To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has given any further consideration to restoring bilateral aid to Vietnam.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 12 March.

It is a bit tricky to ask me to refer to something without giving me notice. Is not it a fact that Vietnam has done all that it can to meet the conditions set by the Minister before aid can be resumed? For example, there have been reforms in the economy, including the introduction of market forces and the lifting of some state controls. In those circumstances, how can the Minister justify withholding aid to one of the poorest countries in the world?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not caught up with the previous oral Question Time and the debate that we had on the night of 27 March. We believe that Vietnam is seeking to put its economy in order, but it has not yet agreed even a shadow programme with international financial institutions and still has outstanding arrears of more than $133 million to the International Monetary Fund and $6 million to the Asian development bank. As soon as a shadow programme is in place, I hope that we shall be able to continue the work, which we have already begun, on possible aid projects for Vietnam.

Is not the resolution of the problem of the Vietnamese boat people closely linked to the need to bring Vietnam back into the community of nations? Will my right hon. Friend make that point when she next visits her opposite number in Washington?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are awaiting a reply from Foreign Minister Thach of Vietnam to the representations made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As soon as we hear that the Vietnamese are prepared to take responsibility for their people, who are to return to Vietnam, we shall be in a far better position to continue our efforts. I shall make those points when I visit Washington later this month.

Does not the Minister accept that the IMF report commends Vietnam for making every effort to meet its payments? Does not she agree that, despite its policy, it has taken out a commercial bank loan in an attempt to clear its debts? How can she justify Vietnam being the only one of the poorest 50 countries in the world to which Britain gives no aid? If she accepts, as she did in the debate on 27 March, that poverty is acute in that country and assistance needed, why does not she have the courage of her convictions and restore bilateral aid to that desperate country?

The hon. Lady heard me say in the debate in question that it was an IMF staff report. The report has not yet been accepted by the IMF board. I explained during the debate that there must be a high percentage of agreement. In the meantime, we hope that Vietnam will have a shadow programme, because that will enable us further to consider what we are already doing in terms of aid through non-governmental organisations for Vietnam. All countries that want to receive programme aid are being required by the donor community to have an economic recovery programme; that is what is needed for Vietnam, as well as the resolution of the Vietnamese boat people problem.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for aid to Vietnam, which overarches the issue of the boat people? It is, after all, one of the poorest countries in the world, and a programme that invited the Vietnamese Government to change the economic framework in which other people were being asked to work would benefit that country and its neighbours very much.

I am aware of what my hon. Friend says, but certain elements are required by all donors. We have been examining possible routes for aid in preparation, not only on the basis of the NGO suggestions to us three weeks ago, but by looking at the United Nations development programme projects. Later this month when the Mekong committee meets again to discuss the water-sharing agreement for the Mekong basin, a United Kingdom observer will be present, and we shall see whether that will afford a route for assistance in future when a programme is agreed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that data are collected on the percentage of women participating in Overseas Development Administration training provided in developing countries.

In-country training takes place under a variety of local arrangements, sometimes at the level of individual capital projects. In these circumstances precise statistics are difficult to gather, but we have already taken action to improve our data collection.

Does the Minister accept that, given that as many as 80 per cent. of women in developing countries are involved in agriculture, it is important that any training involves and reaches women in those countries?

I thoroughly agree with what the hon. Lady says, but providing training for women in some of these developing countries is not a straightforward matter, because very often it is the Governments of the recipient countries who nominate. As they nominate so few women, it is difficult to include them, but if the hon. Lady refers to a report published a year ago, entitled "Women, Development and the British Aid Programme", she will find a good deal of detail on the way in which we are helping such women.

What steps are being taken by Britain to encourage recipient Governments to nominate more women to development projects? Once the problem has been analysed, what practical steps can this country take?

We continue to press recipient countries to nominate more women; it is a point which comes up in every aid discussion that I have with Presidents and Prime Ministers wherever I go in the world.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has sought from the European Commission a comprehensive assessment of the effects of 1992 in the European Community on African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

The United Kingdom has pressed for greater openness in trading in the EC, especially in the fourth Lome convention, to ensure that countries such as the African, Caribbean and Pacific states are able to benefit fully from the single market. The new Loméconvention contains positive arrangements for 1992 on commodities that uphold traditional commitments and meet our single market objectives.

I accept the Minister's concern about this matter, but how does she explain that the DG-I study seems to concentrate on Asia and Latin America while excluding some of the poorest Commonwealth areas in the Pacific, the Caribbean and Africa? Why are we not making stronger representations for their inclusion?

I know that it is complicated, but the detail is as follows: DG-I is the directorate general of the Community, which looks after Asia and Latin America. Commissioner Marin, who looks after African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, heads up DG-VIII, which is a separate division. That also takes account of the assistance necessary for those countries under Lomé4.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me what progress is being made on abolishing European Community quotas for Caribbean rum?

The United Kingdom secured an agreement at the last Lomé round, which will permit all Caribbean exports to the Community to come forward. In addition, national quotas are being phased out and we have a binding commitment after that, I think in 1995, to end Community quotas on rum as well. It was the United Kingdom action that achieved the start to the end of quotas on rum.

The right hon. Lady will be aware that the vast bulk of African debt is owed to European Community countries. Since 1992 will mean a leap forward in our prosperity in Europe, does she agree that that would be the time to take a collective initiative in the European Community to relieve African debt?

I expect that the Commissioner concerned will be putting a recommendation to the EC development committee at the end of May, when we shall consider it.

Does the Minister accept that the countries that will be harmed most by the advent of 1992 are those which are most vulnerable—especially Mozambique and Ethiopia? Why has she not answered the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mrs. Williams) and said that she and her colleagues will carry out a comprehensive review to identify which countries will be harmed by 1992 and what should be done to help them?

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Overseas Development Institute inquiry reckons that, on balance, there will not be difficulties. We are, of course, totally prepared to look at the effect on Mozambique and Ethiopia and other poor countries. In the light of our considerable help to them, we are greatly aware of what needs to be done. There is no point in expecting trouble when the harmonisation of standards will mean that those countries that gain most through trade and not from aid will have just one hurdle to overcome instead of 12.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I will take it later.