Duchy Of Lancaster
Deregulation
1.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what analysis his office has made of the number of regulations approved by the Government since 1979 which affect businesses; and how many of these regulations he has removed. [9978]
In 1994, there were 1,467 statutory instruments, excluding road closures and local transitional and commencement orders, of which two thirds either were specifically intended to help business or had no impact on business. I do not have comparable figures for earlier years. We are now monitoring all statutory instruments on a monthly basis to ensure that they are necessary and that the benefits exceed the cost.
I do not know who the Minister thinks he is kidding if he thinks that the Government have a record for deregulation, because he is certainly not kidding business men in my constituency. Is it not the case that this Government have created more regulations than any Government in British history and that they are in the process of creating an administrative bungle, on the scale of that in the Child Support Agency, with their introduction of self-assessment for the self-employed and for businesses, which will create an enormous burden on business in my constituency and across the country because it is being rushed in?
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about self-assessment, which is due to be introduced in the next financial year. It will be a success and its introduction is being carefully monitored. Labour opposed the 1994 Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill on Second Reading and at all other stages. That is an example, once again, of Labour saying one thing but doing another.
How many of those statutory instruments and other regulations affecting business have been brought on us through EU directives? Is my right hon. Friend confident that he has the powers to deregulate those regulators or the mechanisms and proposals to put before the intergovernmental conference later this year? [Interruption.]
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to an important subject, which the deputy Leader of the Opposition seems to find funny. The number of directives likely to be passed by the Council of Ministers in the coming year is likely to be substantially down on the past few years. Yes,. we have the mechanism to deregulate existing European law, where it is sensible so to do.
Cabinet Committees
2.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how often each Cabinet Committee which he chairs meets. [9979]
When Government business demands it.
We can hardly call that an illuminating reply. Let us see if the Deputy Prime Minister can have a stab at this question: as the Minister responsible for the presentation of Government business—he chairs the Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy—what would the Prime Minister—
Not yet.
I was a couple of months ahead of myself. What would the Deputy Prime Minister have to say to a group of politicians who promised to cut taxes year on year and then raised them by the largest amount in peacetime history?
I would tell them that we had protected those least able to protect themselves in the aftermath of one of the worst recessions since the war and that, as we had done that and created one of the most successful economies in western Europe, we are now back on a tax-cutting agenda. If they wanted to watch taxes go up, they should just put a Labour Government in power.
When my right hon. Friend next chairs the relevant Cabinet Committee, will he say whether he agrees that a political party that opposed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, successive Criminal Justice Acts, the Prison Security Act 1992 and even the modest measure that banned joy-riding is soft on crime and the causes of crime, and merely sheds its crocodile tears for the victims of crime to conceal its real sympathy for the criminals?
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary pointed out most eloquently this morning, people who are now in prison for crimes that they committed would not be in prison had the Labour party had its way in resisting our changes.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that he is responsible for the presentation of Government policies on crime and that, since 1979, burglary has increased by 160 per cent., theft from vehicles by nearly 200 per cent. and violent crime by 400 per cent? That is the real Tory record. Is that not why he resorted to abuse, innuendo and slurs over the weekend, to hide the real truth about crime? Will he now take this opportunity to apologise to the Opposition for the untruths that he told yesterday, and to the British public for his Government's record on crime?
The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that spending on law and order has more than doubled in real terms since 1978–79, police manpower has increased by 32,000, or 22 per cent., and recorded crime has shown the largest fall over a two-year period. That is in contrast with what the Labour party voted against: raising the maximum sentences for serious crime, giving the Attorney-General the right of appeal against lenient sentences, strengthening police powers to stop and search criminals, giving the police more powers to deal with disorder on the streets and making parents more responsible for their children's actions. It is another classic example of Labour saying one thing and doing another. It is a classic example of hypocrisy in this critical field.
Deregulation
3.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to accelerate progress on the deregulation initiative. [9981]
By the end of 1995, we had already dealt with more than 500 of the 1,000 or so regulations identified by Government for repeal or amendment and we shall tackle the remainder over the coming months. The first deregulation orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 have now passed into law and there is a steady flow of new orders. We shall continue to seek support from the European Commission and member states for our deregulation initiatives.
Small businesses are important economically to this country, especially small rural businesses, which breathe economic life into areas that might not experience it, if not for their existence. Will my right hon. Friend therefore encourage his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments to look at fresh and imaginative ways to lift bureaucracy and regulations from the shoulders of those small rural businesses?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is extremely important to monitor properly the impact of regulations, whether they come from Brussels or Whitehall, on small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I have written recently to all Ministers reminding them of the need carefully to monitor the impact of any proposed regulations, particularly from Europe, on small and medium-sized enterprises.
If a group of politicians had promised to abolish 1,000 regulations and instead brought in 200 extra regulations, would the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster call them hypocrites or liars?
I would call them extremely successful.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to rescind, if necessary, directives emanating from the European Union that have an adverse effect on British business. Will he put the electro-magnetic compatibility directive at No. 1 in that category? It is particularly harmful to small businesses, whose owners may be penalised to the extent of three months' imprisonment or a £5,000 fine if they do not comply with the directive. That is quite excessive and it bears heavily on small businesses.
I agree with my hon. Friend that a number of directives, including the one to which he refers, need either amendment or repeal, and I have tabled eight suggestions for the Commission to examine. I note that last week some of his hon. Friends published a pamphlet entitled "Dire Directives". I think that the pamphlet's thrust is correct and I have invited the members of that group, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), to attend an early meeting.
Government Policy
4.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new proposals he is making to enhance the co-ordination of the presentation of Government policy; and if he will make a statement. [9982]
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest and can assure him we are constantly seeking to enhance the co-ordination of the presentation of Government policy. We seek every opportunity to explain how only this Government's policies can ensure economic success combined with constitutional stability.
I am grateful to the intellectual wing of the Department for that reply. Can the Minister explain why, in presenting Government policy at the weekend, the Deputy Prime Minister launched an election campaign—that is, he launched his campaign to succeed the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) by proving that he is as big a right-wing villain as anyone else in the Cabinet? How do the Minister and his colleagues justify the immense expenditure of taxpayers' money on what is now nothing more than a Tory party Ministry of lies? Would they not be better off returning to Tory central office where their gutter politics will be more appreciated?
I think that we are getting our message across rather well, as the events of the past 10 days have shown.
Will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity to publish a paper about the Government's approach to hypocrisy in public life so that Labour Members may benefit from an accelerated learning curve?
It would certainly be a long paper as it would cover Opposition policies on crime, education, the economy and housing. I look forward to such a publication.
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a number of Conservative policies on law and order that were presented at Conservative party conferences have been quietly dropped? I refer, for example, to compulsory identity cards or the Home Secretary's very expensive plan to ensure that all prisoners serve their entire sentences without remission. Does that not illustrate that many of these law and order policies are political gimmicks with no practical crime-cutting benefit? Has he become the villain's friend?
The Government have published a consultation document on the identity card scheme and responses to it are being considered now. As to the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the party conference, he has a fine record of implementing the measures that he announces at party conferences.
Ec Regulations (Competition)
5.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what priority he gives to representations from United Kingdom industries in assessing EC regulations which affect competition policy. [9983]
Business views are central to our assessment of the impact that proposed Economic Community regulations have on United Kingdom competitiveness.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, under competition policy, the European Community is due to review the block exemption for the tied house arrangement between British brewers and public houses? More than 27,000 tenanted and leased houses are covered by that tie. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that any threat to the tied arrangement—which, in theory, could end in 1997—could undermine the existence of many thousands of British pubs? Is it not time to say that Brussels has no business interfering in British public house arrangements? We should say that now robustly, before we get involved in consultations which threaten those arrangements, and we must confirm that Britain has no intention of ending those arrangements in 1997 or at any other time.
The President of the Board of Trade has responsibility in that area and I am sure that he will look after the interests of the brewing industry as well as those of the entire United Kingdom industry.
I am glad that the Commission has adopted new guidelines for issuing new directives, which include proper consultation with the industry and with businesses affected before the directives are introduced.Water Companies (Charter Marks)
7.
To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many water companies have received charter marks; and if he will make a statement. [9985]
Five water companies have won charter marks: Anglian Water, Severn Trent Water and Wessex Water in 1992 and Welsh Water and South Staffordshire Water in 1993.
In view of the appalling record of water companies in providing services to their customers and the fact that people in Yorkshire have suffered more than many others, will the Minister assure me that Yorkshire Water will not qualify for a charter mark and that others, such as Severn Trent Water, should have their charter marks withdrawn because of the appalling service to their customers?
Water companies will have the opportunity to apply for charter marks in 1996, but, in order to win one, they will have to show that they have maintained the highest quality of service to customers. If they have not managed to achieve that, they certainly will not receive a charter mark.
Does my hon. Friend agree that after years of neglect in the public sector, water companies have taken the opportunity of massive capital investment to improve infrastructure and water quality? Will he give particular credit to Thames Water, which has invested £2 billion in the past five years to improve water for Londoners?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. It is revealing to compare the conspicuously dry summer of 1995, when there were 53 drought orders, with the previous hot summer of 1976, when there were 136 drought orders. That is a testament to the improvement in the quality of service after privatisation.
Ministerial Responsibilities
8.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received about his responsibilities. [9986]
None, other than from Opposition Members.
In view of the Deputy Prime Minister's welcome initiative in raising the subject of law and order at the weekend, will he confirm that in 1979, under the last Labour Government, the number of offences was 2,540,000 and that in 1994, after 15 years of Tory government, the figure was 5,040,000? In the Deputy Prime Minister's own language, clearly villains love Tory Governments. As Britain was unarguably a much safer place in the 1970s, will he devote his energy and attention to answering a simple question to which we all need an answer: why has crime rocketed under the Tories?
The hon. Gentleman should be fully aware that recorded crime shows the largest ever fall in a two-year period. That is in no small measure the result of legislation introduced- by the Government in the teeth of Labour opposition.
May I make representations to my right hon. Friend about his responsibilities and suggest that his job will be far easier if he continues making the Opposition angry by pointing out how they have obstructed the Government's law and order policies at every twist and turn?
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely what I did and the result is to send the Opposition into mayhem. They thought that they would get away with repeated one-off opposition until someone added their comments together, to show that they have consistently resisted the Government's policies to deal with rising crime.
Are not some of my colleagues being rather naive when they criticise the Deputy Prime Minister for his remarks yesterday? Is it not quite clear there is no lie, no innuendo and no smear that the Government will not use to get re-elected? Does not the Deputy Prime Minister see the difference between the Cabinet Minister who resigned on principle over Westland and walked out of a Cabinet meeting and the same Cabinet Minister who today is quite happy in the political sewers using every possible political smear against any proposal?
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so upset, but the truth is often inconvenient.
In advising the Government on their future policies, will my right hon. Friend encourage them to avoid Labour's greatest hypocrisy—the adoption of the social chapter and the minimum wage, which would destroy jobs and businesses?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I remember correctly, the deputy leader of the Labour party said that any fool knows that a minimum wage will cost jobs. Coming out of the mouth of the deputy leader, that seems a pretty accurate description of the position.
Following the Deputy Prime Minister's descent into the campaign gutter yesterday and the recent reining-in of the Secretary of State for Scotland after his misuse of civil servants and public funds in his campaigning against Labour in Scotland, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an undertaking this afternoon that those abuses will not be allowed to continue as the Tories' lies and smears against Labour mount as the election approaches—as inevitably they will?
I know that the leader of the Labour party talks only to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), but I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman would send the hon. Member for Hartlepool here to eclipse his own deputy leader—a most extraordinary situation. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, whose electioneering techniques have been the subject of great interest on both sides of the House, that nobody has brought more professional skill to the debasement of British public life than the hon. Member for Hartlepool.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange an early and thorough presentation of Government education policy, to make it clear that, although this Government have always supported the principle of setting and streaming in schools, that is in marked contrast to the policy adopted by Labour Members, who have often denigrated and condemned that approach?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter because I understand that it is to be the subject of a major speech by the leader of the Labour party tonight, in which he will advocate something called accelerated learning—which, in any other language, is streaming. The leader of the Labour party gave his views, or at least what were his views, in June last year. He said—
Order. Reading.
Order. I will decide whether the Minister is in order.
It is not just what the Minister has to say, Madam Speaker—
Order. As far as I am concerned, it is what the Minister has to say at the Dispatch Box today.
This is what the leader of the Labour party had to say—
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Order. There can be no points of order during questions and the hon. Gentleman is aware of that.
The House must know that the views of the leader of the Labour party on streaming are of major interest to the House. He said—[Interruption.]
Order. The Minister was asked a question and he is attempting to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was out of order."] It is for me to determine whether the question was in or out of order, and it was in order. The Minister will answer it.
I am grateful, Madam Speaker. The leader of the Labour party said on 23 June 1995:
Yet tonight, that is to be the major theme of a major speech. That is not so much a case of accelerated learning as one of accelerated hypocrisy."Streaming, with its rigid distribution of children into bright, average and backward camps, is a waste of talent."
Civil Service Morale
9.
To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on morale in the civil service. [9987]
Morale in the civil service is best maintained by allowing staff to perform to the best of their abilities in the career that they have chosen. This Government's civil service reforms enable staff to focus their attention on delivering high-quality public services. That is the best way of satisfying them and the users of their services.
Surely the Minister is being complacent. Does he not realise that civil servants' morale has been sapped because of Government changes? The Government have created a climate of insecurity. Does not the Minister agree with Sir Robin Butler, head of the civil service, who wrote that in an article in The Observer recently?
The Government have a fine record of reforming the civil service. Inevitably, nobody nowadays can be offered a job for life but, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister explained in a speech last week, we have a fine record and we are pursuing our reform agenda.
Will my hon. Friend tell the House what has happened to the numbers in the civil service? Sometimes people outside suspect that one party in the House is more interested in jobs for the boys than in getting value for money for the taxpayer.
There were 735,000 civil servants in 1979 and there are now 506,000 civil servants. The number will go below 500,000 this year, and that shows that the Government are serious about cutting overhead costs.
What is the Minister's response to Sir Robin Butler's charge that low morale and the climate of insecurity are caused by perpetual reorganisation imposed by Tory Government? Has not morale plummeted further because of the Deputy Prime Minister's scorched earth policy in pursuing privatisation to ludicrous lengths, for example with Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency, which has been so roundly condemned by Lords Bancroft and Hunt?
We published a White Paper in 1994 on the civil service called "The Civil Service—Continuity and Change", which made it clear that the Government are committed to a high-quality civil service that will also be smaller and more committed to numeracy and technical skills. Many civil servants welcome the reform agenda that the Government are pursuing.
We expect improvement and reduction in overhead costs in the private sector and there is no reason why the Government should not ensure that their house matches the quality of service in the private sector. That is what we are doing.What would happen to the morale of a civil service team if the deputy leader of that team was left out of all considerations and discussions because he was thought not to be intellectually up to it?
I dread to think what would happen to the civil service in the event of a Labour Government, and especially what would happen if the personal press officer of the Leader of the Opposition were put in charge of the Government's information service.
Government Policy
10.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of his time spent on ministerial duties is devoted to promoting Government policies. [9988]
Whatever time I judge necessary.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that since he took up his position in July last year and devoted so much time to promoting Government policy, the Gallup 9000 public opinion poll has been registering a constant lead of more than 25 per cent. for the Labour party? Is the reason for the Deputy Prime Minister's dismal failure to promote the Government because the policies he is promoting are no good, or is it that he is no good at promoting the policies, or is it a combination of the two?
If the failure to promote Government policies had been acute as the hon. Member suggests, the Labour party would not have been thrown into the abject pandemonium that we have seen in the past four days.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has an easy job because our policies are clear and understood? Does my right hon. Friend, who is a kindly man, feel some sense of compassion for Opposition Members who will have to cluster around the tape machine this evening to try to discover what their policy is on testing, selection and streaming in schools?
I do feel compassion for them, and that is why I spend so much of my time explaining Labour party policy for them.
The accelerated learning proposals of the leader of the Labour party give us a new version of Labour's stakeholder society. I read in The Times today that our best teachers would be sent to the worst schools. Britain's best teachers would have to take a stake in Labour's worst schools, while the children of Labour leaders would get a stake in the Tories' best schools. That is another example of accelerated hypocrisy.I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister can tell the House when the Scott inquiry report will be published.
I do not have a date to give the House today, but I believe that the House realises that Sir Richard Scott's report is likely to reach the Government in the not too distant future.
Will my right hon. Friend monitor the teaching of moral education at St. Olave's and the London Oratory schools? Does he think that the teachers at those schools will teach their pupils "to do as I say" or "to do as I do"?
I would not wish to interfere in the excellent teaching standards that those schools enjoy. The parents concerned have exercised exactly the choice that I think that the vast majority of parents would exercise in their position. It is difficult to understand, however, how the Labour party would deny parents the chance to exercise such choice, which self-evidently is the sort of choice that its leaders want to adopt.
Foreign Companies
11.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to issue further regulation in respect of the activities of foreign companies operating in the United Kingdom. [9989]
The Government have no plans for further regulation of foreign companies operating in the United Kingdom because we do not wish to jeopardise our record of attracting substantial overseas investment.
The Minister will know of the appalling and entirely unregulated activities of Campbell Soups of America, including those in my constituency, where it shut down a perfectly profitable factory. The Minister will know also of the national boycott of Campbell Soups and Fray Bentos products. Will he join me in expressing the view that Safeway, Sainsbury and Tesco have a solution to the affair? If they say in the marketplace, to Campbell Soups, that enough is enough, it will be forced to reverse its decision.
The hon. Gentleman's clarity and consistency on this matter is in striking contrast to the behaviour of Labour Members on most policy issues. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, there was not a qualifying merger under fair trading legislation. There is, therefore, no basis on which the Government have any powers to intervene in what was a straightforward commercial decision.
Overseas Development
Aid Budget
26.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the size of the overseas aid budget in 1996–97. [10007]
We always receive a large number of representations from hon. Members and the general public, and this year is no exception.
I have received many letters from my constituents in Ribble Valley about the overseas aid budget, which I have passed on to my right hon. Friend. Does he believe that the interest shown by my constituents and those of other hon. Members reflects the interest that the British people wish to see the Government demonstrating in maintaining a high level of spending within the overseas aid programme while ensuring that every pound of that money is spent effectively so that we can be proud of our overseas aid programme?
My hon. Friend is right. Britain's aid programme is the fifth largest in the world. It is one of the most effective of all the official programmes. The Government are committed to maintaining a large and effective aid programme with the aim of reducing poverty and creating a more prosperous and stable world. I believe that the United Kingdom people join us in that.
The fundamental expenditure review does not square with the Minister's description. "Narrow focus" is a smokescreen for cuts. It is no good repeating parrot fashion that we are fifth in the list of donors when we have fallen to 13th place in the real terms of gross national product.
What response does the Minister expect from countries in central and southern America, in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, and especially Commonwealth countries, which will receive no aid from Britain under the fundamental expenditure review? The review is a betrayal of those countries. The Prime Minister said that we would maintain an aid programme of which we could be proud. We must be ashamed of the present policy.As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The fundamental expenditure review contained the recommendation of concentration of effort in priority countries, continuing a process of focus already under way. There will be no radical change and we shall not neglect traditional partners. In 1994–95, 70 per cent. of our bilateral programme concentrated on the 20 largest recipients. We currently give aid to 160 countries.
There is no doubt that the bilateral programme will face reductions during the survey period—we have admitted that—as we switch to multilateral aid. The FER is not in the slightest the slashing of budgets that the hon. Gentleman says that it is. If he wants to know about the slashing of budgets, let me tell him that Italy's expenditure on aid fell by 36 per cent. last year, Canada reduced its aid by 20.5 per cent., and the United States provides only 0.15 per cent. of its gross national product as aid. Perhaps those are the sort of programmes that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We are proud of our aid. We are, and will remain, the fifth biggest donor.I warmly welcome the fundamental expenditure review, as we shall have to make difficult choices in the coming years. I am in no doubt that the quality of our aid programme is the finest in the world, but will my right hon. Friend explain how we shall fit into a new relationship with the European Union's aid programme, which is of inferior quality and dilutes our traditional aid effort into parts of the world with which we have precious little in common?
I understand what my hon. Friend says. The FER's conclusions are only recommendations, and we are considering how policies should be changed to respond to them. The FER has confirmed the basic rationale and thrust of the aid programme, the continuing need for concessional aid, and the desirability of the Overseas Development Administration to continue to have responsibility for all aid in the ODA. I am very proud indeed that more of our officials from the ODA are helping out in the European Commission to ensure that the multilateral aid that is given by Europe is given effectively and efficiently, as our bilateral programme is.
Rwanda
27.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department is currently giving to the Government of Rwanda. [10008]
Since January 1995, Britain has committed £11 million bilaterally and £8.5 million as our share of multilateral aid in support of the Rwandan Government's programme of rehabilitation and reconstruction.
Is the Minister aware that more than 55,000 people—some of them children—are in prison in Rwanda awaiting trial on charges of genocide? Is he aware that aid agencies and the United Nations now consider the primary priority to be to get the judiciary functioning in Rwanda so that we can reconstruct and rehabilitate the whole of its society? Is he further aware that the Minister of Justice in Rwanda requested, more than three months ago, that the international community provide some 678 judicial personnel-303 judges, 300 prosecutors and 75 police officers—so that they can begin to process the 55,000-plus prisoners? How have the Government responded to that request?
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a tremendous job to be done in Rwanda. We have seen, in the weekend newspapers, further stories of atrocities, and the war crimes tribunal has been set up to try to deal with the matter. We understand that it now has sufficient funding for start-up costs, pending approval of a budget by the UN General Assembly. The United Kingdom has seconded three police officers to work for the prosecutor's office, and we have pledged £200,000 towards that and other costs. Trials are expected shortly. The judicial procedure will inevitably take some time if the trials are to be fair and thorough. The prosecutor will decide whom to try. It is likely that the tribunal will prosecute the ringleaders, while the Government of Rwanda will deal with the remaining suspects.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating those who have worked so hard in Rwanda and other parts of central and eastern Africa on water aid? Is he aware that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that our aid is the most effective of its kind in Europe? Is it not a case of, "It's not the size of it that counts; it's what you do with it"?
Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right about the need for good water; it is essential. The House might be interested to know that we recently sent our first-ever British ambassador to Rwanda. She took up her duties in Kigali in December and is also accredited to Burundi. I believe that that is a sign of our support for the Rwandan Government's efforts to promote reconciliation and rehabilitation, and to remain closely engaged in the problems of the Great Lakes region.
Central America
28.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what examination he has made of the effects of structural adjustment programmes on the economies of central America and the role of the British aid programme. [10009]
We regularly examine the effects of structural adjustment programmes in different regions, both in consultation with the World bank and independently. In central America and elsewhere, they are laying the basis for sustainable economic growth, a prerequisite for poverty alleviation.
Is the Minister aware that the fundamental expenditure review undertaken by his Department seems to give automatic support to structural adjustment programmes advanced by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, and that structural adjustment programmes throughout central America, in the wake of the end of the civil wars, are unbelievably destructive of human life? They are reducing life expectancy, increasing poverty and malnutrition and leading to considerable social discord and unrest. Is it not time to abandon the nonsense of such programmes, and to plan for the social needs of people in those countries rather than imposing market economics on them?
Two thirds of the population of Nicaragua, for instance, are now living in serious poverty, and unemployment has more than doubled in the past three years. Does the Minister think that structural adjustment programmes have something to answer for in relation to those terrible figures?Sound economic policies are a key prerequisite for sustainable growth and poverty reduction, and adjustment programmes are designed to help developing countries to implement policy reforms in order to restore growth and strengthen institutions. The evidence from successive reviews shows that effective reform programmes are associated with reduced poverty, and inadequate programmes with worsening poverty. The ODA recognises the need to consider the social impact of adjustment programmes on the poor—indeed, we do consider it—and the World bank is working to improve the collection of information, and to improve policies for reducing poverty. The ODA has supported that work by seconding two consecutive social development advisers to the World bank since 1990. Let me repeat that sound economic policies are the key prerequisite for sustainable growth and poverty reduction.
Are not the structural adjustment programmes allowing the countries concerned to return to proper economies? Combined with the overseas aid programmes involving investment in projects, would that not allow people to earn a living and self-respect, rather than having to rely on the begging bowl that seems to be the only alternative proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)?
My hon. Friend is, perhaps, the most knowledgeable of hon. Members in regard to the region that we are discussing, and he is absolutely right.
Tanzania, Kenya And Uganda
29.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much British international aid was provided in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda in (a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96. [10010]
In 1994–95, we provided the three countries combined with well over £100 million under our bilateral aid programme. In addition to that is our share of multilateral aid, which in 1993—the last year for which figures are available—was £48 million. The figures for 1995-96, for which the hon. Gentleman asked, are likely to be similar, but we do not have them at present.
In the light of developments in Uganda and Tanzania in particular, is the Minister prepared to increase the amount of aid? Both countries are making efforts to transform their economies. Will the Minister also put pressure on the Kenyan Government to reintroduce human rights, so that we can continue to help people in that country as well?
The hon. Gentleman speaks for many hon. Members. Of course, we shall spend what money we can afford. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is in Tanzania today for discussions with the new Government, and will shortly report on what she finds there. We welcome the Tanzanian Government's intentions to enter a new phase of economic reform and to deal with corruption, but it is important for those good intentions to be instituted into action to restore donor and investor confidence.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about Kenya. Our project assistance focuses strongly on support for economic and financial reform, and programme aid will also be available if that reform proceeds. There has also been an energetic economic reform programme for Uganda, which has achieved significant economic growth as a result—over 5 per cent. per annum since 1987, and an estimated 10 per cent. last year.Will good government considerations form part of the Government's view as to the appropriate overseas aid level for the three countries concerned?
Yes, I can confirm that they will.
China
30.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department has given to China to improve provision for orphanages. [10011]
We have provided support to the Save the Children Fund for a project in Anhui aimed at extending and refurbishing a kindergarten for both able and mentally and physically disabled children, and to Health Unlimited for a training programme for mother and child health workers. Total funds committed are around £250,000. We also contribute to UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund—which has just announced a programme to assist the orphanages that are most at risk.
I welcome the contributions, such as they are, but they are just not enough, are they? Does the Minister recall the television images of the children tied to stools—some of them left to die—in Chinese orphanages? Does he agree with my constituents and me that those merit the strongest representations to the Chinese Government, that those conditions are intolerable in any society—any civilised one at least—and that the British Government will expect the Chinese Government to prevent such images from ever appearing on our television screens or in any orphanage in China again, and will continue to monitor the position?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I saw the television programme and was disturbed by it. The "Human Rights Watch" report of ill-treatment of abandoned children in China contained serious allegations. The Channel 4 programme also presented a profoundly disturbing picture. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Peking earlier this month, he strongly urged the Chinese authorities to investigate those allegations fully and quickly. The Chinese Foreign Minister told him that those reports were untrue and the Foreign Secretary encouraged the Chinese Government to do everything possible to demonstrate that, including providing full access to the public. That has begun to happen.
Even at Chongming, which was previously not open to the public, European Union diplomats have had access within the past few days. I also welcome the willingness of the Chinese authorities to allow further visits to any of the institutions in Shanghai, and their offer to provide further data. Obviously, however, it was difficult to form a complete picture during the short pre-arranged visit. The EU diplomats reported no evidence of systematic ill-treatment or abuse at that institution but we will, of course, continue to urge full access by Chinese and foreigners alike to those institutions. It is the only way to ensure that those terrible scenes do not continue.I welcome the assistance of my right hon. Friend's Department to the charitable endeavours in Chinese orphanages, but will he use the good offices of his Department to persuade the People's Republic of China not to waste money on naval expansion programmes, a nuclear missile armoury and, above all, repression in Tibet, and to concentrate on putting its own house in order, in particular by offering a reasonable standard of living, especially for orphaned children?
My hon. Friend is right. At least 100 million people still live in abject poverty in China. It is right that it should recognise that the world is watching. If it wishes to play a full part in the modern world in the years to come, it must demonstrate that it can look after its own people properly. The issues to which my hon. Friend referred affect us all. After all, we are deeply concerned about reports of abuses of human rights in Tibet. There is destruction of historic buildings, the immigration of the Han Chinese, arbitrary security measures and environmental damage. We raise those issues with the Chinese authorities: the last time the Chinese Foreign Minister came to England, I was part of the delegation that raised them with him, as I do with the ambassador regularly and as the Foreign Secretary did with the Chinese Foreign Minister on 9 January.
Sri Lanka
31.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements currently exist for the delivery of aid to the northern regions of Sri Lanka. 110012]
Aid is being provided through the Sri Lankan Government, international organisations and non-governmental organisations. Over and above our regular support for rehabilitation in the north, we have recently provided an additional £350,000 for programmes run by the International Committee of the Red Cross and by Christian Action, Research and Education; and an additional £690,000 for Oxfam. We also contributed £350,000 through the European Union.
I am sure that the Minister acknowledges that there is enormous need in the north, following the fighting towards the end of last year when several hundred thousand people were driven from their homes. Do the Government of Sri Lanka still insist that all aid to the north is delivered through them and their agencies, or are they now allowing agencies such as the UN to deliver directly to the north? Plainly, many people in the north will be extremely suspicious of the practice of all aid having to go through the Government.
Yes, I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I can confirm that, for instance, the ICRC is taking provisions, both medical aid and food aid, by ship to the north. I was at Vavuniya, which is not far from Jaffna, just a few months ago and I saw the main road along which aid is taken. I understand that the Government of Sri Lanka now believe that sufficient aid and medical supplies are getting through to the north. I took this opportunity to plead with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to meet the Sri Lankan Government to discuss their plan for autonomy within Sri Lanka. Only by discussion can permanent peace be brought to that otherwise beautiful island, which has been so scarred in recent years.
Church Commissioners
Investments
36.
To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals the commissioners have to improve the ethical content of their investment. [10017]
The commissioners' investments, as I told the hon. Gentleman when he last raised the subject a few weeks ago, have always been subject to ethical criteria and are continuously reviewed. The ethical working group set up in October 1994 plays an important part in keeping under review the ethical investment policy of the Church Commissioners and of the Church's two other main investing bodies, the Central Board of Finance and the Church of England pensions board.
The commissioners deserve the congratulations of the House on the decision that they were reported to have taken in November when they sold 2 million shares in BSkyB because of its investment in a pornographic television channel. When will the commissioners deal with their investment in another, more dangerous, obscenity—the international arms trade? It was reported recently that they had nearly 3 million shares in GEC. A quarter of that firm's production is for the arms trade and it has been reported that the commissioners have discussed with it its exports to Indonesia and Nigeria. Did such a meeting take place and, if so, what was the outcome?
The hon. Gentleman's question covers a wide spectrum. We are investors in GEC, whose armaments portfolio is held to be less than 30 per cent., which is just about the cut-off point for our ethical application. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the five permanent members of the Security Council have reaffirmed, and continue to reaffirm, the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence that is recognised in article 51 of the United Nations charter, which implies that states have the right to acquire the means for legitimate self-defence. Nevertheless, the Church of England does not invest in companies whose main business is armaments. It has to be less than 30 per cent.
Does the Church intend to increase its investment in inner cities? Is its view that the Government should do the same?
The Church urban fund, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, is a very important but, nevertheless, by statute a subordinate part of the claims on the income of the Church of England. Although we shall do everything possible to sustain our cash flow into the Church urban fund, pensions and stipends of clergy and their dependants must remain statutorily the overriding priority. Incidentally, I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the capital value of our total assets has risen to £2.6 billion from £2.1 billion or less 10 years ago.
Cyclists
37.
To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is his policy in respect of charging cyclists for the use of Church Commission land. [10018]
The Church Commissioners make no charge for cyclists using legal rights of way across their land.
Is the reason why the Church Commissioners are refusing to allow the completion of the Totnes to Buckfastleigh cycle route that they can get more revenue from fishermen fishing in the River Dart than they could possibly get from cyclists going across Church Commissioners' land? If that is the case, would not one of the best ways to reduce the £800 million loss that resulted from the property collapse, and the property speculation, in the 1990s be to charge cyclists a toll as they cycle across Church Commissioners' land?
My hon. Friend is quite right to pinpoint the importance of fishing rights as a source of income to this essential charitable fund, whose beneficiaries, I remind him, are clergy and their dependants. In relation to that particular stretch of territory in his constituency, I doubt whether the toll that we could levy on cyclists passing that delectable spot would be payable by them or that they would agree to pay it if it were set at a level that would raise the same amount of money that we receive from letting the fishing rights. I am afraid that cyclists might bash through and we would have very little power or control to prevent them from doing so in trying to levy a toll.