To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reform the benefits available to students.

Income support, housing benefit and, from next April, council tax benefit are available to particularly vulnerable students such as lone parents and those who are disabled. However, in general it is the educational maintenance system which is designed to provide support for students and we have no plans to change this.

Is the Minister aware that hundreds of students in Wales are living in abject poverty and that others are graduating with debts of more than £3,000? Their parents are being hit, too. One of my constituents lost almost £50 a week in child benefit, income support and single parent benefit. Why do the Government not restore the vacation hardship allowance, housing benefit entitlement and income support entitlement to students —or do they want all students to be yuppies?

I note the hon. Gentleman's concern. The changes in benefit did not take place in isolation, but at a time when the total support for students was increased by £100 million. There is no evidence of any deterrent effect on students. Full-time and part-time student numbers have risen throughout the past decade; since the change in benefits and student loans, they have increased by 20 per cent.

Would my hon. Friend be interested to know that at the last count at my university there were 10 applicants for every place available? The students there work very well and those eligible have taken out student loans. The system is now working smoothly. We should like the hardship fund to be a little larger, but that is all.

My hon. Friend is right. The total package of support available for students has increased since 1988–89, when the changes in the benefit system took place. I meant what I said about the fact that there has been no deterrent to students going to university. That is evidence that this country provides generously for its students. Some heed should sometimes be paid to those who are paying for the system as well as to those claiming on it.

It is clear that the Minister has no understanding of the financial hardship inflicted on students by Government policies. Has he read the survey undertaken by the north-western students unions, which showed that 61 per cent. of students were in debt, of whom 15 per cent. had debts of more than £500 and 6 per cent. had debts of more than £1,000? The survey showed that the main reason for the debts was the withdrawal of the right to housing benefit and the withdrawal of the right to claim income support during the vacation, when there are no jobs for students to take up. Will the Minister immediately review the financial support for students, especially for students from low-income families, for those with children, and for mature students, so that they do not fall into further debt and hardship inflicted on them by the Government?

It is sometimes suggested by the Opposition that all students used to claim benefit. That is just not true. Only a minority of students ever claimed benefit. Some 15 per cent. used to claim housing benefit during term time and only 2 per cent. claimed it in the vacation. Some 20 per cent. claimed income support during the summer. When the student loans were introduced, a calculation was done of the average amount of benefit that students took. At the time, the figure was about £327. The top-up loan was set at £420, so on average more money went to students than they had ever claimed in benefit. These matters are constantly kept under review. The evidence in this country compared with the evidence in many other countries in the western, developed world is that we have a generous system for our students. That should be appreciated by students. Society does not mind paying, but it is nice to hear about society for a change instead of always about those who are receiving the benefit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received mobility allowance in 1979; and how many receive it currently.

In 1979, 95,000 people received mobility allowance. By 1992, this figure had risen to 660,000—nearly a sevenfold increase. The introduction of disability living allowance will extend help with mobility costs even further.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the introduction of the lower rate of the mobility component has helped enormously those people who can work but who, because they have learning difficulties, have difficulty in getting about? Does that not further our aim of providing them with fulfilled lives in the community?

I believe that the lower rates of disability living allowance, both for mobility and care, have been an immense success. Some 170,000 awards have already been made.

The Minister has been very frank about the hardship inflicted on disabled people by the chaos in administering the mobility allowance and other disability allowances. As the author of the mobility allowance—the first of its kind in the world and the introduction of which was strongly opposed by many Conservative Members—may I press the Minister to tell us from his briefing folder in how many cases, in each of the past seven months, claims from entitled applicants were not processed before they died? In particular, does the Minister recall the very disturbing case of my late constituent Mr. Ken Vince?

I remember the right hon. Gentleman mentioning that case at the last Social Security Question Time. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the figure for the number of people who have been in that particularly sad situation, but the Benefits Agency has been increasing its performance steadily in dealing with claims for disability living allowance and attendance allowance. The figure of 95,000 that I mentioned in my original reply was achieved for mobility allowance after four years' phasing in. We have now reached six times that number in one year.

Is not one of the advantages of the way in which the matter has been handled the fact that the disability living allowance has not had to be phased in, as was the case with the mobility allowance about which much has just been said? Nevertheless, it has been quite a load. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that all the applications now being handled will be properly backdated?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. As a result of the work of the Benefits Agency, any claim received now or in the future should be dealt with within the targets announced by the Benefits Agency.

Will the Minister not be too self-satisfied, as several of my constituents have been waiting well over a year for their cases to be processed? In some cases, I have had to wait three months for a reply from the Benefits Agency. Will the Minister examine the matter closely and provide new resources to ensure that claims for mobility allowance and attendance allowance are processed quickly, speedily, and with sympathy and compassion?

The hon. Gentleman will already have heard me express my regret at the distress caused during the introduction of the benefit. I still believe with all my heart that it was right to go ahead and introduce the benefit without the phasing that the Labour Government found necessary. We are now at the point where any new claims will be dealt with within the targets that the Benefits Agency has been set. I shall be meeting the chief executive of the Benefits Agency tomorrow to discuss those matters further.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount paid out by his Department's regional offices direct to water companies on behalf of claimants for the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

In the year ending November 1992, over £27 million was paid to water companies by the Benefits Agency on behalf of claimants. This represents a great deal of welcome protection for many people who might otherwise have faced the risk of disconnection of water supplies.

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful and welcome reply. Can he confirm that direct payments will be made to water companies in precisely the same way as they are paid to the electricity and gas companies? Will he further confirm that all Department of Social Security area offices are empowered to do that? Can he say whether water has equal priority with gas and electricity in the direct payments list?

I can confirm that arrangements for the deduction of direct payments for water are applicable nationwide and are similar for water as they would be for fuel. The latest figures show that there were about 160,000 deductions as at November 1992, which is about 3 per cent. of all income support claimants. The figures for my hon. Friend's constituency are about comparable. Although for historical reasons water ranks behind fuel in terms of priority, there is no evidence to suggest that that is responsible for any refusal to make deductions. As the number of deductions shows, the system works.

Since the companies were privatised, the cost of water has risen astronomically. Is the Minister aware that that represents a tax on pensioners and on people with low incomes and does the image of politicians no good whatever when his hon. Friends are receiving large sums of money as consultants to the privatised industries? Is that not bordering on corruption and taxing the poor?

The hon. Lady's substantive point was about the adequacy of income support and the way in which payments are paid to water companies. Since water companies took on more responsibilities for collecting debts from lower-income people, it has been made clear by the Office of Water Services, for one, that the companies could develop better methods—frequent payment methods—to collect money from lower-income people. The fuel companies have done this rather more successfully than the water companies. We urge the water companies to look carefully at their low-income customers to try to make sure that they do not get into debt.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the trend in pensioners' real income since 1979.

The trend in pensioners' income in real terms between 1979 and 1988 has been upwards.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is to be welcomed that even the chairman of Pensioners Voice recently said that our public sector provision compares well with that provided in Europe? Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that real income from savings has more than doubled since 1979—it actually fell by 16 per cent. between 1974 and 1979—and that Opposition Members will never ever understand that?

I am pleased to confirm both points. Pensioners' incomes from all sources have increased by about a third in real terms since 1979, which is a tribute to our policies for looking after pensioners. In contrast with what happened under Labour, when income from all sources rose less year by year, we have a proud record indeed in comparison with the rest of Europe. It is confirmed by independent actuaries that for those on low earnings—that is, half average earnings—we come out among the best countries in Europe.

Why cannot complacent Ministers understand that literally millions of pensioners—single and married—in this country are living in poverty or near poverty? Even in the reply that I received from the hon. Lady herself last week, it was admitted that 61 per cent. of single pensioners have an income of less than £5,000 a year. How many Ministers would like to try to live on the incomes that many pensioners in our constituencies are forced to live on? How would they like to live in such poverty?

It is precisely because we are concerned for those who depend entirely or almost entirely on the state pension that, for the past three years, we have directed immense extra resources towards raising pensioner premium and income support so that we can bring many more pensioners into the safety net. When they come into that safety net on income support, with up to 100 per cent. of rent, maximum local taxation rebate and access to cold weather payments, the value of the state pension can sometimes double just through that measure alone.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure on social security benefits in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, at constant prices.

At 1992–93 prices, expenditure for the years in question was £47.1 billion, £57.7 billion, £68.4 billion and £71.6 billion respectively. Benefit expenditure between 1979 and 1992 increased by 52 per cent. in real terms.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures show the Government's commitment to improving the position of the less well-off members of society? Does he also accept, however, that the lot of the less well off provides no grounds for complacency?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why in this year's public expenditure round I announced not just that we had kept our pledges to uprate all benefits, particularly those for the elderly and for families, and that we had protected those most affected by the recession from its effects, but that we could channel an extra £1 billion of resources to those in the greatest need. I am sure that my hon. Friend, like all Conservative Members, welcomes that.

As the Government's own figures show that under the Government's stewardship the number of people on half average earnings has risen from 5 million to a staggering 12 million, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether his Department has any working parties—formal or informal—to look at ways of spending the £80 billion budget more effectively?

That is the substance of all that we do. Our priority is to ensure that the money spent on social security is well focused on those in need with a genuine entitlement. I know that the hon. Gentleman has contributed to that process. We seek to achieve those ends, and always will. We are waiting to discover the Opposition's intention. Apparently, they have had to commission a search for policies and principles on the issue.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in considering the value of benefits one must also take account of the rate of inflation, as benefit recipients under the last Labour Government knew only too well when in one year the level of benefits was eroded by 25 per cent. as a result of inflation?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Anyone who is a friend of inflation is an enemy of the poor. The Labour party always has been, still is and always will be a friend of inflation.

Notwithstanding the global increases in the social security budget in recent years, does the Secretary of State share my concern that the take-up of those benefits cannot be objectively analysed as there was a different system before 1988? Is it not a matter of concern that the statistical review recently published by the Department could not reach conclusions on take-up, but concluded—among other things—that 1.3 million people who were entitled to social security income support payments did not receive them?

The hon. Member is right: take-up is important. If we are to get the policy on take-up right, it is important to be able to measure it. That is why I announced some time ago the introduction of a new survey to provide us with better and targeted information on household income—in place of the family expenditure survey used in the past, which was geared to establishing expenditure and not income. We shall be in a better position in future to measure income. In the meantime, we can take comfort from the fact that the measures suggested that more than 90 per cent. of benefit money is claimed by those entitled to it. By and large, those who do not take up their benefits tend to be those with the lowest entitlement in cash terms.

The Secretary of State has been talking about the figures with some complacency, but has not the total expenditure risen because of the frightening increase in the number of people forced to claim benefit? What possible satisfaction can be taken from the fact that 4.3 million people were dependent on supplementary benefit inn 1979 but that by 1991 7.7 million were relying on income support? Shamefully, the latest figure included 2.4 million children. Is that not the bitter harvest of the Government's economic failure? Would not the best way to take the strain off the DSS benefit budget and help those on income support be to tackle the problems of unemployment with considerably more energy and imagination than the Government have shown?

The hon. Member implicitly uses as a measure of poverty the amount of help given to those in need. Such an attitude was recently debunked by the Select Committee, which showed that if we take the number receiving benefit, as the levels of benefits have risen, the number of those on that level of income and below has increased. But the number on incomes below the supplementary benefit that the last Labour Government thought was sufficient has fallen. We must recognise that, through the social security system, the people of this country make a considerable contribution to the needy, the elderly and the sick. The average contribution from every working person every working day through the social security system is £10—a considerable sum, which shows the generosity of the British people as channelled by this Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the more effective ways of helping poorer families even more would be taxing child benefit and using part of the proceeds to increase family credit?

Logically, that is one of the measures which would achieve that end. As my hon. Friend will know, it has been looked at by a number of Ministers. It is essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and for the Financial Secretary—the latter being a post which I held. It would be much more difficult to do in a world of independent taxation than it might have been in the past when man and wife were not independently taxed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations during the last six months he has received from pensioners' organisations about the level of the basic state pension; and if he will make a statement.

My ministerial colleagues and I receive many representations from pensioners' organisations. During the past six months my colleagues and I have met seven delegations to discuss issues of general concern to pensioners, many of which included the level of basic state pension.

Does the Minister accept that those delegations and the very large number of representations that she and her colleagues have received are a sign of the difficulties that people on basic state pensions with no other income face in coping with fixed costs and standing charges—fuel costs, water costs, television licences and so on? Can the Government not find more resources to give greater priority to those with no income besides the basic state pension, especially single pensioners, who are suffering so much?

If a pensioner has nothing besides the basic state pension and only minimal savings, that pensioner is entitled to income support, with all the fringe benefits that I enumerated earlier. What I do hear when pensioners' organisations come to see me is that they value the fact that their savings are now safe and not being wiped out by the sort of inflation that occurred in the 1970s under Labour. They tell me that they are proud of the fact that we maintain one of the best safety nets in Europe and that we give extra help, particularly to the less well-off pensioners. Although there are obviously still improvements that they want, I never hear from them any suggestion that they would like to return to the dark days of the 1970s and the Labour Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that since 1989 £700 million in extra help has been made available to the poorer pensioners, and that that is impressive evidence that the Government are fully committed to providing assistance to the most needy pensioners? Will she confirm that the only threat of means-testing the basic pension has come from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)?

Yes, indeed. Not only has that been the only source from which the threat has come, but it is combined with a threat to private occupational pensions and personal pensions. Those threats, taken in conjunction, would mean a severe diminution of pensioners' overall incomes.

As the Minister well knows, the Labour party has no plans for means testing. That is a scare being put out by the Government, and we frequently deny it. Is the Minister aware that Pensioners Voice is still concerned that the basic pension is now below subsistence level as defined by the level of income support? That causes great distress to those who have retired on small occupational pensions which make them just ineligible for the additional benefit of income support. What plans, if any, do the Government have to do anything about this poverty trap faced by people on small occupational pensions?

In terms of the first part of the hon. Lady's remarks, she should ask her right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition to inform the Commission on Social Justice that it should no longer consider the future of universal benefits. When we hear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has issued that guidance, perhaps we will believe the hon. Lady. She asked about people who are managing on small occupational pensions. Not only do nearly 70 per cent. of those retiring have occupational pensions, but the average value is now nearly on a par with the state pension. We shall continue to encourage the occupational pension sector so that the value of those pensions continues to grow and forms a major part of retirement income.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking to reduce fraud.

I am consulting local authority associations about the new initiative to combat housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud. The Benefits Agency is deploying more specially trained investigators and making greater use of new technology to weed out false claims. I am allocating an additional £10 million a year of resources to fight fraud.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of state benefit recipients are not welfare scroungers and are not seeking fraudulently to abuse the system? Does he also agree that every £1 lost means that there is less money for those in genuine need? Does he accept that the Government have a moral commitment to track down all fraud as efficiently as possible to ensure that the maximum amount goes to those that the system is designed to help—the people who are most in need?

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The vast majority of social security claimants are as honest as the day is long. There is no similarity at all between the ordinary, honest, genuine claimant and the fraudster. It is the Labour party which identifies the two when it criticises any attack on fraud as an attack on the poor. We believe that an attack on fraud is right because every £1 wasted on fraud means that £1 less is available to those who are in real need.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the report of non-receipt of a Giro is now considered fraudulent and that benefit claimants have to wait between seven and 11 weeks for replacement? Consequently, they approach the DSS for a crisis loan and single people are offered £2 a day. What does he think about that?

It is not automatically assumed that anyone in that position is a fraudster, but we have to tackle the problem of false claims. About £230 million worth of orders of the type about which the hon. Gentleman speaks are reported missing every year and about £85 million worth of them are subsequently claimed. By working closely with the Post Office, we are trying to improve our work to prevent the illegal encashment of such orders. That must be for the benefit, and in the interests, of most people. We also want to stop theft, which is often wholesale when the encashment is organised not by ordinary claimants but by criminal gangs. We want to stop that and we have had some success in doing so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the most recent figure for the increase in spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people since 1979.

Spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people for 1992–93 is £13.7 billion—an increase of £8.7 billion or 173 per cent. in real terms over spending in 1978–79.

I am delighted with those figures, as will be those who receive the benefits. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that extra resources have been made available for the telephone service for those who are claiming disability living allowance and wish to telephone, and for the hotline telephone service made available to Members of Parliament? Will he further confirm that those who have awards payments made to them late will have them fully backdated?

I can confirm the last point. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have complimented those who have been running the hotline for Members of Parliament on the efforts that they have put into speedily resolving some of the difficult cases with which they have been presented. The benefits inquiry line has dealt with 720,000 calls, 85 per cent. of which are getting through the first time that people call. Minicom and tape facilities are also available to speed up the preparation of application forms and the dealing with claims.

Is not the truth of the matter that hundreds and thousands of people have claimed disability benefit in almost every constituency in Britain but have not been able to get their benefits because the computer is stuck? Is it not remarkable that the computer that the Inland Revenue uses always works, so it can get its money quickly? However, with the computer that pays out benefits, people have been waiting for two years for their benefits to be paid out. Is it not a scandal that the Government have a system that operates on behalf of those whom it likes and a hotline that works for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all those others who get payment for libel cases when nobody else can get one?

The hon. Gentleman performs to form. I do not know whether he was here earlier when I reminded the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that his party had to phase in mobility allowance while we have been able to do it at a stroke. Some 710,000 claims for disability living allowance have been dealt with, which is an improvement of 71 per cent. over last year's performance of attendance allowance and mobility allowance. Immense efforts have been made by the staff of the Benefits Agency and Ministers to ensure that people get the benefits to which they are entitled under the Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the balance between grants and loans in the operation of the social fund.

The social fund discretionary budget for 1993–94 will be around £340 million, an increase of over 12 per cent. over April 1992. No final decision has yet been made on the split between grants and loans.

Is the Minister able to give us the proportion of grant applications that is successful? Will he accept that, at a time of rocketing unemployment and when people are coming back into the community under community care schemes, the pressure on grants is such that only the most needy of cases can be met? Furthermore, at a time of increasing personal indebtedness, does it not make much more sense to give priority to grants rather than loans?

We have not neglected the grants aspect, because we increased allocations for grants by 30 per cent. between April 1991 and April 1992. We shall be looking carefully at grants when we come to decide the split of the discretionary budget for the coming year. The success of the loans system has meant that many more people have been helped as a result of the recycling of loan money and that is the primary reason for the new allocation that I announced today.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is there a benefit from recycling money and thereby helping many more people, but that we were confronted with rackets and frauds set up by people who opened what they called antique shops but which were really house clearing shops? Those people gave out shopping lists of 105 or more items that one could get from social security. Someone had to have the common sense to stop those rackets, and we have done so by ensuring that people make proper applications, and prove their need. They are then given help and they slowly repay the loans so that the money can help someone else. The taxpayers are not a soft touch.

I understand my hon. Friend's strength of feeling on the matter. I do not agree with every word that he uttered, but I think that we all know that the old single payments scheme was entirely out of any sort of financial control and that it was subject to widespread abuse in various parts of the country. It was right to bring the scheme under proper budgetary control, which the social fund has achieved. The magic of the recycling of loans has enabled many more people to be helped than we were able to help before.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding delays in dealing with disability living allowance cases.

I have received many representations about delays in dealing with disability living allowance claims. I have already expressed my personal regret that disabled people have not received the standard of service that they are entitled to expect. The Benefits Agency took urgent action to deal with the problem and it has now made around 300,000 new awards.

I am sure that everyone will be glad that the Minister has expressed his personal regret that, as a result of the changeover, many people had to wait an unacceptable time to have their allowances dealt with. It should never have been necessary to have a hotline to enable Members to expedite cases.

I said in answer to an earlier question that any new claims will be dealt with within the targets that the Benefits Agency has set. We anticipate that new targets will shortly be set for the coming year. We are determined to keep to those targets and ensure—as I said in response to an earlier question—that claimants get the benefits to which they are entitled on time.

To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received on prosecutions relating to racial violence.

The most recent representations that I have received were questions asked by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Walker). I refer the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to the answers given by the Solicitor-General on 7 December 1992 at columns 587–88.

Is there not some conflict at least between existing legislation on incitement to race hatred and the way in which various organisations—fascist in the main—do their utmost in certain parts of the country to promote race hatred? Is the Attorney-General taking all that on board?

The Crown prosecution service and the police are certainly astute respectively to investigate and, where the evidence is available, to prosecute incitement to racial hatred. I read carefully the speech that the hon. Gentleman made when introducing his ten-minute Bill. Racial motive is expressly a factor to be considered by the prosecution under the "Code for Crown Prosecutors". Is is also a factor which judges can and will take into account when sentencing. To make it an added and separate ingredient for an offence would be likely to make it more difficult to obtain convictions and could, therefore, hamper its proper consideration when it came to sentencing.

To ask the Attorney-General how many cases involving allegations of criminal misconduct against police officers were considered by his Department in each of the last three years; and how many of these resulted in prosecutions being brought.

The number of such cases referred to Crown prosecution service headquarters in the three years to 1992 were respectively 4,011, 4,012 and 3,696. Proceedings were instituted in 1990 in 187 cases, in 1991 in 186, and to date 108 in respect of 1992.

Does the Attorney-General accept that the discrepancy between the number of referrals and the number of prosecutions may possibly give cause for concern? Will he comment on the impact of the procedure whereby an 80 per cent. prospect of success is normally required by the CPS in such instances, whereas a lower margin of about 50 per cent. would be required in cases involving allegations against other members of the public?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's last evaluation is correct. There are two important points to bear in mind. First, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the police are required to report all cases involving police officers, other than minor motoring offences. Consequently, a large number of such cases are reported to the Crown prosecution service headquarters, many of which would never be reported if they involved ordinary citizens. Therefore, the weeding out is done from a much wider band.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that concern about the rises in the number and the type of offences committed by people other than police officers arc the matters which especially concern members of the public? In their minds, it is quite inappropriate that Labour Members should concentrate almost exclusively on allegations about police officers.

The point is that whoever is involved, the prosecution process must be—and it is—carried out without fear or favour, affection or The wider questions to which my hon. Friend rightly referred are being carefully considered by the royal commission.

Will the Attorney-General underline the assurance that I think he has given to the House, which is that the same standards prevail in deciding whether to prosecute a police officer, and that the chances of conviction are considered in exactly the same way as for any other citizen?

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to confirm that there is no difference in the standard applied, whether it be to a police officer or to any other member of the public.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the staffing of the Crown prosecution service.

In the last year, recruitment in the Crown prosecution service has resulted in an extra 202 lawyers in post, bringing the total complement to 2,141. The number of administrative staff in post is 4,225.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, welcome though those increases are, there are still cases that take 18 months or two years for the court finally to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person? Such delay is the cause of great financial, physical and psychological hardship. Will my hon. and learned Friend try to reduce the delays to a minimum?

The problem is being tackled on two fronts—first, by increased staff and, secondly, by increased financial resources. Over the past three years, the number of lawyers in post in the Crown prosecution service has risen by 694. In the year 1991–92, expenditure was £226 million, up 13.8 per cent. on the previous year. In the year 1992–93, it is estimated that expenditure will be £263 million, an increase on the previous year of 16.4 per cent. If we add together those two increases over two years, that makes an increase of more than 30 per cent.

Will the Solicitor-General direct the attention of the Crown prosecution service to a recent television programme on HTV Wales that alleged that the firm of Ring and Brymer has been involved in fraud in my constituency? As the parent company of that firm contributed £86,000 to the Conservative party this year, is not it a serious matter that the Conservative party might be living on the proceeds of social security fraud and that some members of the Government might have their legal aid financed by the proceeds of fraud?

If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of a criminal offence, he is duty bound as a citizen to put it before the police. The police will then investigate and the Crown prosecution service will decide whether to bring proceedings. It will make that decision in just the same way as it does in every other case, following the rules laid down in the "Code for Crown Prosecutors".

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on prosecution policy.

The principles governing the prosecution policy of the Crown prosecution service are set out in the "Code for Crown Prosecutors", which is issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. A copy of the code is in the Library.

What is the policy on prosecuting for phone tapping, particularly in the light of Camillagate, where it seems likely that a fixed telephone in a private house was tapped by an individual phone tapper? Does not that appear to constitute an offence? Why has not the DPP asked the police to investigate, to see whether it is possible to establish who was that person?

They know that it was MI5 or GCHQ.

The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary over the weekend. He said that there is absolutely no evidence that the security services were involved. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly, if there is prima facie evidence that a criminal offence has been committed, it will be dealt with in exactly the same way as all other cases; that is, if there is evidence of an offence that affords a reasonable prospect of conviction and if it is in the public interest to institute proceedings.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest report he has received on the arrangements for delivering relief to former Yugoslavia.

The area of greatest need is Bosnia and we are concentrating our effort there. We estimate that about two thirds of the needy there are getting the essential supplies that they need, but, in Sarajevo and other besieged enclaves in eastern Bosnia, increased fighting and the winter have greatly increased the difficulties faced by all those delivering relief supplies. Since they were first deployed, British troops have, up to 12 January, escorted about 150 relief convoys, which have carried into Bosnia a total of about 12,000 tonnes of relief supplies. British civilian lorries delivered 3,342 tonnes of supplies into Sarajevo during December alone—just over half of the supplies reaching that city.

Of course we congratulate British aid workers and service men on their achievements in Bosnia, but does my right hon. Friend agree that they went in because of Serbian aggression, yet the young British soldier who was killed the other day died not from Serbian bullets but from bullets fired between Muslim and Croatian forces? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that British forces do not become part of a four-way civil war and, to that end, that United Nations figures, which are released locally on a daily basis, on the locations from which guns are firing at Sarajevo and at British aid workers and service men are published, so that the British public can be aware of them?

It is often extremely difficult, particularly in Sarajevo, to establish who is firing and for what reason. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that where such information is reasonably reliable, it should be made available so that the public can understand the sheer complexity of the situation and the reason why we do not intend to allow British troops to become involved in civil fighting. Of course one can imagine circumstances in which the risks are so great that we will have to pull them out—but in that case, many more people would die.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we in Cheshire are very proud of our regiment's involvement in helping those most in need? However, that does not mean that it is understood why a regiment that is being badly treated in the reorganisation should be at the sharp end. There is also the question whether there is the same understanding by the Foreign Office of the need to protect British soldiers if the situation becomes even more dangerous. It would be wrong to allow British citizens to be caught in a web that is not of their own making, and which they cannot affect, without the right to defend themselves, just because the British Government are not prepared to accept that the situation has now gone beyond their control.

Of course British citizens have the right to defend themselves: that is essential. I do not think that any hon. Member disagrees with that, doubts the value of the work that the Cheshires are doing or questions the possibility of circumstances in which it might be too risky to ask them to continue that work. Meanwhile, as the hon. Lady has said, they are doing an excellent job. I hope that the details—the facts and figures—of that job, and the job done by the Overseas Development Administration's British civil workers, will become more widely known.

Are medical supplies now being included in the aid of convoys? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no repetition of the occasion on which convoys arrived at Srebrenica without a single aspirin? I asked the same question before Christmas, but received an unsatisfactory reply; perhaps my right hon. Friend now has a clearer picture of what is going on.

As I understand it, medicines have always formed a major part of the supplies, especially British medicines. We have supplied a high proportion of the medicines that have gone into Bosnia in recent months. I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend has raised about a specific convoy, and let her know the details.

Will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that aid supplies to Yugoslavia will constitute a mere stop-gap cosmetic until the consequences of the war are confronted? Will the Government insist that sanctions are maintained until the areas stolen by ethnic cleansing are demilitarised, and until at least a majority of the 2.5 million refugees are permitted to return home in safety?

Relief supplies are not a cosmetic to people living in villages or towns, cut off for many months, who depend on those supplies if they and their children are to be alive in two or three weeks' time. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. If he means that the supplies are not enough, of course he is entirely right.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on joint EC aid initiatives in relation to Africa.

The United Kingdom is contributing £1.3 billion over five years to the European development fund, over 90 per cent. of which goes to Africa. In addition, there are substantial European programmes of food aid and humanitarian relief.

I warmly welcome the recent pledging of 680,000 tonnes of EC food aid under the food aid programme for Africa. Does the Minister accept, however, that real problems are involved in the delivery of that vital food? Will he consider setting up an EC-sponsored Africa special recovery plan to upgrade the logistics, transport and distribution facilities available on the ground, so that the aid can reach those who need it?

The hon. Gentleman is right about the difficulty of delivery, but I am afraid that it cannot be achieved in the way that he suggests. There has been some help in Somalia for relief and rehabilitation purposes by means of unutilised funds, but we cannot extend the use of unutilised funds in the way that has been previously suggested by the hon. Gentleman, because the Community works on commitments, not on disbursements. That system is different from the British system.

Can my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the British Government's aid effort to Somalia will be sustained for as long as famine conditions persist in that country?

Yes, I can confirm that the United Kingdom has a continuing programme of relief for Somalia. We are the world's third largest bilateral donor to the relief effort in Somalia. I have no doubt that we shall continue to give relief generously.