To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he estimates will be the combined effect of the various changes in Government support for unemployed and low-paid people, including the impact of the freeze on child benefit and all other relevant decisions; and what he estimates will be the net effect in cash terms and percentage terms on the weekly income of a couple with two children with (a) no earner in the family, (b) a single earner on £100 per week and (c) a single earner on £150 a week.

Next April's uprating directs substantial extra help towards lower income families. All children's personal allowances in income support, family credit and housing benefit are being increased by 50p over and above the amount needed to maintain their real value. Higher children's allowances in family credit and housing benefit will maintain the cash gap and encourage people with families to work rather than be unemployed. However, it will not be possible to say what the overall effects on families will be until income tax rates and allowances, and changes in real earnings, are known in April.

In the light of that obscure reply, will the Minister consider the position of an unemployed family on moderate rent and rates, with two children aged 14 and 16 years? Does he agree that if the father moves from being unemployed to a job paying £100 a week he will be less than £7 better off in terms of money in his pocket, with the greatly increased costs attached to employment such as travel to work? If the man moves to employment that pays £150 a week, will the Minister accept that he will be only £8 a week better off as a result, with further losses in benefit? Does the Minister agree that there is a worsening poverty trap? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is throwing money at the rich, but he is doing nothing for the poor—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman's long supplementary question is unfair on those who will follow him. I appeal to hon. Members to ask short questions.

A number of factors, not least the growth in earnings, could have a profound effect on the net position in which people find themselves next April. Assuming an uprating in line with inflation, my calculations for the hon. Gentleman's two examples are £10 and £20 respectively, not £7 and £8. The essential feature is that in both instances the man would be better off by working. Under the system over which the Opposition presided, he could well have been worse off.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed computerisation of social security offices will do much to ensure that benefit claimants receive the benefits to which they are entitled, and will deal with much of the criticism of the service that is offered by local offices?

We have already taken some important steps to improve the service that we deliver to the public from local offices. We are determined to continue with the improvement. We are introducing the largest computerisation programme that there has ever been in Western Europe. When that has been completed in 1991, I am sure that we shall be in an even better position than we are now.

Does the Minister accept that the changes in April heralded an increased emphasis on targeting? Has he had a chance to study the report of the Citizens Advice Bureaux, in which it is stated that 82 per cent. of claimants were worse off after the April changes? Does that not cast doubt on the Government's policy of increasing the targeting of benefits?

I have the highest regard for much of the CAB's work, but I believe that the report was flawed in two important respects. The conculsions that were drawn from it were even more flawed. First, the work was carried out only one month after the new benefits were introduced in April 1987. Secondly, it would not be surprising if claimants were unsure about their entitlement under the new system, because it had been introduced so recently. The sample consisted of people who were sufficiently worried to go into the citizens advice bureaux. So it was not typical of the broad mass of income support recipients.

Is my hon. Friend able to make any comparison between this Government's record in that area and that of the Labour Government run by the then right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth?

The most important point is that our predecessors in the Department of Health and Social Security and the Government as a whole had the courage to tackle the ramshackle structure of supplementary benefits and associated benefits and to replace them with something that is simpler and easier for staff to administer and for claimants to understand and which removes the worst aspects of the poverty and unemployment traps.

Following the Minister's non-answer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), does he agree that recent changes have increased the size of the poverty trap, leaving millions of families floundering on low incomes with their escape route cut off? Does he agree also that someone may still lose more than £1 in income by earning an extra £1? Some families need to earn an extra £90 a week to increase their income by a mere £18. What does the Minister intend to do to help those families? What lifeline will he offer them when he has needlessly added the humiliation of poverty to those who already suffer the daily insult of low pay and unemployment?

I warmly welcome the hon. Member to his new responsibilities and look forward to crossing swords with him in the future. We have deliberately put an extra £70 million into uprating to provide special help for low income families whether on income support or in work. As I said earlier, it is all very well to claim that we still suffer from some aspects of the poverty and unemployment traps as a result of the need to withdraw benefit as earnings increase. Not many people would disagree with that. However, the Labour party in government presided over a system in which gross imcomes could double before there was any net increase in take-home pay. We have abolished that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to close social security offices in Brent.

No, Sir, but one may move to better premises in the district.

When will a final decision be taken about the relocation of offices in my constituency? Does the Minister recognise that the freeze on staff pending relocation is causing a deterioration in the service at existing offices in Brent? Will he undertake to consult local advice agencies, for example, the citizens advice bureau, law centres and the housing advice centre, before taking a final decision?

We intend to take a decision very shortly. I realise that the delay in taking the decision does not help the local staff situation, particularly as the problem that led to the decision to relocate stemmed from the difficulty of retaining and recruiting staff, which meant that services to claimants have not been as good as they should be. As it is a matter of improving services to the constituents of the hon. Member and others in Brent and inner London, we are sure that the agencies to which he referred will be pleased with the result in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for the take-up of family credit.

Since the start of the new scheme, just over 400,000 claims have been received. At the end of October over 248,000 families were receiving family credit. In addition, on the latest information available, 56,400 claims were on hand, but in 36,4000 of those we were waiting for replies to inquiries to employers or to the claimant.

By what date do the Government expect to achieve their 60 per cent. target take-up of family credit? Given that child benefit was frozen to target resources on the poorest, if that modest target is not met by then, will the Government reconsider their strategy?

The figure is still nothing like as good as I should like it to be. It is nearly 40 per cent., and there has been a slower start than we expected. I expect to see encouragement from hon. Members on both sides of the House, because I remember that Opposition Members thought, sensibly, that family credit was an intelligent way in which to help families.

As an employer of many part-time staff who are not on generous incomes, I am not aware of ever having been informed either of the former FIS or of family credit. Will my right hon. Friend, when he sends out national insurance notification in the next few weeks, inform employers accordingly, so that they may advise their staff of this benefit's availability?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I had thought that the Department of Employment carried out a programme during the latter part of the summer to attract the attention of employers, both large and small, to the opportunities that exist and the current position. We are considering this area, as I clearly said in the uprating statement, and repeat now. Those who would like to see people in low-paid work should note the sensible remarks of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in an article in The Guardian on 9 November when he said that the objective of welfare policy for the 1990s should be to reward people on low incomes who try to improve their own and their family's lot. Any extra activities in that area from all parts of the House that can enhance that objective will be welcome.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disturbingly low level of family credit take-up could be improved if one could ensure that the mother was more often the recipient?

I tried reminding the House in the uprating statement, and I re-checked before questions today, that the mother is the person able and liable to claim family credit. Several right hon. and hon. Members seem to be in some doubt about this point, but that is provided for under the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1987, under section 1(1)A of the Social Security Act 1986. It is clear that only in exceptional circumstances will family credit go to the father rather than to the mother.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the difficulties faced by the self-employed and those on low pay—especially those working in small-scale agriculture or tourism? Is the Minister aware also of the requirements imposed by local offices for applicants to produce audited accounts for the six months prior to the date of their claim? Is he further aware of the tremendous bureaucratic imposition and cost that that requirement involves? Has the right hon. Gentleman yet found a way of streamlining the procedure so payments may be made more quickly to people in need?

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible contribution, because we all have the same purpose in mind. There has been some debate on the point that he raises. The intention was to improve the opportunity for such employers. Consultations are under way and I hope that the very point that the hon. Gentleman makes will be taken out of debate, because I want to see take-up encouraged rather than discouraged.

Has the Secretary of State forgotten that there is a long history of means-tested benefits failing to hit their targets? Does he recollect that family income supplement never reached more than half those entitled to receive it? Now that family credit has failed to achieve even that pass mark, why does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that if he really wants to target help on mothers, the only guaranteed way of doing so is through a decent level of child benefit?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider more carefully at this early stage of family credit the proposition that seems to be creating difficulty for his party. I refer to the moral difficulty in which he might find himself in trying to disagree in the long term with serious attempts to help specifically families in work on low incomes. I would have thought that ours was the sensible way to address national policy, whereas in an interesting magazine interview that I read in the latter part of the summer, the hon. Gentleman makes it clear—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member has difficulty with some of his hon. Friends below the Gangway, but I shall endeavour to answer the specific points that he made in a long article in Poverty, in referring to the nature of what I thought was his party's views on the subject:

"The objectives of the Government in redefining the welfare benefit system away from the concept of a national social insurance which protects everybody into a system which helps only those who, as they put it, are in need … What we propose is the precise reverse."

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what special financial incentives are being provided for people to take out personal pensions.

People who take out personal pensions before April 1989 can backdate membership to April 1987. They are also eligible from that date for the special 2 per cent. incentive payment, which is payable until April 1993.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on his first appearance on the Front Bench. How many people have opted to take out personal pensions since the new arrangements were introduced earlier this year?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can tell him that 110 schemes have been set up and that 102,000 individuals have taken out personal pensions. If my hon. Friend would like to look at the Financial Times of 31 October, he will see a report which says that the figure

"from a straw poll of life companies, shows … the personal pensions market was extremely buoyant in its first three months."

Does the Minister agree that, given the small numbers on state earnings-related pensions receiving more than £15 a week—33,000 men and just over 4,000 women—the decision to reduce that entitlement in 1999 should be reversed? Will the hon. Gentleman draw those small numbers receiving just £15 a week to the attention of the Chancellor, who believes that there are large numbers?

It is an excellent time to make a necessary change when so few numbers will be affected. The problem in the next century will be the burden on the working population. The alternatives which we have introduced will mean that more and more people will have a second pension. They will be properly funded. Those people will not be a burden on the working population. Indeed, they will find additional finance for investment in industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he has taken in response to the findings of the Moodie report on social security staffing.

I have made clear my determination to secure improvements in service to the public. My Department's investment of £1·2 billion in developing our operational strategy is directed at that objective. So is the Moodie report on our local office network. I commissioned it and I welcomed it on its publication in June. I have already accepted in principle its recommendation that those elements of local office work which do not require face-to-face contact with the public should be moved out of some hard-pressed offices.

I acknowledge the tremendous work done by the officers at my DSS offices in Bury. Does my right hon. Friend agree on the need to improve the take-up of benefit by our constituents? Would not the hiving off of some services on an agency basis assist in meeting that objective?

The specific question refers to relocation, and I am waiting for the final Moodie report on whether an agency system would improve the service to the customer. Our prime concern must be how to ensure that the claimants, wherever they are in the kingdom, are looked after best. I am obviously delighted to look to an improvement in opportunities, especially for the hard-pressed regions, many of which might find the proposed changes of benefit to them.

Will the Secretary of State admit that, as the amount of benefit paid out since April has diminished, his intention is to reduce the number of people employed in DSS offices? Is that not a mistake? Is this not a golden opportunity to keep those staff on to provide a better service and, in particular, to run a take-up campaign among those who are entitled to benefit but who are not claiming it?

The hon. Gentleman is right. Because of the reduction in unemployment, the simpler income support claimant forms and the way in which the whole system is being helped, there has been a considerable reduction in work in our offices. The hon. Gentleman was wrong not to realise that that is being used throughout the system—I have travelled extensively around the benefit offices to check on this—to improve delivery of service. Comparing income support with supplementary benefit, the national average clearance time for claims has fallen from over 11 days at the end of 1987 to five days in September 1988, and I expect it to improve. The error rate has decreased. We are using the enhancement of the staff to improve our services, and staff are not being lost as a consequence.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the level of social security benefits following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement.

After the—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) does not do badly in this place. I have to consider those hon. Members whose questions appear on the Order Paper.

After the expressions of opinion in this House, we have received a handful of letters from members of the public.

In view of the welcome continued falls in unemployment, will my hon. Friend say what effect that is likely to have on the total level of expenditure on benefits?

Throughout the public expenditure survey period we expect that there will be substantial reductions in the need to pay unemployment benefit because of the continued growth in the economy. We shall have to decide during the public expenditure survey round how our resources should be deployed.

What consultations did the Chancellor of the Exchequer have with his Department before his briefing a week ago last Friday to certain Lobby journalists?

It is fairly well known that we discuss all these matters during the course of the public expenditure survey each year. We did so last year, and we shall do so again next year.

Would not a period of silence on pensions by the Opposition be worth while? The Labour party cheated pensioners out of nearly £1 billion—

Order. As with questions to the Prime Minister, the hon. Member must ask questions for which the Secretary of State has responsibility.

When my hon. Friend replies today to questions on this year's uprating in the Autumn Statement, will he take time to point out to the House and the country the contrast between the period 1974 to 1979 and today? The Labour Government failed to pay the Christmas bonus in 1976 and 1977. They cheated pensioners out of £1 billion by changing the basis on which pensions were uprated, and swindled pensioners out of massive amounts of savings by an economic policy that led to high inflation. Would not a period of silence by the Opposition on pensions now be worth while?

It would be worth while and much appreciated, but I fear that we are unlikely to get it, despite the fact that the Opposition know as well as we do that when they were in office pensioners' incomes increased by about 3 per cent. over the whole period, whereas under this Government they have increased by some 23 per cent.—twice as fast as those of the population as a whole.

Further to the unanswered questions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), was it on the Friday, the Saturday or the Sunday that DSS Ministers were first told and consulted about the Chancellor's briefing?

I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme).

Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for the Government's policy of targeting resources where they are most urgently needed, and especially of the great increase in family credit that his Department has just announced, so long as those additional sums of money go to those in need? Will my hon. Friend consider new initiatives—through the schools, for instance—to inform those families in need that the money is available?

We want to maximise the take-up of family credit in particular, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already alluded to the steps that we shall be taking to achieve that aim. I know that my hon. Friend recognises—and I hope it is widely recognised—that had we uprated child benefit in this uprating the poorest families would not have been helped. The steps that we were able to take have targeted help on those on low incomes, whether they are on income support or in employment.

What advice would the Minister give to one of my constituents, a 43-year-old widow who has been told that she must find either work or a husband? She lives in a constituency where the official unemployment level is 22·6 per cent.

If the hon. Lady will provide me with the details of the case, I shall look into it, but I do not recognise the circumstances that she mentions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the strength of the Government's finances, as reported to the House in the Autumn Statement, underlines the enormous scope for increasing benefits to the very elderly and the worst-off pensioners? We on this side of the House look forward eagerly to the Minister's Department revealing its proposals in due course.

I am sure that the House will have read my right hon. Friend's article in yesterday's Sunday Express with great interest.

Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his Back Benchers need to be educated about social security? Why should it be necessary to educate them about social security if all they ever think about is more help for pensioners?

I am afraid that I cannot comment on these apocryphal remarks that are attributed to my right hon. Friend.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there has been a substantial real terms increase in social security expenditure since 1979? Will he comment on whether that increase is giving full value for money, or whether it would be possible to target benefits better?

There has been a substantial increase in real terms under the Government—some 40 per cent.—and an extra £3·4 billion is going in as a result of the uprating announced quite recently. That is the result of the strength of our economy. We shall continue to try to ensure that the most help goes to those most in need.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to publish a long-term strategy for child benefit.

I shall continue to review the rate of child benefit each year in accordance with the duty that I have under the existing legislation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was born in poverty 62 years ago? Is he also aware that there is still poverty in this nation? The Secretary of State ought to be ashamed of himself for backing a Government who have frozen child benefit when children need that benefit. He is robbing babies. I have looked into the right hon. Gentleman's background. He was all right when he was a child. He can take that grin off his face. I want to know what he will do for the children of today and the future. He has cut child benefit by £130 million. It is tune that he gave that money to the children.

I shall not go into details of personal background, but the hon. Gentleman might like to recheck the debates of 1975 and 1976. I shall not bore him again with details of the decisions made on this issue by Mrs. Castle and her colleagues. but I remind the hon. Gentleman that if anybody should be sitting uncomfortably in shame, it is the giggling Opposition Front Bench. They should recall that, for almost all the time that Labour was last in government, the value of the child tax allowance and the family allowance for families on average earnings was far below in real terms what it has been under this Government. [Interruption.] That is not very good information for the Opposition, but they have to hear it. Only once—during the months before the 1979 general election—did Labour increase child benefit to a level fit 10 be compared with what has been achieved by this Government.

Will my right hon. Friend and the Government consider reintroducing that child tax allowance about which he was talking, thereby reducing taxation and public expenditure at a stroke? If not, why not?

My hon. Friend will be aware of what I said in my statement on the uprating about our manifesto commitment. We keep our manifesto commitments. My hon. Friend will also be aware of my duty under statute to consider the nature of child benefit and other aspects of the economy, such as increases in earnings and reductions in taxation, as have occurred this year. I did that this year and I shall try to do the same next year.

If the Secretary of State were to undertake a long-term strategic study of child benefit, would he look at the effects over the long term of the freezing of other benefits such as the pensioners' Christmas bonus, which has been frozen since its inception—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to child benefit.

I have already done that. Is the Secretary of State aware that had the pensioners' Christmas bonus—

Order. I called the hon. Gentleman because he has tabled question No. 25, which is on child benefit. I hope that he will stick to the subject of the question.

Is the Secretary of State aware that had the pensioners' Christmas bonus been uprated by average earnings it should be more than £55 this Christmas?

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question relating to that on the Order Paper.

Are we to see—

Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a good chance.

Are we to see—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.

You read it in Hansard and see whether it is in order.

I will never forget, and I am sure that the House will never forget, 1976 and 1975, when the issue not involved in the question was frozen for two years in a row.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to implement the recommendations in his Department's report that a significant number of headquarters staff be relocated out of London.

We accept in principle that there is a good case for relocating some of our headquarters work away from London. A team of officials are working on turning the principle into reality. We expect to have the team's report by the end of March 1989.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his answer. I also congratulate him because his Department is in the forefront of relocating civil servants out of London and the south-east—a policy that is long overdue. Hard as I try, I cannot see Humberside mentioned in the document. Is he susceptible to representations to include it?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for both of his congratulations. I know that he has a long-standing interest in the subject and that he is an excellent advocate for Humberside. I can assure him that if he puts to us the merits of Humberside as a suitable location for our out-of-town headquarters we shall consider them very carefully indeed.

In considering the relocation of staff, will the Minister take into account the great difficulty that my constituents suffer in that whenever they send correspondence about disability to Norcross, or write to Blackpool about the self-employed family credit scheme, that mail seems to fall into a black hole and never emerge again? Will the Minister consider substantially upgrading the staff and the resources in those areas so that the self-employed and the disabled can get a decent service?

That is not directly related to the question, but it is a very important matter. I do not accept the black hole analogy, but the service can be improved and is being improved by the operational strategy of introducing computerisation throughout the system so that at any particular office an individual will be able to get all the information he wants on any benefit that affects him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current estimate of the number of people over 80 years who do not receive the full state retirement pension.

About 66,000 people aged 80 and over do not receive full basic state pension—out of nearly 1·9 million in total. Those who do not receive full basic pension did not satisfy the contribution conditions.

Has my hon. Friend any estimates how much it would cost to provide those over-80s with a full basic pension? In view of their dwindling numbers, will he urge our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include that initiative in his forthcoming package of special help for poorer pensioners and to replace the 25p increase, which every 80-year-old must now regard as an insult on reaching that birthday?

I am afraid that I do not have the figure that my hon. Friend asked for, but, as he knows, those who do not receive the full pension and do not have sufficient income from other sources will have the difference more than made up through income support. We have no plans to discontinue the 25p age allowance, but I note my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for better targeting.

Does the Minister, whom I welcome to the Government Front Bench, recall reports to the effect that about 1 million pensioners who do not get a full state pension do not claim the income support to which they should be entitled? Does he not realise that that generation in particular is most reluctant to claim benefits which the Government persist in stigmatising as charity? If they are really making the oldest and poorest a priority, when will the Minister announce a massive take-up campaign for benefit along the same lines as the privatisation sales campaign?

The hon. Lady might be harking back in practice to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about a pension for pensioners on low income who have not benefited from occupational pension schemes or SERPS. The hon. Lady's objective is one that we share.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those over 80 are increasing in absolute terms and as a proportion of the total population? Will he have urgent discussions with his colleagues at the Department of the Environment so as to allow local authorities greater leeway over spending for that age group in areas with a particularly high proportion of such people?

I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

To ask the Attorney-General if he plans to take any legal action regarding the book "The Wilson Plot", by Mr. D. Leigh.

I have no such plans at present.

That is welcome. Is it not the case that much of the material in Mr. Leigh's book would be illegal if the Government's proposals to change the Official Secrets Act went ahead? Does the Solicitor-General not recognise that it is time the security services were subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, all the more so considering what Mr. Leigh has written about some of MI5's activities during the 1960s and 1970s?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, those are matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that his answer about no activity concerning "The Wilson Plot" will disappoint milions of Big M's fans, because we need a sequel to "Carry on Spycatcher"? Surely my hon. and learned Friend recalls that at the end of that saga almost everyone was richer, the public were delighted and everyone was able to claim victory. Why should "The Wilson Plot" be denied that happy ending? Is M losing his touch? I think that we should be told?

It is all very unfair.

It must he especially disappointing for David Leigh. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman taken this decision because he has accepted the argument that the public interest must come first, or is it that he wishes to prevent the Government from making even bigger fools of themselves than they have in the past couple of years?

There is no evidence in the book in question, as far as we have seen, of any breach of a duty of confidentiality, other than that of Mr. Wright.

To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to publish the findings submitted to him by the Association of District Councils regarding the enforcement of Sunday trading laws; and if he will make a statement.

I am placing in the Library a copy of the letter of 11 July 1988 from the Association of District Councils, which summarises the survey of enforcement undertaken by the association, together with the Attorney-General's letter requesting such information and his reply.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that whether the public can shop on a Sunday depends less on the law than on geography? Does he agree that that is wholly unsatisfactory and that it is bringing the law alto disrepute?

Section 71 of the Shops Act 1950 places a clear duty of enforcement and the discretion as to whether to exercise that duty in a proper case upon each local authority. No local authority has the right to abrogate that duty as a matter of principle.

I wonder whether the Director of Public Prosecutions and his Department have discussed what they intend to do with Lady Porter and her friends on Westminster council—

Order. We are on question 63.

I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's answer about the duty of local authorities to prosecute. Will he deprecate the decision of those local authorities which say that, because of the referral of a certain case to the European Court, they do not intend to prosecute? Is it not undesirable that we have to wait upon a European institution before deciding to enforce our existing law?

Referrals by the courts to the European Court by no means affect every case on Sunday trading, and local authorities should not, as a matter of course, regard them as any impediment to bringing prosecutions where they think it proper to do so.

To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.

On Thursday 10 November 1988. We discussed matters of departmental interest.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please consider using the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to prosecute the perpetrators of racist, anti-semitic and other evil publications sent through the post, such as Holocaust News? Will he also consider a filthy journal called "Choice", which is published by the Dowager Lady Birdwood? It reached my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) today and has been sent to other hon. Members. Does he think that the Dowager Lady Birdwood, whose wealth, influence and position lie behind much of the Fascist and Nazi organisations in this country, should be prosecuted under that Act?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will let me have a copy of the document in question, I shall have it looked at.

Given the problems of overcrowding in prisons, when my hon. and learned Friend has discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions, will he consider the possibility of overturning the case of Turner—which was decided by the Court of Appeal—to allow counsel to plea-bargain in the judge's room to establish, for the benefit of an accused person, what the judge thinks the sentence will be should the accused plead guilty? In this way, the process of law throughout Crown courts will be speeded up and the number of people held on remand will be reduced.

I shall discuss the matter with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

To ask the Attorney-General when he next intends to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss prosecution policy.

I expect to meet the director in just under three weeks' time.

Did the Solicitor-General see the "Panorama" Wright interview, in which Wright said that he worked with one man during the period of the plot against the Wilson Government? Has he also noticed that, in his book, David Leigh indentifies that one man as Mr. Tony Brooks, who to this day lives in London and is a friend of an hon. Gentleman who was here a few minutes ago? Will that man be prosecuted? He lives in London and has been identified by Wright on television as working with him in illegal acts.

I am interested in the information that the hon. Gentleman gives. I shall see that it is considered by the appropriate authorities.

When my hon. and learned Friend next meets the Director of Public Prosecutions, will he consider operating a policy against Scottish Labour Members, who are rarely in the Chamber?

As far as I know, that is not an offence.

What other evidence has come to the Solicitor-General's attention that could corroborate the allegations made by Mr. Wright that have come to light since his book was published? Has there been much corroboration, and, if so, is it sufficient to re-open inquiries about whether criminal offences were committed?

I cannot add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy towards the prosecution of former members of the security services for publication of confidential information.

The policy is in accordance with the criteria set out in the code for Crown prosecutors.

Does that mean that if former members of the secret police reveal that murder, conspiracy to sedition and other serious crimes have taken place attempts will be made by the Government to hush them up and sweep matters under the carpet, as they did with Peter Wright, or are they prepared to heap praise on members of the secret police who reveal that they have undertaken serious crimes—sometimes possibly without the knowledge of Ministers? Will he take action?

I am not aware of any secret police. The answer to the other part of the question is no.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the feeling of most people in this country is that those who betray the nation's secrets which are entrusted to them as part of their work, for money or notoriety, should be prosecuted, so as to end this sort of gross injustice?

I well understand that and I am sympathetic to what my hon. and learned Friend has said. No one is above the law in this country, no matter what service he is in.

When he next meets the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss the security services, will the hon. and learned Gentleman also take into account the considerable number of wire-tapping cases that are not being reported via the Home Secretary and which clearly show that the security services are exceeding their brief? Does the Solicitor-General intend that such cases will be revealed and prosecuted when necessary?

I am not aware of those cases, but if the hon. Gentleman has evidence of them he should let the DPP know.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has discussed overseas aid co-operation with representatives of the Government of Japan; and if he will make a statement.

My Department is in frequent contact with representatives of the Government of Japan. I visited Tokyo in July and had wide-ranging discussions with the Japanese Government on overseas development issues.

Is there any possibility of the Japanese Government giving financial assistance to British charities, such as the Save the Children Fund, which are working in developing countries?

That would be a sensible way in which the Japanese aid programme could develop in a number of countries. Our charities that work in long-term development are exceptionally professional, and I have suggested to the Japanese Government—this is a good idea of my hon. Friend's—that they might consider putting money through our non-governmental organisations, through a mechanism such as our joint funding scheme.

Is not the truth that the Japanese are good at looking after themselves? Given their $80 billion trade surplus this year, is it any wonder that we read stories that they do not allow cosmetics into their country because they have different skins, or cannot allow skis to be imported because they have different snow, or have told Third world countries that they do not want their oranges because their stomachs are too small?

The hon. Gentleman's imaginative contribution to improving relations with Japan takes me well beyond my departmental brief. If he was trying to say that liberalising international trade is even more important than developing aid flows, I wholly agree with him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the United Kingdom's priorities for the geographical distribution of aid.

In deciding how bilateral aid resources are allocated particular account is taken of need, how effectively our aid can be used, what other donors are doing and of the United Kingdom's historical links with many developing countries, particularly Commonwealth members.

My hon. Friend will know that many of my constituents, especially in the Churches, are keen that we should give aid to Sudan because of the terrible problems there. What is happening about United Kingdom aid to Sudan, and what are we, as a country, doing to audit how well the money is spent when it gets to places such as Sudan and the rest of the world?

I know that a number of our Churches and other bodies are interested in our aid and development programme in Sudan. That is of particular concern to the diocese of Salisbury, which has its own contacts with Sudan. We shall be represented at the meeting next month with other donors to consider the World Bank's programme for rehabilitation after the floods. We, like other donors, will want to ensure that our money is well and effectively spent. It would, of course, be easier to promote the development of Sudan if a bloody civil conflict were not going on there.

Has the Minister recognised the special needs of the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference nations, and what steps are proposed to increase aid to those countries?

Recently we increased our commitment to the SADCC countries to £54 million. I shall be attending the SADCC meeting, God willing—

What has the Prime Minister got to do with it?

—and hope to underline our commitment to SADCC and to the Limpopo line. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) has his priorities right.

As many of the priority countries for British aid are those in sub-Saharan Africa, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be regrettable if the Government exercised only the option, under the Paris Club rescheduling, of making relatively modest reductions in interest rates on debts, rather than exercising the option of writing off some debt, as has been done by other countries? Would it not be regrettable if the excellent debt rescheduling initiative of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was generous in concept, was less than generous in its implementation by the United Kingdom?

I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's argument. We have already written off about £1 billion worth of overseas aid loans and turned them into grants. The figure for sub-Saharan Africa is about £260 million. The Chancellor's initiative concentrated on three elements —longer rescheduling, cutting interest rates and writing off aid loans—and we have been occupied across the board.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further information he has about the extent of the destruction in Nicaragua following Hurricane Joan; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from charities and other relevant bodies concerning the provision of aid to Nicaragua.

As I informed the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) on 7 November, as a result of the hurricane 116 people were killed and 278 badly injured, 29,000 homes, 66 bridges, 24 roads and 300 schools were damaged or destroyed.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I remind him that the destruction in Nicaragua of the coffee, cotton, banana and sugar cane crops, grazing land and animals, which he did not mention, has been colossal, and that more reports of damage are coming in? Whatever aid may have been made available, it is nothing like enough to help Nicaragua to get back on its feet. Will the Minister be flexible in response to specific demands? Will he give additional funds to projects that were previously joint funded by the Government, and that have been destroyed by the hurricane? I am thinking especially of the Rama Indians at Rama Keys—an OXFAM project co-funded by the Government which was completely wiped out. Will he also consider the provision of safe water in the Bluefields area?

We are certainly prepared to consider helping, through our joint funding scheme, non-governmental organisation projects that may have been damaged. If the charities apply to us in the usual way, we shall consider those suggestions as positively as possible.

The Minister stressed the importance of taking into account need when giving aid. Leaving aside the hurricane, why is there such a difference between the aid given to Costa Rica, which was about £12·5 million in 1985, and that given to Nicaragua, which was £116,000? Should not the Government reappraise their approach to Nicaragua?

I do not think so. The main reasons for our aid programme to particular countries are developmental need, the poverty of the countries concerned and our historic connections. In Central America there are one or two other factors such as the presence in individual countries of regional institutions, but I should point out, as I think I have before, that the European Community provided about £6 million last year to long-term development in Nicaragua, and we provided over £1 million of that.

Will my right hon. Friend particularly concentrate assistance on the Bluefields area, which was not only the centre of damage resulting from the recent hurricane, but has had strong connections with this country for a long time? Will he also bear in mind that the damage that has been done to the Nicaraguan economy has a lot to do with the incompetent way that the Sandinista Government have run that country?

I take the point that politicians in some countries greatly favoured by Labour Members can do as much or more damage as natural calamities. I also take my hon. Friend's point about the importance of projects in Bluefields. I think he will know that we made a contribution to the Catholic bishop of Bluefields for emergency assistance.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

No. I will take points of order after the statement.

It arises out of questions.

Not now.