To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department proposes to take new initiatives to speed up the appeals procedure arrangements involving his Department.

I understand from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that several initiatives are under consideration or being piloted in conjunction with the Independent Tribunal Service to speed up the appeals procedure. In addition, the chief executive has set clear targets for the clearance of both locally and centrally prepared appeals.

Does the Minister accept that many people are suffering hardship as a result of waiting for appeals to be settled and that there is still too long a delay in dealing with appeals? Matters have not improved, so will he ensure that there is an improvement and that the same applies to independent appeals, because the situation is far from satisfactory?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and his remarks are well directed. I am disappointed with the present state of appeal delays, but the initiatives being brought in by the Benefits Agency are likely to have a considerable effect: the simplified appeals submission, pre-listing and the abbreviated notice of award so that successful applicants receive any benefit awarded much sooner are all designed to have an effect. In addition, Benefits Agency targets will be made public. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman and I will be able to monitor an improvement in appeals over the coming months and years.

Does my hon. Friend agree that more appeals on disability benefits should be held locally and that, if they were, that would improve clearance times out of all recognition?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The move to locally held appeals is already going ahead and should also have some effect on waiting times.

Is the Minister aware that, because of delays in processing disability living allowances, as of two weeks ago not a single disability living allowance appeal had been heard? Does he really think that that is satisfactory?

The comments that I have made about improvements in appeals will also apply to disability appeals in future. The House will have an opportunity to say more about disability living appeals later this afternoon.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to speed up the decision-making process in respect of attendance and disablement allowances.

New arrangements were introduced in April to speed up decision making in attendance allowance and disability living allowance, principally through self-assessment and enhanced computer process-ing. The changes were widely welcomed by outside organisations with which there was close consultation. We knew that introducing those changes would require a major effort, but an early surge in claims has led to backlogs. I regard that situation as unacceptable and firm action is being taken to accelerate the handling of cases.

Why do not the Government admit that these delays are deliberate—that they are all about saving the Government money? The same applies to under-staffing. Is the Minister aware that nearly every Labour Member has had complaints about lost papers? Is it not remarkable that the papers are somehow found when Members of Parliament get involved? It is time that the Government stopped this squalid manoeuvre and stopped penalising people who need the money. It is a different story when they come to collect income tax and the poll tax —they find the right computers then.

I am afraid that I have become immune to the ill-directed tirades of the hon. Gentleman over the years. He is manifestly wrong on several counts. First, there is no question of the Government saving money as a result of this; nor does any claimant lose money. If a payment is delayed, it will soon be backdated to the date of the claim. Far from saving money, this benefit has been introduced at a cost of about £250 million to give extra help to disabled people. Any suggestion to the contrary is quite scandalous.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that since 1979 the Government's spending on the disabled and long-term sick has increased by 173 per cent? Is that not evidence of the Government's commitment to help those people and is that not more than the Government of which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was a member ever did?

Yes, indeed, and it is better than anything done by anyone who supports the Labour party. Those people know as well as I do that this Government's record in providing benefits for the long-term sick and disabled far outmatches anything achieved under previous Labour Governments.

Is the Minister aware that I spent the entire morning ringing the telephone number that he gives the public—not to Members of Parliament—to try to get through to query three separate cases that arose in my constituency at the weekend? If he believes that that is anything to be proud of, I am astonished and ashamed for him.

I wish to make a couple of points to the hon. Lady whom I respect greatly, as she is aware. First, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency is writing today to every hon. Member, setting out the steps that are being taken to reduce the delays. Enhanced use of telephone lines is being introduced so that agencies and the public can get a better service. Mr. Bichard's letter today to all hon. Members will include information about an extra 10 lines that will be specially dedicated so that Members of Parliament —

What about the public?

If the hon. Lady will listen, she will understand. Those numbers will be given today so that hon. Members can get special service for any particularly difficult cases.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the excellent letter from Mr. Sam Gallop, the chairman of Opportunities for People with Disabilities, in which he praises the operation of the benefits inquiry line and states that he has always been treated with courtesy, friendliness, patience and effective concern? Will my right hon. Friend pass on the thanks of Mr. Gallop to the Benefits Agency?

Mr. Gallop was kind enough to copy his letter to me when he wrote expressing his satisfaction. That raises a slight doubt in my mind about the motivation of some of the approaches by the Opposition.

Will the Minister stop being so complacent? Is he satisfied with the report by the National Audit Office a month ago which found that some of our 250,000 war pensioners have to wait two years for their claims to be processed, including a one-year wait for medical checks? Is he satisfied at the fact that the Department of Social Security now takes 50 per cent. longer to process claims than it took seven years ago and that the average wait is now eight to nine months? Is that the same Tory conquest of bureaucracy which means that, after 10 years of Toryism, each case moves at least 30 times between desks and spends four days in each in-tray? Would not the Secretary of State better spend his time not cutting benefits for young people but in cutting delays for pensioners?

Obviously, a considered response to the National Audit Office report will be made in due course. That is the procedure in those cases. My hon. and noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is taking urgent steps to deal with war pension delays, which also were caused by a tremendous surge in claims. With regard to DLA, the subject of the question, we are now employing more than 400 extra staff to deal with the surge. Extensive overtime is being worked during the week and at weekends and 115 extra adjudication officers are being trained. We are also redeploying staff from other parts of the Benefits Agency to speed up claims to the maximum extent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether Her Majesty's Government propose to review the system for cold weather payments.

Following a review, substantial improvements were made to the cold weather payments scheme last winter, and these resulted in almost 4 million payments being made, at a cost of almost £24 million. The scheme is kept constantly under review and we are currently evaluating those changes.

My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that the scheme is targeted towards the most vulnerable in society, including pensioners and those with children under five. I am therefore very grateful to him for agreeing to keep the matter under review. Now, during the hot weather, is the time to ensure that the scheme is in the right order and sensibly composed. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's commitment to that.

I thank my hon. Friend. I am aware of his long-standing interest in the scheme. We made a number of reforms to it last year. We believe that we have ex tended and modified the scheme so that it works much better than it used to—certainly better than it did before 1979—and the improvements will be kept constantly under review.

Is the Minister aware that, next winter, between 20,000 and 40,000 more people will die than in the summer months? Is he aware that that means that we stand at the top of the European cold winter deaths league? Does he therefore agree that there are no grounds for complacency and that now is the time to think through the matter with other Departments so that we can stop the annual cull of our eldest and best each and every winter?

The hon. Gentleman's point might have been put just as effectively without some of his emotive language. Sadly, there are many causes of death throughout the winter, and they are totally unconnected with cold weather. Obviously, that matter is a constant problem. The system is examined extensively to make sure that it works properly. No claim is necessary; the procedure is automatically triggered. We have also removed the capital requirement, which has made another 400,000 people eligible for help under the scheme. Those are the extensions and modifications that we have made. There is no complacency. The scheme is more extensive than it was before. Every time that I hear the Opposition whinge about it, I know that that is a collective gasp of guilt about a scheme that they had neither the wit to devise nor the money to sustain.

As so many people are eligible for cold weather payments and as last year's changes brought more into the scheme, does that not show the Government's commitment to ensuring that benefits are targeted towards the sick, the elderly and the disabled, so that those in need get the money that they require?

Targeting is important in such a scheme, but it is also essential to keep it under review as much as possible to make sure that money goes where it is needed. The Government are committed to doing that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new proposals he has to improve benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds.

The Government believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should be encouraged to continue in education, obtain a job or undertake training rather than enter the benefits culture straight from school, although support is available for those who are unable to work or obtain a training place and those who are at risk of hardship.

Is the Secretary of State also immune to the universal view of all independent bodies which report that the present exclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds from income support is cruel and unnecessary? Has he seen the evidence that was given to his own Social Security Committee which says that the problems of adolescents, the most vulnerable group of young people, are being added to by the system? How much longer will he persist with a system that is cynical, mean and cruel?

The hon. Gentleman spoils his case by gross overstatement. He should know that young people aged 16 or 17 are not excluded. Help is available if they are at risk of severe hardship. More than 85 per cent. of those who apply receive that help, and 90 per cent. receive a decision within 24 hours of making a request.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that too many people are becoming dependent much too young and that that is widely recognised by social workers and others. However, there are also a small number of 16 and 17-year-olds for whom it is proving difficult to deliver the workplace guarantee. Will my right hon. Friend take special measures to ensure that they do not lose out?

I recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's point, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who is taking every possible measure to ensure that we fulfil the guarantee of a youth training place for young people of that age. The number of people waiting for such places is declining month by month, I am happy to say.

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the careers service knows of 50,000 young people who are registered for youth training but without a place who are denied income support, of whom, contrary to what he said, fewer than one third receive special hardship allowance, leaving more than 30,000 destitute, without money at all to survive on? Is it true, as has been reported, that the right hon. Gentleman now proposes that, for young people who go on youth training scheme courses, the £35 a week training allowance should be scrapped and replaced by the equivalent of child benefit of £9·65 a week for their parents?

Financial help should be available for everyone who does not have support from his or her family. As I said, 80 per cent. of those who apply for the severe hardship allowance receive it. The hon. Gentleman is talking about people who live at home, who, of course, have the support of their parents. Only if their parents are not able to help is additional support given.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vast majority of 16 and 17-year-olds either go on to training or into work and that there is a severe hardship allowance for people who are unable to go to work or receive training? Such people receive income support and the Government will continue to provide support for people who are unable to obtain training or work.

My hon. Friend is right. One of the Government's successes is the increase in the number of young people either staying on at school for extra education beyond the age at which schooling is compulsory or going on training courses. Only 40 per cent. did so under the Labour Government. The figure is now nearer 70 per cent. That is a vast improvement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the pension for (a) a couple and (b) an individual in 1979; and what is this figure uprated in line with (i) inflation and (ii) with earnings.

The current rate of retirement pension, uprated in line with prices since 1979, is £54·15 for a single person and £86·70 for a couple. If uprated in line with earnings, the pension would now be about 29 per cent. higher. This would have cost the national insurance fund more than £40 billion since 1979, implying an extra £10·50 per week on the national insurance contributions paid currently by a man on average earnings and by his employer.

Does not the Minister's reply reveal that many old-age pensioners are at a disadvantage compared with other income groups? In view of her answer that pensioners are at a 29 per cent. disadvantage compared with the position under the Labour Government, is it not time that the Minister decided that pensioners were entitled to some further consideration? When does the Minister intend to do something about the pensioners, instead of using rhetoric about what it would cost the Government, given how much they spend on unemployment benefit?

If the hon. Gentleman is not receptive to rhetoric about what it would cost the Government, perhaps he is receptive to rhetoric about what we have done for the pensioners. Perhaps he is receptive to the fact that pensioners' incomes have increased by 34 per cent. since the Conservatives came to power whereas they rose by only 3 per cent. under the Labour Government. Perhaps he will reflect on the large increase in home ownership and consumer-durable ownership among pensioners and the fact that incomes from savings have doubled. That is what we have done for pensioners and it is worth more than the Labour party's rhetoric. That rhetoric lost it the last election and will continue to lose it elections so long as Labour Members make wild promises.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that since 1989 income-related benefits for pensioners have increased by £700 million? Does she agree that that shows the Government's commitment to increasing benefits for those who are most in need?

It is an essential part of the Government's policy to target benefits, as far as possible, on those most in need, and that is why there have been substantial increases for those in residential and nursing homes and for those pensioners on income support. We shall continue to direct extra resources towards those in need while maintaining the value of the basic state pension.

Will the Minister accept that although the Opposition are greatly concerned about the erosion of the pension, we are concerned also about the abolition of the pension for women aged 63 or less? We are reading press reports that say that the Government are considering increasing the retirement age for women to 65. Is that what the Government propose, or are they preparing the ground in order to back down so that the pension age for women goes up only to 63? Of the 3,000 representations that the Minister and her colleagues received on this matter, how many asked for an increase in the retirement age for women?

The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he believes not only his own propaganda but everything that he reads in the press. As he well knows, the Government have not reached any conclusion on how to equalise state pensions, beyond our firm commitment to do so. We issued a discussion document and, as he will be aware, the period for discussion has only just ended. That set out four main options and went well beyond the narrow range that the hon. Gentleman identified. In due course, we shall come to a decision and we shall announce it, in the proper way, to the House. Until then, it would be improper for anyone to speculate, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman stops alarming prospective pensioners by speculating without reason.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements are made for itinerant people to claim social security benefits.

Itinerant people who claim social security benefits are entitled to benefits under the same conditions as other people. Those who claim benefits for unemployment are required to be available for work with an employer and to seek such work actively.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he explain how it is that people who call themselves travellers, gipsies and didicois, or who are just a thundering nuisance, seem able to move around the country getting benefits wherever they stop, whereas my constituents are, quite rightly, required to report regularly to a social security office or to a Jobcentre, where they have to show that they are actively applying for jobs so that they can receive benefits? Furthermore, if they take just a few days holiday with their families, they lose benefit.

As I said to my hon. Friend, itinerants have to fulfil the same conditions as other people. If my hon. Friend or any hon. Member has evidence that they are not doing so, that would be a matter to follow up in the normal way.

Would the Minister care to visit Centrepoint and talk to 16 and 17-year-olds who have travelled to London from towns and cities to the north and find themselves without a job and a home? They have to wait a long time before receiving any help or cash income from the Government and in the meantime they live in cardboard boxes.

Last week, I visited one of the benefit offices dealing with itinerant people and they recognised the improvements in the conditions that we have created for them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the impact of recent technological developments on disabled people.

Recent. current and future technological developments are making and will continue to make an increasing impact on lives of disabled people in this country. They will enable many disabled people to live independently, to have opportunities for education, employment and leisure. They will also play an important part in the detection, prevention and amelioration of disabling conditions.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome typetalk, the joint venture between British Telecom and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf that enables deaf people to talk to each other and to hearing people on the telephone? Will he confirm that the Department provides funds to the institute and supports projects such as typetalk?

I can confirm that, and it has been my privilege to have been involved with typetalk since its inception and to be present at the launch of the scheme just before the general election. It is beginning to do a marvellous job on behalf of deaf and hard-of-hearing people, not least by enabling them to have access to employment.

Is the Minister aware that disabled people in my constituency are complaining about the technological developments in the Benefits Agency that have altered the administration of their benefits'? As a result many of them cannot afford to renew the MOT on their car, on which they depend for mobility. They face delays of six months and more in the administration of their benefits because of the new technological developments in the Benefits Agency.

That has nothing whatever to do with the introduction of new technology for the administration of benefits. The Benefits Agency is coping with twice as many claims for attendance allowance and disability living allowance as in the same period last year, and it is doing so successfully. If the hon. Lady knows of any particular cases where she believes that access to the motability scheme is affected by these delays, I hope that she will contact me immediately about them.

While I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the important opportunities that new technological developments open up for disabled people, what plans does he have—in consultation with his colleagues at the Departments of Employment and for Education—to improve the availability of expert advice and counselling for individual disabled people, so that a judgment can be made about what technology would be of most help to them personally, and the availability of expert purchasing to ensure that the money goes further and more disabled people can enjoy the benefits of new technology?

As my hon. Friend will know, a number of Government Departments and other agencies fund new technology to help disabled people. I should like to see more co-ordination and a more seamless-garment approach to the advice available to them and to its accessibility. The Department of Employment already spends about £300 million a year on enabling disabled people to obtain employment or on maintaining them in employment. That is immensely important. Certainly, the national disability information project, which is a pilot scheme now and is likely to go national in the not-too-distant future, will greatly enhance the power of disabled people to make choices about the use of technology for their own needs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the Courage Brewery's pension funds; and if he will make a statement.

I have had no representations regarding the Courage Brewery's pension funds.

Well, I have—from many of my constituents who were worried when they read about the Harlin write-down. Is it not true that the regulatory system relies entirely on the honesty of the trustees and that if they prove not to be honest, the whole system collapses? When will the Secretary of State introduce regulations that give guarantees and security to pensioners? Is it not time that the Government took responsibility for some of the farces in the past?

If the hon. Lady is questioning the honesty of any of the trustees, I hope that she will do so publicly. I do not know of any reason to do so. The Transport and General Workers Union has made a complaint and it is being investigated by the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, whose responsibility that is. It will recommend whatever action it deems appropriate. I understand that the pension fund is in a healthy state and recently enhanced the benefits that if offers to its pensioners. Elected representatives from the membership sit on the committee of management, which has day-to-day control of the fund's administration. An investment sub-committee had been set up to scrutinise investment policies and an independent trustee to head that sub-committee has been appointed. Obviously, if the hon. Lady has any evidence that she want to submit to the regulatory authorities, she should do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable reassurances could be given both to Courage Brewery pensioners and to members of other occupational pension schemes, not least the many hundreds of Maxwell pensioners in my constituency, if the Securities and Investments Board were now to publish its report on the Maxwell scandal or, at the very least, those aspects of it which could be made public without prejudicing criminal proceedings? In that way, hon. Members on both sides of the House can know what went wrong with the regulatory arrangements, and we and our constituents can have an informed debate about what needs to be done to put things right.

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The Securities and Investments Board has said that it wishes to publish as much as possible, subject only to the legal advice that it receives on the risks of prejudicing a fair trial. Obviously, the Government concur with that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals the Contributions Agency has to safeguard the special position of share fishermen paying their special contribution when unemployed under days at sea limitations.

We have no plans to change the special arrangements which have been made for share fishermen.

That answer is appalling. Does the Minister not accept that, as the Government are about to impose a limit on the number of days that fishing vessels can put to sea, fishermen who pay the special share fishermen's stamp will be unable to collect the benefit to which they are entitled and unable to exist unless some special exemption is made for them in the new situation? They will be vulnerable and trapped between a Government decision that they cannot carry on with the job and another Government decision that they cannot collect benefit because of the weekly earnings rule.

The payment of a special contribution has been introduced specifically to protect share fishermen, to make sure that they become eligible for unemployment benefit. Qualifying for two weeks or more for unemployment benefit will cover the additional costs, since the vessels of the majority of share fishermen are laid up for more than two weeks. Our arrangements are fair and equitable.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on targeting help towards particularly needy pensioner groups.

Since 1988 we have increased annual benefits for pensioners on income support by some £700 million over and above inflation—not least for the pensioners of Basildon.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many senior citizens in Basildon have benefited from the extra Government help, which is over and above the normal upratings? Does he agree that that clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to helping vulnerable pensioners and that the inflationary policies of Opposition socialist parties would crucify senior citizens?

As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under this Government pensioners' income has risen by about 34 per cent. in real terms. That is five times as fast as the meagre increase that they enjoyed under a Labour Government when incomes from savings were cut because of inflation. They remember that.

One needy group of pensioners are those with disabilities. While the Benefits Agency customer charter trumpets claimants' rights to a more accessible service, pensioners who apply for disability living allowance have first to fill in a form with two sections and 12 different parts, totalling 34 pages. How can that credibly be described as a more accessible service? Is not the real purpose of these bureaucratic black holes to ensure that the minimum number of claimants can find their way through them so that the Government can save on their social security budget?

That is certainly not the intention, and that is clear from our record which shows a substantial increase in the number of disabled people to whom we have given help. Our introduction of the system of self-assessment rather a requirement for a medical certificate shows that we were anxious to extend benefits to all disabled people in need. It is also clear that a significant proportion of the £700 million increased entitlement for elderly people to which I referred is going to the disabled. There was an increase in April and there will be a further increase in October. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not have the grace to recognise and welcome that.

What is my right hon. Friend's Department doing to debunk the Labour myth that pensions were tied to earnings throughout the five years from 1974 to 1979? Does my right hon. Friend recall, and will he ensure that it is publicised, that at one stage the Labour Secretary of State changed the date on which pensions were calculated from a November base to an April base, some seven months —

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Minister's responsibility on this question. The Minister will please answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

My Department would like to perpetuate the tenure of office of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), as he was a member of the Labour Government in the Department of Social Security at the time. He is a standing monument to that Government, who not only broke the earnings link to which Labour Members now refer as though it were inviolate, but failed to pay the Christmas bonus. The hon. Gentleman was there to tell the tale.

Does not the Secretary of State realise that one of the most vulnerable groups of elderly people is the over-80s? Is it not an insult to them that the additional benefit that they receive is a meagre 25p a week—less than the amount needed to buy a loaf of bread? Will he immediately review the increase for the over-80s to ensure that they receive a retirement pension that enables them to lead a happy, healthy and secure retirement?

The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that over-80s on income support received an extra increase of £1 for single people and £1·50 for couples in April. This is to be followed by a £2 and £3 increase in October, and is geared and targeted to those most in need. I understand that the Opposition Front-Bench team is thinking of doing away with the universal retirement pension and targeting it instead. We would be interested to know how they intend to carry out that policy.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement on the work of the Serious Fraud Office in 1992.

The current caseload of the Serious Fraud Office is 59 cases, of which 28 are being tried or are awaiting trial, 13 are awaiting committal or transfer and 18 are under investigation.

Is the Maxwell scandal among the 59 or are the Government not interested in them, like Peter Walker and other fat cats, who made money out of the Mirror group pensioners? Is it not a scandal that an ex-Tory Minister who graced the Front Bench picked up £440,000 and a Mercedes and, instead of asking him to give the money back to the pensioners, the Prime Minister has given him a job and a peerage? What a scandal!

To answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he may not have noticed—but I think that everyone else in the House has—that the Maxwell case is under investigation, arrests were made recently and the investigation continues. On the second part of his question, the hon. Gentleman is free to scatter allegations in the House, but I think that his constituents and those who come from the good working-class stock of which he prides himself, would prefer the careful and impartial investigation of the Serious Fraud Office to the approach that he has taken in asking his question.

Is the Attorney-General aware of the concern that has recently been expressed, particularly by the Bar, on the method, timing and publicity given to some arrests involving the SFO? Is it necessary frequently to arrest in the early hours of the morning, with press and television in attendance? In order to ensure that our procedures, from the moment of arrest, are seen to be fair, will the Attorney-General consult the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office and his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider whether it would be appropriate to issue guidelines to minimise concern and ensure that both the public interest and the rights of the individual are fully protected?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably have seen my recent written answer to him dealing with the matter. One understands and shares the desire not to inflict unnecessary humiliation on any potential defendant. However, such matters are operational matters for the police, and the versatile critics might well ask themselves what they would say if a potential defendant, having been accorded a particular privilege, were then unable to be arrested.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his practice in referring cases to the Court of Appeal for possible increase of sentences.

Since 1 February 1989, when this power came into effect, my predecessor and I have applied for leave to refer 86 sentences to the Court of Appeal, including five to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland. Ten were later withdrawn in the light of futher information, but of the 61 so far reviewed, 48 have resulted in substantially increased sentences.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that to retain public confidence the sentence must fit the crime and should provide the victim with some comfort? Does he further agree that the sentence should contain an element of retribution, punishment and deterrence? If all those are seen to be in place, the public are satisfied—but in so many instances they feel that judges pass sentences that do not fit the crime.

I entirely agree that in sentencing, not only must there be an opportunity for over-severe sentences to be reduced by the Court of Appeal but that public confidence requires that where a sentence is unduly lenient, the court should have an oppportunity to fix a more appropriate and, where necessary, more severe sentence.

Does the Attorney-General accept that in a case that I referred to him in which the relatives of a man prosecuted for serious sexual abuse over many years made the dramatic and courageous decision to appear in court, they were deeply disappointed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not choose to appeal against the sentence of probation? As the Attorney-General knows, that sentence allowed the convicted man to be seen by his last victim—a 12-year-old—wandering around a local town. The relatives felt deeply betrayed because the Government did not ensure that a sentence was imposed that would ensure that that man was kept well away from the area where he committed his vicious crimes.

I am aware of the details of the case that the hon. Gentleman referred to me. Such cases are not easy. It is essential that the considerable power to refer a sentence as unduly lenient should be exercised by the Law Officers after careful examination of the facts and in the light of the principles of sentencing, which are carefully laid down by the Court of Appeal.

To ask the Attorney-General how many current cases relating to possible prosecutions for sedition are being considered by the Crown Prosecution Service.

None.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the laws of sedition that remain on the statute book cover threats below the level of treason, where the interests of the state are at risk? Does he agree also that they could apply to, and be used in bringing prosecutions against, republicans in the newspaper world who seek to undermine state institutions—including of course the monarchy?

Although the material to which my hon. Friend refers is highly offensive to many, it must be remembered that an essential element in sedition is the intention to incite violence for the purpose of disturbing constituted authority. The attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has not so far been drawn to any material that falls into that category.

To ask the Attorney-General how many requests have been received within the last year from other EC countries for assistance from the Serious Fraud Office.

While the Serious Fraud Office has received no specific requests for assistance from European Community countries in the last year, it has excellent working relationships with the overseas authorities with which it comes into contact. In the last year, co-operation and assistance have been given by countries including France, Switzerland, the United States of America, Channel Islands, and Isle of Man.

I am disappointed that the Solicitor-General's list does not include the Republic of Ireland because, as he knows, there have been a number of serious financial scandals there in recent months. The Garda makes no secret of the fact that its resources are not sufficient to deal with them. I refer in particular to the Goodman scandal concerning export credit insurance for beef, which the current Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. O'Malley, said resulted from Goodman's unusually close relationship with the Taoiseach, Mr. Albert Reynolds. The ramifications of that case extend to Northern Ireland, because it appears that export credit insurance was given for large consignments of beef that originated in Northern Ireland. In the light of that, would it not be appropriate for the Serious Fraud Office to play a more active role in examining the ramifications of those scandals?

I have recently returned from Northern Ireland. The Serious Fraud Office is always anxious to help when it can, but its powers under section 2 of the Act are limited to cases in which it is investigating a fraud in our jurisdiction; it cannot act as an agent for a foreign country in regard to a fraud within a jurisdiction of that country. We need a United Kingdom foundation before the SFO can act.

To ask the Attorney-General what improvements are being made to the Crown prosecution service; and if he will make a statement.

The principal current initiatives within the Crown prosecution service centre on continued improvement in the recruitment of lawyers, and in quality of service through the implementation of national operational practice —that is, national standards for casework management.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Crown prosecution service employs enough staff to ensure that the perpetrators of a crime are brought to book swiftly and effectively?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am pleased to confirm that recruitment in the Crown prosecution service has continued in a very satisfactory way. The numbers recruited during the past 12 months include an extra 200 lawyers, bringing the total complement of lawyers now in post to 2,017.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the Overseas Development Administration is making to examining the link between environment and population growth; and to what extent the strategies in the Rio declaration present an opportunity for expanding current activities.

The Overseas Development Agency has recently initiated a programme of research into the links between environ-ment and population. The Rio declaration and programme of action confirmed the need for a better understanding of these relationships. We will continue to look for opportunities to develop our activities in this area.

Action, rather than research, is needed. "Agenda 21" states clearly that a surging world population, linked to unsustainable consumption patterns, led to the present threat to the earth. We know that the support provided by family planning organisations in laying down voluntary principles has worked; we also know that, in 20 years, the average size of families in the developing countries has fallen from six to four. Is it not time that we allowed choice to the countless millions of women who are currently denied an opportunity to choose the size of their families?

I believe that we need further research as well as action. We have committed substantial resources to research—both World Health Organisation research, to which we have contributed £2·75 million, and our own research, to which we give £200,000 a year. We are also bringing about considerable action: we hope to launch new projects in Kenya, Ghana and Zimbabwe this year alone, and we have quadrupled the funds for such action over the past 10 years or so.

Perhaps unusually, I support what was said by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is widespread Conservative support for the placing of greater emphasis on population policy in the Government's development programmes? Is he aware that, in recent years, the Government have established a fine record in that regard? Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues, however, put pressure on large and wealthy nations —notably the United States—to fund international bodies that are interested in population and environmental issues?

I agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's question. At present, we are taking particular action in regard to the European Community. We are pressing the European Commission with a view to encouraging the Community to provide more support for population programmes, and we intend to move a motion to that effect at a meeting of the Development Council in November, which I hope to attend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the initiatives agreed at the Earth summit to help developing countries.

Work is under way on a number of fronts. The European Community Lisbon Council endorsed proposals by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for action to work towards a replenishment of the global environment facility, and aid to help developing countries implement "Agenda 21".

Does the Minister acknowledge that the substantial extra resources for "Agenda 21" goals that were promised in the Prime Minister's Rio speech were in addition to the £100 million pledged for the global environment facility? Bearing in mind that, under the present Government, official development assistance has fallen from 0·51 to 0·32 per cent. of gross domestic product, will the Minister tell us how much new money will be made available to fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge?

We are talking of funding spread over many years. I cannot possibly answer a question such as that. However, I can confirm that the funding that has been promised for the replenishment of the global environmental facility is distinct from any funding to implement "Agenda 21". I am certain that in all these areas there will, as has happened in the past, be substantial funding to this aid.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support is being given to non-governmental organisations working in African countries suffering from drought and famine.

British bilateral aid channelled through non-governmental organisations to drought and famine affected countries in Africa since September 1990 stands at £87·83 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the performance of British charities in Africa is far more effective than the performance of any other European charities? Does not that reflect the excellent co-operation between the Government and non-governmental organisa-tions such as Oxfam and the World Development Movement?

Yes. Substantial funding is provided by both the non-governmental organisations and the Government's Overseas Development Administration. We are the leading European donor to both South Africa and the Horn of Africa. We are also the leading European donor in southern Africa and the third largest donor there.

May I say how valuable and vital is the aid from both this country and the European Community and from the non-governmental organisa-tions, but is the Minister aware that if we are to prevent the drought in southern Africa from becoming a famine, with millions of deaths, the remaining third of the pledges that were asked for by the United Nations needs to be honoured? Moreover, further contributions are needed.

Yes, we are increasing our funding in response to the crisis as it develops. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the director of Oxfam returned recently from a visit to Africa. In addition, my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Chalker announced on 30 June an increase of £10 million for drought relief in southern Africa.

Why has there been no statement in the House by the Government on the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa? How can the 40 million people at risk possibly survive if there is a 60 per cent. shortfall in pledges of aid and if the international relief effort fails through lack of funds? Will the Minister ensure that the blockages at European Community level are removed and sorted out rapidly? Will he also ensure that there are no further delays in transporting food from the regions into the villages, where people are dying daily before our eyes?

We cannot possibly be responsible for the failings of other countries, but can I assert what the British Government are doing? Since January 1992, we have given £48 million worth of humanitarian aid to southern Africa and £33 million worth of humanitarian aid to the Horn of Africa. In other words, since January of this year, we have provided nearly £80 million worth of aid to those areas.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards meeting the urgent need for humanitarian aid and development aid to the republic of Somaliland.

We want to help all Somalis in need. Since January 1991, we have provided £11·6 million worth of humanitarian assistance to Somalia, including our share of European Community aid.

While I appreciate the importance of the aid that is being given, does the Minister accept that stability is necessary if there is to be a reconstruction of the economy of Somaliland and if the thousands who have had to flee to refugee camps in Ethiopia and elsewhere are to be able to return home and society restored in that part of the country? Does the Minister accept that the people of the republic of Somaliland look not only to the international community and the United Nations but particularly to the United Kingdom to help them to restore stability?

We have given nearly £2 million worth of aid to the north of the country in question. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Stability is a necessary prerequisite before substantial rehabilitation help can be given. All rehabilitation depends upon an improvement in security. We have been pressing the United Nations to step up its efforts in northern Somalia towards that end and have emphasised precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of the principles outlined in "Agenda 21" relating to world population growth.

"Agenda 21" emphasises the importance of measures to strengthen family planning services and of further research into the links betweeen population and environment at global and local levels.

As my hon. Friend has said, during the British presidency of the EC we intend to propose a resolution to the development council in November. In March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote that he wishes to encourage European consensus on population programmes and to urge greater support from European donor agencies. What detailed progress has been made in dealing with this matter and the resolution at the development council meeting?

We are working at a diplomatic and official level. The fruits of that work will appear at the development council in the autumn. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have given great priority to this matter domestically; our "children by choice not chance" initiative was launched only last year.