To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the European Commission in Brussels during the current Parliament to discuss deregulation in business. [11110]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has regular contacts with the Commission and our European partners to discuss deregulation. He is to be congratulated on the considerable progress that has been made. We will maintain pressure for regulatory reform in Europe over the coming months.

Will my right hon. Friend make one of his visitations, preferably prearranged, to the European Commission to make the European Union understand that the idea mooted by the Advocate General that the acquired rights directive should not apply to service contracts would be gravely prejudicial to British interests as regards competitive tendering in local government and market testing in national government? That is an urgent matter which potentially affects the terms and conditions of employment of many thousands of people and many contractors in the United Kingdom.

All my visits are prearranged and tend to attract a great deal of attention. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am sympathetic to the idea that he has in mind. The timetable for the next few weeks may not allow for a high-profile visit to Brussels, but the Commission would undoubtedly welcome a visit and be immensely sympathetic to the message that I would deliver.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister enlighten the House about the latest proposals from his Department's deregulation unit, which I think have been code-named sunset provisions? Can he confirm the reports that the latest idea from the unit, which was discussed in Cabinet this morning, according to the Financial Times, is to withdraw all regulations on companies after a period of five years, unless the Government take a clear decision to continue them? Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether that madcap idea has been discussed with the European Commission? According to the Financial Times this morning, the proposal was intended to appease small business. Will the Deputy Prime Minister harangue any that do not agree with him?

We all congratulate the Financial Times on reporting this morning conversations that have yet to take place. The Government have rigorously scrutinised all legislation and regulations to see how we can lighten the load on small businesses. We will continue to do that, but it is inconceivable that there would be an automatic sunset provision in all regulations introduced in the House.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's initiatives to use information technology within Government Departments and to disseminate information to the general public. [11111]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be making a comprehensive statement after the conclusion of the period for comments on the Green Paper "Government Direct", which was published last November. There have already been a large number of responses to the Green Paper and more are expected before the closing date, which is 7 February.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his answer and on his promotion to the Government Front Bench. The Government are helping to move out the information super-highways presaged by the Green Paper. Will we in South Dorset have one of the computerised terminals that would allow my constituents to find information about government and communicate directly with the Government?

I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome to me to this position. The terminals have proved extremely popular throughout the country and many pilots have been available, but there is none yet in South Dorset. My hon. Friend's championing of interest in information technology and openness of government may lead us to consider that location shortly.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his elevated position. Despite his Geordie credentials, I hope that his tenure of office will be short.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his barbed welcome. It gives me an opportunity to thank the Leader of the Opposition for removing the right hon. Gentleman from his position as Opposition Chief Whip, thereby ensuring that my last year in the Whips Office was easier than it might otherwise have been.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his role in the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy in respect of the replacement for the royal yacht. [11112]

My right hon. Friend chairs the Ministerial Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy and undertakes other activities as necessary to ensure the successful presentation of the Government's policies across its range of responsibilities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that last week's statement about a replacement royal yacht has been widely welcomed? Does he agree also that, ideally, Britannia should become the centrepiece of the millennium project in Portsmouth harbour, spanning Gosport and Portsmouth? I am sure that that idea would prove very popular.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us that the royal naval ship to replace Britannia should be commissioned in 2002, which is the golden jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. I hope that the new ship will play an important role in those celebrations.

How can the Minister reconcile in any shape or form public expenditure cuts—which have forced many authorities, such as that in my area, to sack home helps and teachers and make all kinds of cuts to public services—with the proposed expenditure on a new royal yacht? Is that not indefensible, as most people consider the vessel to be a kind of floating palace which is used mainly by the privileged? The idea is totally unacceptable to the majority of British people and certainly to many of my colleagues.

I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the function of the royal yacht. It is in no sense an irrelevant "floating palace": its primary role is to make a very positive statement abroad about the importance of this country and to promote trade with the rest of the world. Her Majesty the Queen will use the royal yacht on certain occasions, but it is not for her exclusive use. I am very glad that Her Majesty is pleased with the decision.

In welcoming the Government's recent announcement and disagreeing with the uncharacteristically unfair comments by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), for whom I have great regard, I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that a replacement for Britannia is justified on commercial and trade grounds alone. In answer to those who say that the money might come from the national lottery rather than the taxpayer, will he confirm that everyone who buys a ticket in the national lottery immediately pays 12p to the Treasury? Therefore, if we were to hypothecate, we could say that a fraction of the lottery money will pay for the new royal yacht.

It will take the next five years to design and build the new royal yacht. She will be commissioned with, we hope, a life of 25 to 30 years at the very least. It will be money well spent by the Government on behalf of the taxpayer in promoting the best interests of the United Kingdom.

Will the Minister confirm that it has been the Government's practice to consult the Opposition parties beforehand on every announcement affecting or concerning the royal family, so as not to embroil the royal family in any political controversy? Will he explain the thinking behind the refusal to accept any element of business support for the project? Surely we have passed through the days when it was fashionable to disparage those in trade. Are the Government not acting rather like one of the Minister's former hon. Friends towards one of his right hon. Friends, who referred to him as the sort of person who had to buy his own furniture?

On consultation with the Opposition parties, this is not a constitutional matter. It is a right and proper decision for the Government in commissioning a royal naval ship. I hope that the House will appreciate that business sponsorship of a royal naval ship, which occasionally will be used by Her Majesty the Queen, is not appropriate.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm my arithmetic that £60 million, when divided among the United Kingdom's population of 58 million, works out at about £1 per head, or about 20p per head per year over five years? Is it not unbelievably small-minded of Opposition Members to carp about such a small sum that can do such a great deal to generate employment and exports?

I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition do not understand the importance of promoting the best interests of the United Kingdom throughout the world.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met the Prime Minister to discuss the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy. [11115]

I meet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regularly to discuss many areas of my responsibility.

Why did not the Government discuss matters concerning the royal yacht with Her Majesty's very loyal Opposition? Why did the Government contrive a situation that caused deep embarrassment to the sovereign? The presentation of policy under the right hon. Gentleman is an unmitigated disaster.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a few moments ago.

When my right hon. Friend is discussing with his right hon. and hon. Friends the co-ordination and presentation of the Government's policies, will he not omit the way in which Government policy has enriched the north, the north-east, Wales and Scotland as well as the south?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the House will recognise the further continuation of Government success as a result of Nissan's exciting recent announcement.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to us the difference between seeing my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about extra millennium expenditure and having discussions about the Queen's yacht?

Very simply, I saw the Leader of the Opposition as a millennium commissioner; I speak in the Chamber as a Minister.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will review the co-ordination of Government Departments in respect of the provision of information on Government policy on the European Union. [11116]

We have no plans to carry out any such review.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern and alarm that, throughout the recent big row about value added tax on food, no reference has been made to the fact that, under article 28.2 of the sixth directive, which, incidentally, was approved by the Labour Government, a right to continue a zero rate ended on 31 December 1996 and has continued only by a legal ploy, which is likely to be challenged at the European Court? Would it not be fairer to the electors if the Government and the Opposition were to make it abundantly clear to the people of Britain, instead of putting up silly posters, that there is a real danger that we shall shortly have to pay VAT on food and on children's clothes irrespective of who wins the general election?

I very much regret that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. I am sure that he is sincere, but there is no imminent danger of VAT being put on food.

On the co-ordination of Government policy and information about the European Union, will the Minister tell us whether today's release through the British press of the excellent article written by the Prime Minister, in which he makes clear his great repugnance of the idea of a European central bank on democratic grounds, was cleared with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I have not seen the reports to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. The Prime Minister, on behalf of a unanimous Cabinet, made our policy quite plain. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) may laugh, but I am repeating for the record the facts of our policy on the single European currency.

Will my right hon. Friend remind our colleagues in the European Union that this country has had much greater success in creating jobs that they have? The reason for that is that we have a relatively deregulated economy, whereas they have overregulated economies.

Her Majesty's Government will continue to remind the British electorate of the advantages of our opt-out from the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. We will also continue to remind the electorate that the Labour party would jeopardise that opt-out, increase unemployment and reduce our competitiveness.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many meetings he has had with his Cabinet colleagues and civil servants since October to discuss the presentation of Government policy. [11117]

That subject has arisen frequently in meetings during that period.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister remain in charge of Government policy, given that he was not allowed to present the case for the royal yacht?

Questions on that subject have already been answered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They have already been answered. The hon. Gentleman asked a serious question, and I shall give him an answer based on my experience. I visited India two years ago, not long after the royal yacht Britannia had been there. During its visit, £1.3 billion-worth of orders for British companies were secured, which meant thousands of jobs. The new royal yacht will mean 500 jobs for the shipyards—a subject that Labour Members used to care about, but that now only Conservative Members care about.

When my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister discusses the presentation of Government policy, will he stress yet further the great success of the private finance initiative, particularly in north-west Kent, where, thanks to the PFI, we will get me brand new Darenth Park hospital? Will he contrast the Government's policy with that of the Labour party, which would have us waiting in the queue for Government handouts of NHS capital, as we have waited for the past 25 years?

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend's observations on the private finance initiative. I know of his interest in this matter. His constituents will benefit from our policies, which create extra beds and extra facilities in much-needed health care.

Were not the attempts to portray Government policy as full of probity, honesty and honour called into question by the cheating of the Government Whips just before Christmas? Why has there still been no apology for that cheating? Why have no heads rolled?

Perhaps because it was not cheating. It could be more easily explained as sheer incompetence by the Opposition Chief Whip.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his Department's role in co-ordinating Her Majesty's Government's economic and social policies. [11119]

My right hon. Friends and I work closely with colleagues to carry out the policies that are best for Britain. Our key policy themes include the delivery of economic prosperity, the upholding of decent common-sense values in the pursuit of law and order and justice, and the provision of first-class public services.

Does my hon. Friend expect the forthcoming economic statistics to confirm the strong underlying growth trend in the United Kingdom economy?

We do indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend about that trend. This morning, we learned of yet more figures demonstrating strong growth: there has been a growth of 2.3 per cent. in gross domestic product. That further endorses the Government's performance in delivering good, solid growth that is non-inflationary, something that has eluded past Governments for about 50 years.

Is the Minister aware that last Wednesday—the very day on which the announcement about the royal yacht was made—the Secretary of State for Wales announced, in reply to a question from me, that the Government could not go ahead with their commitment to a community hospital in Porthmadog which they had promised for the past seven years, because it had to await the private finance initiative? If the Government are providing public money for the royal yacht when private money is available, and not proceeding with hospital projects when no private money is available, what are their social priorities?

During this Question Time, we have heard of instances in which the private finance initiative is working for health care; I know, from experience in my part of the country, that that is happening. The subject will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—but I seem to remember that, on that same day, my right hon. Friend announced the creation of 700 new jobs as a result of inward investment in Wales.

I welcome the success of the Government's economic policies since 1992. Since that time, they have led to the best growth record in comparison with the other major European countries, and to a record fall in unemployment. Does my hon. Friend agree that all that would be put at risk by the imposition of a minimum wage and the implementation of the social chapter, as advocated by the Labour party?

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. Let me again stress the threat to jobs that would be posed by the possibility of an alternative Government. The reality is that the unemployment rate in this country is coming down, and my hon. Friend may be interested to learn—even if the Opposition are not—that the London chamber of commerce has today put paid to the myth promulgated by the Opposition that the jobs involved are all part time. It says that the growth in part-time jobs was greater in the 1950s and 1960s, and that these are new full-time jobs that are extremely welcome.

Are we to take it that the person who heads co-ordination—the Deputy Prime Minister—denies any responsibility for the announcement about the royal ship? Is it not clear that that announcement was meant as an election ploy, but has backfired on the Government? Is it not a matter of deep regret that the Queen has been embarrassed in such a way by this Government?

Listen: we are not going to take that from the Opposition. [Interruption.] May I just make a few points clear? The hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of Parliament, may remember that, in the middle of the general election campaign of 1951, a Labour Government announced the placement of an order for the royal yacht.

While taking an interest in the presentation of Government policy, will my hon. Friend remind the chattering classes who currently appear to be taken in by new Labour that, in 1979, they and their predecessors were convinced both that the country was becoming ungovernable and that the north-south divide was entirely unbridgeable? Both those factors have been turned on their heads by the success of the present Government.

I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. It was generous of him to draw attention to the eradication of the old phrase "the north-south divide". The north is now sharing in the benefits of our present economic prosperity, along with the rest of the country. Last week, jobs were announced in England, in the shape of Nissan; in Wales, in the shape of a meat processing factory; and in Northern Ireland, in the shape of Shorts. This week, jobs have also been announced in Scotland. There is not a part of the United Kingdom that is not benefiting from this economic prosperity, and therefore there is not a part of it that would not be at risk from a Labour Government.

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the role of civil servants in the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy. [11122]

Civil servants continue to play a role in co-ordinating and presenting Government policy consistent with the spirit and the letter of the civil service code and the civil service management code.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that he agrees with the principle that civil servants should not be asked to take part in activities that could give rise to criticism that people who are paid from the public purse are being used for purely party political reasons? Will he therefore explain why, on at least two occasions in the past six months, that appears to have taken place, first, in the laughable attempt to cost Labour's manifesto commitments and, secondly, in the establishment of a so-called good news network in the business community to argue for Tory policies? Do not both those activities expose the fact that the Government have broken the spirit, at least, of those guidelines?

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that the costing of Opposition policies is carried out under guidelines established by the head of the civil service, so I in no way accept his first suggestion. The second suggestion is that civil servants were in some way improperly used in examining areas where supporters of Government policy might exist. That is the subject of an investigation by the Select Committee that is appropriately responsible for the matter, which took evidence from the head of the civil service, who made it clear that nothing improper had taken place. However, before the hon. Gentleman feels that I am wholly in accord with the spirit of what he suggests, he will be aware of the statement by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher):

"leaked documents are particularly welcome. I promise to make good use of them."

I believe that it is right that civil servants in the United Kingdom are not supposed to involve themselves in the organisation and presentation of Government policy. Why therefore is it right that Brussels's very own Dr. Goebbels, Geoffrey Martin, of the European Union office on the other side of the square, wishes to involve himself in the great democratic process known as the British general election? Will my right hon. Friend do something to stop that involvement happening? It is scandalous.

I will send a little note to the gentleman concerned drawing his attention to my hon. Friend's views.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether civil servants or the Government co-ordinated the Prime Minister's statement over the weekend that, if we become part of a single currency, we will hand over economic decisions to an unelected and unaccountable European central bank?

The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been fully in touch with what has been going on recently on these matters because, if he had been, he would realise that the party that is threatening to hand over more power to the European movement and to extend qualified majority voting is his own party.

Would it be right to assume that civil servants did discuss the policy on the royal yacht with Ministers and to congratulate them as well as Ministers on the policy? Surely it has become clear from exchanges this afternoon and well before that, like its predecessor, the new royal yacht will earn billions of pounds, which will enable the Government to build many more schools, hospitals and the like than could be built for £60 million.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Let me make it absolutely clear that the decision about the royal yacht was taken in the normal practices of Government after discussion with officials from the Departments concerned and that the decision was collectively agreed by Ministers. But the whole House will have witnessed the most extraordinary thing: when the announcement was made, one conspicuous voice on the Opposition Benches, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), had the guts and integrity to speak for Britain. If I have to choose between new Labour and old Labour, give me old Labour every time. [Interruption.]

Order. I think that Mr. Faulds is making it clear that he also caught my eye on that occasion and was very supportive. [Interruption.]

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the co-ordination and presentation of Government policies relating to VAT. [11125]

Labour Members have not recovered from my last reply. I shall try another one.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm from his discussions with the Chancellor that the Chancellor has several times clearly stated his view that the VAT tax base is too narrow and specifically mentioned food, children's clothing and newspapers as candidates for the extension of VAT? Precisely which of those is being considered for VAT?

The Chancellor has made his position absolutely clear, despite Labour attacks suggesting that he proposes to extend VAT to food. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have said that that is simply not the case. Nothing is more indicative of the scurrilous nature of Labour's coming election campaign than the preposterous posters with which it is adorning the countryside. It is extraordinary that Labour should ask us to answer questions about taxation. Why cannot it answer questions about any of its own taxation proposals?

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much assistance was given to Cyprus in 1996. [11138]

Bilateral assistance to Cyprus totalled £473,000 in 1995–96. Assistance from the European Union was £450,000 in 1994, of which the UK share was some 16 per cent. Those are the latest years for which figures are available.

Does my hon. Friend think it is regrettable that tensions on the island seem to be increasing? Not only were mere tragic deaths last year on the green line, but it has been announced that Cyprus intends to buy the S300 military system from Russia. At the same time, the authorities in the north have said that they will retaliate with more army personnel in the north. Does he agree that negotiation is the only way to resolve the problems and hostilities on the island, particularly in view of Cyprus's European Union application? Does he further agree that the real losers will be both sides if we allow military tensions to increase any further on this beautiful island?

The missile deal is extremely unwelcome. It dangerously raises the stakes in an already tense area. Equally, the Turkish threats are unacceptable. All parties must look for ways to reduce tension, not add to it, and I am sure that that view is shared by all hon. Members.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps the more relevant question would be how much assistance has been given to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which the Greek regime has prevented from happening? But would he also agree that the provocations on the green line, the UN separating border, have been by the Greek Cypriots because no other forces apart from the UN are supposed to enter that area?

The Government do not recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus—only Turkey does. There can be no change in our policy of maintaining balanced contacts with both communities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary deserves praise for his recent initiative in trying to take forward peace in Cyprus. Only by a negotiated settlement and equal movement on both sides can peace be achieved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest assistance that can be given to Cyprus is for the island to be reunited so that the refugees can return to their homes?

We are looking at the 10 points that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made in taking the peace process forward. If we are to achieve a settlement, both Governments must reduce the tension. The No.1 move needed at the moment is for both sides to get away from the dangerous rhetoric of recent weeks and to start to reduce, not increase, the tension. We should like to see fewer arms on both sides in Cyprus than there are at present.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assessment he has made of the effects of conditions attached to aid from (a) the World bank and (b) other sources on the causes of the civil war in Rwanda. [11139]

The causes of the crisis in Rwanda are complex and go back many generations. However, the report, "Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda", did not conclude that previous development assistance was a primary cause of the crisis in Rwanda.

Does the Minister agree that the five-volume report, which the Minister of State has placed in the Library, makes it clear that there were many factors in the crisis? Is it not true that an over-emphasis on competition, particularly among people of similar ethnic background and in certain regions of a country, increases the risk of armed conflict? Has not history shown that that is true? Would not it be good if in future the World bank, the International Monetary Fund and national Governments paid attention to that fact when drawing up loan conditions?

It is certainly true that the report's historical analysis attaches some blame to ethnic policies during the colonial period, although the United Kingdom was not primarily involved in that area. Our aid to Rwanda is of a humanitarian nature, and we should remember that people in Rwanda—regardless of which ethnic group they belong to—may be starving. Our primary objective in Rwanda is to deal with its humanitarian needs.

Does the Minister recall that, last week, the Foreign Secretary admitted that the United Nations' arms embargo is not enforceable in our dependencies, which is why Mil-Tec of the Isle of Man was able to supply more than £3 million of arms to the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda? Will the Minister assure us that no other such violations are occurring, and attempt to close the loophole so that seedy companies in those island boltholes cannot undermine all our humanitarian efforts?

I might have expected that the hon. Gentleman, rather than concentrating on the £175 million bilateral humanitarian aid that the United Kingdom has given since 1994, would try to find the single negative aspect in Britain's involvement in the Rwanda crisis. Customs and Excise is currently considering whether there is a case for more prosecutions, and I am therefore unable to answer his specific question. Should further details emerge, I will write to him. Instead of the pathetic sniping we have just heard, it would be nice if, for once, the Opposition were to praise the United Kingdom for the help it has provided in the Great Lakes crisis, and to praise our non-governmental organisations and those who put their lives at risk.

Is it not the case that the countries of Africa and elsewhere that have complied with programmes suggested by the World bank made very great progress, whereas countries such as Rwanda, which are involved in political expression and racial politics, have not lived up to the standards of the new Africa and new developing countries?

I should have thought that it was self-evident that the political situation in Rwanda is holding back any economic development. There has been much economic movement in neighbouring countries such as Tanzania or Uganda, in which there has been some political co-operation—which, sadly, we have not seen in some of the other countries of the Great Lakes region. I hope that the Governments in the region will co-operate to provide a stable political environment in which economic development can occur in Rwanda. Clearly there must be a regional solution; we cannot impose one from outside, through financial institutions or by other means.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional assistance has been provided in the last year to help Tanzania cope with the influx of refugees from Rwanda and Burundi. [11141]

Britain has committed £3 million bilaterally since January 1996 to help Tanzania to cope. We are ready to do more.

I thank the Minister for that response, and I am very pleased that the Government's emergency aid to Tanzania has been increasing. However, will he stop for a moment, ponder the wider picture and try to imagine what would happen if, for example, half a million people suddenly moved into the south-west of England, Wales or the highlands of Scotland and started to live off the land, on which they were dependent for all their requirements? A radical transformation in economic and financial policy is occurring in Tanzania. In such circumstances, why have the Government halved their general aid programme to that country in the past five years? Will they now admit that they should be doing more to help the Hutu refugees return to their own country?

I returned last week from a trip to Tanzania. I discussed the refugee problem with the Tanzanian Government, whom the House should congratulate on the efficient and sensitive way in which they have dealt with the Rwandan refugees, given the size and the nature of the problem. We have already provided substantial aid and we are willing to do more. The problem that the Tanzanian Government identified was not a matter of need as such, but of access to many refugee groups. The Government are constantly looking at that problem. We have an open dialogue with Tanzania and if the Tanzanian Government ask for specific help, we shall certainly consider it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of his Department's bilateral and multilateral budget was allocated to the Great Lakes area of Africa in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [11142]

More than £14 million of gross public expenditure was provided to the Great Lakes region in the financial year 1995–96. Comparable information on multilateral expenditure is not readily available.

I thank the Minister for that answer. In view of his earlier answer, will he reassure the House and the country by expressing outrage at last week's revelation that British arms were supplied to Hutu extremists in Rwanda? Does he agree that it is extremely important that the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda are rapidly brought to justice if we are to ensure that the welcome British and other aid that has been supplied since 1994 is not wasted?

Indeed, human rights problems cause us great concern not only in Rwanda but in Burundi. The perpetrators of genocide must be brought to trial. We are looking at events in Rwanda to make sure that the trials are fair and that a proper system of justice is applied because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, without basic political stability we will be unable to use the large resources that are currently available in the Great Lakes region to help the refugees. The greatest problem identified by non-governmental organisations is moving the stocks that are already in place to the refugees; political stability is required first.

In such a tangled area there have, of course, been distressing stories of some aid being misappropriated. Will my hon. Friend assure us that, particularly in parts of Africa where the NGOs are far less strong but aid is given, every possible means is used to avoid it being misappropriated or falling into the wrong hands?

Of course we shall try to do that as far as we can, but it would be quite wrong and improper for me to suggest to the House that we have that degree of control over where the aid goes once it has been disbursed. We hope that the organisations to which we provide aid will make the best use of it. We should commend the courage of the NGOs, especially those who have been willing to put their lives in danger to use the aid that we supply for the greater good. We are grateful that people are still willing to take that risk for humanitarian reasons.

Will the Minister inform the House how much of his Department's bilateral aid programme has been dedicated to education? Education in Rwanda touches only the 8 per cent. of the population who are literate, despite the fact, of which the Minister does not appear to be aware, that for the past two and a half years the Rwandan Cabinet has been a coalition, elected from all parts of society, and a very good Government. None the less, our Government are still not supporting UNESCO through multilateral aid, despite the wonderful work of the organisation there. Will the Minister discuss the matter with UNESCO's deputy director-general, Professor Maurizio Iaccarino, who will be in London this week?

While I am always willing to take part in discussions that I believe will be fruitful, our position has been made quite clear in UNESCO and I need say nothing further on that. Much aid is focused on the internal structure in Rwanda. Since 1994, £127 million of European Union money—of which £18.5 million was United Kingdom money—has been given for human rights, health, education, environment and other projects in Rwanda. The Government have a good record on supporting education projects in Rwanda. It is certainly nothing to feel sorry about. We are proud of our record since 1992.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received since the Budget regarding the level of aid projected for 1997–98. [11143]

We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others.

Are not organisations involved in overseas aid concerned that the figure for 1997–98 represents a real-terms cut of 8.4 per cent.? It is also a cut in cash terms. Do not the Government stand condemned on their record of cutting money for overseas aid?

I really did not think that any Opposition Member would have the nerve to say that today. The Labour policy document of October 1996 says:

"Labour will start to reverse the decline in UK aid spending."

To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many staff without professional qualification are employed by the National Audit Office. [11148]

The National Audit Office employs 328 staff who do not currently have a professional qualification. Included in that number are 91 staff who are training for a professional qualification and 100 others who have been trained to a high standard in the professional disciplines required by the office. The remaining 137 include the full range of support staff required by a professional organisation.

Is it not clear that the National Audit Office is doing well and reducing the number of staff because it is working with a Government who are committed to reducing bureaucracy, cutting red tape and getting rid of unnecessary laws? Is it not true that if the Labour party ever got into power, the number of staff, skilled and unskilled, in the National Audit Office would rise dramatically, simply because of the number of rules and regulations that a Labour Government would introduce? Labour does not trust the people and would introduce ever more laws, so more people would be needed in the National Audit Office to check on what was going on.

In 1997–98, a greater volume of work will be done at a lower real-terms cost. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, he may well think that, but it would be wrong for me to answer a hypothetical question.

Does the Public Accounts Commission accept that the qualifications of those in the National Audit Office are adequate—indeed, highly suitable—to take on the task of considering the work of the non-departmental public bodies that spend public money? The work of those bodies is not subject to review and has for too long been excluded from proper oversight. Will the right hon. Gentleman invite his colleagues on the commission to consider the resource implications, if any, of expanding its remit in that way?

The main work of the office covers 570 accounts, involving expenditure and income of more than £500 billion. It is also the auditor of half of the 300 or so non-executive agencies to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall consider carefully what he has said and bring it to the attention of the commission.

Has the commission complied with the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality to carry out proper sex and ethnic monitoring? If so, what are the results?

I cannot give the hon. and learned Gentleman an immediate reply, but I shall happily look into the matter and write to him. Alternatively, he may wish to table a specific question. I am not aware of any form of discrimination in the employment of the staff to whom I referred in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen).

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department is giving to (a) school and (b) higher education schemes for Angola; and if he will make a statement [11144]

We are supporting efforts to improve the teaching of English in secondary schools and at the Institute of Languages.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the devastated condition of many schools in Angola following the civil war? Is he aware that quite a lot of aid is given to Angola? Should not that aid be directed into education, which would best enable the country to help itself and its citizens?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am also grateful for the fact that schoolchildren in his constituency, following his visit to Angola, raised £500 and donated it to the Chiva primary school near Huambo for classroom furniture and educational materials. We currently have two English language teaching projects, costing £900,000. It is important for us as a nation to recognise that whatever the colonial legacy in terms of language, English is the international business language and the language of the future. It is important for developing nations to learn English if they are to trade successfully in the future.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will estimate the costs of disestablishing the Church of England. [11149]

Disestablishment would not lie with the Church Commissioners to initiate and, without formal instructions and definitions, cost estimates are impracticable.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, does he agree that whatever the costs, they would be well worth paying to enable the Church of England to renew itself? For example, the diocese of Lincoln, which covers my constituency, has become a laughing stock because the bishop, for whom I have the greatest regard, is unable to preach his Christmas sermon in his own cathedral. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as many vicars—two thirds, so it is said—are unable to remember even two or three of the Ten Commandments, there is a case for allowing the Church of England to go its own way, to renew itself and to take part in political debate without politicians criticising it when it does so?

I share my hon. Friend's dismay at the damage that the Lincoln cathedral dispute has done. I am grateful for the concern that he has expressed, the interest that he has taken and the support that he has given to the Bishop of Lincoln. Disestablishing the Church of England, however, could prove detrimental to Church and to state. It would be paradoxical thus to extend even further the detriment that has already arisen from the Lincoln dispute.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no disestablishment Bill has gone through the House without disendowment? The effect of disestablishment would be that, the day after, the same old crew would be running the same old show with a lot less money.

I am happy to confirm the point that the hon. Gentleman has shrewdly and pertinently made. Queen Anne's bounty, which has a remote but important historic pedigree and origin, is at stake in the matter of disestablishment and, if disendowment occurred, there would not be sufficient resources to pay clergy stipends at their present level.

I join in the support for the Bishop of Lincoln who has had a hard time and who deserves fully to be supported. It would, however, be helpful if the Church Commissioners assessed the benefits of disestablishment. It has been no disbenefit in Ireland and no disbenefit in Wales. The better and more democratic position in Scotland has been no disbenefit either. The benefits would be to the Church which, it seems to me from all the Gospel teachings, should not be part of the establishment but challenging it.

The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—that disestablishment would inescapably be associated with the controversial issue of disendowment. Although that might be a great benefit to the non-conformist Churches, which might claim some of the assets of the Church of England, and to the Roman Catholic Church, it would bring considerable financial detriment to the clergy in the Church of England.

Will not my right hon. Friend give a more robust defence of establishment? Does he agree that one inestimable benefit of establishment is that every man, woman and child in the country has, as of right, the services of the established Church unless he or she is a member of some other religion or sect?

I am happy to support my hon. Friend and I hope that my references to the hon. Member for Birkenhead showed that I am intrinsically robust in my approach. In the light of the importance and significance of Church Commissioners' questions every month, I hesitated so as not to exalt too highly the benefits that might accrue to Parliament from having questions answered regularly by a Conservative Back Bencher.

To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals he has to improve the transparency of Church funds." [11150]

The statement of recommended practice "Accounting by Charities", issued by the Charity Commission, and part VI of the Charities Act 1993 and the Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 1995, provide the framework for charity accounting with which dioceses and parishes of the Church of England must comply. The Church Commissioners are exempt from the regulations but complied in full with the statement of recommended practice in their 1995 accounts.

When will the Church publish the report that might partly explain the calamity whereby the Church Commissioners lost a third of their total assets in the great property boom and how they lost £80 million in an absurd venture in Kent? It seems that we are not to know the details. When will the right hon. Gentleman answer the campaigns by CELFRA—Church of England's lost funds recovery action—and Mr. Ancrum Evans who claim that the Church Commissioners should sue Coopers and Lybrand and Chestertons and anyone else who advised them during the loss of that £80 million? The Commissioners are still refusing to publish the full report. When will we be told the truth?

The hon. Gentleman will know that all the details of the losses, which occurred some years ago, were published in the properly scrutinised and audited annual reports. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who although he comes from Wales is not inimical to the Church of England, will be glad to know that the largely paper losses that arose from the drop in valuation of the Church of England's assets have now been almost fully recovered. On the question of the property in Ashford in Kent, if the hon. Gentleman would like to table a question, I will happily give him at least a written answer. Consideration and investigation of the background to that debacle—I agree that it was no less than that—are continuing and results will be published in due course.