To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of deregulation initiatives on small businesses. [36746]

Our assessment is that the package of deregulation measures announced at the "Your Business Matters" conference on 11 March was widely welcomed by small businesses.

Given the assistance that has been given to so many small businesses by raising the VAT threshold, cutting corporate taxes and other methods of reducing bureaucracy on small businesses, is it surprising that there has been such a net expansion of small businesses? Given the importance of small businesses in job creation, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when he considers the deregulation initiatives, he will continue to take into account the needs of small businesses and continue to consult them widely?

We shall certainly continue closely to consult small businesses. Our aim over the coming months is to continue the progress already made on simplification of PAYE and national insurance contributions; to ensure that enforcement of the law is uniform and proportionate; and to try to reduce the burdens of forms, surveys and licences on small businesses.

While everyone would agree that it is desirable to cut unnecessary red tape, does the Minister agree that one discipline that must always remain is the proper keeping of accounts? Will he comment on last weekend's reports that some businesses contributing to the so-called Premier Club, which is a method of financing the Conservative party, have been advised to disguise their contributions by describing them as "entertainment"? If that practice exists, will he condemn it unreservedly?

It goes without saying that all companies must observe not only the law relating to company accounts but the Inland Revenue's requirements. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would ask me about taxation. Some 500,000 small companies no longer need their accounts audited and more than half a million pay VAT annually.

Has my right hon. Friend had time yet to assess the impact of the 48-hour week that is likely to be imposed on this country from 23 November onwards? Is he aware that Cleveland Potash, a fairly important employer in my constituency, told me that a 48-hour week would be disastrous for the company, and that it would have to lay men off as a result? What will the Minister do about the 48-hour week?

Any restriction in terms of hours and patterns of work on companies' flexibility to employ staff is to be deprecated. The Government want our economy to achieve growth and prosperity, which comes about through limiting the burdens of social and employment legislation on our work force.

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what revenue he expects to be raised from the privatisation of HMSO. [36747]

I am confident that the sale will represent good value for money to taxpayers. However, the hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot jeopardise those benefits by releasing details of bids or estimated proceeds at this stage.

How can the Minister say that the sale will benefit taxpayers when his Department has estimated that it should be sold for £100 million and that it will get less than £50 million if it tries to sell it now? Should not the sale be put on freeze?

Ministers have made no such estimate. The whole purpose of a competition for organisations or agencies that are being privatised is to determine best value for money. HMSO in the private sector can compete with the private sector for private sector business, and can expand without the constraints of operating in the public sector.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the likely side effects of the privatisation of HMSO is that Hansard will be available on the Internet? Does this not demonstrate the Government's commitment to open government?

With respect, I think that my hon. Friend is a little too enthusiastic about the Internet. I hope that public and private sector agencies—including the House, in due course—will consider the wider use of the Internet.

Is the Minister aware that the three bidders for HMSO have shown precious little interest in expanding its sales in the private sector? Further, is he aware that it looks as though HMSO will be sold for half what was expected and that there are rumours that there will be 600 redundancies, mostly in the headquarters city of Norwich?

The Government have consistently made clear that HMSO would have a further programme of redundancies in the public sector. From the responses of the short-listed bidders, I am not aware that they see matters any differently from the forecast by internal management. I have had meetings with the trade unions and I am well aware that the short-listed bidders are proposing more rapid attention to the financial problems of HMSO. The preferred bidder will be announced in the next few weeks and I hope that it will sketch out its aspirations and plans for HMSO in some detail. I hope that that will result in an expansion of work in the private sector, and therefore in employment prospects throughout the country.

Is it not clear that the Chancellor is going to get only half the proceeds that he expected for HMSO and that 600 jobs will be lost, mostly in Norwich? Contrary to his stated reasons for privatising HMSO, is it not clear that all his preferred bidders are far more concerned to boost HMSO's puny 8 per cent. share of the £3 billion public sector market than to expand sales in the private sector? Has not the Government's stampede to privatise become a car boot sale of civil service jobs and a hand-out of public sector assets and contracts—including some to his fat cat friends who are payrolling the Tory party through the Premier Club?

On employment prospects, the 600 jobs that the right hon. Gentleman referred to are, broadly speaking, within the forecast job redundancies in the public sector. As I understand it, there is no great difference between the forecast made by HMSO management and that made by those interested in acquiring the business.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what arrangements are in place for the co-ordination of Government business during the summer recess. [36748]

The arrangements currently in place will continue to be operated throughout the summer recess.

Well, that is a consolation. Is it not true that, a year after the Deputy Prime Minister's appointment as the co-ordinator of Government business, he has no more chance of co-ordinating business now than when he started? In fact, he cannot even co-ordinate Ministers to sing to the same tune. The Paymaster General has resigned over a disagreement with the Government on Europe. Is it not true that Government policy is still the same muddle and the same mess? The Government have at least four views on Europe: this year, next year, some time and never. It is a shambles.

It is refreshing to hear that there are four views in the Conservative party on this matter. My experience with the Liberal Democrats is that they have more than 20 views on every matter or policy—it depends on the time of day and the part of the country that one is in.

As it is likely that the European Court of Justice will rule against the United Kingdom and require imposition of the working time directive during the summer recess, would it not be better for Her Majesty's Government to come to the House in advance of that with contingency plans by which we can maintain our social chapter opt-out in this sphere and not have it imposed on us?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to clarify the position. As he and the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured an opt-out from the social chapter during the Maastricht negotiations. My right hon. Friend intends to make it absolutely clear to his colleagues in the European Union that that negotiation and deal must be honoured. The fact is that my right hon. Friend will take up the matter during the intergovernmental conference, and that we are determined that it will be put right.

In view of the fact that Ministers will not be answering questions during the parliamentary recess, does not that mean that, by and large, Ministers—including the Prime Minister—will be more available to meet people outside the House and to pick up money on the side? Therefore, according to the market-force philosophy, if Ministers are more available to meet the public and important business people—who are gaining patronage and power, and probably knighthoods and all the rest of it—does it not follow that their price should fall? What is the price of Ministers who resign? Would not it follow that a Minister who has just resigned from the Government should get a better price than a Deputy Prime Minister who is a failure?

The whole House will welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in market economics. He has given me an opportunity to reflect on the fact that, fairly recently, to meet the leader of the Labour party, one had to pay £430 a head to go to the Savoy hotel. It has been suggested in some national newspapers that it is rather more expensive to meet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. but I think that the relative difference between the figures is a reflection of the quality of the two individuals.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister bear in mind the need to continue co-ordinating Government policies to help restore Manchester's bomb-damaged city centre, and, in particular, to cover the extra costs of policing to maintain the very necessary security cordon?

My hon. Friend shares the House's deep interest in the opportunity that, tragically, has now been presented to our great city of Manchester. I have given an assurance that, on behalf of the Government, I shall do all that I properly and reasonably can. The announcement that we are to hold an international competition to attract the most exciting designs for the rebuilding of Manchester has attracted widespread public support from all political sectors and from the entire community. I am delighted that I should have had some small part to play in that.

Given the Deputy Prime Minister's extraordinary powers of presentation and co-ordination—which today enabled him to announce on television the resignation of a Minister before the Minister had even handed in his resignation to the Prime Minister—can the Mystic Meg of the Tory party tell the House whether anyone else will resign in the next 24 hours? Now that the Paymaster General has resigned, does not the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that that resignation shows that the Tory party is constitutionally unable to row together—in other words, that the Government are deeply divided and totally unfit to govern, and that it is time that they went?

It is quite quaint that the right hon. Gentleman should raise issues of membership of the Cabinet, the shadow Cabinet, the Government— or whatever it may be—on the very eve of the point at which a prominent member of the Labour party is to be kicked off the shadow Cabinet because she had the effrontery to follow the precedent set by her own leader.

In view of the excellent news that we have heard today about funding for the millennium from business, will my right hon. Friend ensure that all good news—on jobs, on interest rates and on inflation—during the summer recess is disseminated effectively to the country?

My hon. Friend is right on both counts. The economy is now moving into one of the most exciting expansionary phases that any of us can remember, and that good news—in jobs and in other opportunities—will increasingly flow through into people's pockets.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effects of his policies of deregulation or industrial competitiveness. [36749]

Our policies to push forward deregulation and promote competitiveness are set out in the 1996 competitiveness White Paper, published last month. The White Paper has been widely welcomed by business, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Institute of Directors.

Is not the inevitable consequence of the failure properly to regulate the destruction of not only competitiveness but the product itself? Is not that the core message that comes through the row over bovine spongiform encephalopathy?

If the hon. Gentleman will look back to previous Labour Governments before 1979, he will find that the proposals then for draft legislation would not have affected the development of BSE, because they were to do with preventing salmonella. Developments in the rendering industry in the 1980s came about from a decision by the industry itself, not a failure to regulate or deregulate. The hon. Gentleman cannot in any way ascribe the tragic increase in BSE, and now its solution, to a failure to regulate or deregulate.

Does my right hon. Friend make the assessment that educational performance is basic to increasing competitiveness, and that we have a long way to go in the primary sector? May we count on the speedy and extensive expansion of the network of literacy and numeracy centres, which is one of the best initiatives that the Government have launched but which is as yet relatively unsung?

I agree. The skills audit, which was a parallel exercise to the competitiveness White Paper, was valuable and revealing. It shows how far this country has to go in not only primary and secondary education but higher and further education. I understand my hon. Friend's point and will certainly convey it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his monitoring of the effectiveness of the Government's policy objectives. [36750]

The Government aim at combining economic dynamism with constitutional stability and to continue—in stark contrast to the Labour party—our success in communicating those objectives.

In light of the Minister's answer, what impact will the resignation of the Paymaster General have on the Government's ability to achieve their objectives? Will that stability emerge as a result of that resignation, or will it take more resignations before stability emerges?

The Government will carry on communicating their messages about economic success and continue protecting the British constitution from the Labour party's batty and damaging agenda.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's success in achieving their policy objectives was most recently emphasised by the huge inward investment in Wales announced in the last few days? Will we continue to see the successful implementation of Government economic policies, which could never have occurred if Labour's policies had been followed?

My hon. Friend is right. More than 40 per cent. of all American and Japanese investment in Europe comes to this country, which is a vote of confidence in the Government's economic policies.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the competitiveness unit in his Department. [36751]

As the recent competitiveness White Paper showed, we are doing well in world growth league tables, and our productivity is improving strongly. The best evidence of our success is our record of attracting inward investment—most recently, the Lucky Goldstar plans to invest £1.7 billion in manufacturing in Newport—the largest single inward investment ever in Europe.

The OECD's latest employment study warned that low pay and the lack of a highly skilled work force are combining to constrain our economic competitiveness. What are the Government doing about that?

Our competitiveness White Paper shows that we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. In addition, within the Group of Seven we moved up from the fifth or sixth place on growth rates that we occupied in the sad days of the last Labour Government to third place in the 1980s. If the hon. Gentleman studies the White Paper, he will find the answer to his questions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that low pay is not the problem with Britain, but that no pay, through increased unemployment, would be the problem if we proceeded down the road to ruin with the social chapter, minimum wage and 48-hour directive that would be heaped upon us if the Labour party were elected to power?

The pay of the average production line worker in this country compares very favourably with the pay that the equivalent worker would take home in Germany, France and Spain. The difference is that in Britain we have kept a grip on the extra costs imposed by Government, whereas in Germany, France and Spain, because of the social chapter, the extra costs imposed by Government are much higher. That is why Britain has lower unemployment.

In view of what the Minister said about the OECD and the White Paper—which drew heavily on statistics from the OECD—does he agree with the OECD's statement that there is a link between our declining national competitiveness and the growth in wage inequality and job insecurity?

I do not accept that there has been any decline in national competitiveness. The evidence assembled in successive competitiveness White Papers shows precisely that there has been a clear improvement in our position on growth per head compared with other advanced western countries. Of course, one in three of all those leaving school now go on to higher education, as against one in eight under the last Labour Government, which is significant evidence of how educational standards are improving.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is his Department's role in the co-ordination of Government Departments in respect of publicising the impact of EU membership. [36752]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has overall responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's policy towards the European Union, including the presentation of that policy.

On the day of the tragic resignation of a very sincere and truthful Minister, will the Government consider whether, in the national interest—and bearing in mind the deep divides on Europe in both parties—it might be best to resolve the issue by letting the people decide for themselves, through a referendum, which way they wish to proceed in Europe? Would not that be the best way of co-ordinating policy and accepting the simple fact that the country belongs to the people and not to the political parties?

If my hon. Friend is suggesting that there should be a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should leave the European Union, which is how I understood his question, the answer is that that would not be compatible with Government policy. It is clearly the Government's policy that, in the over-arching and overall interests of this country, it is fundamental that we be a leading member of the European Union.

What can the Government or the Community do to publicise the guidelines on airport safety and the safety of aircraft, which were formulated after Lockerbie—and which, incidentally, were eloquently outlined in The Sunday Telegraph—so that at least some of the basic principles are implemented, which has not been the case so far? That question is especially relevant in view of the dreadful events in Spain and on the TWA aircraft.

The hon. Gentleman raises the latest tragic event in civil aviation. As yet, we do not know the precise causes of that tragedy. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Gentleman's continuing concern in the context of the Lockerbie disaster.

How many Ministers are there left who share the view of the former Paymaster General about the Government's policy on a single currency? How many are there left who think that Britain's participation in the single currency is a genuine option? Are there enough of them to co-ordinate it?

The right hon. Gentleman has judged the Government's behaviour in the context of Liberal Democrat policy. The Government's White Paper has clearly set out our policy on the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. We have made wide-ranging statements on the fundamental issues relating to Europe. The Government's policy is perfectly clear. If a Minister cannot accept that policy, the honourable course is to resign.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he next plans to review the presentation of Government policy objectives as they relate to his responsibilities. [36753]

We regularly review our presentation of Government policies—the presentation of successes such as rising living standards, higher educational standards and a fall in the crime rate.

When the Minister next takes the opportunity to review the presentation of Government policies, will he rule out their presentation to groups of business men in return for £100,000 donations to the Conservative party?

I would be interested to hear whether the Labour party will rule out giving trade unions a clear say in its policy in return for direct contributions to party funds. Labour is the party that is funded by outside interests.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policy will be firmly to oppose the London Underground strike that is causing such misery to my constituents, the rest of the people of London and the economy? Has my hon. Friend noted that the Leader of the Opposition has made a feeble attempt to oppose the strike, and that the deputy Leader is said to have been so annoyed that he had to be scraped off the wall?

My hon. Friend is quite right: we unreservedly condemn both the tube strike and the Post Office mail strike. The Labour party could do with rather better co-ordination on the matter.

Do the Minister and the Government continue to review the effect of the abolition of the wages councils, and the increased poverty and low pay that many people in Lancashire have had to suffer as a result of that policy?

I am sure that the abolition of the wages councils is one of the many reasons why this country enjoys a much lower unemployment rate than countries on the Continent. If people are in low-paid jobs, it is much better to help them out with family credit than to introduce a minimum wage and ensure that they have no jobs at all.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what amount of time he spent on promoting the policy of deregulation in the last month. [36547]

Promoting the need for fewer, better and simpler regulations is a constant theme of my daily work.

What a wonderful tune.

I entirely agree. Moreover, the privatisation programme that we have introduced has undoubtedly contributed to a great surge in productivity in British industry, with all the growth implications that that has. All the steps that we have taken to make ours one of the fastest-growing economies in western Europe, with the highest proportion of the work force employed, should be seen in the context of the Labour party's opposition to all of them.

While the Deputy Prime Minister is contemplating that, will he not tell the truth—that more regulatory legislation has been introduced under the present Government than any deregulatory legislation that he has ever introduced? Surely the truth is that there is now more regulation governing small business people than there was before.

It is possible to discuss such matters in sensationalised headline terms, and to give an entirely false impression of what has happened. If people recognise that, in order to complete the single market, we have had to harmonise and regulate 400 elements of an agenda that was designed to create the greatest expansion of trade opportunities that the country has ever seen, they will realise that it is often necessary to regulate to create a freer climate and a more harmonious background. If they also take into account the fact that most regulations that pass through the House have nothing to do with small businesses, and are often nothing more than measures to update or uprate existing regulations, they will realise that newspaper headlines can be constructed based on the flimsiest straw.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to improve competitiveness through increasing the availability and accessibility of information technology. [36755]

The Government's plans are set out in the recently published competitiveness White Paper and include the DTI's information society initiative, which is providing £35 million of new money to help firms capitalise on new technology, and the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that a Green Paper will be published in the autumn on the Government's plans for information technology.

When the Deputy Prime Minister finally launches his "IT for All" strategy, perhaps he will remember that he pinched his best ideas from the city and county councils in Cambridge which, as a result of a successful public-private partnership, provide free Internet access through public libraries, council offices and citizens advice bureaux

I welcome what is going on in Cambridge, which shows what can be done to spread information technology. Part of the secret of Cambridge's success—including, for example, the Cambridge interactive television trial—has everything to do with the favourable environment that the Government have created for cable television, which is threatened by the Labour party's proposed sweetheart deal with BT.

Is information technology available and accessible in the Treasury? Can my hon. Friend comment on the position in the Treasury of Miss Helen Goodman, who at first denied and later admitted that she was seeking to become a Labour parliamentary candidate, showing that nothing that she has said can be believed, including her denial of knowing anything of the leaked documents that she had helped to prepare?

That is a matter for internal Treasury management, which is considering the position.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral assistance the Government (i) gave to Sudan in 1995–96 and (ii) plans to give to Sudan in 1996–97. [36801]

While we have given no aid to the Government of Sudan since 1991, last year—1995–96—we spent an estimated £6 million bilaterally and in 1995 committed more than £2 million through multilateral agencies, including the European Union, on the emergency and short-term rehabilitation needs of the Sudanese people. We are ready to address such needs again this year as they arise.

In the light of the linkage, which the Government sometimes stress, between overseas aid and civil liberty and human rights, will my right hon. Friend make an assessment of the situation in that respect in Sudan? To what extent is it influencing the Government's overseas aid programme there?

As I said, the human rights situation in Sudan is extremely serious, but we do not give aid to the Sudanese Government. We are very concerned about human rights in Sudan. It was again condemned at the recent United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Allegations of slavery and genocide have, of course, attracted serious attention. We are also concerned about policies to prevent freedom of speech and the pursuit of Islamisation by force, which are equally unacceptable. The economic situation is dire, and life for ordinary Sudanese people is extremely hard.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of the GATT on agriculture in the poorest countries. [36782]

In 1994, the Overseas Development Administration commissioned from the Overseas Development Institute a study on the impact of the GATT Uruguay round agreement on developing countries, including studying the effect on agriculture.

Would the Minister care to look carefully through the studies that his Department has produced and those conducted by Oxfam? Does he not recognise that, since the GATT agreement, there has been an increase in the export of cereals and other products from the EU and north America, heavily subsidised by taxpayers and often causing enormous ecological damage in both those areas, while farmers in third-world countries who do not enjoy such governmental support are being forced to compete with products whose prices they simply cannot match, and are therefore being pushed out of business? Is that not an example of GATT working in the interests of the richest producers in the richest countries, to the detriment of the poorest farmers in the poorest parts of the world?

I believe that lowering trade barriers, making more efficient use of resources and protecting the environment go hand in hand. The best way to tackle major environmental problems is through multilateral agreements, not unilateral trade actions. The World Trade Organisation is considering whether any further clarification of that is needed in international trade rules, although internationally agreed safeguards are in place to help to deal with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The decisions commit us to examine the impact of agricultural settlements on countries that are net importers of food and to take appropriate action.

Do not countless impartial studies demonstrate that the common agricultural policy of the European Union is extremely inimical to the interests of primary agricultural producing countries overseas and is a mechanism for their impoverishment? Would it not be a better use of taxpayers' money for Her Majesty's Government to announce to their partners at the intergovernmental conference that they intend not just to reform the CAP but to start its dismantlement by withdrawing?

Although I agree with my hon. Friend that a reform of the CAP is necessary, I feel that the United Kingdom's membership of the EU helps to influence the Union, and I believe that our share of the EU's aid policy and our influence in it are desirable for poorer countries.

Does the Minister agree that there must be coherence between our aid and trade policies, including GATT? Bearing in mind the recent visit of Nelson Mandela, his tribute to those British people who campaigned for his release and the Prime Minister's promise to support South Africa in its trade negotiations with the EU, what proposals do the Government have to ensure that development objectives are high on the negotiating agenda, and that a realistic long-term timetable for reform—covering at least 10 years, as has been requested—is introduced? Will he ensure that all sectors of the South African economy are considered—particularly the health, housing and education, sectors in which there is urgent need for investment?

On behalf of the Government, I thank the hon. Lady for her years of service on the Opposition Front Bench. I thank her also for her constant courtesy and for her great dedication to the cause that we are discussing. She will be sadly missed. This may, of course, be my last time at the Dispatch Box also. We have yet to see.

Oh!

One never knows, John.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the United Kingdom representatives on the board of the World bank concerning its policies for financing development projects in the third world. [36783]

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who is also the UK alternate governor for the World bank, and her officials have frequent consultations with the United Kingdom executive director and his office.

Does the Minister recall that, four weeks ago today, I inquired about the policies of the International Monetary Fund in respect of comparable investments? He kindly said that he would make inquiries, particularly with regard to the prejudicial effect of any of the IMF's conditions on Rwanda and former Yugoslavia that may lead to a stoking up of strife in those areas. If such allegations by the debt crisis network have any substance, will representations be made not only to our representative on the IMF, but to the World Bank on comparable activities in that organisation?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sending me the two appendices to which we referred the last time we discussed the issue. I read them and I have replied to him in a letter which he may by now have received. I have put a copy, as I pledged, in the Library. The G7 summit in Lyon at the end of June was a further step in the process of reaching agreement on the multilateral debt initiative. A copy of the communiqué has also been placed in the Library. We hope that final agreement can be reached at the World bank-International Monetary Fund meeting in October. We are working hard with our partners to that end. The British Government have written off the aid debts of 31 of the world's poorest countries, with a value of more than £1.2 billion. All our aid is now on grant terms. We are taking the lead in pressing for solutions to the debt burden of the poorest countries.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the World bank's valuable initiative to make a line of $200 million available for micro-loans to be targeted on the poorest of the world's poor? Given the critical importance to the very poorest of access to credit, will he give serious positive consideration to launching a similar initiative in the context of the British Government's bilateral aid programme?

Again, my right hon. Friend is right. I am delighted that the World bank has offered $500 million from its net income this year as its contribution to the multilateral debt initiative, with the prospect of substantially more in succeeding years. The IMF and the World bank have identified some eight to 20 countries as candidates for the initiative, which applies only to highly indebted, poor countries that have demonstrated commitment to economic reform.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in aid projects in Burundi. [36785]

Britain has committed nearly £8 million in humanitarian assistance to Burundi since October 1993, including £2.9 million through our share of European Union contributions. We are ready to provide further assistance as needs arise.

Does the Minister accept that a lot more may be needed in Burundi if we are to prevent a repetition of the tragedy of Rwanda? Has he seen the recent comments of Julius Nyerere, the former President of Tanzania, following his investigation in Burundi to try to find a resolution? Does he accept that Julius Nyerere suggests that the EU and the United Nations should become significantly involved in the internal affairs of Burundi and that otherwise the slaughter of 500,000 people that happened in Rwanda is likely to be repeated?

The hon. Gentleman is right to be deeply concerned about the recent deterioration in the political and security situation in Burundi. We read only this morning in the newspapers of the massacre of 300 Tutsis and of expulsions. It is a difficult and distressing situation. We condemn politically motivated violence, from whatever quarter. The solution to the problems requires the commitment of Burundi's leaders and the involvement of the international community, as he said.

That was a long answer—almost a statement.

Does the Minister agree that the World Service was particularly important in the transmission of accurate information during the tragedy in Rwanda? Would he confirm, as he has not yet done, despite two questions being asked, that the funding for that World Service network came largely from the voluntary organisations? Does he agree that the World Service needs to be supported and enhanced if it is to assist in tragedies such as that in Burundi?

Order. It is about time the hon. Lady came to the substantive question on the Order Paper.

Yes.

I am pleased to be able to say that the World Service will continue to be received throughout the world. Its efficacy in Africa is without question. The World Service carries an extremely important role in Burundi and further afield, and the Government support it—to the tune of more than 50 per cent. in real terms since we came to power in 1979.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have occurred in the criteria governing the distribution of overseas aid in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [36786]

There have been no changes in the criteria governing the allocation of bilateral aid; those remain the same as in my answer of 25 March, Official Report, 25 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 416. They are the needs of the country concerned and the effectiveness with which aid can be used. A number of other factors, including good government, the commitment of recipients to political and economic reform and traditional ties with Britain, are also taken into account. There are also our obligations to the multilateral organisations of which we are a member.

I appreciate the Minister's response. Agencies and people in receiving countries are concerned that the Government appear to be making changes, for example in some of the approaches being made to help countries in need. When agencies have worries, will the Minister try to erase any concerns that they express?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put his question. Obviously, aid cannot be ossified—either the level of aid or the recipients at any one time. One has to look to the needs of countries as they change. We maintain a substantial aid budget. It was more than £2 billion in 1996–97 and we were the sixth largest donor in the 1995 calendar year. We concentrate on the poorest countries, particularly those in Africa and Asia. They need aid, and it is therefore crucial that our bilateral programme concentrates on them.

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many statisticians were employed by the National Audit Office in each of the past three years. [36761]

The number of staff with degrees in mathematics and statistics in the National Audit Office at end of June was 28 in 1994 and 30 in 1995 and 1996. Full-time professional statisticians or operational researchers in post at the end of June numbered six in 1994, eight in 1995 and 11 in 1996.

That shows that the National Audit Office, which does a splendid job, is increasing its staff and the number of people on the public payroll. Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of the Audit Commission charging the people it audits sufficient money so that it can become self-financing? [HON. MEMBERS: "National Audit Office."] I understand that point. Or, it could contract out to the private sector, so that it does not need an increased number of civil servants. The problem is that it is constantly increasing its bureaucracy and costing the taxpayer more.

What has happened is that the National Audit Office is employing many more professional people. That does not mean that the overall number of people employed there is increasing. The work of the National Audit Office is certainly increasing—not least because of the number of inquiries from hon. Members—and that is wholly to be welcomed. Hon. Members are much more interested in the activities of the National Audit Office, which explains the small increase in the estimates for the next two years. The House may be interested to know that the report of the commission into the activities of the National Audit Office will be available this week.

Is not money spent on statisticians a good investment? Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the example of the 1980s, when the Government reduced the number of statisticians, which led to Chancellor Lawson making some disastrous economic decisions from which we are probably still suffering?

I do not know that the National Audit Office goes in much for economic decisions. Perhaps it is just as well that it does not. All that I can say is that, the more professional the National Audit Office is, the better it will be for the taxpayer and for the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the impact of the know-how fund.[36787]

The know-how fund is making a substantial contribution to economic and political reform. There are many examples of its successful impact in the annual report for 1995–96, which was published on 15 July. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for emphasising the success of the know-how fund. Does he agree that our improving relations with the emerging democracies of central Europe will be fully strengthened only when those countries become members of the European Union and contribute to that body?

Certainly enlargement is part of our ambition for them.

What help is being given to deal with the problems of the crumbling sarcophagus at Chernobyl?

I am sorry; could the hon. Gentleman repeat the question? I did not hear it properly.

What help is being given to deal with the crumbling sarcophagus at Chernobyl, which is creating a real nuclear danger?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for repeating his question. I do not know the detail about the matter. I shall have to find out from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who has responsibility for Ukraine. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him have the answer.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergy on the commission's payroll are currently estimated to undertake the conduct of acts of worship or the teaching of religious education in schools; and if he will make a statement. [36756]

This is not a matter for the commissioners. They are not directly responsible in this area, and I am afraid that we do not have access to the relevant statistics, but I understand that the number is considerable.

If a considerable number of clergy already teach in schools, could not more do so? Perhaps the Dean of Lincoln and his associates would be better employed in doing that. Is it not important that the teaching of right and wrong should come first in the Church's priorities and that clergy and bishops should take more of an interest in their schools than they do?

I sympathise with what my hon. Friend says, but as he will know, because he is an ex-headmaster, that, for clergy to take part in school assemblies, they have to be invited by the headmaster. If they are likely to be competent and helpful, they will be invited. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that many dioceses, including Lincoln, run in-service courses as part of their programme of continuing ministerial education so that local clergy are fit to take school assemblies—no mean undertaking, as my hon. Friend knows.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the merits of ordained persons conducting services of worship in schools—clearly, denominational schools—that category of person would be regarded by many pupils as having a vested interest? Does he further agree that it is highly desirable that most religious education be conducted by lay persons? Does he also agree that religion cannot be taught—it is something for consideration by the person concerned?

I entirely accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Religious education is not an occasion for proselytisation. The participation of lay contributors to RE is of fundamental importance. Many lay parents of children in schools are drawn into RE and school worship to assist precisely in that way.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what policies are followed by the commissioners in respect of ethical investment. [36757]

It is the commissioners' policy not to invest in any company of which the main business is in armaments, gambling, breweries and distilleries, tobacco or newspapers. I am arranging for a leaflet setting out our ethical policy to be sent to the hon. Gentleman.

That is very interesting. Does that mean that the 30 per cent. rule still applies, whereby the commissioners are prepared to invest in companies that have only 30 per cent. of their production in arms or some of the other areas that he has just listed? If that is so, does it mean that, provided that we behave ourselves for 70 per cent. of the time, the other 30 per cent. we can have a bit of slap and tickle?

I think that the rules guiding us on ethical investment would deter us from offering any prayers concerning the shadow Cabinet elections. As for the 30 per cent. figure, the hon. Gentleman is a little wide of the mark. If a company's investment in armaments is as high as 30 per cent., the Church Commissioners are uneasy about investing in it. That is why we are in continual dialogue with GEC about the level of its armaments production.

Why do the Church Commissioners consider that it is immoral to invest in the Daily Mail?

The rule about not investing in newspapers exists purely so that the Church Commissioners do not take sides in the political involvement or the political sympathies of any newspaper. By dint of not investing in newspapers, we do not invest in The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent or any others whose politics are different and about whom there might be conflict in Church circles as to the investment made.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals he has to increase the revenue from properties and land held by the Church Commissioners. [36758]

The commissioners seek to invest in quality properties which will secure a reliable and growing flow of income, attracting commercial and agricultural tenants whose businesses appear sound and likely to prosper.

I make a similar plea to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), because my case in the shadow Cabinet election is even more deserving.

The hon. Gentleman must have a very high view of the value of foxes and of the number of foxes that there might be on the land, to work out that that could have a significant effect on the property values of our agricultural holdings. We leave it, and have always left it, by tradition, to the personal views of our tenants as to whether they ban hunting or shooting on their land or whether they regard it as acceptable; but all the blood sports must be conducted within the statutory framework of accepted standards for cruelty to animals.