To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the arrangements for the presentation of Government policy. [15237]

The presentation of Government policy continues to go from strength to strength.

In presenting Government policy on the Scott report, will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he had so many misgivings about signing public interest immunity certificates? Why is the Deputy Prime Minister so keen to defend the Attorney-General, when the Attorney-General did not pass on to the court those misgivings or the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister—then the President of the Board of Trade—was anxious that the documents in question should be released to the court? Would it not be better if the Deputy Prime Minister now explained the position fully?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to do so. The Attorney-General gave me the clearest advice. He said that the papers in front of me would be considered by the judge who would determine whether they should be released.

That is not what you told the inquiry.

It is interesting that, whenever one tries to give a serious answer in the House, one is barracked by sedentary Members on the Opposition Benches. This is an extremely important matter and I was giving a serious answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who asked a serious question. He is entitled to an answer and I shall give it.

I know that my right hon. Friend is keen to ensure that we present Government policy on law and order to demonstrate that clear blue water exists between the Government and the Opposition. My right hon. Friend may be aware that I own a small retail business in Swansea. Shoplifting is a corrosive act that affects not only small businesses, but medium and large retail enterprises. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any political leader who tried to justify shoplifting as acceptable would demonstrate that he was not only soft on crime, but soft on the causes of the crime?

My hon. Friend is right. We were amazed that the leader of the parliamentary Labour party should appear to think that that sort of activity was of trivial importance. Shoplifting is a very serious matter for small business people, and, indeed, large companies, who suffer from it. A leader of a parliamentary party should give no succour to that sort of practice.

Can we get the Government's policy clear? Was the Deputy Prime Minister wrong to require a certificate to be set out in a special form and to require that his reservations be passed on to the judge—which they were not—or was he right, and were other Ministers wrong not to do that?

That is another serious question, and I shall try to answer it. I agreed a certificate with the Attorney-General that related to the papers in front of me in the Department of Trade and Industry. We both agreed that certificate, I signed it and it was the basis of the judgment that both the Attorney-General and I reached in those circumstances. It is not relevant to my colleagues in other Departments because they were signing certificates about papers in their Departments that were available only to them. It is fundamental to understand that when Ministers are invited to sign public interest immunity certificates of any sort, they sign them only in respect of the papers in front of them that relate to their Department.

Did my right hon. Friend hear two programmes this morning on Radio Four? On the first, the "Today" programme, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave a clear account of Government policy on Scott. The other was "Start the Week", on which a strange person, who appeared to be speaking for the Labour party, gave a muddled version of his intentions. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that both those programmes are given a wide airing and encourage the BBC to put them out more often so that people will realise how boring and confused the Labour party is, and how clear and straightforward the Conservative party is?

As always, my hon. Friend makes a valid point; but I would go further. The parliamentary Labour party's position is reprehensible to a fault. For three years, it conducted a vilification campaign against my right hon. Friends and me, and on the substance and heart of the matter it has been found that its charges are ill-founded.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that his remarks encouraging the late payment of business debts have been condemned by the British Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses? Will he apologise to the thousands who have been made bankrupt by late payment? Is he able to confirm reports this weekend that senior figures in the Tory party have been in discussions with banks to save Tory Members from bankruptcy? Is that not an example of one rule for small businesses and another one for Tory Governments with small majorities?

I am delighted again to respond to a question seriously. Like many small business men in my position, I have faced the problems that often arise. I was faced with putting a company into liquidation or borrowing money to pay the creditors—I borrowed money to pay the creditors. I regard that as a matter of great personal pride, and I very much hope that it will be seen as such.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many civil servants, and at what cost to public funds, were employed in the preparation of the Government's response to the Scott inquiry. [15238]

The Scott report covered a wide range of policy issues. Access to the report itself before publication was restricted to a very small number of officials in the main Departments concerned. However, a number of other officials will have contributed to preparation of the Government's response without sight of the report. It is not possible, therefore, to give precise numbers or costings.

The wider world will know that the Tories have once again failed to answer a question on the Scott report. If figures are not being given, my constituents in Nuneaton who suffered job losses as a result of Matrix Churchill being closed will conclude that the Tory Government are again engaging in a cover-up on the report. When will the Government pay some compensation to the 600 workers and their families at Matrix Churchill, workers who lost their jobs through the Government's bungling?

I fail to understand how a 1,800-page report and a day's debate can be regarded as a cover-up.

Does the Minister, who was part of the cost of the response to the Scott report, accept the verdict in paragraph D4.63 that

"Government statements made in 1989 and 1990 … failed … to comply with the standard set by paragraph 27 of the Questions of Procedure for Ministers"

The right hon. Gentleman should know, if he has read the Scott report carefully, that Conservative Members have been cleared of any "duplicitous intent", to quote the words of the report, and have been cleared also of deliberately misleading Parliament. There will be a debate today when the wider issues that the right hon. Gentleman rightly raises will be addressed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what staffing resources he has within his Department in order to fulfil his duties of co-ordination and presentation of Government policy. [15239]

I have the resources that I need to carry out these duties.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand that many people would consider his Department to be over-resourced for someone who has a sinecure in the evening of his political life? May I tax his communication skill and ask him what he would say to the countless thousands of men and women who, through no fault of their own, had to endure the trauma of bankruptcy and were unable to get credit from the banks, and who see hatched in Downing street a rescue plan involving the National Westminster bank, Midland bank, Barclays bank, Trustee Savings bank and UCB to save the Government? Is he not aware that the people listening to the story will consider it grossly unfair that there is one law for Conservative Members of Parliament and the Government and another for people struggling to maintain businesses in which they have invested both their lives and their homes?

The whole House, having listened to that extraordinary outburst, will draw one clear conclusion: they would rather me half asleep than the hon. Gentleman wide awake.

When he is co-ordinating policy, particularly on late payments for small businesses, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us the Government's position on the Interest on Debt Bill—a private Member's Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones)? Are the Government indifferent to that Bill?

No; it is an important issue. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we addressed and answered the question that he raised in the previous Government announcement on the subject. We made it clear that we are not at the moment persuaded of the advantages of a statutory interest rate on outstanding debts, because although some companies would gain from that, some companies would suffer. Therefore, we decided to back a number of initiatives, including support for the CBI code of practice and the encouragement of Government Departments to pay their bills rapidly, which we thought more likely to address the issue. We also made it clear that if our proposals did not deliver the improvements that we sought, we would return to the matter, and that we will do.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in the Government's deregulation initiative. [15240]

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the deregulation initiative. [15241]

By the end of last year, we had already repealed or amended more than 500 regulations, with another 500 in process. 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 are also making useful progress in our efforts to encourage deregulation in Europe.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and welcome the Government's initiatives to date on deregulation. There is, however, much more to be done. Does he share the concern of business men in my borough of Bexley that the red tape and bureaucracy emanating from Brussels need to be curtailed even more?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm that, at the Internal Market Council informal meeting in Rome over the weekend, a clear majority of the member nations of the European Union agreed that greater priority should be given not only to reviewing existing European legislation but to ensuring that new regulations meet the simple test of being fewer, better and simpler. I am glad to tell the House that in Rome there was agreement to review existing legislation on machine standards, food hygiene and public procurement.

Is there not a case for regulating for greater disclosure in the case of Campbell's Soups, which refuses to recognise trade unions? In the past five years, there have been six major scalding incidents in its two major factories, and one death last year. Surely such information should be made available to the great supermarket chains—for example, Tesco, Sainsbury and Safeway—which buy its products. Indeed, should not the consumer know the truth?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of health and safety legislation. I am glad to say that the Government have already agreed that 40 per cent. of existing health and safety legislation should be repealed. That is a start. There is more to be done. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that, in relation to Campbell's Soups and every other American company that has operations in the United Kingdom, the Department of the Environment recently requested all health and safety officials to enforce the law in a more uniform, user-friendly and sensible fashion. I welcome that.

Following the European Union ministerial meeting in Rome, can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that EU directives and, in particular, EU health and safety regulations, will not be used to sabotage Her Majesty's Government's opt-out from the social chapter, and that, if the European Court decides against Her Majesty's Government in regard to the working-time directive, the United Kingdom will take no notice of that adjudication?

Yes, that is our intention.

Does the Minister accept that most of what the Select Committee on Deregulation has dealt with so far has no significant implications for this country? The implications for greyhound betting and the possibility of a £10 rather than a £4 payout on a one-armed bandit in a pub or arcade will not contribute to the well-being of the nation, even under the Tories.

The hon. Gentleman is being unnecessarily modest. A great many draft orders are being prepared, which I expect to be of more consequence, including a proposal to save money on the circulation of used cheques between banks once they have been drawn and credited. There is much more to be done, but the process has started. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to other members of the Deregulation Committee for their hard work.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a substantial contribution would be made to reregulation if the country took on itself the social chapter, recognition of trade unions, workers councils and the like? Does he agree that business men who favour deregulation should bear in mind the fact that the Labour party would throw the process into reverse by introducing those European measures?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One reason why our unemployment rate—measured on a basis consistent with that in other European countries—is now broadly the same as Germany's, but falling, is the fact that businesses in this country need not shoulder the substantial on-costs on labour rates borne by Germany, Italy and France.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to contract out the principal civil service pension scheme. [15242]

I intend shortly to lay before both Houses an order, under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, to open up the administration of the principal civil service pension scheme to the private sector. The pension entitlements of civil servants will not be affected in any way.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister say what discussions he has had with the Paymaster General on the implications of the proposed privatisation—

Reading.

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that he is not allowed to read out questions during Question Time.

What discussions has the Deputy Prime Minister had with the Paymaster General regarding the implications for the Paymaster General's office of the proposed privatisation of the civil service pension scheme? What objections has he received from teachers about the privatisation of their pension scheme, particularly teachers in Coventry?

What we are talking about is the possible contracting out of the administration of schemes. Many letters that we have received from teachers and other organisations have reflected a serious misunderstanding of the position, and a fear that their pension entitlements will be affected in some way. I am pleased to assure the House that there will be no change in the substance of civil servants' or teachers' pension entitlements.

Do the new arrangements mean that civil servants will have to contribute to their pensions for a change, like the rest of us?

The changes are in the administration of civil service pension arrangements. They do not change either the pension entitlements of civil servants or the way in which they are financed. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that they contribute to the Government's overall public expenditure objectives. Whenever we have contracted out public sector services, we have achieved an average saving of 21 per cent.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the privatisation of the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency. [15243]

The privatisation of the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency is proceeding as announced. I expect the sale to be completed in the summer.

In the wake of Nolan and now Scott, are not the Government taking actions that will undermine the neutrality of our civil service?

That is complete nonsense. The selection of civil servants will still be in the hands of civil servants and, as now, the procedures will be regulated by the independent civil service commissioners. That is another example of a successful privatisation combined with stringent regulation. It is a great pity that, after 16 years, the Opposition still do not understand the basic argument for privatisation.

Does my hon. Friend think that, if the Opposition are concerned about the civil service's neutrality, they may be leaning towards new Labour rather than old Labour? We know that old Labour is still what runs the Labour party.

I do not recognise the terms old Labour or new Labour. We know what the Labour party stands for and we remain opposed to it.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received on his responsibilities for the strategic presentation of Government policy. [15244]

As I told the hon. Gentleman when I last answered questions to my Department, I have received no recent representations on my responsibilities

"other than from Opposition Members."—[Official Report, 29 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 632.]

With all the millions of words have been said and written about the Scott report, is not the irreducible truth that Ministers—I put it in its kindest way—deliberately withheld information from the House? As that is the clearest possible abuse of our parliamentary system, and as it is difficult to see how the system can operate if that abuse is allowed to continue, will the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government and without reservation or qualification, publicly apologise to the House?

When the Scott report is considered in its totality, the overriding conclusion will be that the allegations peddled by the parliamentary Labour party for three years were unfounded. We did not arm Saddam Hussein or conspire to send innocent men to prison. The parliamentary Labour party and its spokesmen should apologise unreservedly for those charges.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Scott report argues in a number of different directions at the same time and that, finally, it is impossible to take it seriously for that reason?

I have read of the Scott report that it is biblical in its judgments—there is something there to suit most people, depending on which quotation they use, but the facts remain that the central charges against the Government have not been proved by the report.

The Deputy Prime Minister now has a newfangled machine in the biggest office in Whitehall and the new titles Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State—which he screwed out of the Prime Minister on the day of the ballot. If he had had that spying machine and that position when the arms sales were taking place, could he have used them to tell all the Cabinet Ministers, "Look, you are going down the wrong track"? Does he think that that would have worked?

As so often with the hon. Gentleman, he is out of touch with his own party. Only one big lying machine has been introduced in modern politics recently and that is in Millbank. It has been put there by the Labour party.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in the 1960s, British business man Greville Wynne was arrested by the Soviets, that a Member of Parliament, who should have known better, asked in the House whether Wynne was working for British intelligence and that, on that occasion, the Minister was obliged to lie to Parliament? Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are occasions, especially in relation to foreign affairs and defence, when not only should Ministers not answer the question, but Members of Parliament should not ask the question?

My hon. Friend raises important issues. I very much sympathise with the reply given by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who clearly recognised the dilemma that Ministers sometimes face when they have to answer questions giving the fullest possible information to Parliament but also have regard to our security and commercial interests overseas. Every Minister has had to wrestle with that balancing judgment. The right hon. Gentleman had the integrity to answer that question honestly. It is of course apparent that it is long time since the Labour party was in a power and that now it is prepared to disregard totally what its own spokesman said when he was in office.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect of his deregulation proposals on British manufacturing industry. [15245]

As we made clear in our second White Paper on competitiveness, deregulation is central to improving the competitiveness of British industry. Unnecessary requirements stand in the way of market entry, innovation, investment and jobs. We are also ensuring that new regulations are introduced only where really necessary, meet the test of public benefit exceeding cost of implementation and are enforced in a business-friendly way.

In that case, why have the Government imposed 294 new regulations since 1992? May I please have a truthful reply?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the press speculation about the document coming from the European Commission, I should tell him that I have not seen that document. Early reports imply that the document is substantially flawed because it includes UK legislation that implements European legislation. We introduce about 1,400 substantive statutory instruments each year and a clear majority of them either have no bearing on business and industry or are deregulatory in nature.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are only just beginning to realise the huge magnitude of the regulatory task before us not only in preventing British officials from implementing to the letter everything that is put before them, but in relation to the problem of gold plating European regulations? Not only are some European regulations excessive, but we implement them with excessive zeal.

My hon. Friend is right. For far too long in Whitehall, we have added unnecessary additional provisions to legislation that implements directives agreed by various Councils of Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I have put a stop to the gold plating of European legislation. My hon. Friend is also right to refer to over-enforcement. It is important that, when officials enforce any European legislation in this country implemented under the European Communities Act 1972, they do so sensibly, and in a balanced and user-friendly way.

Does the Sea Empress episode not show the importance of more stringent regulation in some areas? Is that not especially true for the environment, where regulation can stimulate technological inventiveness and therefore produce solutions? For example, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the work of the Environmental Industries Commission, and of its conviction that Britain needs to recognise the huge importance of environmental technology as a major sector in global industry over the next decade? Will he firmly undertake not to deregulate in the important area of environmental sustainability?

Yes.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidance has been issued to Ministers on the preparation of compliance cost assessments. [15246]

Following publication of the new guidance booklet on compliance cost assessments on 25 January, I have written to all departmental Ministers asking them to ensure that the new guidelines are observed in their Departments. The guidance includes a requirement for Ministers to sign off personally all compliance cost assessments and to certify that the benefit of the regulatory proposal exceeds the cost.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he agrees that compliance costs and likely compliance costs must be rigorously examined and the whole of an industry consulted before legislation from either Britain or Europe is accepted without compliance costs? Often, the cost of compliance to a large firm is negligible, while the cost to a small firm of compliance to the same regulations is relatively huge.

I agree with my hon. Friend and I am happy to say that the European Commission has accepted in principle that it will follow the practice that we have adopted in the United Kingdom and will introduce compliance cost assessments for new draft directives and regulations before the end of the year.

Surely the Minister will agree that one of the most important elements of any compliance cost system is that companies or individuals who are bankrupt are not allowed to continue trading? Do not the revelations yesterday, that No. 10 has spread its protective arm over the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) to allow him to keep trading while bankrupt, show that there is nothing but contempt for the normal operations of business at the heart of our Government system?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for general deregulatory measures in company law, auditing and other financial requirements. The Government have an excellent record over the past 24 months in introducing deregulatory measures in relation to auditing and accounting standards for small firms.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he provides to the independent trade union movement in Indonesia. [15267]

There has been no change since the hon. Gentleman last asked that question. No aid is given to the independent trade union movement in Indonesia.

Is not the deplorable fact that no help is given to one of the most important trade union movements in Asia a reflection of the complaint that the Minister's boss, Baroness Chalker, made in her lecture last week, when she protested at Treasury cuts in the budget of the Overseas Development Administration? We can leave that aspect of the Government's death throes to the Ministers involved, but will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the SBSI, the independent trade union movement in Indonesia, is an important social actor and should receive Government support? Is the Minister prepared to meet a small delegation to discuss whether there is some line of budget to give help to Indonesia in future?

British aid to Indonesia was £22.2 million in 1993–94 and £21.5 million last year—excluding the Commonwealth Development Corporation's programmes and debt relief. The money is spent on those who are most in need. I do not believe that there is a strong case for sponsoring the trade union movement in Indonesia, but there is a strong developmental, economic and commercial case for Britain to maintain a substantial aid programme to Indonesia—other donors agree.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the aid budget is directed towards sustainable development in east Africa. [15268]

In 1994–95, 7.6 per cent. of total British bilateral aid was spent on sustainable development in east Africa—Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. In 1993, the latest year in which figures for our share of multilateral programmes to the three countries are available, 6.4 per cent. of the aid budget was spent on bilateral and multilateral aid to east Africa.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the quality of aid is more important than the straight quantity of aid? In order for our aid programme to be successful in east Africa, it is vital that the recipient countries pursue more sensible economic policies than they show signs of doing at present.

I agree that our aid should be given to countries where there is not only poverty and a need for aid but a good developmental case and a good case for economic restructuring—Uganda is an excellent example. Our aid in Uganda has helped to achieve an average annual economic growth rate of 6 per cent. over the past eight years.

Notwithstanding that reply, does the Minister accept that one of the biggest threats to sustainable development in east Africa is the totally unsustainable level of external debt? Does he agree that it is unacceptable that Tanzania spends twice as much on repaying debt as on providing access to clean water? Does he also agree that it is unacceptable that Uganda is forced to spend $17 per person on debt, while it can still afford to pay only $3 per person on health?

The hon. Lady will be aware that the United Kingdom is leading the way in the progress that is being made to reduce aid debt. Indeed, we have led the last two series of negotiations and we will continue to convert debt into aid, as we have done over the past few years.

Will my right hon. Friend note the early-day motion in my name, as chairman of the all-party east Africa committee, which is designed to come forward with proposals—backed by President Museveni— to reduce debt and interest on debt, having regard to the opening of the books of account of Uganda? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have had meetings with Baroness Chalker of Wallasey and with the economic section of the Treasury? Is he aware that the Government are making efforts to exert pressure on the countries that are corrupt? The Government are ensuring that we achieve a degree of reduction of debt, where it can be justified, and a reduction in the necessity for aid—which otherwise just goes back into the reduction of debt.

I will certainly look at that early-day motion. I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend Baroness Chalker. As I have said, the United Kingdom is leading the way in the process of reducing debt and turning debt into aid.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current position with regard to sanctions against Iraq and provision of aid to Iraq. [15269]

The purpose of sanctions is to ensure that Iraq complies with its obligations under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. There has been some progress, notably in the recognition of Kuwait and UN-demarcated borders. However, I am sorry to say that Iraq remains a long way from compliance. Since 1991, we have given £73 million to the humanitarian effort in Iraq.

If the Government are concerned about the situation in Iraq today, why were they not concerned in the 1980s? Will the Minister give hon. Members an assurance that the Government are not allowing the diversion of aid, aid and trade provision funds or export credit guarantee funds to Jordan which might be used to assist the Saddam regime, as referred to in section E of the Scott report?

Yes, Madam Speaker.

Is it not vital to the interests of this country and to the people of the middle east that neither Iran nor Iraq should ever become powerful enough to overwhelm the other? Were not British trade relations with those two countries managed so as to ensure that neither country was able to dominate that region? Was that not a foreign policy triumph of which the House should be proud?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making these comments. However, today I am here to answer questions about the Overseas Development Administration and its role with regard to overseas aid, and I think it will be best if I stick to that subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being taken by the Overseas Development Administration to reduce the social and economic disparities that exist between the EU and new democracies in central and eastern Europe. [15270]

We contribute to the reduction of social and economic disparities between the EU and the countries of the region through the know-how fund. This aims to support their transition to a pluralist democracy and a market economy. More than £230 million has been spent since its inception in 1989.

I welcome the information given by the Minister. I wonder whether he would use his good offices and give consideration to the need for British newspapers to be available in all the further and higher education institutions of Russia and the former communist bloc countries. Countless young men and women are desperate to read and consume information about the United Kingdom but do not have access to a quality British newspaper. Surely it would be a small contribution if the United Kingdom made available those newspapers in such places, outside the main capital cities?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that newspapers are available in British Council offices and libraries. They are also available on the streets of many countries in central and eastern Europe. There are some newspapers that I would not want those people to see anyway.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in many cases, the communities that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned would be much better served by adequate provision of the BBC World Service? Does he also agree that British Council offices should never be closed in parts of former communist Europe?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. The British Council is reviewing its operations at the moment. The World Service will continue to be an excellent service, and I believe that my hon. Friend's praise for the World Service and the British Council is echoed throughout the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries that receive United Kingdom aid which have been assessed as not having free and fair elections. [15271]

We have not made a systematic analysis of the 160 recipients of our aid, but our policy is to encourage good government, including moving towards the holding of free and fair elections, in all recipients of our aid.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that charity begins at home—

We want an election!

Order.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no country should receive aid unless it has one man, one vote? Does he further agree that that lot over there would spend more taxpayer's money on any corrupt Government they thought fit, as they have great experience of not holding free and fair elections—what with clause IV, 176 of them being supported by unions, blah, blah, blah, and the Labour-controlled councils of Hackney, Islington and Camden? Is this not another example of saying one thing and doing another?

Order. The hon. Gentleman does try the patience of the House.

I am pleased to confirm to my hon. Friend that the last four general elections in the United Kingdom were free and fair; so was the result.

The Minister talked of good government. How does he measure Indonesia in relation to the Government's policy on good government? Is it not the case that, for the people of East Timor, that is a harsh and oppressive administration—if it may be called that? How much of that aid goes to the people of East Timor?

We are concerned about reports of continuing human rights abuses in Indonesia, especially East Timor, and we certainly let the Indonesian Government know of our concerns. We did so most recently when Foreign Minister Alatas visited us last month. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about how much Indonesian aid goes to East Timor.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage change has taken place in aid to South Africa since the South African elections of 1994. [15272]

Bilateral aid to South Africa in the year leading up to the South African elections in April 1994 was £14.4 million. The outturn for the current financial year is expected to be about £17 million—an increase of 18 per cent. Our share of European Union assistance has increased from approximately £12.5 million to about £17 million in 1995 at current exchange rates—an increase of 36 per cent.

Although those increases are very welcome, does the Minister recognise the tremendous legacy of the apartheid years, particularly in education, health and housing? Should we not do far more to help the majority of South Africans to achieve the living standards to which they are entitled?

I agree with the priorities that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. We believe that education is a vital part of the aid that we provide to South Africa in helping its transition to what I hope will be a glorious future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main hope for economic development in South Africa is international investment? Will he recommend to President Mandela that he encourage, rather than discourage, international investment?

The key to South Africa's long-term prosperity is trade and investment. The Government are committed to developing our commercial links with South Africa, but there is also a role for well-targeted aid. Our aid is designed to help to develop sound policies and to establish models of sustainable development while focusing on the most disadvantaged groups. The South African Government understand their responsibilities and I believe that they are on the right track.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what discussions the Commission has had with the Comptroller and Auditor General on the costs of inspecting the accounts of health service bodies. [15277]

The commission regularly discusses the costs of the National Audit Office's activities—most recently on 30 January when it considered the National Audit Office's estimate for 1996–97. The costs of inspecting the accounts of health service bodies are included in the totals, but they were not discussed separately.

I am grateful for that answer. I have received on the best—[Interruption.] As I have received information that the local Guy's and St. Thomas' national health service trust is to write off about £7 million in relation to the Philip Harris phase 3 building, how may I be assured that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have the resources this financial year to investigate and report on whether that information is correct?

The Comptroller and Auditor General will have the resources for that study. Further, in light of preliminary work undertaken by the National Audit Office, the Comptroller and Auditor General intends to carry out a full investigation into what is now referred to as Guy's phase 3. The work will focus on the reasons for delays and cost overruns, given the National Audit Office's understanding that the building will be used largely as was intended at the outset of the project. The timing of the work is complicated by pending legal action. A report is expected to be published next year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for increasing aid for improving infrastructure and public services in Palestine. [15273]

The United Kingdom intends to spend £85 million over three years for the Palestinians, with our bilateral aid for the west bank and Gaza being focused on improving public services. We will continue to provide aid for infrastructure improvements through our share of the substantial multilateral programmes.

In the wake of the events this weekend—which I am sure we all deplore—does the Minister agree that, as the election process is complete, the people who live on the west bank and those parts of Palestine under Palestinian control must see urgent and real improvements in their living standards? Does he agree that recent events signify the importance of redoubling efforts in support of the new, democratic regime in Palestine?

I am pleased to agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has said. Our aid to the Palestinians is the main pillar of our support for the peace process. Our policy is to encourage all states in the region to reach lasting, just and comprehensive settlements. We welcome the progress that has been made so far in the middle east peace process and we hope that there will be a resolution on the Israel-Syria track.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of gross domestic product will be devoted to the Government's overseas aid budget in 1996–97. [15275]

The aid budget in 1996–97 will be more than £2.1 billion. The proportion of gross national product that it will represent will depend on the rate of United Kingdom economic growth and inflation.

Is the Minister not ashamed of the Government's record? Over the past 10 or 15 years, the Government have systematically cut overseas aid. Is that not a disgrace when many under-developed countries are still struggling to modernise their water facilities, for example?

I am certainly not ashamed of our aid contribution. Our aid budget of £2.23 billion covers aid to developing countries and assistance to countries in transition. We readily admit that last year's public expenditure survey was particularly rigorous, but the Government have had to take some tough decisions. The cuts in the bilateral aid programme are effectively offset by lower forecasts of multilateral aid spending and, despite the small reduction in the budget, Britain will continue to be the fifth largest donor with an aid budget of £2.1 billion next year.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the policy on admission charges to cathedrals. [15279]

It is not a matter for the Church Commissioners. Policy on admission charges rests with individual cathedrals, but I would be happy to convey any representations that my hon. Friend might wish to make to the appropriate authority.

Has it not become evident that cathedrals that levy charges on entrance for tourists are maximising their resources? In these straitened times, should not the Church Commissioners encourage cathedrals and other major church buildings to levy charges so that extra revenue can be raised?

My hon. Friend makes a fair and reasonable point. In practice, there is a good deal of variation in regard to the bits of a cathedral to which admission charges apply, but I shall arrange to have the general point that my hon. Friend makes widely circulated in all cathedral cities.

Is it not surprising that the Government have not sought to bring cathedrals into the private finance initiative?

I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that cathedrals are almost entirely financed by the residual money left in taxpayers' pockets after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken his share, so their funding arises from voluntary donations from supporters of cathedrals.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the current average salary of the beneficial clergy; and if he will make a statement. [15280]

The average stipend for clergy of incumbent state for the year beginning 1 April 1995 is £13,450. That is 2.1 per cent. above the previous year's figure of £13,170.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there need to be differentials in terms of pay and emoluments between archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, vicars and curates? Vicars live in vicarages; why do so many bishops continue to live in palaces? Would it not be better if the majority followed the example of the few who have been taken out of their palaces and placed in bishops' houses?

I take my hon. Friend's point that some bishops appear to live in substantial and splendid circumstances, but I am glad that he is in a favour of differentials in the ranks of the clergy, as he is no doubt in favour of differentials between Back-Bench Members and Cabinet Ministers, although Cabinet Ministers do not live in palaces.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what payments have been made under the terms of the Ordination of Women (Financial Provision) Measure 1993. [15281]

At 31 January 1996, the commissioners had made payments from their income totaling £6 million. Since the legislation came into effect in 1994, 300 clergy eligible for financial assistance under the Measure have resigned during that period.

That figure is astounding. Why on earth should those crusty old sexists get a penny piece for opposing the ordination of women? The right hon. Gentleman has given an appalling answer, and it shows how deep sexism runs within certain elements of the clergy in the Anglican Church. Those people should get not a farthing. They should be driven from the temples of the Lord with scourges, not be given a silver handshake from the offertory plate.

The hon. Gentleman called the figure of £6 million "astounding". If I had said that the amount was £600,000, £6 million or £60 million, he would still have described it as astounding. His references to the clergy of the Church of England would have been exactly the same, whatever the figures involved. The House may expect the same sort of response when we hear the hon. Gentleman speak later this afternoon on another compendious statement, the Scott report.