savings income in excess of £3,000 a year.

We estimate that in the United Kingdom the average cost in 1991–92 to a non-pensioner basic rate taxpayer would be £280.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that imposing an extra 9 per cent. on savings income would almost certainly deter individuals from saving and that the knock-on effect would be to reduce the resources available for investment in industry? Does he agree that such a policy—it is, of course, Labour policy—would be sheer lunacy? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is based on the Labour party's ideological dislike of people who are not wholly dependent on the state?

I have great sympathy with every point that my hon. Friend made. I have the greatest difficulty in finding the remotest sense in the policy of a party which says that it is in favour of investment but which goes out of its way by every possible means to penalise saving.

Will the Secretary of State explain where is the remotest sense in the present system whereby the editor of a national newspaper pays less than 1 per cent. of his salary in national insurance, someone on the Prime Minister's salary pays 3 per cent. and a person on average wages pays 9 per cent? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government—without announcing it in any manifesto—have increased national insurance charges by 40 per cent?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's figures are right. He has looked at marginal rates in some cases, but not in others. The basic point about the national insurance system is that it is a contributory one whereby what is paid bears some relationship to what is received. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tax people more rigorously, he should do so openly and not in the disguised form in which that is proposed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many self-employed people earn more than £20,280 a year.

We estimate that, in 1991–92 about 400,000 self-employed people will earn above the upper profit limit of £20,280.

Bearing in mind the Opposition's unalloyed joy at the thought of an increase in national insurance contributions for people who earn more than that, is it time that the Opposition came clean on their plans for the self-employed, who are the engine of the power house for this country? Does my hon. Friend agree that any extra tax on the self-employed without benefits in return would damage the country's chances of growth, and would help it in no way whatsoever?

My hon. Friend, in his inimitable style, has smoked out one of the hidden parts of the Opposition's agenda. I hope that, during this Question Time, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will make Labour's policy clear. The Labour party is committed to removing the upper earnings limit for employed persons, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West has not made his party's policy on the self-employed clear. We have flushed him out today. His policy is the start of Labour's hand-in-the-till tax.

One thing that the Opposition are certain about is that those who earn more than £20,000 have every right to be called upon to pay the extra 9 per cent. Members of Parliament earn between £20,000 and £30,000. If they cannot find that extra 9 per cent.—a few hundred quid a year—what right have Tory Members to talk about pensioners who must get by on about £56 a week? I am prepared to pay my contribution. It is time that Tory Members understood that they should pay theirs, too.

The hon. Gentleman shows the Opposition's fundamental commitment to tax, tax and tax again and then spend, spend and spend again. He ignores the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, our national insurance scheme is founded on a contributory principle that has served the country well for 50 years. We now know what the Labour party's agenda is on that issue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the time necessary to switch from the current system for collecting national insurance to one based on annual assessment.

It could take three years or even more, depending on the exact nature of the change and, of course, the priority given to it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that bizarre proposal, tucked into the back end of a newspaper on 25 January by an Opposition spokesman, would cause total chaos and huge problems for companies making such a change, particularly small companies? It would mean devastating expense in terms of new software and the reprogramming of computers. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the chaos proposed by the Labour party?

The proposal would cause a huge administrative burden not only on business—the necessity to give businesses good notice would take some time—but on the DSS and the Inland Revenue. It would also mean massive computer reprogramming and possibly the expense of other computer programmes which would have to be introduced.

In the absence of a member of the Scottish National party in the House, may I ask the Minister to write me a letter setting out, in terms of computer programming and related difficulties, the problems of collecting national insurance in the event of an independent Scottish Parliament?

Where are the Members of the Scottish National party if they are so concerned about the matter? As for the unlikely event that the hon. Gentleman sketched, he may wish to test that policy with members of the SNP to find out precisely how such a system would work. Although I am always prepared to enter discussions with the hon. Gentleman about hypothetical matters, one must also balance the amount of time and expense that it would take to comment on something that is not a reality.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last held a meeting with the Occupational Pensions Board to discuss protection of pension funds.

I have had a number of informal discussions with the chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board in recent months.

In those discussions, did the Secretary of State draw to the attention of the Occupational Pensions Board the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds of money owned by Maxwell and Mirror Group pensioners? Did he also draw attention to the total inadequacy of control over pension fund investments and procedures? Is he prepared to state clearly now that he will introduce legislation to ensure that the sort of scandal that occurred, which robbed the workers of the Maxwell and Mirror corporations, will not occur again and those workers and others like them will be protected in future?

The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, which is examining those matters, and I see that the Committee's Chairman, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is sitting in front of the hon. Gentleman. We have seen in the press suggestions about what members of the Committee might say, and we shall consider their proposals with interest. I spent two hours responding to questions put to me by the Select Committee only a fortnight or so ago. I made it absolutely clear that, when we know precisely what happened in that case and can draw the lessons from it, we shall be willing to learn them and take note of the need for future action, if that is shown to be necessary.

In the light of the serious situation which has arisen in relation to the Maxwell case, will my right hon. Friend take a good look at the pension funds of ABG Research, which is about to be wound up? Hundreds of pensioners in the north and south of England who work for that company are about to lose their pensions, including a 79-year-old widow. Will my right hon. Friend consider the problem to see whether the Government can help?

I am concerned about the position in which some people find themselves as a result of problems with the funds. That is why, among other matters, I made it clear that, in the appropriate circumstances, we would expect to operate the provisions—through state scheme premiums—to ensure that people at least receive their state earnings-related pension scheme entitlement.

Although I fully understand why the Secretary of State needs to be cautious about the Maxwell case, will he be more firm on the need for change? His earlier answer suggested that there was some doubt in his mind about whether that was necessary. Is he having any discussions with the Treasury to find ways of getting some compensation for pensioners, who stand to lose millions of pounds?

I have made the point about the SERPS buy-back provisions and the guarantee involved, but I cannot go beyond that. On the wider issue, it has been made clear, not simply from what I have said but through what I have done over many years—in an earlier ministerial capacity and in my present one—that we are more than willing to take action where it is shown to be necessary, once we are sure that such action would be well-judged. We are some way short of being able to judge precisely what is required, especially as questions have been raised about the regulatory machinery under the Financial Services Act 1986, as well as the arrangements of the Occupational Pensions Board.

My right hon. Friend will know that the Serious Fraud Office is conducting investigations into fraud and dishonesty in this sphere. However, there is also the related issue of possible negligence and breach of duty on the part of the supervisory authorities. Will my right hon. Friend give the several hundred Maxwell pensioners in my constituency an assurance that he will scrutinise carefully the role of those supervisory authorities—such as the Occupational Pensions Board—in relation to that subject? If those authorities were negligent or in any way in breach of duty, it is important that that fact should be uncovered at an early stage.

I can certainly give my hon. Friend an assurance that, were the investigations by the Serious Fraud Office to produce evidence of fraud that would have to be considered by those involved in criminal prosecutions of if there were claims that the Occupational Pensions Board had been negligent or in any other way culpable of failure to carry out its duties as imposed by the law, those matters would be considered with great care.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the answer that he has given on paying the guaranteed minimum pension to the Maxwell pensioners is wholly inadequate? Does he accept that many of the constituents of his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) face losing their houses if they do not receive the full pension? Once the facts are established, will the Government be prepared to move beyond carrying out what they are, after all, required to do by law?

I certainly cannot go beyond what I have said this afternoon and on earlier occasions, including what I have told the hon. Gentleman in the Select Committee, about the guarantee of SERPS rights—to put it in shorthand terms—in respect of the guaranteed minimum pension. As I told the Select Committee—I make no apologies for reminding the hon. Gentleman of it—anything going beyond that would raise huge implications for all kinds of investments.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Robert Maxwell episode has vividly illustrated to the nation the fact that an unscrupulous director can put his hand in the till and get hold of pension fund money? That being so, many people throughout the nation who are in pension schemes are frightened. Will my right hon. Friend go as far as to say that we definitely intend in the fulness of time to bring in legislation and, I hope, include in the legislation the provision that there should be at least one employee representative among pension fund trustees?

To take the latter point first, if my hon. Friend looks at many, perhaps all, of the Maxwell pension fund trustee bodies, he will find that they were split 50:50—there was employee representation. I do not think that that would necessarily solve the problem. I cannot go beyond what I have said, except to make it clear once again that if and when it is clear that a further legislative change will materially assist in ensuring that this sort of thing does not happen again, we will be ready to make it. But there is still a great lack of clarity and we are not prepared to pretend that we know the answer, thereby running the risk of causing at least as much damage as we do good.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the banks and the Government have treated Mirror Group Newspapers pensioners extremely shabbily? Will he seek to ensure that the banks hand back the pension fund assets which belong to scheme members and which the banks have no right to keep, given their reckless lending practices? Is not the right hon. Gentleman culpably negligent in that, 20 months after the Social Security Act 1990 became law, he has still not introduced the regulations that would protect pension funds in the event of bankruptcy? Although the right hon. Gentleman has said again—several times today—that he will pay MGN pensioners their guaranteed minimum pension, will he accept that it is a mere pittance, and that if Barlow Clowes group shareholders who knowingly took the risk of speculating offshore can be compensated by the Government, the pensioners in MGN and other pension funds are no less deserving?

On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman is well aware of what was said at the time of the Barlow Clowes affair, following an investigation by the ombudsman into what was seen to be a unique set of circumstances.

To answer the hon. Gentleman's other points—I hope, not taking too much time over it—the debt-on-wind-up provisions were originally linked, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, with the wider provisions for limited price indexation. As they involved a great deal of the same work to bring them into effect—work that would have taken a considerable time—and would have imposed further contingent or actual liabilities on funds at a time when there was already considerable anxiety because of the uncertainty over the Barber judgment—

The Government dropped limited price indexation.

We did not. We made it clear that we would give further consideration to it once the Barber judgment was clear, and that is precisely what we are beginning to do.

On the hon. Gentleman's first question, he will understand that I have no power to order banks to take particular actions. However, he will have noted what some banks have said in recent days about their attitude to this matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many more people would be liable for payment of employees' national insurance contributions if the atypical work directive were adopted.

We estimate that a further 1,750,000 people would have to pay national insurance contributions if the directive were adopted.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the directive, which is strongly supported by the Labour party, would discriminate heavily against part-time workers, especially women who are trying to combine a job with family responsibilities? Is this yet another instance of the anti-choice nature of the Labour party which, in the guise of new-found moderation, seeks to deny that which is currently available?

Again, the Opposition seem to be confused on the issue. They seem to have signed up to the work directive from which the measure comes. As my hon. Friend says, the proposal would bring another 1,750,000 people into the position that he describes. My hon. Friend is right. Many people take a part-time or lower-paid job because it suits their circumstances and is a good choice for them. Those people benefit from the fact that they do not have to make national insurance contributions. Again, the Opposition are recommending a "take" society.

Will the Minister confirm that even if the work directive came into force, the Government could still levy national insurance at a zero rating of 1 per cent. instead of the full rate? Would not many of those workers prefer that option, with all the benefits that would come from it, rather than the scare stories that the Government are putting over in this pre-election period?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous about detail, and I recommend that he reads article 2 of the directive. It is not disputed by any member of the European Community that if that part of the directive were to be implemented everybody would have to pay for the associated benefits. I refer the hon. Gentleman to his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) who, if I have understood her words, made it clear that she did not think that it was a very good idea for people below the lower earnings limit to pay small amounts of national insurance. The hon. Gentleman should look at the detail.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the directive would force employers to pay national insurance for employees who were below the lower earnings limit and that, effectively, that would be a tax on businesses that wish to employ part-time workers? Given that we wish to give British industry the flexibility to employ part-time workers, is not this another effort by Labour to hit the people who most want to seek jobs?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on an interesting point. The measure, coupled to Labour's proposal for a minimum wage, is a straightforward attack on jobs. The receipts received by us on the consultation document about the directive show that the Contract Cleaning and Maintenance Association claims that some 40 per cent. of those employed in its industry would be sacked in the first year. That is the kind of enlightened policy to which the Opposition are signing up.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will revise the state earnings-related pension scheme to make higher pensions available for those people made redundant in their late 50s who are unlikely to obtain another job.

We have no plans to do so.

The Minister will recall that during the first Tory recession, Ministers claimed that making many people redundant was a price worth paying to make British industry leaner and fitter. For many of my constituents who were made redundant, it was not a price worth paying. They lost their jobs and the chance to get another job and contribute to their pensions. Now, when they are at pensionable age, their pension is much below that of people who were fortunate enough to keep their jobs. Is not it time for the Government to compensate the people whom they damaged in their first Tory recession?

That is a slightly odd point from a Labour Member in view of the fact that the SERPS entitlement of such people, which is what the original question was about, is precisely as it was left by the Labour Government. None of the changes made to SERPS affects anybody who is retiring this century. It is even odder that many of the people about whom the hon. Gentleman expresses concern are precisely those who would suffer from Labour's proposed savings tax.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under the current rules for SERPS, there is a cut-off in the amount which is the same as the cut-off for the earnings limit? Will he confirm that all the figures published so far by the Labour party, in attempting to collect more money from the national insurance contribution, show that it will not put a penny of that money into increased SERPS for people who retire? Is that not a clear case of fraud?

Even in these relatively heated times, I am not sure that I would wish to use such a word as fraud against the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). However, 1 endorse my hon. Friend's suggestion that the SERPS entitlement accrues on earnings between the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit and that the Labour party's proposal to scrap the upper earnings limit for contribution purposes is associated with no increase in benefit for those persons.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are owner-occupiers and have paid off their mortgage.

The latest figures available show that in 1988, 50 per cent. of pensioners were owner-occupiers, of whom 46 per cent. owned their homes outright. That compares well with 1979, when only 38 per cent. owned their homes outright.

With more and more pensioners owing their homes outright, and with eight out of 10 recently retired pensioners having an income from investment and savings, is it not reasonable to recognise a measure of prosperity among pensioners? If resources are to be used to increase pensions, should they not be used to target those in greatest need, rather than spreading across the board and benefiting both rich and poor? Does not the idea of giving out a blanket provision look like political bribery in an election year?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It not only looks like political bribery—it probably is. It is perhaps worth pointing out that in the past three years we have spent some £350 million on the poorer pensioners. Whereas it is right to make sure that the value of the basic state pension is preserved for all income brackets we believe that any extra resources should be directed to the poorer end. The Labour party may well find that by the time it has spent billions of pounds on all income levels it will not have the extra money to spend on those who need it most. That is the price that Labour will have to pay for its policy, in the unlikely event of its ever being able to implement it.

Is the Minister not aware that a significant number of pensioners who own their own homes are among the poorest in the country? Many have all their capital tied up in their homes and have to use the meagre resources of the basic state retirement pension to repair and restore their homes and to pay their heating bills? Is not that situation made even worse by the massive Government cuts in renovation grants for elderly people? Will the Government recognise that the only way that many of those pensioners will have a happy and healthy retirement is through a substantial increase in the basic rate of income of at least £5 for a single person and £8 per couple, which is the commitment of the Labour party and which is supported by pensioner groups throughout the country as was shown by a recent lobby of Parliament by pensioners from the north-west which was supported by many Conservative Members?

When those same pensioners understand that blanket commitments of that type will erode the extra money available to help the poorer end, they may take rather a different view. When they also understand that housing costs play a proportionately lower part in pensioners' expenditure in England than in the rest of Europe, they may be grateful for the way in which we have promoted home ownership. If 50 per cent. of those retiring now own their own homes, they do so thanks almost solely to the policies pursued and enacted by the Government. We have made a major contribution to the overall income of pensioners, while all that the Labour party has to offer is inflationary erosion of savings, a failure in home ownership and many other schemes that Labour has offered; although such proposals make it seem that pensioners are better off, because they are offered with other features, in reality it is a small percentage rise. Labour has nothing new to offer. We saw the effects of those policies and, in the unlikely event of the Labour party taking power, we shall see them again.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about pension levels.

We have maintained the real value of the basic retirement pension since we took office in 1979 and we are pledged to continue this policy.

At my weekend surgery three pensioners came to see me in considerable distress because of the difficulty that they faced in paying their water and electricity bills and other bills from private utilities following the large price increases. Is it not time that those pensioners, including the one who told me that she was keeping warm during the day by clutching a hot-water bottle because she could not afford heating bills, were given a decent state pension as of right, without the humiliation of a contributory test, which involves means-testing for those who are in greatest need?

If the hon. Gentleman examines the incomes of retirement pensioners since the Government took office, he will find that they have increased substantially. From 1979 to 1988 they increased by about 34 per cent., and there have been further improvements since 1988. Under this Government, the income of retirement pensioners as a whole has increased more in each year than it did throughout the Labour Government's administration.

Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate as to the impact on pensioner living standards of the suggestion that petrol prices be increased by 50p per gallon, and especially the impact on pensioners who live in the country and who need a motor car for shopping and other aspects of life? Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the 50p tax on petrol is a Liberal Democrat idea?

I am sure that the House needs no reminding of that. None the less, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing so. He will realise the concern that I have for disabled people, who would be hit by such an increase in petrol tax.

In the light of the current Conservative "Newsline" pledge that the Conservative party, if it wins the election, will "target social security" so that it is

"not a handout to those who do not need it",

will the Minister confirm that that is a Tory pledge to means test pensions after the election? Will he also confirm that that is exactly what a previous Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer—the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)—said that he intended to do during a notorious private briefing? Before the right hon. Gentleman issues a denial, will he confirm that before the previous election the Tories said that they would continue to pay child benefit as before—only to freeze it immediately for three years when they took office? Does he recall that before 1979 the Tories said that they would maintain the value of the retirement pension in line with rising living standards—a pledge which was promptly broken when they took office? As a result, a single pensioner has lost £17 a week under the Government while a married couple have lost £28.

I can say unequivocally and without a shadow of doubt that the Conservative party has no intention whatever, when it is returned to office, to means test the basic retirement pension. As I have already said, we have pledged ourselves to maintain the pension's real value. What we shall do, as we have done over the past three years, is to ensure that poorer pensioners—those who have not benefited from the result of our general policies towards pensioners which have increased pensioners' real living standards by over 34 per cent.—will be helped. To that end, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already said, we have contributed about £350 million since October 1989.

I call Mrs. Alice Mahon. I call Mr. John Evans. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I call Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

No. 15, Sir.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes you shout out the names of hon. Members who are caught up in British Rail delays. It is most unreasonable—[Interruption.]

That is not a matter for me.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the eligibility criteria for benefits for individuals recently settled in the United Kingdom.

People who have the right of residence in the United Kingdom and who might apply for social security benefits will have their application assessed on the same criteria as British citizens. Those criteria are kept under review.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the recent debate on the Asylum Bill, our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out that about 30,000 people are registered as asylum seekers, without their families, and that they are allowed six months' benefit immediately upon registering as asylum seekers? Will my hon. Friend please comment on the cost of that and on the fact that, 50 years after the Beveridge report, we have moved a long way from the principle of paying into the kitty through insurance before being allowed to draw out of it?

First, on a point of detail, people are not automatically entitled to six months' social security. The longest period for which an order book can be issued to an asylum seeker who makes a successful application for income support is 20 weeks. Secondly, we are very aware of the seriousness of that development. Admissions to the United Kingdom are matters for our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

On income support applications, I reassure my hon. Friend that the standard acknowledgement letter, a copy of which I have, has been markedly improved by watermarking and the addition of a photograph. That is a key part in the identification process of an asylum seeker applying for income support. In the first two months since its advent, that process has reduced by 40 per cent. the number of people making application for asylum status. It is important that we maintain our form of help because among asylum seekers there are those who will ultimately be proved to be genuine refugees.

To ask the Attorney-General if he has any proposals to change the prosecution procedures in cases of fraud.

No, Sir. Wherever they have been operating, persons whose dishonesty has infringed the criminal law, on the basis of reliable and admissible evidence, will continue to be prosecuted. If, on review, any procedural change is shown to be desirable, the Government will consider the steps that need to be taken.

Is the Attorney-General aware that, while the West Bromwich building society and financial advisers have grown fat and rich by selling home income equity bonds, 14,000 pensioners face the prospect of losing their homes, including some of my constituents who were not advised that the bonds were dangerous? One pensioner, tragically, has taken his life because of them. Is it not fraud of the most cynical, wicked type that financial advisers are not telling elderly people that those bonds are dangerous and that they are likely to lose their homes within two years? What does the Attorney-General intend to do about that?

I am naturally extremely sorry to hear of the personal circumstances that the hon. Gentleman very properly brings to the attention of the House, but he will not expect me to prejudge any issue of criminality that may arise. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is evidence of criminality, he should draw it to the attention of the police, if he has not done so already.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, since it was established in 1988, the Serious Fraud Office, under the direction of Barbara Mills, has done an outstandingly good job and has brought a number of successful prosecutions for fraud? Before we make any radical changes such as doing away with jury trials, should we not think very carefully indeed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Recent comment has been disfigured by a good deal of misinformation. The Serious Fraud Office has been in operation for three years and has achieved a striking rate of success in serious and complex frauds. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the tribute that he pays.

Does the Attorney-General accept that there is concern about our procedures? Will the Lord Chancellor consider asking the Lord Chief Justice to establish a committee of judges and practitioners to propose reforms to be approved by a practice direction, and by legislation where necessary? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that while juries are unequalled in deciding dishonesty, the burden of lengthy trials is becoming unfair on jurors? Why are there such a multiplicity of counts, and sometimes of defendants, with long opening speeches and insufficient identification of the issues for the jury until nearly the end of a trial?

Obviously, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will heed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I am not sure about there being a multiplicity of counts. In the recently concluded County NatWest and Blue Arrow case, there was only one count—yet comment on it included the assertion that the Serious Fraud Office used a "scattergun approach". In Guinness 2, there were five counts. I believe that I am right in saying that in the most recent 20 cases, there have been at most 22 counts. Some of them have to be in the alternative, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. Every effort is made to bring matters into clear focus.

Incidentally, I was interested to read in the Financial Times and other newspapers today that the foreman in the Guinness 2 trial of Mr. Seelig and Lord Spens said that the prosecution had made a good job of identifying the structure of that case.

Visitors to Westminster Hall are amazed at Warren Hastings' ability to survive a case which lasted seven years. Is there not a danger that modern cases go on too long and cover too wide an area? Is it not sometimes the judges who are overwhelmed by the evidence?

I am very sensitive to my hon. Friend's reference to Warren Hastings' because it was Edmund Burke, a kinsman of mine, who prosecuted him over that length of time. I agree with my hon. Friend that recent cases last far too long, and that a means must be found of securing quicker trials. In the County NatWest and Blue Arrow case, the time taken before the jury by the prosecution amounted to 27·5 per cent. of the total. At present, there is no means by which a judge can sufficiently control the length of time taken by a defendant, particularly—this was not the case with the County NatWest and Blue Arrow trial—one who is defending himself. We must find a quicker way of securing justice. That issue is not one on which the Government have made up their mind, and all suggestions will be sensibly considered.

To ask the Attorney-General what is the current complement for the Serious Fraud Office; what is the number of staff in post; and if he will make a statement.

The complement of the Serious Fraud Office is 129 permanent posts. All those posts are filled and, in addition, a number of temporary staff are employed to meet the varying demands of its case load.

Are there any doctors among that complement? What is the source of the medical advice given in fraud trials? Why was Roger Seelig told by someone giving medical advice several months after his trial began that he was on the verge of a mental breakdown, yet last week he was roaring up the M4 in his Porsche to look after his two properties? Ernest Saunders was told that he should leave gaol after serving 10 months of a five-year sentence because he was a victim of senile dementia, yet now he is running his own business. I have a suggestion for the Attorney-General. He ought to swap the doctors that he has at the Serious Fraud Office for those who decide applications for disability allowance and attendance allowance. If he did that, some of our constituents might receive benefits, and the people involved in crime might get sent down for longer periods.

There is no space in the Serious Fraud Office complement for a doctor. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that each of the two cases to which he has referred was decided by the trial judge on the basis of medical evidence, including independent medical evidence.

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am in no position to comment on the decision of any judge. Let me say this, however. Mr. Justice Henry is no respecter of persons, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not become such a respecter of persons that he supposes that those two people were dealt with out of any consideration for who or what they were.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the chairman of the Law Commission to discuss the Commission's programme for law reform.

The Lord Chancellor has regular contact with the commission about all aspects of its work.

How does the Lord Chancellor explain to the chairman of the Law Commission the Government's appalling record on matters of law reform? Since 1984, 22 Bills have not been acted on. What does that do for the morale of the Law Commission? Why do the Government not act on the huge injustices currently affecting business people, such as original lessee liability? Why have they such an appalling record when ready-made Bills are presented to them by the Law Commission?

There are two answers to that question. First, the hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the immense force of major legislation presented by the Lord Chancellor in the past three or four years—not least the Children Act 1989, which has entirely restructured the law on children and paved the way for the family court, and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, one of the most important pieces of legislation in this field to appear for decades.

The House of Commons will need—and the other place will wish—to examine the recommendations of Lord Jellicoe for new procedures to bring such comparatively uncontroversial measures before both Houses more swiftly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest figures for aid and other financial support for the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Britain has pledged more than £80 million in bilateral aid to the former Soviet Union and is contributing through the EC budget about 18 per cent. of Community technical assistance and food aid which totals £595 million. The Community has also agreed a programme of food credits worth £1,225 billion.

With other hon. Members, I recently visited Russia and the Ukraine. Does my right hon. Friend accept that we returned with an impression of economic chaos—and the impression that, although aid from this country and others is welcomed, it is feared that too much is being siphoned off on to the black market? Above all, the need is for the west to encourage economic development trade with export credits and, indeed, joint ventures such as the one that we saw with one firm—Tambrands—in Kiev.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the former Soviet Union and all the republics are ever to put the situation right, the most urgent job is to bring about economic reform. That is why we have ensured, through our know-how funds and all the other means at our disposal, that we are providing economic advice and sound advice for training members of the former republics to get on with the job of economic reform.

I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the siphoning off of food aid. I have said from the beginning that we and other donors, including the European Community, must have arrangements to guard against misappropriation. That is why, to date, food has been available through only a limited number of channels. I have pressed the EC, however, and we have now secured agreement that it will expand the number of outlets in Moscow and St. Petersburg from the 60 shops that were operational in January and February to 150. Later this week, further missions will be sent from the EC and from this country to ensure that food is getting through.

It is interesting to note that other countries are now copying our know-how funds because they have been of such help to the former Soviet Union and other eastern European countries.

I was on the same delegation to Russia and the Ukraine. Would it not be very short sighted of the western democracies—not simply Britain—to allow the countries which now make up the Commonwealth of Independent States to drift into such a state of anarchy that a dictatorship could well return? Given the 74 years of Communist dictatorship and the long period of Tsarist dictatorship before that, is it not essential to provide aid and assistance so that at long last Russia and the countries associated with the former Soviet Union can become stable democracies?

I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman says. That is why Britain was the first country to give £20 million worth of feed grain. Medical supplies are going in from this country not only to help Moscow and St. Petersburg, but to go as far as Ekaterinburg, Tymen, Novokuznetsk, the Kiev oblast, the Donetsk oblast, and further afield. We have help going in alongside the United States and German Project Hope airlift, and we have £50 million for the know-how fund. Everywhere we go, we have been told that the British help is extremely well appreciated. We are considering what more we can do and it is up to some other donors to do likewise.

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on her excellent work in co-ordinating the aid, but does she agree that the words of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) are correct? We need a kind of Marshall plan which will bring to those poor suffering countries aid such as was brought to continental Europe when it lay prostrate at the end of the second world war. Is it not time that we tried to co-ordinate an effort on that basis to enable the Soviet Union to pick itself up and start taking a proper role in the world economy?

The size of the problem is comparable, but I do not believe that the post-war reconstruction programme in Europe is a good model for what is required in the Commonwealth of Independent States. More than anything else, the CIS needs economic and agricultural reform. The responsibility for that lies not with the west, but with the CIS itself. Through our International Monetary Fund membership, we have pushed forward the idea that the CIS countries should come under the IMF. In Moscow tomorrow we shall discuss with the Russian authorities the way forward on a number of difficult economic questions.

I listened to the Minister's words with interest. Is she aware that when my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and I visited Moscow last week and questioned Russian officials about food aid, we found stacked away in a third-floor warehouse what we were told was the whole British contribution of beef to Moscow, which had been there for a month? We were told that the reason for that outrageous situation was that, unlike the meat from all the other EC countries, our consignment was not colour coded. The labels were in English and no one could read them. Downstairs in the warehouse, French pork was being offloaded from vehicles and immediately reloaded for distribution in Moscow shops.

When we asked Russian officials whether the beef was having any impact on meat prices in Russia, we were told that it was not. As the Minister said, there are too few outlets, which she intends to do something about. There is also a shortage of EC monitors. Does the Minister intend to increase the number of monitors? Are we not faced with the same old story of a badly managed project with inadequate monitoring—in other words, Government incompetence?

The hon. Lady could not be more wrong. Of course I am aware of what she found in Moscow. The beef that went to Murmansk was used immediately, and the beef that has gone to St. Petersburg has been used. [HON. MEMBERS: "Moscow."] I know that there has been a problem with beef in Moscow. I also know that the EC arrangements for labelling were not adequate. That is why the goods for which we are responsible are being labelled in Russian when they go to the former Soviet Union. We have asked the Commission for greater consistency in labelling and colour coding for the beef, and we have told Moscow that it is vital that the meat is released on to the market straight away. The problem is not the incompetence of this country. The EC simply had not got matters organised. The way in which we put our food over there actually got it to the places for which it was intended.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees over the last month.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs called on Mrs. Ogata in Geneva on 29 January. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State also had discussions with Mrs. Ogata on 7 February. My officials are in regular contact with UNHCR and I shall welcome Mrs. Ogata to London again in a fortnight's time.

When the discussions took place with the UNHCR, did the problem of the Kurds come up? On 25 June last year the Prime Minister said:

"We have now met most of the humanitarian needs of the Kurds in Iraq."—[Official Report, 25 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 856.]

Is the Minister satisfied that those humanitarian needs have been met and are being met, or that they can be met so long as there is a risk to the Kurdish population from the evil dictator in Baghdad? What do the British Government intend to do to ensure that the Prime Minister's promise of last June is upheld?

When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke in June last year, the UNHCR was well on the way to meeting the humanitarian needs of the Kurdish people. Since then, and particularly in the past three months, the economic blockade of northern Iraq by Saddam Hussein has prevented the UNHCR from doing as much as it would like to do. We have made sure that we get on with as much as we can get through in our help for Iraq through UNHCR, but there is one man—and one man only—who stands in the dock for the denial of resources to the northern Iraqi people, and that is Saddam Hussein. Until United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 are implemented, we cannot relieve the plight of all those people.

As the contribution of Britain to the UNHCR is very much greater than that of France or Germany, will my right hon. Friend encourage our European partners to increase their support for the vital work of refugee relief?

Indeed, our contribution to the UNHCR this financial year totals some £40 million. I have asked that the United Nations hold a conference this month to ensure that the UNHCR's vital work continues not only in Iraq but in helping all the people who so desperately need our assistance.