If she will make a statement on international efforts to tackle famine in southern Africa. [62468]

The causes of food shortages in southern Africa this year are drought and misgovernment. In Zimbabwe, which accounts for over half of the region's total food requirements, economic mismanagement and grossly mis-organised land reform have seriously exacerbated the effects of the drought.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full response. It is undoubtedly true that current levels of bilateral aid to Africa, with the pledges, will be treble what they were under the last Tory Government. However, in central Mozambique, there are one in five people with AIDS-related HIV, which is exacerbating the problem. In Zambia, there is the worst drought for 20 years. In Zimbabwe and Angola, Governments interfere in food aid. In Malawi and Zambia, people are scouring the bare maize fields for weeds to eat. There are corruption, political problems, HIV and famine.

Order. Please be seated. Perhaps the Minister will try to reply to that question.

Yes, Africa is the poorest continent. Nearly half its people are abjectly poor. On current trends, the continent will become poorer. However, we have progress in a number of countries—for example, Uganda, Mozambique, Ghana and Botswana, and Ethiopia is turning round. We must take the plight of Africa seriously and we must ensure that there is a move forward to peace and development.

We recognise that some of the problems are self-inflicted, as in Zimbabwe. However, will the Secretary of State tell us how Malawi was guided by the World Bank to release about £750,000 worth of wheat stock, which would now have been helpful to it?

That is an untrue excuse that has been given by the Government of Malawi. The country had large food stocks, but they must always be rotated to keep them fresh. Malawi borrowed money at great expense to have its food stocks. The IMF suggested that it could slim them down and rotate them. Malawi sold the lot. It is not clear where the money or the food went. That has exacerbated the crisis. That is the responsibility of the Government of Malawi. They are co-operating with the international community, and I hope that we can help the people of Malawi through. The situation in Zimbabwe, where nearly half of the people are in trouble, is much more worrying.

Have the South African Government been involved in providing food aid in the region?

I am not aware whether the South African Government have provided food aid. Much of the food has to come through South Africa and South African transport routes. We are talking not only about quantities but about getting the food in to the places where it is needed. It is a major logistical task and South Africa has been very involved. I think that we will also need to bring in food also through the ports on the coast of Mozambique if we are to get in enough food.

While the famine in southern Africa has been developing and numerous aid agencies have been warning of an impending crisis, there have been 13 world summits. I will not read out the list, Mr. Speaker, because it would make you cross. What does the Secretary of State estimate to be the cost of all this talking? With far less than a dollar a day, how many people could have been saved with the money expended?

I agree with the hon. Lady's underlying point. There are too many conferences on international development. There are too many grand declarations and too little implementation. We have been trying to get a grip on not having endless repeat UN conferences where we renegotiate the text that was agreed last time, and instead report on progress against what was agreed last time. The recent run of summits from the millennium assembly tying the world to the millennium development goals, to Doha, to the commitment to a development round, to Monterrey to a reformed agenda and more money, and I hope, to Johannesburg, to get a commitment to sustainable development and poverty reduction, constitutes a good round. We should then implement and have fewer conferences.

At a recent conference in madrid attended by African and European parliamentarians and organised by the Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa, there was concern among the African parliamentarians that the emphasis on the New Partnership for Africa's Development initiative needed to have more links with the emphasis on relieving poverty and debt in southern Africa, and therefore relieving famine. Will my hon. Friend comment on how famine and poverty relief will be worked into the NEPAD initiative that is being discussed at the G8 summit?

The whole point of NEPAD and all its targets is to move Africa forward to meet the millennium development goals. It is all about reducing poverty sustainably. That is the purpose of NEPAD. My hon. Friend's comments reflect the fact that there has been too little work across Africa to let the people of Africa know what NEPAD is about. We, through the Global Coalition for Africa, will engage in such an exercise.

In our debate on Zimbabwe last night, the Secretary of State said that

"we cannot feed those who will be hungry unless the Mugabe regime permits the private sector to import food."—[Official Report, 25 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 844.]

As the hon. Lady knows, it is very difficult to bring sensible pressure to bear on President Mugabe. He does not take advice, it seems, from anyone. The Government of Zimbabwe are not yet making credible plans to deal with the impending disaster. In order for the private sector to operate, price controls need to be removed, the exchange rate needs to be adjusted, and the state grain monopoly must be abolished. Otherwise, the private sector will not be able to operate. There will be lots of people with money and there will be no food to buy. We must get food aid through to the people with no money. Kofi Annan and the leader of the World Food Programme are trying to exert pressure, but the situation remains extremely worrying.

With regard to Malawi, is my right hon. Friend saying that the President of Malawi sold the food to Kenya and that the money is missing? In that case, what electronic information can the International Monetary Fund give us about where the money has gone?

No, I am not saying that the food has been sold to Kenya. We do not know where the food is. There is about to be a crisis, and people sometimes hoard and speculate with food when countries are facing famine, as my hon. Friend probably knows. We do not know where the money is or where the food is, and we know that there is an impending crisis in Malawi but the Government are co-operating. There is an inquiry into these matters, but we must get people fed while we make inquiries about what happened.

Last night the Secretary of State also said that the only way she could see the Mugabe regime being brought down was as an inexorable consequence of the famine. How does that square with the Prime Minister's rhetoric about healing the scars of Africa and declaring no tolerance of the activities of Mr. Mugabe? Were those just empty words?

The hon. Lady and her party were banging on about that last night in a most foolish way, and I am sorry that she has returned to the matter today. The presumption is that the UK Government can fix catastrophes in the world, when Governments are determined, against all international advice, to wreck their country. No UK Government can do that. The present UK Government have done everything in their power to try to dissuade the Zimbabwe regime from the course that it is taking. Even in the face of impending famine conditions, the regime goes on making errors that will make matters worse.

If she will make a statement on the repayment of third world debt. [62469]

Twenty-six of the 37 eligible heavily indebted poor countries have now qualified for debt relief of $62 billion. That has been provided through the poverty reduction strategy process, which has led to improvements in economic management and improved spending of local revenues and aid money.

Do the Government agree with the Jubilee debt campaign that the number of countries that benefit from the HIPC initiative should be extended to include further countries that have unsustainable levels of overseas debt?

No, I do not agree with the Jubilee debt campaign. For example, it is proposed that Nigeria should benefit. Nigeria is massively oil-rich, and oil prices have gone up. It is terribly misgoverned and its resources are not used for the benefit of its people. To write off debt unconditionally would not bring any benefits to poor people. We are using the leverage of debt relief to write off unpayable debt and get good economic policy and better social spending. That is the right way. Countries such as Sudan, Burma, Somalia and Liberia could qualify if we could get them to peace. It is no good giving them debt relief while they are still buying arms and fighting, so I disagree. We must drive those countries forward, achieve peace and reform, and reward that with debt relief so that the countries get better economic management and the life of the people improves.

Further to the previous question, there are nevertheless several dozen countries that lie just outside the HIPC—heavily indebted poor country—criteria. Can the Secretary of State tell us what our Government are doing to help those countries to move forward to a sustainable debt framework not unlike the HIPC one?

The other thing that hon. Members must understand is that, because there has been such a wonderful campaign on debt, people sometimes talk as if it were the only problem. Many very poor countries do not have a debt problem, but need continuing support. For example, in Uganda, which has qualified for debt relief, 50 per cent. of the Government's revenues are supported by aid, and the country has made enormous progress in reducing poverty and getting all its children to school. We are helping country after country in the appropriate way and not pretending that the only problem is debt. Some countries are poor but do not have debt, and they need help as well.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the debt of many heavily indebted countries is not only sovereign-to-sovereign debt, but involves private finance in the banking system. She will also be aware that back in the 1970s and 1980s, when most of the debt was extended, many of the banks knew that they were very unlikely ever to be repaid and are quite happy to continue to exercise their leverage. Given that they have now written off the amounts in their own balance sheets, should it not be possible to persuade them, in exchange for having direct access through NGOs rather than Governments, that that debt should now be relieved?

My understanding is that those countries have limited commercial debt and that as they are such poor countries, they did not get much commercial lending. However, some commercial debt that should be part of the HIPC process is not properly being written off, and we need to attend to that issue. In general, commercial debt is written down through the London Club. If the hon. Gentleman would like to explain his points more fully, perhaps in a letter, I shall look into the matter and respond to him.

What assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Angola. [62470]

The humanitarian situation in Angola remains very serious. More than 80,000 former fighters, 160,000 family members and 4 million displaced Angolans are all facing a humanitarian crisis. The United Nations has launched an appeal for $141 million to provide support until the end of 2002. We are contributing directly and trying to improve the effectiveness of the international response to the crisis, but Angola is at peace for the first time since the 1960s and this is a fantastically important opportunity to help it to move forward.

My right hon. Friend deserves a lot of praise for the way in which she has highlighted the plight of the poor in Africa. Is it not also the case, however, that some countries in Africa do not get as much publicity as others? On a visit to Angola with UNICEF a few months ago, it was clear that Angola was almost a forgotten country. According to UNICEF figures, Angola is the worst place in the world in which to be born. Will she do all that she can to ensure that Angola is mentioned in all the international discussions that take place and features in any anti-poverty drive?

Yes, I will give that undertaking. As my hon. Friend knows, the biggest chance that Africa has is that Angola, the Congo and Sudan are all ripe for peace. If we can capture peace in those three massive resource-rich countries, the prospects of the continent will be lifted. Angola has enormous and rich resources, but they are not well used for the benefit of the people. If we can get peace and development there, they will act as an engine for development in Africa.

It is incredibly good news that Angola is at last at peace. It is also good news that Africa as a whole wants to take forward partnership through the NEPAD agreement. Great hope was held out at the G8 meeting, but there is a danger that the initiative may be distracted by other issues. Does the Secretary of State feel that, if it is distracted, it may be sensible to try to hold a summit that is devoted to African issues? I suspect that if the G8 does not make the progress on Africa for which many people hope, there will be considerable disappointment.

The priority that is being given to Africa at the summit is remarkable, and it is down to the efforts of our Prime Minister. A third of the summit's time has been allocated to Africa, which is unprecedented; the G8 countries do not usually discuss development, let alone the poorest continent. The hon. Gentleman is right: Africa cannot be fixed in one summit. NEPAD is a long-term development relationship that we all have to commit to and drive forward through all the channels of the international system. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will try through his Select Committee to ensure that that is done as well as possible.

The overwhelming recollection of many of us who went to Angola during those terrible years when the war was taking place is the dreadful devastation arising from land mines. Will my right hon. Friend assure us, as I believe that she would want to, that the Government will do as much as they can to remove the legacy of those land mines?

Yes. Four million people are displaced in Angola as a result of the war. Getting them home, getting them farming and getting their lives moving again is crucial, and land mines have to be removed to allow that to take place. When I was recently in Luanda, members of UNITA, the rebels who were defeated in the war, said that there are fewer land mines than has been suggested to the international community. So there is a problem, but it is probably resolvable. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an important priority to get people back on to their land.

Although, as the Secretary of State said, the peace in Angola is very welcome, I am sure that she agrees that Angola has suffered greatly from drought and starvation, as well as from wars and bad governance. Aid to the people of Angola is being delayed as a result of protracted negotiations between the United Nations and the Angolan Government, who failed to provide the security guarantees that the UN required. What steps do the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government propose to try to end that stalemate and to ensure that the aid reaches the people who desperately need it?

The first point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that natural disasters rarely become catastrophes without misgovernment. Countries can cope when they have a decent Government, but the combination of natural disasters and misgovernment leads to catastrophe and famine. Unfortunately, Angola has suffered from war and misgovernment, but it now has a great opportunity.

What recent assessment she has made of the international effort to provide humanitarian relief to Afghanistan. [62471]

About half the Afghan population—about 9 million people—rely on food aid, but a complete humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided through the efforts of the international community, which has provided more than £1 billion n humanitarian aid to the country since October last year. We now need to refocus our efforts so that we not only provide people with food, but ensure, in conjunction with the transitional Administration, that livelihoods and public services are restored and that the security sector is reformed.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The leadership of her Department in this regard is widely acknowledged, but does she not share my concern that last month the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had to cut by two thirds food aid to returning refugees? There are worries that food rations might need to be stopped altogether in certain areas. What action will her Department take in the international sphere to ensure that assistance is increased and peace is effectively secured?

We are pressing others to provide the aid that was promised to the country. We are also considering other factors, including what happens in the regions and security sector reforms, to ensure that food aid can get out—not only into Kabul, but throughout the countryside.

Will my hon. Friend give the Department's assessment of the capacity of women to help to deliver that humanitarian aid effectively?

It is extremely important to ensure that women can play a proper role in the reconstruction of the country. The transitional Administration have made the education of women a priority, and women have acted independently in the Loya Jirga. We will monitor the situation closely to ensure that the commitment to appoint a women's Minister is carried out.

What assessment has the Minister made of the ability to get all land back into productive use for agriculture next season, if not this season? What effect will that have on the need for humanitarian food aid?

The ability to get land back into productive use is important because approximately 85 per cent. of the population live in rural areas and rely on it for their food. There are perhaps two key factors: the administrative reforms that I mentioned, and ensuring that we encourage farmers to produce different crops instead of cultivating poppies. My Department is taking a lead on that.

Can it possibly be true that specific Afghan cultivators have easily acquired land mines to protect their poppy crops?

I was not aware of that. The Government have provided some £3 million of support for removing land mines. I shall make inquiries and keep my hon. Friend informed.

What mechanisms exist for discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence and Department of Trade and Industry collectively to resolve questions of common interest. [62472]

We have close dealings with other Departments at official and ministerial level on debt, International Monetary Fund and World Bank policy, conflict, trade policy, international environment agreements, agricultural and fisheries policy, money laundering, corruption and many other subjects.

The mechanism for arms sales and the clearance of arms exports—the F680 procedure—is not working properly. I understand that the Department was not consulted or even informed about BAE's application for the Tanzanian air traffic control system. Should not the Department be involved much earlier? It is unsatisfactory if the Ministry of Defence gives clearance at an initial stage and that is the end of the matter.

I agree that it is worrying that there is a procedure for saying that it is a good idea to go ahead with a project when other Departments have not been informed. That does not commit us to the licence, but it is a strange procedure. We are reviewing the application of the sustainable development criterion. The question needs examining.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the impact of conflict on developing countries. The availability of small and large weapons plays a part in fuelling that conflict. The UK is one of the largest producers of weapons and therefore has a responsibility. What mechanisms exist whereby my right hon. Friend can engage in conversations with other Departments to ascertain what can be done to diversify away from that dangerous trade into more productive trades? [Interruption.]

Order. I appeal to the House to come to order. The noise is unfair to hon. Members who are interested in this matter.

My hon. Friend is right. However, there are responsible arms sales. For example, South Africa has equipped itself to help resolve conflicts in Africa, and that is desirable. Arms can therefore be sold responsibly, but they can also clearly be sold irresponsibly. When he was Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House negotiated with other EU member states a tightening of standards for licensing applications. That process is beginning to flow through, including a new control on arms sales that might damage sustainable development. The application of that rule is currently being reviewed. We are making progress, and there is room for more.

Given the generally effective way in which the Department has come to work over the years with the Ministry of Defence, to the great advantage of delivering aid to those who most need it, will the right hon. Lady consider developing with her colleagues in the EU a system of best practice whereby Ministries of Defence in other European countries adopt the same method of operating?

We work well together when the Army is in developing countries and can help to stabilise matters, get schools working and re-establish other aspects. It is also important to work together to reform the security sector in badly governed countries so that people have peace, order and stability, which contribute to the development of the economy. We have worked closely with the Ministry of Defence on that. A good example is Sierra Leone. I have held discussions with the NATO leadership about the way in which we might spread such good practice throughout NATO. I shall keep the hon. Gentleman informed of progress.

What steps the Government are taking to help curb AIDS in southern and western Africa. [62473]

The Government are strongly committed to working to combat HIV/AIDS, and provided more than £150 million for programmes in southern and western Africa last year. We continue to work with the Governments of developing countries, and other bodies, to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and to help those affected by it. We need to replicate the progress that has been made in Uganda, where the prevalence of the disease has been more than halved in the last decade.

Does the Minister accept that the scale of the problem is enormous, and that the resources required are substantial? If Britain and other countries are to be expected to play their part in fighting this evil, we must also ensure that governance in these areas of Africa is improved. Will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that money given to fight AIDS is not being siphoned off or stolen?

My hon. Friend is right about the scale of the disease, and about the related problems. Each year, 2.3 million people die of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. While it is extremely important that we ensure that there is good governance, so that all the money that goes into fighting AIDS is spent properly, we do not at present have any evidence of the kind of problems that my hon. Friend mentioned. If he would like to provide me with any such evidence, I will certainly make sure that it is looked into, because we want to ensure that all the money goes into AIDS prevention and into treating the people who suffer from the disease.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 June.

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] If I may continue—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently attending the G8 summit in Canada. Today, the summit will discuss world terrorism and proliferation

Where's Prescott?

Order. I do not want the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) shouting. He often shouts, and he must not.

If I may continue, Mr. Speaker. Today, the summit will discuss world terrorism and proliferation. Tomorrow it will discuss how it can help to promote development and prevent conflict in Africa.

On the day that marks international drug abuse and trafficking day, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the hard-working people in Dover and elsewhere who police our borders and who have contributed to the year-on-year increase in the number of seizures of illicit drugs?

There can be no greater menace than those who make large profits out of trading on the misery and desperation of others. That is why we hope shortly to introduce proposals that will increase sentences for those who trade in human beings. We made good progress at the Seville summit on getting agreement on joint action—[Interruption.] Indeed, we did—to ensure that we take forward our joint policing into those areas of entry. The measures that we have taken in Bosnia, for example, have been dramatically successful, and have contributed to a 90 per cent. reduction in the number of people being trafficked by organised gangs.

rose—

Hear, hear!

When the Chancellor hit pensions with his £5 billion a year tax, he said that it was justified because of the buoyancy of the stock market. Last week the Prime Minister said that the stock market was "massively up on where it was five years ago."—[Official Report, 19 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 272.]

My right hon. Friend was absolutely right in the statement that he made. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman requires a lecture on this from me. The nature of the financial markets is that they go down as well as up. Stock markets around the world have been going down in the past 48 hours. There is no way in which any Government can insulate their stock market from that effect.

When I question the Leader of the House at business questions, he is normally remarkably honest and straightforward with the House. In fact, on occasions he has even apologised to the House when he has been mistaken. What is it about appearing at the Dispatch Box at this time of the week that renders him unable to give a straight question? [Interruption.]

Order.

This is my first, and probably only, Prime Minister's questions. I was about to say that the Leader of the House may be representing the Prime Minister but he does not have to impersonate him. The fact is that the stock market today is almost 5 per cent. below where it was when the Chancellor first hit pensions. I shall give the Leader of the House another chance. When the Prime Minister said that the stock market was "massively up", was he right or was he wrong?

My right hon. Friend was absolutely right. [Interruption.] I am not clear what other answer Conservative Members were expecting. My right hon. Friend was right with reference to the period from the general election to the time when that question was asked last Wednesday. As I said, stock markets went down even more spectacularly under the Conservatives. The difference is that, at the present time, we have a sound economy with the lowest inflation for 40 years, the lowest interest rates for 50 years, and 1.5 million more people in work. On all those points it is better now than on any single day during 18 years of Conservative Government. If the right hon. Gentleman does not find that good enough, what heights of new rhetoric can he scale to describe the appalling record that his party had in Government?

Well, the Leader of the House really does have a touch of the Prime Minister today. The truth is that the Prime Minister was wrong, we know he was wrong, and what is more important, pensioners know he was wrong. The sad truth is that shares in pension funds have lost a fifth of their value as a result of the Government's pensions tax, and that is more than four times the fall in the stock market. May I ask the Leader finally whether he will apologise to pensioners for what the Chancellor has done to their pensions?

I am astonished at the right hon. Gentleman's brass neck. I most certainly will not apologise for the Government's record on pensions. Next April, the average pensioner household will be £22 a week better off than under the Conservative party. We have increased pensions by double the level of earnings, whereas the Conservatives cut them behind earnings. We have provided a pensioner tax credit that increases the incentive for those who want to save, and will reward pensioners who have a little bit extra income from savings, whereas the Conservative Government continually penalised them by introducing a means test. I will most certainly not apologise to pensioners for our record.

In the light of recent serious public information about the murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane, will the Prime Minister and the Government respond positively to the Finucane family's request for a special inquiry into that terrible murder?

I know that this is of serious concern to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and his community. He will be aware that two investigations are in progress. Sir John Stevens has been appointed by the United Kingdom Government to conduct one of them, and we have also agreed with the Irish Government on a joint inquiry led by Mr. Justice Cory of Canada. Should Mr. Cory recommend a public inquiry, we will of course implement that recommendation.

A couple of weeks ago, the Leader of the House told me here:

"I believe that the best, most secure and most transparent way to fund political parties that is least open to misconstruction is from the public purse."[Official Report, 13 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 1005.]

I must confess that I had other things besides visiting Westminster Hall on my mind this morning, but as always I will study Hansard with great care tomorrow.

Should not the Government have a policy on this issue? Is this not a matter of trust, given current concerns about the influence bought by, among others, Andersen, the owner of the Daily Express and the RMT? Do the Government not think it about time they settled the issue? Does the Leader of the House not recognise that the public think that when auditors, owners of major newspapers and major unions believe they are buying influence, it is time the Government had a policy so that trust could be maintained?

The hon. Gentleman has raised the precise point on which I have expressed concern—that although we have been impeccable in declaring and screening our donations, they are open to misconstruction. That is why I personally believe that putting the matter in the hands of the British electorate through public funding is the best answer.

Yesterday I received a distressing e-mail from my constituent Sue Brown, who is again under curfew in Bethlehem. Is she not right in saying that repeated Israeli invasions of the West Bank

"cause untold misery, suffering and death to the hapless and largely innocent civilians of the West Bank"?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to a serious issue that is, I am sure, of concern to all Members. We warmly support President Bush's call in his speech the other day for a viable Palestinian state. The way to achieve that is through movement on both sides—an end to the occupation and the settlements on one side, and an end to terrorism on the other. Without both, we shall not see a successful return to the negotiating table. The future of both the people of Israel and the Palestinian territories depends on that return, because it is the only way in which we will achieve a secure and just peace.

Returning to the subject of the £5 billion a year stealth tax on pension funds, can the right hon. Gentleman name anyone who believes that siphoning off millions of pounds from pension funds does not undermine their ability to pay pensions? Can he name anyone, that is, apart from the Prime Minister and, of course, the late Robert Maxwell?

If I remember correctly, the right hon. Gentleman had some responsibility for pensions during the previous Conservative Government. The electorate have already given their verdict on how he managed his stewardship of their pensions during his time in office and I am happy to put our records side by side. On the question of the withdrawal of advance corporation tax, the right hon. Gentleman is intelligent and well informed enough to know that that was done in order to ensure that we did not distort the tax system to encourage dividends rather than investment. He is a fair-minded man, so I am sure that he will be delighted to hear that that decision has succeeded and that investment in British industry is now £20 billion a year higher than it was under the Government of whom he was a member.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in offering condolences to the 2,500 UK workers of WorldCom in my constituency, whose jobs are now at risk as their company teeters on the edge of bankruptcy—a bankruptcy compounded by corporate greed and dishonesty and a $3.8 billion dollar fraud covered up by crooked accountants? Does he agree that it is high time we heard less bleating and whingeing from the corporate world about the burden of regulation and saw more effective supervision of international accountancy practices?

My hon. Friend is right to express the concern of his constituents about a matter that will be of grave concern for the economy of his constituency. On the issue of auditing standards and the quality of auditing, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has already set up an inquiry to consider ways in which we can improve the quality of auditing standards and whether we can learn any lessons from what has happened on the other side of the Atlantic. I am sure that that inquiry will wish to consider the latest collapse as well as the Enron collapse. We expect the report in the summer and we will look closely at any action necessary and try to take it as quickly as possible.

Is the Leader of the House aware of the escalating problem of TB in cattle? In Gloucestershire, 1,500 whole-herd tests are yet to be carried out—a backlog caused by the shortage of technicians and vets. That situation has been brought about by the 10 per cent. cut in the budget for tackling that problem. Will he do all that he can to persuade the Government to provide sufficient finance to tackle the escalating problem of TB in cattle and, more importantly, will he speed up the Government's investigation into the real cause of the spread of that disease?

The hon. Gentleman raises a matter that is of great concern to the farming community and which the Government take very seriously. I am slightly surprised that he should allege that the problem is exacerbated by a cut in funding. This Government have substantially increased the funding necessary to ensure that we police our economy and society and have safeguards in place. The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party that is committed to cutting public spending and whose leader has said that he would like to cut it to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product. That would be the equivalent of cutting the entire education and health budget and the salaries of all police officers. The hon. Gentleman cannot continue to support a party that demands cuts while at the same time demanding increased expenditure.

Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the greatest challenge facing the international community is fighting global poverty, when 1 billion people exist on less than $1 a day? Is not the war on poverty the acid test of the G8 summit? Does The right hon. Gentleman also agree that in the future the culmination of success must be enhanced debt relief and fair aid and trade? What we need is a new Marshall plan for Africa.

I fully agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the issue. That is why the G8 summit will examine tomorrow how the world's wealthier nations can combat poverty, child mortality and illiteracy throughout Africa. The UK Government go to the summit with the strength of having increased by half, since the last general election, the amount of aid that we give. We have also just made a commitment that we will increase by another billion our aid to Africa. That reverses the cuts experienced under the previous Conservative Government.

Does the Leader of the House agree with the Lord Chancellor's Department that the payment of fines in this country has become voluntary?

I always find it prudent to agree with the Lord Chancellor's Department in all particulars.

That was a remarkably complacent answer. We have discovered the sad truth from the National Audit Office, and the Lord Chancellor's Department has admitted it, and it is that fewer than two thirds of fines are collected now, and that half of all uncollected fines are written off.

On the question of fines, we will study with care the forthcoming report from the Public Accounts Committee. I assure the House that there will be plenty of legislation, on the criminal justice and courts systems, in the next Session. That will enable us to address some of these issues.

How well the Leader of the House knows me. The answer—and it will not give the right hon. Gentleman any pleasure to hear it—is that 40,000 criminals failed to carry out their full sentence last year.

"send important messages to the British people. They show what should not, and cannot, be tolerated."

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his courage in choosing to go on crime. He will be aware that the British crime survey shows that the amount of crime has fallen by a fifth under this Government. The number of police officers is going up, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is in stark contrast with what happened under the Conservative Government, who doubled the amount of crime, more than doubled the amount of violent crime, and saw police numbers fall in five successive years. When I get back to my office and look up the figures on those who have completed community service, I suspect that I shall find that they were even worse under the Conservatives.

My local police have had reasonable success in targeting drug traffickers. Today, 1.5 tonnes of cannabis was confiscated, and five people were arrested. A little while ago, a large heroin organisation was busted, but the victims of addiction remain. Pursuant to the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser)—that the amount in the drug budget devoted to support for victims has doubled—will my right hon. Friend undertake to keep the adequacy of the resources under review? Will he also monitor closely the pace at which new and more effective drugs are getting through to drug addicts?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising, in her question, a very serious matter in a very serious and proper fashion. Of course, I give an undertaking that the Government will continue to make sure that we put in adequate resources to tackle the supply of drugs and to promote the cut in demand for drugs. We are confident that at present we are on course to achieve our target of getting 55 per cent. of drug users into treatment by 2004, two years from now. Obviously, we will keep the target under review. When we hit the target, we will want to go further, and I assure my hon. Friend that the matter will remain a high priority for the Government.

Last week at his press conference, the Prime Minister attacked my constituents when, in response to their concerns about the proposed asylum centre at Throckmorton, he claimed that they wanted asylum seekers

"anywhere else but where I am".

"an unwarranted slur on the serious intentions of people from the churches of our diocese."

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary appears to be having his own private exchange with Conservative Front Benchers on this matter. However, as he has quite properly pointed out, Conservative policy for a long time was to make sure that all asylum seekers would be detained.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all those students who will be graduating from universities in the next few weeks? Does he agree that our universities play a massive role in achieving the knowledge-based economy and enjoy a fine reputation throughout the world? While I welcome the Government's commitment to 50 per cent. access for all young people, does he agree that such expansion will require adequate funding for research and teaching and a fair pay settlement for academic staff, as well as looking at the problem of student poverty, so that those who can benefit most from higher education are not deterred by unreasonable debts?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. We have increased funding in higher education by a sixth. However, more important to the future of Britain as an economy and a country that can make its way in a highly competitive global economy is the fact that we now have one of the highest participation rates in higher education of any of the OECD countries, something of which we can all be proud.

Is the Leader of the House aware that I was recently contacted by a constituent, Mr. Robert Blunden, whose wife sadly died of cancer last year? Her cancer specialist recently wrote to a national newspaper deploring the fact that he was prevented from using two new cancer drugs as the result of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence not permitting their use on the national health service. My question is simple: given the Government's welcome emphasis on cancer treatment in the NHS cancer plan, why are there no cancer specialists on that committee?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for our commitment to treating cancer. Indeed, we have increased the number of cancer specialists throughout Britain and are reducing the waiting time for treatment by them.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the continued trend in the fall of unemployment, particularly since 1997? In Fife, especially in my constituency of Central Fife, unemployment fell by 14 per cent during that period, despite the dramatic loss of jobs in traditional industries. Will he join me in welcoming the many efforts made by unsung heroes who have contributed to this success, including Fife council, Scottish Enterprise Fife, and voluntary organisations such as the Leven development trust?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those who worked in the partnerships in Fife on making their contribution to cutting local unemployment. We should always remember that much of the progress in providing jobs and securing the local economy is made in the local community by members of that local community. It has also, of course, been helped by the measures that we have taken nationally, such as the new deal, opposed vigorously by the Conservative party, which has created 3,000 new jobs and placed people in such jobs in Fife—2,000 of them for young, long-term unemployed people. One of the great achievements of the Government is that we have almost removed long-term unemployment among our young people, who will be the work force of the future, and that is a great investment in the future of Britain.

In response to the outrageous slur made by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who said that she would not touch some comprehensive schools with a bargepole, and in fairness to the pupils, parents, teachers and governors of good comprehensive schools, will the Leader of the House name names and tell the House to which comprehensive schools the Secretary of State was referring?

What my right hon. Friend said in her speech was that she had taught for 18 years at a comprehensive, and would not have taught at any other type of school. I will not take criticism of my right hon. Friend from a Conservative party whose leader will not touch any state school with a bargepole when it comes to sending his children to school, and who has sent his children to Eton. Of course—[Interruption].

Order.

Of course not all comprehensive schools are as good as we would wish; that is why we have introduced a new deal for schools which has resulted in our being able to take out of special measures the majority of the failing schools that we inherited from the Conservative party. If I remember rightly, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was the Education Minister from whom we inherited them.

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may take the Government amendment in lieu, a new clause—Annual reports.

Noble Lords introduced the new clause in a desire to ensure that Parliament was furnished with sufficient information about the operation of tax credits properly to scrutinise that operation. That is undoubtedly a wholly desirable intention and the Government wish to ensure that there is maximum transparency in providing information on the operation of tax credits and in enabling proper scrutiny.

On a point of clarification, I am following the Paymaster General's references to subsection 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), and so on, in the Government's amendment in lieu. However, these provisions are numbered 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), and so on, on the Order Paper, and I wonder whether I have a different version to the one that the right hon. Lady is looking at. It is on page 2341 of the Order Paper. I just want to be sure that we are looking at the same amendment.

I most certainly hope that we are looking at the same amendment, otherwise I would be moving something that was not before the House, which would be even more difficult. I know that the House fully appreciates that I always try to be as helpful as I possibly can, but anticipating the views of the House on a matter that is not yet before it would be beyond even my ability to ensure that Members are properly advised. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish making these points, because I want to make it clear that the amendment before the House today is the Government's amendment to replace the Lords amendment. It provides for the same information, but in a form that is readily translatable into our legislation. I will return as quickly as I can to the hon. Gentleman's question about whether we should be referring to subsection 1(c), (d), (e) and (f); certainly, in terms of how the amendment is drafted, it should read "1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d)". I can only say that perhaps when I was putting my notes together, I transposed numbers that I should not have done.

The Bill seems to have been dogged by incorrect definitions and references. As the Paymaster General said, the Government are seeking to substitute their own prescription for an annual report in lieu of a rather broader if less specifically defined annual report prescription passed on an Opposition amendment in the other place.

There is no secret about that figure. The regulatory impact assessment clearly details the figure and I have given it repeatedly in the Chamber. Baroness Hollis was not imparting any new information, because I even gave that information on Second Reading.

I am delighted to be corrected, because that means that the Government will have no problem keeping tabs on the future cost to business. If there is any significant increase, they will be able to tell us about it.

"the whole of the family tax credit venture is fraught with great dangers. It offers huge bonuses for dishonesty. It strengthens the employers' hold over working people—'these are the conditions: cheat and both of us will be better off'. It thereby pulls employers into a spider's web of dishonesty and corruption. It rewards employers paying low wages. It takes the pressure off improving productivity and thereby the scope for increasing real wages."

The hon. Gentleman has alluded to some points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I refer especially to the point about depressing wages. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the previous Conservative Government would not support the introduction of the minimum wage? If he is so concerned about depressing wages, why did the previous Government allow that to happen in the absence of a minimum wage?

I do not think that we are really discussing minimum wages today, but their very existence is a tacit admission by the Government of the need for legal protection in a situation where too many factors are driving wages down. As I have noted before, I have to my regret encountered in my dealings with businesses a feeling among many of them that the provision is to be greatly welcomed, as it can be considered to be a big subsidisation of wages.

Okay, let us try this another way, as I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has answered the point. The former Select Committee on Social Security conducted an investigation specifically into the use of tax credits in the United States, to see whether their existence depressed wages. Tax credits have been in use for much longer in the US, but the Select Committee found no evidence that they depressed wages there. Is the hon. Gentleman disagreeing with that assessment? The Conservative party supported neither tax credits nor the minimum wage, yet there is no evidence that they depress wages.

First, I cannot resist noting, in connection with the US experience with similar arrangements, that evidence did emerge that there had been some $4.7 billion in unjustified claims. Also, the Select Committee duly noted the serious concerns raised about increased potential fraud in working families tax credit, as compared with family tax credit.

Only £22 billion?

I remind the House of the Government's commitment in 1997 that the additional spending on education and health would come from rationalisation and reforms of social security expenditure. It is important to note that in reality the reverse occurred: at a time of prosperity, spending in that sector has increased by more than spending on health or education.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on the breadth of his contribution, although I was slightly disappointed that he did not ride into battle on behalf of his noble Friends, instead seeming meekly to accept the Government's half-offering in the form of the amendment in lieu.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean inadvertently to mislead the House. The annual report of the Inland Revenue is placed in written form before the House. It is not dependent on the attendance of the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue before the Public Accounts Committee—the Committee to which he reports, as accounting officer. The report is already produced in written form and presented annually to the House. If the House decides that it wants to receive the report in another form and that it wants more bureaucracy—something that it normally does not want—the Government will provide it.

The right hon. Lady is right; there is an annual written report. However, in another place, Lady Hollis referred to the written report and said:

"the chairman of the Inland Revenue appears annually before the Public Accounts Committee so that the committee can more closely scrutinise the details of the annual report."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 289.]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have a very effective Select Committee system in the House, and the Treasury Committee calls me, as the responsible Minister, before it. I have just appeared before the Treasury Sub-Committee as part of its examination of that very annual report. There are checks on the accounting officer and on the Minister, and there is a printed form in the annual report, so there are three ways to check the information. Our amendment merely provides a fourth way for exactly the same information to come before the House. Quite rightly, Baroness Hollis pointed out that the House already had this information; but if hon. Members insist that they want more bureaucracy and a fourth way of expressing the same information, we are happy to provide for it in the amendment.

I think I am right in saying that the amendment in lieu before us is a Government proposal to produce an annual report containing the information. Therefore it is the Government who are today offering to produce it. If the Government consider that that would be a waste of time and a duplication and would add nothing else, they should have stood against—[Interruption.] No, they should be standing against the Lords amendment today. They have decided not to, and essentially accept the principle of an annual report.

Let me get this right. The hon. Gentleman is saying that, when something is pressed on the Government that they do not believe to be necessary. but which Members of the House and the other place continue to insist they would like in a particular form. the Government should turn their face against those propositions and continue not to provide it. He is saying that, consequently, when a Minister comes to the House saying, "Even though we do not believe that this is necessary, we will do it anyway because that is what the Members of the House want," that Minister should be criticised. That is a bit crazy.

The right hon. Lady told us that the information that her proposal would make available was unnecessary because it would be available in three other ways, but she proposes to ask the House to support its publication.

"an estimate of the take-up of the working tax credit"

"an estimate of the take-up of the child tax credit".

The hon. Gentleman is light to be concerned about the costs to business of operating the working tax credit scheme, but does he think that it might be possible to assess the benefits to business of that scheme? What does he think those benefits might be?

The hon. Gentleman may not recall this, but we voted for this legislation. We do not dispute the attractions of supporting the low paid. There is no difference between us on that. However, in all these things, there is a balance to be struck between the advantages to individuals and the burdens on business. In my view, delivering the tax credits through the pay packet creates a burden on business, with no advantage to the citizen, so updating information on the burden on business each year will help us to make the case that such things should be done differently. It would help us to keep an eye on the problem inherent in the scheme that has been adopted.

I, too, am glad that the Government have given ground on the annual report issue, despite the arguments against taking the step proposed on their behalf in the other place by Baroness Hollis. Hon. Members will perhaps have noted that Baroness Hollis argued that the various statistics were available from a variety of sources and all that the curious needed to do was track them down. That may be so, but that does not detract from the value of publishing all the statistics annually and in a form that is easily accessible not only to hon. Members but to the public, in the fine tradition of open government.

"(b) an estimate of the take-up of the working tax credit;

"(c) an estimate of the take-up of the child tax credit".

"in the first year, take-up of WFTC…was 76 per cent—which is close to the 81 per cent for family credit".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2002; Vol. 636. c. 291–2.]

With the leave of the House, I shall intervene briefly—as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) suggested I would—on the subject of fraud, which has been of some interest to me and other Members during the passage of the Bill.

"some people in Whitehall are less keen on countering fraud than hon. Members."—[Official Report, 10 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 617.]

"As at 31 December 2001, there were a total of 542 Inland Revenue staff involved in investigating possible false applications for tax credits. The figure comprises 27 Investigators and 226 support staff employed centrally at the Tax Credit Office. There are a further 247 Inland Revenue Network staff who also deal with tax credit investigations, and a specialist team of 42 staff dealing with the most serious cases including those resulting in prosecution."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 326W.]

The hon. Gentleman said that stories and allegations of fraud abound. Is he suggesting that the Inland Revenue does not investigate those allegations or that the investigations do not come to fruition in terms of prosecutions?

I remind the right hon. Lady of what I said. I pointed out the number of staff

"involved in investigating possible false applications for tax credits."

rose—

I will give way to right hon. Lady, but she may want to comment on the fact that in the first two years of tax credits only seven people have been sent to prison for fraud.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that allegations should not be investigated and proven before a prosecution on fraud takes place? I am a little confused. The hon. Gentleman talks about allegations and the number of investigating staff. Has it crossed his mind that sometimes allegations are made but not proven?

The right hon. Lady is a little confused about the role of the prosecution in the criminal justice system. It is not the role of the prosecutor to prove the offence—

The role is to get the evidence.

It is the role of the prosecution to get the evidence—[Interruption.] Of course they carry out an investigation. They then make a decision based on whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, to which they apply the public interest tests, before taking the case to court. Is the right hon. Lady trying to persuade us that the 26 prosecutions in six months or the 22 prosecutions in the previous two years are representative of the scale of fraud in tax credits? I will give way to her if she is prepared to defend that.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Inland Revenue should take cases to court without evidence to support the allegation that fraud has been committed? Is that the centre of his argument?

No, the centre of my argument is that the Inland Revenue's record of prosecuting fraud under this Government's policies is feeble to have brought such a small number of cases to court. That amount of fraud beggars belief.

How many cases were investigated and what percentage were found to be fraudulent?

We have obtained a massive amount of statistics on that which the hon. Gentleman can find in the responses to written parliamentary questions. The fact of the matter is—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will find those if he looks at the written answers for the relevant periods. I do not have the figures in front of me, but I can tell him that the number of prosecutions in relation to the extent of possible fraud is very low. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady is defending that, but however one looks at it, the number is very low.

I hate to spoil the hon. Gentleman's speech, which he obviously prepared before he read the Government's amendment, but has he noticed that our amendment goes further on fraud than the Lords amendment by making it necessary to provide more information on such matters? If he is arguing against the Government's amendment in favour of the Lords amendment, he should realise that the other place asked for less information to be provided than we will give to the House on penalties, prosecutions and other matters.

If the right hon. Lady will exercise a little patience, I will come to that. In the spirit of being open about information and given her remarks about the extent of fraud, perhaps she will tell us something else so that we can make a judgment on the information requested in the amendments. The extent of take-up can only be judged when we compare the number of people who take up the benefit with the number who are eligible. The right hon. Lady is defending the number of prosecutions, and her hon. Friends joined her in that. Perhaps she will be as bold as her words in defence of the Government's policy by telling us one thing: how much fraud is there? So far, the right hon. Lady has refused to tell us. She will remember that she wrote to me in April 2001A telling me that the Inland Revenue was conducting a benchmarking exercise to establish the level of fraud in tax credit claims, and that that would run from September 2000 for 12 months. At the end of that 12 months—we shall see whether the right hon. Lady's openness will be forthcoming again—I asked the question again. That was in December. She told me that the results would be known "early next year".

I wish to speak in support of the Government amendment in lieu and in support of the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.

The hon. Gentleman has just said something that may be important or may not be quite right. I await the Minister's response. All we know is that the Government will publish a report on numbers. We do not know what the commitment is under the Government's measures to report on take-up. If the hon. Gentleman can tell us, we would be delighted to hear.

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the text of the Government amendment, which refers to the number of awards, the number of inquiries conducted and the number of penalties imposed by the scheme. The Government have got the balance right in terms of the focus of the annual report. They are right to reject the suggestion that there should be an annual assessment, in addition to the regulatory impact assessment that will have been made, of the cost of the scheme to business.

"Why do we ask for this? Because we believe that such a responsibility being placed on the Treasury will have the healthy effect of focusing the Treasury's attention"—

"on the cost of the Bill to small business."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 May 2002; Vol. 635, c. CWH 31.]

With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the three major points that have been made in the debate this afternoon, although I get the feeling that it does not matter what I say in my concluding remarks; the Opposition have already made up their mind that they will vote against the Government regardless.

I am afraid that the Paymaster General is doing it again—she is bracketing fraud and non-compliance together. Does she appreciate that it is fraud that really angers members of the public, and will she now tell us how much fraud was involved in the working families tax credit?

I was hoping to save the House the explanation of the difference between how the Inland Revenue operates what it calls its non-compliance regime and how the Department for Work and Pensions conducts its regime for prosecutions. I fear that I will now have to give that explanation, because although the hon. Gentleman has repeatedly had the matter explained to him, he has not grasped it.

The Paymaster General has been generous in giving way, but I want to press her on the matter. Whatever one's view about dealing with the matter as fraud or non-compliance, surely she agrees that it is important to know the amount of fraud. She wrote me a letter, which stated:

"The Inland Revenue are carrying out a benchmarking exercise to establish the level of fraud in tax credit claims."

That is precisely what the Government new clause will do annually. Where has the hon. Gentleman been? It will provide annual information to the House on penalties, prosecutions and convictions.