To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the amount of earnings disregard before benefits for lone parents are affected.

We have no plans at present to change the earnings disregard in income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit. However, in family credit, the threshold at which earnings start to affect the maximum credit for lone parents will be increased at next April's uprating from £62·25 to £66·60.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging news. As he will know, those in work who earn more than £15 a week lose £1 for every £1 that they earn. That discourages people from working.

I thank my hon. Friend for advancing, in her characteristic way, the case of women who wish to return to the labour market.

The Minister will recognise that lone parents are being given some useful assistance under the "children come first" proposals, in the form of a reduction from 24 to 16 hours in the full-time working week. Is he aware that many people who work part time, for less than 24 hours a week, and who can currently claim income support, will lose out substantially in terms of mortgage interest relief? Have the Government considered that and, if so, what steps is the Minister taking to mitigate the losses involved?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. The Government have carefully considered the matter, and transitional arrangements will be made to safeguard those who are now receiving income support and would like to move to family credit, but may be worried for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many low-income pensioners are expected to gain from the measures he announced in his uprating statement.

The proposed uprating of income support by a full 7 per cent. from next April will give increases substantially above the current level of inflation to around 3·5 million low-income pensioners where the claimant or partner is aged 60 or over.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he accept that many Conservative Members are anxious that any future measures should be directed specifically towards those receiving small pensions or basic pensions but no works or professional pensions? How much danger would be posed to such pensions by some of Labour's high-inflation, high-spending policies?

It goes without saying that those on retirement incomes were among the principal sufferers under the taxation and inflation rates of the late 1970s.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the miserly 4·1 per cent. given to those on state pensions has been met with a resounding raspberry? Does he refuse, even now, to double the Christmas bonus to £20, to give a little Christmas cheer to hard-up pensioners? While he is at it, will he adopt Labour's policy and top up next year's pension increase by £5 for single pensioners and £8 for couples? That, surely, is the least that the right hon. Gentleman could do to inject some justice and fairness into the lives of our pensioners.

I make just two points. First, if the hon. Gentleman considers what has happened over the past two years, to the basic retirement pension, quite apart from income support premiums, he will find that they have risen by 15 per cent. That is a very substantial increase. Secondly, I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the Christmas bonus, but many other people would think that if the relevant sums of money were available—and they would be quite substantial—they should be directed to the less well-off pensioners.

My right hon. Friend knows that Opposition parties constantly carp about the level of pensions in Britain. Will he confirm that many aspects of social security systems in other countries compare unfavourably with ours? For example, no other European Community country pays pensions in their own right to married women with no contribution record.

It is certainly the case that in much of what is said about pension comparisons with Europe, areas that would lead to a substantial loss among some British pensioners, including those to whom my hon. Friend referred, are often overlooked. Another fact that is also overlooked is that in most other European countries, people must make contributions, for example to health care, which do not arise here.

The Secretary of State is aware that had the Government not broken the link between the rise in pensions and the rise in earnings, the single pensioner would be receiving £14 more a week and a couple £24 more a week. That means that more and more elderly people are being forced down to income support or poverty line levels. The Secretary of State's last uprating statement means that another 400,000 pensioners are now eligible for income support. That in itself is an indictment of the Government. Will he ensure that at that poverty level, those additional 400,000 pensioners are informed of their rights to claim income support so that they can at the very least receive what little is due to them under this Government?

I have to say that I find something quite extraordinary in the spectacle of an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman apparently complaining that we are to make a potential 400,000 pensioners better off. I hope that he will acknowledge that. With regard to his latter point, I know that he has sought, and has rightly been provided by the Department, a copy of the circular that we have sent to local authorities precisely to enlist their assistance to ensure that pensioners who will gain from the proposals receive those gains.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has taken to improve the working of the cold weather payments scheme.

The cold weather payments scheme has been considerably improved for the coming winter. Payments of £6 for every period of cold weather will be paid automatically to eligible people as soon as a seven-day period of exceptionally cold weather is forecast by the Met Office or actually occurs. The capital rule has also been abolished, making approximately 400,000 more people eligible for payments. In addition, some improvements have been made to weather station linkages.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He knows that I have often thought that the exceptional needs payment scheme was complex, slow and did not often reach those most in need. Is the new system speedy? Will it reach those who are entitled to it and is it far less complex than the old system?

I would put particular emphasis on two factors. The first is the ability of the Met Office to forecast cold weather in advance with some accuracy so that payments can be made in advance rather than in arrears. Secondly, people will be paid automatically without having to fill in a claim form or other kind of document.

I am not going to whinge that the weather in Scotland is always colder than in England. However, I plead with the Minister to examine the local system on the Clyde. The weather station at Glasgow airport is too far from the homes of many of my constituents and their homes are also several hundred feet above sea level. Will he re-examine the system and the way in which it affects people on the lower Clyde?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, in Scotland we made a number of changes to the linkages of weather stations with local areas. If he wants me to reconsider the changes, I shall, of course, do so. However, he will understand that in such matters I rely heavily upon the professionals at the Meteorological Office for advice.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has already been snow in the north, the midlands, and even on Exmoor in my constituency? is my right hon. Friend also aware that there is concern about the efficiency of the cold weather payments system? Will he confirm, therefore, that the present system is greatly superior to what existed under the previous Labour Government, whose supporters make such hypocritical remarks about their concern for old people?

I reiterate the point that I made to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). On the advice of the Meteorological Office, I further fine-tuned the system, but I am prepared to consider individual cases again, if necessary.

The cold weather payment scheme is still wholly inadequate, with thousands of pensioners whose incomes are just above the income support level receiving no extra help with their fuel charges. As fuel costs are racing ahead of inflation, will the Minister enter into immediate discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy and the fuel industry to examine the standing charge, which is iniquitous and which adversely affects low-income families, and pensioners in particular?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and to his newly appointed position. I look forward to doing battle with him in the coming weeks and months. I trust that, after the next election, he will remain a Front-Bench spokesman for the Opposition.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account was taken in the review of the arrangements for income support of homeless families of the need of children of homeless families in bed-and breakfast accommodation to have a balanced diet; and if he will make a statement.

Since April 1989, people in board-and lodging accommodation have been treated in the same way as most other recipients of income support. They receive housing benefit to cover the cost of their accommodation and the standard income support personal allowances and premiums to meet their day-to-day living expenses.

I welcome the Government's initiative to help the homeless, and we are grateful for what the Department of the Environment has done. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many bed-and-breakfast families are living below the level of subsistence and that parents go without so that children can eat? Does he agree that, as we approach the Christmas season, it would be appropriate to have a homeless children's Christmas bonus, perhaps of £10 a week, and then longer-term arrangements through supplement for income support, so that we can guarantee that every child in bed-and-breakfast accommodation can have a hot meal every day?

My hon. Friend will recognise that, in introducing the concept of premiums into income support, we have made it possible to concentrate help on those who most need it, and not least families with young children. They, of course, will get the appropriate premiums, whatever accommodation they are in. I should be very reluctant to go back to anything like the old system, which gave a perverse incentive for landlords to provide board and lodging rather than other accommodation.

Does the Minister accept that board and lodging is a second-best provision for those families? Is he satisfied that the new system encourages local authorities to provide houses—rented accommodation—for those people and that the numbers that are dependent on board and lodging are decreasing?

As I said, that is a matter for Environment Ministers. I, too, welcome the fact that we are trying to move away from a system that does not benefit families, local chargepayers, or anybody else. We need as little as possible of the concept of board and lodging and bed and breakfast.

Is not every child whose parents are on income support entitled to a free school meal? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the immense burden that is being placed on education authorities in the current year because of the increase in the numbers entitled to free school meals? We recognise why that is, and it is a perfectly reasonable requirement that they should be given that free school meal, but it is producing a rather sudden burden for education authorities which they are finding difficult to accommodate at present.

I take my hon. Friend's point, but I must say to him that it is not a matter for me.

May we have an assurance that the Minister takes full account of the particular needs of children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, among whom there is a high incidence of low birth weight, weight loss, malnourishment and exposure to infectious diseases which is associated with the inadequate cooking and food storage facilities in such accommodation? Commonly, families are excluded during the daytime from such facilities as there are. As a result, such families depend on convenience foods which are more expensive than other foods, and have to purchase food in small quantities which makes it even more expensive. Is the Minister satisfied that the particular needs of those children are met by present arrangements?

I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman said. That is one of the reasons why the Government as a whole and especially my colleagues in the Department of the Environment wish to minimise the use of that type of accommodation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the number of those employed in local Department of Social Security offices in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Greenock and Port Glasgow in each of the past three years.

The number of staff employed in local Benefits Agency offices in Strathclyde at 1 April 1989 was 3,774, at 1 April 1990, 3,661 and at 1 April 1991, 3,267. Of those, 204 were employed in Greenock and Port Glasgow in April 1989, 220 in April 1990 and 184 in April 1991.

Do not those inadequate staffing levels explain why many of my constituents have to wait so long for their applications for disability benefit, severe disability premium and industrial injury benefit? Why is that? Only this morning I received a letter from a lady in Port Glasgow which states that her husband made his claim in relation to the heat cataract from which he suffers in September 1989. His appeal, which he won, was heard on 29 September this year. Yet he has heard nothing from the local Benefits Agency. Is that what we can expect from the Benefits Agency? Will the Minister consider employing more people in Port Glasgow and Greenock, especially in respect of such claims and those which have been made vis-a-vis regulation 72?

Despite the hon. Gentleman's claim of poor staffing, Greenock and Port Glasgow are ahead on most of the national and area targets for the year. The hon. Member will understand that there was a take-up campaign for disablement benefits directed particularly at the dockyards and shipbuilding. The campaign resulted in 1,400 claims being received in Greenock and Port Glasgow. As a result, 1,367 claims were removed to Stranraer, which had the experienced staff and surplus capacity to deal with the claims. Only 86 claims were outstanding because of the category into which the vast majority fell. Four of those are awaiting medical boards, two are awaiting a decision and 80 have been submitted for an appeal tribunal hearing. If the hon. Gentleman's office is ahead of national and area targets and if it can transfer claims to an office which will deal with them at that rate, the overall picture seems rather better than the hon. Gentleman portrays.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he intends to introduce measures to reduce the time taken to determine appeals against the disallowance of social security benefits.

I understand from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that several initiatives are currently being proposed or piloted in conjunction with the Independent Tribunal Service to reduce the time taken to determine appeals.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that too many appeals take too long to determine and that causes a great deal of anxiety to applicants? Does he agree that something drastic needs to be done about that?

I do not quite go along with the way in which my hon. Friend presents the position. I accept that we all want to see an improvement in the speed of determining appeals. Both the Benefits Agency and, indeed, Judge Holden, as president of the Independent Tribunal Service are devoting a great deal of time and attention to the matter at present. There has been an interesting pilot scheme to speed up submissions in family credit cases. It looks as if the scheme will provide a model to speed up other appeal processes. I accept my hon. Friend's underlying anxiety. We shall certainly continue to do everything that we can to improve the position.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 16 to 17-year-olds are the biggest group who are disallowed benefit, and that latest estimates suggest that 65,000 of them have no job, no training, no further education and no benefit? Is he aware of a recent survey which found that 21 per cent. admitted that they could support themselves only by stealing, 6 per cent. only by begging and 2 per cent. only by selling drugs, and that many were starving and had not eaten for several days? Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed of the hypocrisy of the Government talking about the citizens charter while depriving tens of thousands of their citizens of the basic essentials of life?

I suppose that I could say that that question has nothing to do with the original question. Whether or not it has, it is a characteristically overheated piece of Oldham hype talk. We have made persistent and, in my view, successful attempts to improve the operation of that part of the benefit system. That, and the severe hardship provision—of which he is well aware, but did not even mention—are working well.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total value of extra help, including measures in the 1991 uprating statement, which has been directed to less-well-off pensioners since 1989.

The proposed additions to the income support higher pensioner premium from next April will increase social security expenditure by £60 million. That means that the total cost of help for pensioners on low incomes, over and above that resulting from normal upratings since 1989 will amount to about one third of a billion pounds.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of pensioners who claim income support fell significantly over the 10 years beginning 1979? Will he please tell the House what percentage rise the lowest 20 per cent. are receiving in real terms?

A study of the incomes of the least-well-off pensioners will show that there has been an increase of about 15 per cent. in the standard of living of the lowest quintile. I hope that that is the sort of information that my hon. Friend wants. Pensioners' living standards have been rising faster than those of the population as a whole. That reflects not only social security policies, including those touched on in the original question, but the greatly improved income from savings and occupational pensions, which have been such a feature of the past 10 years.

Will the Secretary of State consider reinstating the disregard for retired mineworkers and their widows? They have lost income through the concessionary fuel allowance and, therefore, in many instances are being driven into the lowest benefit possible—income support. If the allowance for fuel were reinstated, it would lift their benefits and standard of living. Would he give that serious consideration?

The hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will know that we went to considerable trouble earlier this year to try to ensure that the changes being made by British Coal did not have adverse effects on pensioners. I am sure that the right approach overall is the one that we have adopted—that is, to put additional resources into income support premiums to help low-income pensioners regardless of in which industry they may have worked.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are expected to benefit from the increased funding from residential care and nursing home income support limits announced in October 1991.

The increased income support limits are expected to help about 265,000 people.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which I know will be of benefit to quite a large number of my constituents and also a consolation to those in residential care and nursing homes, who were becoming concerned. Does she agree that that again gives an example of extra help to the most vulnerable among our older population—those who need residential care and nursing?

My hon. Friend is right. She may be interested to know that whereas those benefits cost £10 million when the Conservative Government came to power in 1979, we are now paying about £1·6 billion, which is a sign of our commitment to help the poor pensioner.

The Secretary of State has made great play of his proposed increased funding for residential homes to £175 a place next April. Is he aware that that level of income support is already grossly inadequate for homes in London and the south-east? According to a survey by the Association of Directors of Social Services only a month ago, the proposed level of income support is already £70 a week short of the actual charges being made today in Watford, £80 short in Edgware and £95 short in Edmonton. Since another survey has shown that as a result of those shortfalls elderly relatives have been evicted from private homes in more than one in four social service department areas, will the Minister now have the grace to recognise that the privatisation of old people's homes has been an extremely expensive error, of which many elderly, frail residents have been the chief victims?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman has got the whole thing wrong. As ever, he is confusing costs with charges. He is also ignoring both the survey conducted by this Department which showed clearly that many homes manage and the fact that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed the National Care Homes Association he was given a standing ovation, so they cannot be too discontent. Evidence of evictions is negligible. The hon. Gentleman completely overlooks, conveniently, the responsibilities that local authorities have even now towards those who require care and cannot afford it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average income of a single pensioner and pensioner couple on income support; and what is the total weekly value of their income from all benefits.

The average total weekly income of pensioners on income support excluding housing benefit is, for a single person, £56·70, of which £56·20 is benefit income; and for a couple £91·20, £90·30 of which is made up of benefit.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the old-fashioned Labour party view that all pensioners have low incomes is now completely outdated? Since so many pensioners in retirement own their own houses and have good occupational pensions, investments, savings and interest-bearing shares, is not it crazy to give an across-the-board uprating? Is not it better to target resources on those who need them most?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to point to the rising number of pensioners who have significant sources of income other than the state retirement pension. That has emerged several times in today's Question Time. I agree that in making extra real resources available, as we have been doing, it is right to steer them towards those who do not have those extra incomes and are therefore most in need.

I do not know where all these rich pensioners are, but they certainly do not live in my constituency. Is not it outrageous that any Tory Member should suggest that £56 a week for a single pensioner and £91 a week for a pensioner couple is in any way adequate? Those are miserly sums. When one considers the sums available to pensioners in other European countries, the Secretary of State should be ashamed of himself. I am ashamed that so many pensioners have to live on the sort of money that Tory Members will spend on dinner tonight.

Before the hon. Gentleman gets too overheated, let me make two simple points. First, the particular part of London that he represents may have an above-average proportion of less well-off pensioners. That is another way of saying that he has a population that will have benefited disproportionately from the increases that we have steered towards less well-off pensioners. Secondly, as I emphasised in my answer, these figures exclude housing benefit. To get the real comparison of what is being paid to many of those pensioners each week, we need to add the 100 per cent. support with the rent which they also get.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children will benefit from the October uprating of child benefit.

Child benefit is paid for about 12·3 million children. My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that 1·5 million of them are in the north-west and 300,000 in Lancashire. Every one of them will gain from the October increases.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, by the time of the increase next April, child benefit will have increased no fewer than three times in the space of 12 months? Will he also transmit to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State my congratulations on his decision to locate 550 extra jobs in the Blackpool, Fylde and Preston area? That is extremely welcome and those jobs will be well performed.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the tenacity with which he has put the case for his constituents regarding the location of jobs in our constituencies. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State noted my hon. Friend's remarks. The three upratings have cost £1 billion and our record is in stark contrast to that of the Labour Government, who cut benefits to families with children by 7 per cent. in real terms.

The Minister and the Government may take all the glory for the recent increases, but if things are so good, why did the Government refuse for several years to uprate child benefit when they knew that the same needs as now existed?

The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that since the social security system changed in the 1987–88 financial year we have managed to increase in real terms the benefits up to April 1992—in addition to all the other expenditure—for low-income families by £600 million. We must balance how we use our resources and, by doing so, we have been able to help such families.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to ensure that disabled people receive benefits to which they are entitled.

We are planning a wide range of activities to publicise the introduction in April next year of disability living allowance and disability working allowance and we shall be involving disabled people and their organisations in the publicity campaign to ensure effective take-up of these and other benefits for disabled people.

Should not my right hon. Friend's welcome announcement lead to a further significant take-up of disability benefits? The mobility allowance has increased sevenfold since 1979 and during the same time there has been a substantial increase in disability benefits. All those increases demonstrate the Government's continuing concern for the needs of the disabled.

The increases in the coverage of attendance allowance, mobility allowance, invalid care allowance and other benefits for disabled people during the term of the Government have been remarkable. Sometimes the Opposition appear to criticise us for that, but our take-up campaigns have been successful. However, we are learning new techniques all the time and they will be applied to disability working allowance and disability living allowance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will introduce changes to speed up the payment of attendance allowance; and if he will make a statement.

I am pleased to announce that from April next year we are introducing a fundamentally different claims and adjudication system for disability living allowance and attendance allowance for people over 65 which will significantly improve the time taken to deal with claims to those benefits.

The Minister is referring to the fact that the Government are going to modify the sixth-month waiting allowance that applies to people who get payments such as the attendance allowance. However, some cancer victims do not qualify, because, unfortunately, they have passed on. From what I can gather, the Government are refusing to pay retrospectively all those who claim attendance allowance in the proper manner, irrespective of their illness. In April will the Minister ensure that no claimant for attendance allowance and all the other benefits loses out retrospectively? It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will improve the benefits for some exceptional cases, but not for all. So get rid of the six-month allowance for everyone.

The DLA will subsume attendance allowance and mobility allowance. This new benefit will substantially lower the threshold that people have to meet. For the care component of the new benefit the qualifying period will be reduced from six months to three months. Those on existing benefits will automatically transfer to the new benefits. The hon. Gentleman referred to terminally ill people. We have removed the qualifying period—

For some of them.

No, all terminally ill people qualify in that way. The other significant fact about the new benefits is that we will rely far less on medical examinations and more on the assessment of disabled people and their carers when determining the extent of their disability and its effect on their life.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the total value to a two-child family of the three increases in child benefit which will have taken place in the year to April 1992.

For a two-child family, those increases will be worth £2·95 a week, taking total child benefit to £17·45 a week. For a family on average income, that is equal to an increase in gross earnings of £1,350 a year.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the Government's generous increase in child benefit, our provision now compares favourably with that of many other European countries? For example, will he compare our provision with that of socialist France?

Clearly, my hon. Friend has been doing his research extremely well, because in France there is no equivalent to the benefit that we pay for the first child. If the French scheme were to be replicated here, 40 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received regarding the income of pensioners.

In the past month, Ministers have met two delegations to discuss issues of general concern to pensioners.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern and anger that is felt by pensioners? Despite the statement that was made earlier today, they feel that they are being victimised. A large number of pensioners, especially those on income support and just above the income support level, face another winter of struggling daily to make ends meet. The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves because of how those pensioners have lost out as a result of the decision taken in 1980, which resulted in pensions no longer being increased in line with earnings. A married couple has lost out by £24 a week directly as a result of Tory Government action.

The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the pensioners about whom he is concerned—many Conservative Members share that concern—have benefited from the successive improvements in income support premiums of the past three years. Some 1 million such pensioners will gain next April from what I announced a few weeks ago, either directly through extra income support or through the effect of increased housing benefit or community charge benefit. I am not ashamed of that; I am glad that we have been able to do more to help those pensioners and I hope that we can continue to do so.

To ask the Attorney-General if there are any restrictions upon his ability to investigate a case of alleged deliberate injustice.

I do not have investigatory powers of the sort referred to by my hon. Friend.

What advice would my right hon. and learned Friend give to those seeking appeal under clause 5 of article 14 of the United Nations international convention on civil and political rights, especially where a quite deliberate injustice has been perpetrated by senior Government Ministers intent on injustice to a Member of a sovereign Parliament by misleading that Parliament?

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse a Minister of misleading the House.

I withdraw the words "senior Government Ministers" and say, certain persons.

No, Sir. I do not give advice on abstract questions. If my hon. Friend's ingenious question were to induce me to comment on proceedings that are wholly a matter for the House, that would be wrong.

To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to reduce the time between individuals being arrested and their being prosecuted.

The detailed recommendations of the working group on pre-trial issues and the recently announced plan for their implementation incorporate proposals that are intended to reduce delays throughout the criminal justice system.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Mr. Leslie Huckfield was acquitted some three years after he was first charged? Is not that a case of justice delayed, justice denied? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that relatively simple cases will be dealt with speedily?

I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that relatively simple cases will be speeded up, particularly when the costed action plan for the recommendations of the working group on pre-trial issues comes into effect. The case that he mentioned arose only after detailed investigations by the police on a much wider series of matters.

Will the Solicitor-General examine the delays in prosecutions, particularly the case of Mr. Don Stewart, who phoned me this morning and who is a frightened man? He was held hostage in a car for 24 hours and shot at the end of that period. He has discovered in the past few days that the man who committed the alleged offence is now on bail. Will the Solicitor-General look at that extraordinary series of events and ensure that we speed up the systems of prosecution and sentencing to prevent such incidents from occurring?

Problems of offences being committed while people are on bail are very much in the forefront of the minds of all those involved with the criminal justice system.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on recent initiatives by the Serious Fraud Office in connection with City fraud.

The SFO has continued its work of investigating and prosecuting serious and complex fraud. Its objectives are to increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system in this regard, to deter fraud and to maintain confidence in our financial systems.

Will the Attorney-General draw the attention of the SFO to the fact that just round the corner at Westminster city council there has been another allegation of serious fraud involving a charity called the Foundation for Business Responsibilities. The £100,000 plus received from big business and Tories in the City was used, not for charity—although the contributions were probably set off against tax—but to keep control of key marginal wards in Westminister council. It seems odd that Lady Porter and her cronies on Westminster council can do as they like with the Government and the SFO—they seem to have got away with the cemeteries episode and now are involved in another big scam. While Labour councils are surcharged and kicked out of public office, Lady Porter and her cronies get away with blue murder. Why does not the Attorney-General have an investigation?

The hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him, because I have told him about six times already this Parliament, that if there is evidence of criminal behaviour in any quarter it should be drawn to the attention of the police. It is due to a Conservative Government's initiative that we now have a specialist office with powers to investigate and prosecute serious and complex fraud which has brought highly effective results. The hon. Gentleman seems to find it impossible to forgive that.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the SFO is extremely effective? By far the highest number of prosecutions brought to a successful outcome at the Old Bailey are connected with fraud. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the extra powers of the SFO have resulted in those convictions? Long may the SFO continue to get to the bottom of many of the complex frauds which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wants us to look at.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the powers that Parliament has given the SFO were necessary and are being well used in the interests of justice. The SFO is greatly admired in many other countries; people come here to find out how it goes about its business and what powers it has. It sets an example which is being widely followed and co-operates effectively with other organisations overseas. It is a success story of which the House can be proud.

Will the Attorney-General reconsider his dismissive answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about what has been described in the quality papers as the Porter slush fund? Does not the Attorney-General have special responsibility, first, as a Tory, secondly, as the person who supervises prosecutions and, thirdly, as the Minister with responsibility for charities? Does he agree that probity, like charity, should begin at home? Will he set in hand an investigation into whether charitable funds were improperly used in Westminster to influence election results in favour of the Conservative party? Will he at least undertake to the House that he will set in hand that investigation?

If my reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was dismissive, it was because it is right to dismiss bald assertions of crime when no investigation has been carried out. If there are matters that should be investigated by the police, the police should be told of them.

It was on the front page of The Observer.

Then that is the answer to the hon. Members for Bolsover and for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). There is no desire on the part of the Government, the prosecuting authorities or myself, holding responsibility for the interests of charities, that anything improper should be covered up. That has always been so and it will continue to be so.

To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the care with which public money is spent on legal aid and of the adequacy with which records are kept of its disbursement.

Legal aid payments are subject to control by the courts, known as taxation, and to internal and external independent audit. Records are kept or destroyed in accordance with Public Record Office guidelines.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern that when it is alleged that a bill paid by legal aid is billed for privately by a solicitor, no one can determine whether that is true or investigate whether it is true? Even if such investigations are carried out, the records are destroyed—even if a Member of Parliament has taken up the matter. One of my constituents is in precisely that predicament and no one can give me a clear answer about whether there has been double billing.

My hon. Friend has been looking with great care at the problem of his constituent. The problem has been examined by the solicitors complaints bureau, the solicitors disciplinary tribunal and, quite independently, by the new legal services ombudsman, who found no improper activity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what effect the write-off of outstanding debt to third world countries will have on his plans for aid to Africa.

The statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Harare that we are to reduce the official debts of the poorest, most heavily indebted countries by around two thirds is greatly welcomed by eligible countries. The granting of Trinidad terms will significantly enhance the overall level of United Kingdom support for the poorest countries, especially those in Africa.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that not only have certain countries been helped by this great relief but it has done a great deal for the reputation of this country, which has removed an unbearable burden from countries overburdened by debt to the advanced world? Will she press for countries in west Africa such as Nigeria and Ghana to be included among those with great needs and with great expectations of this Government?

I thank my hon. Friend. The cost to the United Kingdom of the two thirds write-off will be more than £500 million, which will therefore greatly benefit the nations that come under the Trinidad terms. We believe that Nigeria should be eligible for debt relief; we continue to argue her case in the Paris Club. Her official debt stands at about $12 billion.

In view of rapidly changing circumstances, including writing off certain debts and the ending of apartheid in South Africa, what priority is the Minister allocating to the educational needs of black people in South Africa to help them meet the challenges ahead once apartheid is ended?

The whole world knows that black people in South Africa are owed education. We have concentrated our help in South Africa on education and we shall continue to do so. But now at last there is help from the South African Government for black South Africans. It is not yet enough, but they have started well and they intend to continue, so that debt to people is being assisted by British aid, too.

There can be no one in the aid world who does not appreciate my right hon. Friend's assiduity and the tremendous practicality with which she tried to skew aid programmes to practical purposes. Will she assure us that when giving aid to developing countries in Africa, she will do all in her power to prevent the Governments of those countries from looking for sophisticated pieces of equipment and machinery which are far beyond the capacity of the people in those countries to use and to stimulate and support simple, practical courses of the kind which at the moment are, incongruously, run at the Institute of Child Health in London when they should be run in Africa?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, with which I sympathise. Over the past two and a half years I have taken a great deal of interest in diverting, so to speak, the former big projects to small, local-level projects. I know about the work of the Institute of Child Health and warmly commend it, as I commend the work of many other British specialist institutes. With our non-governmental organisations, they provide some of the most effective ways in which to give help to the poorest people who so desperately need it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from voluntary agencies on aid policy over the last month.

I maintain regular contacts with voluntary agencies in the aid field and these frequently include exchanges of views on policy.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that many voluntary agencies are greatly concerned that after years during which the Government refused to give any assistance whatever to the people of Cambodia, only a miserly £5 million has gone from the Government recently? Tragically, people in that country are still being wounded and killed by the 3 million to 4 million land mines which it is estimated are still there. Countries such as ours, which have been much at fault in not giving assistance to Cambodia, now need to make a real effort.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that until the ceasefire and the peace negotiations were completed, we were limited in what we could do. We were already working through the NGOs before that, but now we can work much better. We have already opened a diplomatic mission and we are contributing officers to the United Nations advance mission in Cambodia and making a substantial contribution to the cost of the UN presence. In aid terms, not only are we supporting the co-ordination of the donors' assistance, but we are giving £2 million towards the cost of repatriation of people in the camps along the Thai-Cambodia border and £3 million for the new World Health Organisation programme to combat the spread of malaria and other diseases and posting an experienced aid administrator to Phnom Penh. We are making available from the Department a senior medical adviser who is a Khmer speaker to the WHO office in Phnom Penh. We have already told the Cambodians that we shall establish an in-country English language training facility to help train their officials and others involved in reconstruction and redevelopment work and we shall continue our financial support for the humanitarian assistance programmes of the British NGOs. That is no small order for a country which has only just got its peace agreement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of voluntary agencies assisting in Vietnam has been very helpful to the Government and that many voluntary agencies are now establishing offices in Hanoi to carry out programmes that will do something about the abject poverty in that country and so end the dreadful plight of the boat people?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Vietnam certainly needs a great deal of assistance. Vietnam has recently shown improvements in human rights and we can certainly assist such countries. We are glad that there are no reports of human rights abuses against returned boat people to whom we are giving specialist settlement help. I am sure that, as our NGOs develop in Vietnam, more can be done through our joint funding scheme to assist them.

On the question of good governance criteria in the allocation of aid, do the principles that the right hon. Lady set out in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) apply equally to Indonesia? Will she answer yes or no?

I am well aware of the great anxiety in the House about Indonesia. Only a couple of days ago on 13 November at the European Community Ministers meeting we expressed our grave concern about the situation in East Timor and one of my diplomatic wing colleagues saw the Indonesian ambassador. Of course, good government applies to Indonesia as well and we shall be doing everything that we can to change those aspects in the most encouraging way, because there is much to be done.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held, in the past month, with his European Community ministerial colleagues concerning aid to third world countries.

I last met my EC ministerial colleagues at an informal Development Council at Apeldoorn in the Netherlands in July. I shall meet them again at the Development Council in Brussels next week.

Is the European Community providing any assistance by way of NGOs to the many impoverished people in Tibet? Is not such assistance desperately needed in that occupied country and would not the best way to achieve such fine ends be through the NGOs?

It is perfectly true that in countries like Tibet and others where it is difficult to give assistance to the ordinary people at village level, the NGO route is by far the best one to follow. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether the EC is putting money through its NGOs to Tibet, but I shall write to him with an answer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with British initiatives to assist the preservation of the tropical rain forest.

The Government's essential aim is to help promote sustainable management of tropical forests and their biodiversity. We have increased our bilateral activities and encouraged multilaterals to do likewise and we are active in preparations for the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil next June.

Given the expertise to be found at Kew gardens, in the Oxford Forestry Institute and elsewhere, could my right hon. Friend tell us about the measures being taken to ensure that that expertise is brought to bear, particularly in the Amazon basin?

Yes, but if I went into this at length, you might censor me, Mr. Speaker, so I shall not. However, I can say that the royal botanical gardens at Kew, the Oxford Forestry Institute and many other excellent British academic institutions are fully engaged in our programme in South America and I hope that the G7 forestry initiative will mean that more projects come to the excellent British institutions that are already giving help. Some 185 projects are already under progress at a potential cost to our programme of £109 million.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to discuss aid for the Kurdish people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much Government aid has gone to Kurdish people since April of this year; what information he has on the amount of aid from United Kingdom non-governmental organisations; and if he will make a statement.

I held discussions in Geneva last week on the situation in Iraq with Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, the United Nations Secretary-General's executive delegate, and senior officials from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Organisation of Migration and the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator. I heard of the considerable efforts being made by those agencies to relieve humanitarian need in Iraq and was able to discuss with them how best we might continue to assist the needs of ordinary Iraqis.

What estimates have been made of the needs of the Kurds and how much of the material that has been made available to them has been able to get through? What protections are available? What is the latest information about the field hospital that was sent out by British Aid for the Kurds?

It is extremely difficult, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) knows as well as I do, to obtain a full estimate of what is needed. I can say that there is great need and that in certain pockets the situation is disastrous. That is so in the north and it is also the position of the Shias in the marshland in the south, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) can testify. Therefore, the need is still great. I made that point with considerable emphasis to Prince Sadruddin and to others whom I met in Geneva last week.

The Minister will be aware that I visited Kurdish Iraq in August to see for myself the destruction that had taken place. The right hon. Lady has been informed of the observations that I and others made at that time. It is clear that there is an urgent need for aid to get through to the Kurdish people. What was bad in August is terrible now and it will be appalling in the middle of winter. An urgent supply of aid is desperately needed —medicines, food and building equipment, for example, to assist the Kurdish people.

No more please.

My last concern, which is of great importance—

There are others who want to participate.

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

To clear up the last point first, we made it clear to the Government of Turkey that the people of northern Iraq and the Kurdish people of southern Turkey should not be treated as was seen to be happening some months ago. There has been no difference between us on that.

I thank my right hon. Friend from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of those whom I have seen in southern Iran who are refugees from Saddam Hussein's brutality against the Shia people. I thank her even more warmly for the help that she gave, in the form of food and clothing, to people who fled into the marshes. Their plight is desperate. I saw them recently in the marshes of southern Iraq and I hope to bring over one or two of the smallest victims of Saddam Husseim's brutal napalm bombing—in particular a boy of 10, who needs crucial plastic surgery.

Order. Will hon. Members please ask one question at a time? If not, they take a good deal of time from others.

Tomorrow, the findings will be released of the interim report from Mr. Max van der Stoel, the special United Nations rapporteur on human rights in Iraq, who will present the report to the United Nations third committee. Will my right hon. Friend endorse those findings and make every effort to endorse the resolution, proposed by Belgium, which Mr. van der Stoel will present?

I am sure that we shall see almost total aggreement with Mr. van der Stoel's report when it is published tomorrow. I have not seen the report yet, but my hon. Friend knows me well enough to realise that we shall use the opportunity offered by it to do all that we can to further help for people in southern Iraq and those in camps in the south-west and other parts of Iran.

What my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon about the activities of Saddam Hussein and his lackeys in the Revolutionary Guard makes many of us extremely ashamed that no attempt has been made to bring this bestial, malevolent, satanic figure to the bar of world opinion, either by seeking to bring charges against him or by forcing him into exile. Cannot something be done? Men's lives were lost in the Gulf war. A war was fought and to what purpose?

The freeing of Kuwait was the objective set by the United Nations. That was successfully accomplished with—thank goodness—a minimal, although sad, loss of life.

The Minister will have seen all the independent reports—including that of Reuters news agency—of deliberate attempts to prevent fuel, medicine and food from reaching Kurdish areas. The reports include a remarkable quotation from the health minister in Baghdad, who, tacitly, more or less admitted that that was happening.

Prince Sadruddin and I have indeed discussed the issue and we shall continue to discuss it when he returns from his mission in Baghdad. We hope that, by then, the $1·6 billion worth of oil will be starting to flow: that would help more than anything else.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued repression of the Kurdish people and the Shia people in the south and the brutalities inflicted upon them by Saddam Hussein and his Government were entirely predictable when that Government were left in power? What would be the attitude of the Turkish authorities to humanitarian air supplies from bases in their territory?

The Government of Turkey then in office gave us a great deal of help earlier in the year. I am quite certain that the new Government of Turkey will give the international donor community similar help if that is the only way in which we can get assistance to the people. However, the fact remains that there is $1·6 billion-worth of Iraqi oil money that should benefit ordinary Iraqi people.

The large numbers of Iraqi people of all kinds who are suffering so much at the moment do not question whether the war was justified—they know that it was. Rather, they are wondering why the allies left them at the tender mercy of a notorious and murderous criminal dictator. Bearing in mind the questions asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House today, if it is clear that Saddam Hussein is not going to take the necessary action to relieve the suffering which the Minister has described, will the United Nations take further measures and adopt a new resolution to ensure that the people of Iraq do not continue to suffer under that notorious dictatorship?

The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I will have made certain plans for the future under certain circumstances. Prince Sadruddin is going to Baghdad tomorrow; after the discussions that he and I and others have had in the past week, I believe that we must await the outcome of that visit. We sincerely hope that Saddam Hussein will see sense. Whether he does or not, we are prepared to do what is necessary for ordinary Iraqi people in future.

Does the Minister know that reports today claim that 5,000 Kurdish villagers have just fled from their homes near Arbil after coming under Iraqi mortar fire and that Iraqi troops are today telling Kurds to leave or be shot? Has she heard the reports from Arbil, where I was last week and where I saw 18,000 Iraqi troops two miles away with their tanks and artillery ready to strike? Does she realise that shells like this in my hand, which I picked up from the roadside near Arbil, are being fired at the Kurds from helicopters? Clearly—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I remember being apprehended by a previous occupant of your Chair when I brought an orange into the Chamber.

I would like that shell taken out of the Chamber please.

I am sorry that people are so squeamish. The shell is empty. I was making a serious point that helicopter gunships are still being used against the Kurds. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) could not take the point seriously.

"provide shelter and housing to the Kurds until it is safe for them to return to their own homes."

I sincerely welcome the hon. Lady back safely to this country. Allied aircraft and men based in Turkey are having a deterrent effect. There may be a need to do more than is being done now, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), we must give Prince Sadruddin the chance this week to change what we believe can be changed under the existing Security Council resolutions.