To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he had on deregulation during his recent visit to the far east. [32603]

During my discussions with senior leaders in the far east, I emphasised the positive contribution of privatisation and deregulation to the competitiveness of the UK economy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is no mere coincidence that job opportunities have grown much more rapidly in the deregulated labour markets of the far east and north America than in continental Europe? Did he give the leaders of the economies of the far east an assurance that the Government would never adopt the job destruction measures that are inherent in the social chapter and the minimum wage?

I was able to go a little further than that because I was able to make it clear that job creation is proceeding faster in Britain than in the rest of the European Union. One of the reasons for that is the combination of deregulation and privatisation.

Since returning from the far east, what discussions has the Deputy Prime Minister held about deregulation and food safety? Does he have complete confidence in the Minister of Agriculture? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with a junior Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that: the Minister of Agriculture will be in his job for many months to come, or does he think that the Minister is a clapped-out old milker?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman a wholly positive answer to those questions because, unlike the shadow Cabinet, the members of the Government are on extremely good terms.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that I enormously appreciate the tremendous efforts that he has made to hack through the jungle of regulation? However, I received a communiqué from my chamber of commerce in Lancaster this morning which says that there is still too much regulation at local level. Regulations are being embroidered that should not be embroidered. Can he do something to prevent that leakage?

My hon. Friend raises one of the most important aspects of deregulation. A great deal of the concern about regulation relates to its implementation, and the varied practices of implementation, at local level. That is why she will share my pleasure that we have introduced an appeals system to give local businesses the possibility of redress in such cases.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many visits he has made to Wales since becoming Deputy Prime Minister to co-ordinate the work of his Department with the Welsh Office. [32604]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I work closely together to ensure that Wales gains full benefit from the Government's policies.

I assume from that answer that the Deputy Prime Minister has not visited the Welsh Office once. Is that reluctance to visit Wales due to the Government's disastrous handling of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and its impact on the rural economy, to their pathetic response to the Sea Empress disaster or to his painful experience in Wales when he baled out of the Army to fight a by-election? Does he think that a visit would improve or worsen the fourth-party, lunatic fringe standing of his party in Wales?

On balance, I think that a visit by me to Wales would be a wholly desirable event. To show the ignorance upon which the hon. Gentleman's question is based, I might say that I visited Cardiff Arms park on 23 February to announce on behalf of the Millennium Commission the rebuilding of the stadium. On 15 March, I was back again in Cardiff, Merthyr Tydfil and Llandrindod Wells to spread the good news of the transformation that the Government have made in the Welsh economy.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are his responsibilities in respect of coordinating the policy of Her Majesty's Government with other Governments in the European Union. [32607]

Co-ordination of policy with our European partners is a matter for individual Ministers within their respective areas of responsibility, and overall for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Individual Ministers may be on good terms with each other, but they are clearly responsible for causing the problem. In the past months, we have seen the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food getting into a huge hole, which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his colleagues have had to dig him out of. What assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give the House that, in future, we shall have a sufficiently good relationship with our European colleagues that we do not become the pariahs of the European Union, to the disadvantage, not of Ministers of the Crown, but of the people of the United Kingdom?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture is, at this moment, participating fully in the Agriculture Council. He has done a magnificent job in defending the interests of the British farming industry and he will continue to do so. In the past four weeks of our policy of non-co-operation—which has now come to an end—we have successfully focused the minds of Ministers and Governments in the European Union. We have now reached a successful conclusion in the sense that a framework document has been agreed that will lead to an early lifting of the ban. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be saying something further about the timetable at 3.30 pm.

Do not the Germans, Spanish and Italians practise the same techniques all the time? When my right hon. Friend next goes to talk to other Governments in Europe, will he bring to their attention the dangerous provision of the 48-hour week and the fact that it was introduced into this country in a deceitful way? Will he take the same attitude towards that as he has towards beef?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that, unlike the Opposition, we shall continue to fight for the national interests of the United Kingdom, which is not inconsistent with belonging to the European Union. Since the inception of the Common Market, which is now the European Union, this country has always fought for British interests, just as other countries have fought for their interests.

Will the right hon. Gentleman throw away the cryptic text prepared for him over the weekend that tried to dismiss the story as rubbish and answer a simple question of fact? Is there in existence a letter from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Prime Minister criticising the Government's handling of the beef crisis and making a threat, veiled or otherwise, to resign from the Government?

If ever there was an author of cryptic messages in party politics or Parliament, the hon. Gentleman must take the prize. The answer to the wholly erroneous newspaper story was, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, rubbish.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to increase competition between Government Departments in respect of increasing efficiency; if he will institute suitable rewards for the most successful; and if he will make a statement. [32608]

The Government will continue using competition to improve the efficiency of public services. The rewards, which will be for everyone to share, are better-quality and more cost-effective services for users and improved value for money for taxpayers.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which I warmly welcome. Would it not be nice to give Departments an incentive to improve in the way that they need to, can and will? What about a few sides of good British beef for those Departments that do really well?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that ingenious suggestion. Any ideas for improving the quality of public services, especially from Conservative Members, will be carefully considered.

If the Government are so committed to the efficiency of their Departments and believe that efficiency exists, why are the targets that have been set for many Departments for the current year below the level of efficiency reached last year? Are the Government attempting to cook their own books?

There is no question of cooking the books. Every year, we set targets that are credible and take account of the Department's performance in the previous year. We are always pressing for improvements on the previous year's performance.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received concerning the over-regulation of small businesses. [32609]

Earlier this year, I received over 500 letters from small businesses when I invited them to tell me what regulations were hampering their business. At the final "Your Business Matters" conference on 11 March, we announced a package of deregulation measures in response to the concerns raised. We are now continuing our contacts with businesses through a series of special deregulation seminars.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that small businesses are the backbone of this country and that we ought to do as much as we possibly can to lift burdens from them, so that they can grow and employ more people? Is he therefore as concerned as I am at the possibility of the introduction of the regulations incorporating the 48-hour directive, which would undoubtedly affect some small businesses? We did not sign up to that directive; indeed, we explicitly opted out of it. Is the Minister aware that he will have the support of the vast majority of businesses, small, medium and large, in his fight to resist the imposition of the 48-hour directive?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that small businesses would suffer greatly from the erroneous and dangerous election of a Labour Government, who would agree to qualified majority voting on the social chapter provisions of the Maastricht treaty. That would mean a great many expensive burdens on small businesses. The Opposition are by no means the friend of small businesses. It is this Government who have consistently deregulated and who will defend small and large businesses against inflexible and expensive welfare state laws.

Does not the Minister speak with forked tongue? Will he admit that, for every deregulation order that the Government have introduced in recent years, they have brought in three new regulation orders which have crippled small businesses?

That is a travesty of the truth. Neither Labour Front Benchers nor Back Benchers have any genuine interest in the deregulation initiative, and Labour would sideline it if ever elected to government. In the past 12 months alone, we have lifted burdens from small companies by allowing more than 500,000 of them to pay VAT annually; and we have lifted the auditing burdens from another 500,000.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which found that the reasons why small businesses in this country produce so many new jobs arc the deregulation and privatisation effected by the Government, and the lowering of company taxation for small businesses? Was he as nauseated as I was to see the Leader of the Opposition last week in Germany attempting to glory in the transformation of the economy that those very measures have brought about—given that he voted against every single one of them?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, experience of the social market experiments in Germany and other EU countries shows how dangerous they can be, in the sense that those countries lose competitiveness. Germany's unit costs, compared with ours, have meant that time and again Germany has lost, and we have gained, inward investment. In competition with those other countries, they lose and we gain in terms of export markets.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he intends to visit Plymouth and the southwest of England to discuss the competitiveness of the region. [32610]

I shall be visiting the south-west to discuss competitiveness in a few weeks' time.

During that visit, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether he agrees with the Prime Minister that there should be a grammar school in every town? Or does he agree with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who apparently voted to close the grammar schools in Norfolk? How will competitiveness in the south-west be enhanced by reintroducing secondary modern schools—a system that declares that 80 per cent. of children aged 11 have failed?

The hon. Gentleman has missed the point: divisions on education are not among Conservative Members; they are among Opposition Members. The Leader of the Opposition does one thing for his children and tries to stop the rest of the country doing the same for theirs.

When considering competitiveness in the south-west, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the great need of businesses in the area to have their mail delivered? Although we may not always have seen eye to eye on this, it is obvious that if strikes continue to upset businesses in the south-west or anywhere else, the Post Office's monopoly will have to be broken.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to a cause on which I failed to persuade him a few months ago—it just goes to show that they all come around in the end. I am concerned, as are the Government—

Another Tory cover-up.

I am answering the question, not the hon. Gentleman.

I convey the thanks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to the Deputy Prime Minister for the witty get well message that he sent to him earlier today. My right hon. Friend wants also to convey the message that it has brought a whole new meaning to hop-along deputy.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for referring to the message that I sent to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) when I received the news that he had fractured his foot and had been taken to a major hospital in the area. I hope that he gets well soon, and I am delighted that he is receiving excellent treatment in that hospital. As I pointed out to him, Tory government works.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to destroy competitiveness in the south-west region—or in any other region—is to introduce the minimum wage, as is suggested by the Labour party? It would result in lost orders, businesses going under and jobs being lost.

I am delighted to have another chance to refer to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East who, on the subject of the minimum wage, referred to the loss of jobs and said. "Any fool knows that." If he knows it, it proves the point.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the efficacy of parliamentary procedures relating to the answering of questions for which he has responsibility. [32611]

My right hon. Friend has made no such assessment. My colleagues and I always try to bear in mind the injunction in "Erskine May" that answers

"should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible."

"a certain latitude is permitted to Ministers of the Crown",

Perhaps the Minister should move off "Erskine May" and on to the conclusions of Sir Richard Scott. Subsequent to his inquiry, he said that Parliament should not be fobbed off by blocking and inadequate answers from Ministers. Does he agree with another suggestion put forward by Sir Richard Scott—that there should be a parliamentary watchdog to ensure that Parliament is told the truth?

The crucial responsibility is that of a Minister to the House. I believe that here in the Chamber of the House, both Opposition Members and Government Members can hold Ministers to account for the answers that they give.

May I press my hon. Friend to say how long it would take his Department to deal with questions on our economic performance including, for instance, a question about the impact of the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the ingenuity of that supplementary. Of course, if I were invited to regale the House with the story of the British economy since 1979, I would be able to explain that we have the lowest mortgage rates for a generation and that, in the most recent economic cycle, our output per head grew more rapidly than that of any other major economy apart from Japan.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the implications for the policy of open government of the evidence on parliamentary answers given by Sir Michael Quinlan to the Scott inquiry. [32612]

The adversarial nature of Question Time does not detract from the Government's commitment to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public.

Why has the Deputy Prime Minister funked answering the question himself?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not content. I am the Minister responsible not only for the code of conduct but for the rules that apply to all Ministers when they answer to Parliament. I am the Minister with day-to-day responsibility for the civil service and I have answered the debates on both Nolan and Scott. If the hon. Gentleman had wanted to ask a supplementary, I would have willingly replied inp—I hope—a constructive fashion.

So, may I have a supplementary?

No. The hon. Gentleman had a supplementary and I thought it was perfectly proper.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about the recruitment and working conditions of magistrates in Bolton. [32613]

I approved the appointment of 18 persons to the Bolton bench earlier this year, following recommendations from my advisory committee in Bolton. The working conditions of magistrates in Bolton are a matter for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department.

Is the Chancellor aware of how strongly people in Bolton feel about the need for a new magistrates court? Will he press his colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury to give an immediate go-ahead to that important contract, which was so unfairly stopped?

The hon. Gentleman refers to the buildings in Bolton that house the magistrates courts, which date from the 1930s. As I understand the situation from the Lord Chancellor's Department, a private finance initiative proposal is on the table. I give my assurance to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I will investigate the status of that proposal and convey to the Lord Chancellor and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary not only the hon. Gentleman's concern but my interest.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department in promoting Government policies. [32615]

The results of the fundamental expenditure review of the Office of Public Service have been published. The effectiveness of the Department is kept under review through MINIS—the ministerial information system.

Can the Minister explain why the Government have the lowest opinion poll ratings of all time, are incapable of winning any by-elections and have done dismally at local elections? Would not it be wise for the Prime Minister to summon up enough courage to call an autumn election? If he is speculating about doing that, as we are told in the press, why does not he pluck up the courage, call it and let the people decide?

My party won two local authority by-elections last Thursday. We had a successful conclusion to the European Commission's proposals on beef at the European summit and we shall publish an exciting White Paper on education tomorrow. In due course, we shall put our policies to the electorate.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the principal Government policy with which he was concerned in the week beginning 17 June. [32616]

I have continued to work on a full range of those Government policies for which I am responsible.

In view of the callous bombing in Manchester recently, I welcome the visit that my right hon. Friend intends to make to that city. Will he ensure that every arm of Government rallies around Manchester to help it to recover fully from that outrage?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The Prime Minister has asked me to go to Manchester on Wednesday this week, and I shall do so. I hope to meet with civic and private sector leaders in order to ensure that the Government's resources are used effectively wherever appropriate. If those resources can be co-ordinated better in dealing with the horrendous consequences of that dastardly act, the Government will have done all that is proper in the circumstances.

When the right hon. Gentleman visits Manchester on Wednesday, will he meet small business people from the Corn Exchange and the Royal Exchange complexes? Small businesses have suffered huge financial losses in the past week and some business people cannot access the buildings to see what stock they have left. I am afraid that insurance companies are already ducking and diving about insurance matters. When the right hon. Gentleman visits Manchester, I ask him to meet those people and to not go empty-handed.

I shall go with the intention of meeting as wide a representation of the community as I can during what, by definition, must be a limited visit. I expect to see representatives of small and medium companies. The first stage is to visit the city, to listen to the people and to take stock of the situation. That is obviously what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants me to do before I report back to him.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what part he has played in the planning of a millennium exhibition. [32617]

As a member of the Millennium Commission, I have taken part in numerous discussions about the exhibition. Over the past month, I have been working with Sir Peter Levene, who was asked by the commission to advise members oil the commercial soundness and practical feasibility of proposals. There is now significant private sector support for the plans and, as the chairman of the commission announced last week, the exhibition is going ahead at Greenwich.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, when I asked the Secretary of State for National Heritage on Friday what recent decisions she had made about the exhibition, she replied that she would answer as soon as possible? As the Deputy Prime Minister is a member of the commission, is he aware of my suggestions of some weeks ago that we celebrate the millennium on both a regional and a national basis? Greenwich is the originator of mean time and young people should be encouraged to look towards 2051 to see how we could implement nationally and internationally the purposes and the aims of the United Nations charter. Is it too late for that sort of vision to be incorporated in the mess that now confronts the country?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should describe the millennium festival in that manner. All parties welcome the fact that the country proposes to stage what appears to be the largest event of its sort in the world. Its purpose is to show Britain at its best as it faces the new century, and I hope that that spirit will be adopted by all. It is not a party political event—a Labour party representative is a member of the Millennium Commission and I welcome the statements emanating from the Labour party in support of it. My fellow commissioners and I are working with the private sector to ensure that there is the widest possible manifestation of support from that sector. We are in the business of projecting the excellence of this country into the next century, and we all have an interest in that.

I welcome the efforts that have been made to secure the millennium exhibition for Greenwich, and in particular, the work of my right hon. Friend in helping to bring that about. What steps will be taken to ensure that there are long-term benefits from the regeneration of that important site in Greenwich?

My hon. Friend asks an important question which is much in the minds of Millennium Commission members. I have visited many regeneration projects in many cities. When projects begin, it is extremely difficult to predict how the regeneration process will develop as confidence builds. It is dangerous to try to forecast some dramatic scheme that is devised by planners and politicians on the basis of wishful thinking rather than on a factual assessment. That could choke the spontaneous working of the market, which can encourage a degree of confidence and produce a range of proposals that were not envisaged by the originators of the scheme. It is difficult to strike a balance, but we shall do what we can to ensure the most imaginative use of the site in the longer term. However, the Millennium Commission is responsible for organising the festival.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what contribution he has made to the promotion of Government policy in respect of the Florence summit; and if he will make a statement. [32619]

The Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on the Florence European Council today.

The Deputy Prime Minister will accept that farmers in my constituency are not exactly dancing with delight at the result of the Florence summit. An extra 100,000 cattle are to be slaughtered, 95 per cent. of which have no traces of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, in exchange for a framework agreement without a timetable. What part did the right hon. Gentleman play in this humiliating climbdown for Britain in Europe?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Prime Minister's achievements at the Florence summit exceeded all expectations. It is not for me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement, but I can say that the thing most likely to prejudice the summit's successful outcome was the Leader of the Opposition telling the Germans what they wanted to hear before the summit, at the expense of British self-interest.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated of international debt as a factor in civil instability or conflict. [32634]

We have no reason to believe that debt burdens have led to civil conflict, but there is a good deal of evidence to link economic problems with the breakdown of civil order. That is why we encourage Governments to implement sound policies that promote stable economic growth.

Does the Minister agree—indeed, do the Government agree—that, in certain circumstances, debt can be a most potent, although hidden, form of slavery? Has his attention been drawn to the report of the Debt Crisis Network, appendix 2 and 3 of which point out that the conditions imposed on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia by the International Monetary Fund were factors in exacerbating regional and ethnic differences, which contributed to the atrocities of which we are only too well aware? Will the Minister therefore send those appendices to the IMF, request the responses of our representative at the IMF and of its president and place their report and his own observations on it in the Library?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I am not aware of the appendices to which he refers. If he will send them to me, I will study them and place my reply in the Library. Debt is only one of a number of factors that force Governments to spend less on social services and cause other problems. The primary cause of problems in countries with high debt is poor budget prioritisation and long-term economic mismanagement, leading to weak or negative economic growth. I am sure that the debt problem in the countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not one of the prime causes for the serious disasters from which they have suffered; in many countries, rapid population growth and weak public sector management are other factors. The important thing is to recover and to use debt sensibly, and I am proud of this nation's record of turning debt into aid and of forgiving debt.

Is that not all the more reason why we should continue to support the British Government and particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his efforts to relieve multilateral debt in negotiations with the IMF and the World bank? The president of the World bank will attend a meeting in the House next week, at which, I hope, the positive steps for which we have all worked will be taken to anticipate and ease the problems of countries where multilateral debt is a severe restriction on the future.

I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The British Government have written off the aid debts of 31 of the world's poorest countries: a total of £1.2 billion has been written off. All our aid to the poorest countries is now on grant terms so that their debt burden is not increased, and we have taken the lead in pressing for solutions to that burden.

Although the recent increase in private sector investment in developing countries is welcome, it is not reaching the poorest African countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) pointed out, those countries need urgent debt relief measures and high-quality assistance if they are to avoid some of the results and repercussions of debt. Bearing it in mind that the World bank itself has said that without debt reduction foreign investment will be discouraged, what plans has the ODA to rescue sub-Saharan Africa from its crippling debt problems? Will it discuss the matter with the IMF and the World bank?

I do not entirely agree. As the hon. Lady knows, Britain's aid programme is substantial, and is increasingly focused on the poorest countries in Africa and south Asia where the needs are greatest. We certainly do not ignore the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. In Africa, support for economic reform and social sectors remains a high priority. Our aid is concentrated on the poorest nations, and Africa benefits from that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral assistance the Government (i) gave in 1995–96 and (ii) plan to give in 1996–97 to Angola. [32635]

Provisional bilateral outturn for 1995–96 was some £12 million; our share of the multilateral EC figure for 1994 was approximately £5 million. The 1996–97 bilateral commitments for Angola currently total some £9 million. Angola's allocation under the seventh European development fund was 115 million ecu; the United Kingdom's share is £15 million. That for EDF 8, which is to run from 1996 to 2000, is now under discussion, but our share will be 12.7 per cent.

The successful implementation of the Lusaka protocol depends largely on the success of the United Nations-monitored quartering process. Does my right hon. Friend share the concern that overcrowding in the camps, deteriorating health conditions and sanitation and a decline in the quality of food supplies are undermining that process? If so, will the Government take steps to ensure that the UN and other agencies address the problems?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am grateful for his concern for Angola, and for the steps that are helping to improve confidence there.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment has been made by the United Kingdom, in conjunction with the EU and the UN Commission on Human Rights, of the human rights record of the Turkish Government in respect of their eligibility for development assistance. [32636]

The United Kingdom and our European Union partners regularly raise human rights issues with the Turkish Government, in the context of the EU's financial assistance programme for Turkey and in the wider political and trade relationship. In bilateral contacts and at the UN Commission on Human Rights, the EU has made it clear to Turkey that this assistance is conditional on Turkey's continuing commitment to principles of democracy and basic human rights.

If that is so, will the Minister confirm that he has read the latest Amnesty International report on human rights in Turkey, which makes absolutely appalling reading? It shows that Kurdish prisoners are ill treated and tortured, and that Kurds are generally treated as third-rate citizens in their own country. How will this affect relations between this country and Turkey, let alone between the European Union and Turkey? I hope that the Minister will answer my question directly.

It is important to set concerns about human rights in Turkey in a broader context. We want Turkey to be firmly anchored to western institutions, because the closer Turkey is to western institutions the better we are able to express our concerns about human rights and the more influence we can bring to bear. Co-operation is a more effective approach than confrontation. We do not believe that linkage of human rights with, for example, bilateral aid or economic trade is productive. Moreover, the atrocities in Turkey are not on only one side. We deplore any breach of human rights, whether it is committed by the PKK or by the Turkish Government.

Why will not the Government make it clear to Turkey that Greek Cypriot citizens in northern Cyprus will not have any human rights until Turkey withdraws its troops and allows them the democratic right to reclaim and to vote for their Government and to discover whether people who have disappeared are alive or dead? It is a very simple issue: why have the Government been so pathetic about it for 22 years?

It is a simple issue, and one about which I feel very strongly, but it has nothing to do with this question. The hon. Gentleman's question is a responsibility not of the Overseas Development Administration but of the Foreign Office. I hope that he will table such a question to it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial assistance he is providing in 1996–97 to organisations working to eradicate child labour in developing countries. [32637]

We give considerable assistance to organisations that adopt an integrated approach to children's issues, but it is not possible to provide the exact amounts spent on the problem of child labour. However, we encourage a range of initiatives and engage in policy exchange.

I thank the Minister for his answer. I find it quite appalling that the British Government are the only Government who cannot put a figure on the help that they provide to eradicate child labour around the world. Is the Minister aware that child labour is increasing and that it is a major international issue? Other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development want the issue to be raised at the International Labour Organisation and to be banned. Will he ask the Prime Minister—who gave a disgraceful reply to a question on this issue last Thursday—not to turn a Nelsonian blind eye to child labour, but to instruct out officials everywhere to join the campaign to eradicate this monstrous practice?

The hon. Gentlemen is being extremely unfair in saying that we are the only nation that cannot identify how much we spend on the problem of child labour. He has made a wicked suggestion. He knows full well that when we give money to non-governmental organisations we do not necessarily know exactly how much they will choose to spend on the problem of child labour. Under our aid programme, we give generously to a number of organisations. What I have said is accurate: we cannot disaggregate the figures, so I cannot give him an accurate answer about the exact amount that is spent on child labour. I can tell him, however, that we deplore child labour. We deplore any form of child labour, whether the type of labour is bonded—

Come on.

The hon. Gentleman is becoming impatient to reach his question, which appears later on the Order Paper. He has been badgering me throughout this Question Time because he wants to ask his question. I hope that I may be allowed to answer the other questions; we will then reach his question.

Far from turning a Nelsonian blind eye to the problems of child labour and of street children, did not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when in Rio de Janeiro for the earth summit, specifically visit a home that takes street children off the streets and educates and trains them for a constructive future? [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not know that, he should have done so.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government's record on trying to eradicate child labour in its extreme forms is well known. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is given in respect of preserving the rain forest in Papua New Guinea. [32638]

Since 1993, we have provided assistance to 13 projects designed to help to preserve Papua New Guinea's rain forests. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the details of the projects and place a copy in the Library. I should hate to read out all 13 projects because the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) might not have time to ask his question.

Are those projects geared to sustainable development? Do they take account of the appalling river pollution from gold mining?

We certainly concentrate on sustainable development. Since 1993, we have committed £120,000 to the 13 schemes and £70,000 for NGO projects that are financed partly from the ODA's joint funding scheme. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the outflow from the Lihir gold mine and other industrial projects. We must balance sustainable development and timber production with industrial improvements in Papua New Guinea.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many economists are employed by the National Audit Office. [32643]

The National Audit Office employs about 520 staff who have accountancy qualifications or are training for them. Of those, 69 staff have degrees in economics, although none is currently a full-time professional economist. When specialised advice is needed, the NAO would normally use external experts with a relevant economics background.

Would my right hon. Friend be willing to second some National Audit Office staff to the European Commission to tackle the problem of fraud that seems endemic in the operation of the common agricultural policy?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I shall certainly convey it to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who frequently consults his counterparts in other European countries and in the European Court of Auditors. It will not be lost on my hon. Friend that one good reason for taking pleasure from the Florence summit is precisely that the Commission will be given more powers to make spot checks, to establish where fraud has been committed and to act.

Would not the NAO's expert staff be better deployed on investigating the Millennium Commission's scandalous decision to site the millennium exhibition at Greenwich, despite the fact that all the financial information available shows that the bid will not work and will waste public money and despite the presence of a suitable alternative in the midlands?

I cannot comment on the merits of that matter, but if the hon. Gentleman will write to me or the Comptroller and Auditor General, I am sure that it will be investigated.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week members of the Public Accounts Committee visited the European Court of Auditors? That was the first visit since my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, who were then members of the PAC, visited the court 15 years ago. We had extensive discussions about fraud and were informed of progress in dealing with that difficult problem. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not dilute the considerable power and influence of the National Audit Office by seconding more than the eight staff who are currently at the European Court of Auditors but that we should continue our discussions with the court to crack this difficult problem?

I am quite sure that my hon. Friend is correct. The House is indebted to the PAC and its Chairman for their excellent work in producing the reports. I wish only that public accounts committees in other European countries were as assiduous in establishing where fraud is and in doing something about it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to fund food and distribution projects in the former Soviet Union. [32639]

The know-how fund will continue to give high priority to projects in support of food sector reform. Last year, some 16.1 per cent., or £4.18 million, of know-how fund assistance was devoted to food sector projects. In addition, we have provided more than £1 million in bilateral food aid to countries in the former Soviet Union.

I hope that the Minister will forgive me for being a little impetuous earlier. Will he set up an inquiry into overcharging by Arthur Andersen for fees and accommodation in respect of the food distribution contract that it held under the know-how fund in Moscow about two years ago?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. Just in case he should ask, I have done some research, which shows that, as far as I am aware, there is no Campbell's Soups factory in the former Soviet Union. He was referring to the Moscow bread project—a large know-how fund operation. Costs were shared with a consortium of private sector companies led by Andersen Consulting. I believe that it was an excellent example of partnership between the Government and the private sector. It trained 634 retail shop managers and provided on-site support. Multiple benefits were derived from the support of the know-how fund. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of overcharging and of costs falling against the British taxpayer, I should be most grateful if he would give it to me chapter and verse. I assure him that the matter will be investigated.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have to supplement the pay of bishops and clergy to allow them more time for theological studies; and if he will make a statement. [32602]

Stipends for bishops and the parochial clergy are based on the concept of adequacy in relation to duty. The extent of theological training before ordination and the time that clergy should spend in theological study afterwards are not matters for which the Church Commissioners are responsible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the frequency with which some bishops make deplorable political speeches, comments and sermons? Would it not be better if they stuck to theology and religion and forgot about politics? In particular, would not more satisfactory theological training and teaching discourage them from devastating the Lord's Prayer, as some have proposed?

It would probably be a retrograde step if we once again sought to interweave theology with politics, as happened at the time of the Reformation, so I take my hon. Friend's advice with a considerable pinch of salt.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being offered to former Soviet bloc countries from the know-how fund in the current year; and if he will make a statement. [32641]

Planned assistance for central and eastern Europe and central Asia through the know-how fund in the current financial year is £82 million.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Last November, I had the good fortune to visit Belarus and the Ukraine. What assistance is being given to the Ukraine, given its worsening economic circumstances?

The hon. Gentleman asks a rather specific question. The know-how fund has helped to privatise retail food outlets in Kiev. It is now helping the new owners to set up a retailers association to strengthen their bargaining power. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a fuller answer in writing, including some of the figures, and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid to Burma. [32642]

Since 1992–93 we have provided about £630,000 in humanitarian aid for Burmese refugees in neighbouring countries. In December 1995, we contributed £1.1 million to a joint UNHCR/World Food Programme appeal for a voluntary repatriation programme. Like other EU countries, in 1988 we suspended non-humanitarian official aid, and that remains the position.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does it mean that Her Majesty's Government will pay rather closer attention to the calls emanating from Aung San Suu Kyi for no encouragement of any business interest in Burma until a more democratic form of government is returned and the harassment of her and her party is ended?

I assure the hon. Lady that we have very close contact with Aung San Suu Kyi. We have explained our policy to her on many occasions. It is to press for real reform—economic and political—that will bring the changes that are so desperately needed by all Burma's people. She is a remarkable lady and I assure the hon. Lady that we take careful note of whatever Aung San Suu Kyi says.