---

United Nations Aid Target

24. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effects of the Budget on the Government's plans to reach the UN target for aid expenditure as a proportion of gross national product.[6522]

Dr. Liam Fox: Our position on that target is unchanged. We have agreed to move towards it, but not to a timetable for doing so. Levels of development assistance will continue to depend on our economic circumstances and other demands on public expenditure.

Dr. Jones: Does not the Budget represent the latest in a series of cuts in the overseas aid budget, so that it is now expected to be only about 0.25 per cent. of gross domestic product--even less than the Irish aid budget? I remind the Minister of the explicit acceptance in the Conservative party manifesto for the 1992 general election of the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP. Does that not represent the latest in a series of Government failures to honour their manifesto commitments?

Dr. Fox: I find that breathtaking, since the Labour party has not come forward with a timetable for reaching 0.7 per cent., unless the deafening silence from Opposition Front Benchers is about to change. This country has more than met the other UN target--to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) did not refer--for combined private and official flows; we are at 1.38 per cent. [Interruption.] Opposition Front Benchers scoff, but it makes no difference to those who receive aid whether the aid comes from the public purse or private flows. What matters is that they get the money for development. The unreformed left of the Labour party that I face this afternoon hates private money and would

9 Dec 1996 : Column 17

rather see those who receive aid doing without the money than getting private money. Only the Netherlands exceeds the United Kingdom in the ability to provide private and public flows of money, and that is a record of which this Government are proud. The only appetites fed by soundbites are those of the media, not the hungry.

Mr. Nicholls: The Government are paying out substantial sums of money and many of my constituents will think it rather odd that such sums, which might be spent in Teignbridge, are nevertheless derided by Opposition Members. A pledge has apparently just been made to increase the amount of money that a Labour Administration would pay; can my hon. Friend say how much that pledge might amount to?

Dr. Fox: I am not that sure that, given my previous answer, that is something my hon. Friend wants to go into, because both parties are committed to moving towards 0.7 per cent., as has been pointed out already. The Opposition deride private money for some reason, yet it is private money that has been the motor for expansion of the developing economics. That is something we understand.

Ms Short: In Africa.

Dr. Fox: The hon. Lady says, "In Africa." That is exactly why we have targeted money, through our bilateral budget, on Africa and Asia. We know those countries are the poorest and that is why we have protected them in this year's Budget settlement. That is what the Opposition cannot stand.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Audit Office

29. Mr. Mudie: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what assessment he has made of the impact on the resources of the NAO of the repeated qualification of Department of Social Security votes and accounts.[6528]

Sir Terence Higgins (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office's resources and procedures for certifying accounts provide for qualifying the certificate when necessary. Qualification involves additional costs for the NAO, including, for example, preparation and agreement with the Comptroller and Auditor General of reports on the accounts and consequent hearings of the Public Accounts Select Committee. However, as it is several years since the accounts all received unqualified certificates, the additional costs of qualification are not readily identifiable.

Mr. Mudie: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, since its inception eight or nine years ago, the income support vote has not once been cleared by the auditors. Despite that, and the yearly attendance at the Public Accounts Select Committee by the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, nothing seems to change, except the excuses given. How many more times will the Select Committee and the auditors have to go through that

9 Dec 1996 : Column 18

exercise, costing the taxpayers billions of pounds, before someone is brought to account over that continuing and repeated shortcoming?

Sir Terence Higgins: I read with interest the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate on 16 October and I understand his concern. He will realise, of course, that that is a matter not for the commission but for the Public Accounts Select Committee and the Department. None the less, I have no doubt that the expenditure that the National Audit Office devotes to that problem and the work it is doing are worth while. I hope that that will eventually result in the hon. Gentleman's concerns being met more fully than they have been in the past.

Mr. Steen: Would it not be a good idea to have targets for reducing the amount of bureaucracy in all Government Departments, including the Audit Commission, not just for skilled and semi-skilled workers but for unskilled workers? If the Government are committed to reducing the civil service, should not the Audit Commission be committed to reducing the number of bureaucrats?

Sir Terence Higgins: I am not clear exactly who my hon. Friend means when he refers to the Audit Commission. He may mean the Public Accounts Commission, which has very little bureaucracy--as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will confirm. That is one of many aspects that the NAO has looked into, and it is important that it should do so.

30. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many staff with no professional accountancy qualifications are employed by the National Audit Office; what proportion this represents of the total staff; and if he will make a statement.[6529]

Sir Terence Higgins: The NAO employs some728 staff. Of these, there are 419 qualified audit staff,64 qualified accounting technicians and 98 people training for professional qualifications, making 71 per cent. of the total. It is important to note that a number of the remaining 29 per cent. have technical qualifications in other areas--for example, economics and operations research.

Mr. Greenway: In making evaluations of, say, education or a Government Department, is the NAO qualified to make judgments on policy, as it did recently on education and the running of schools? Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us are puzzled that, in the middle of a financial evaluation, the NAO can make strong criticisms of the way in which schools are run? What does the NAO know about it?

Sir Terence Higgins: A considerable number of accountants are involved, but there are also a number of experts in other disciplines--including, I think, education--who can look at the matter, given the responsibilities of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the NAO for education.

9 Dec 1996 : Column 19

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Agricultural Holdings

31. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the current acreage of the agricultural portfolio administered by the Church Commissioners.[6530]

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): At 31 December 1995, the latest date for which figures are available, the Church Commissioners' agricultural portfolio comprised 137,185 acres.

Mr. Banks: That is an awful lot of acres, and I am sure that my constituency would fit easily into that area. What is the attitude of the commissioners towards fox hunting on their land? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of St. Luke and the five sparrows sold in the market for two farthings--

"not one of them is forgotten before God".

What does God think about the fox that is hunted to death? Ecclesiastes states:

"a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."

Given the fact that the Bible is quite clear that the destruction of animal life is anathema to the Lord, will the right hon. Gentleman--who obviously has the only hotline to God in this place--tell the commissioners to stop hunting on their land, otherwise their souls will be damned?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman should reflect that, nowadays, we also have the urban fox. My advice is that he should get hold of a red coat, a nice black top hat, a handy and reliable donkey, a pack of old mongrel hounds and a nice ouzo stirrup cup and sound the tally-ho in Newham, North-West in pursuit of the urban fox, and stop worrying about the shire foxes.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West(Mr. Banks) does not know the difference between a fox and a badger? Is he also aware that there are many fine examples of hunters in the Bible? Will he recite the legend

9 Dec 1996 : Column 20

of St. Hubert to the hon. Gentleman? Will he ensure that the Church of England remains--at the very least--neutral on this subject?

Mr. Alison: I can assure my hon. Friend about the last point. Fox hunting has a great many proponents and a great many opponents, and the balance has to be properly struck. That is why we leave decisions on fox hunting entirely to our tenants and do not attempt to overrule their preferences. I am glad to know of the affection of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for cats, as I understand that he is doing his best to preserve the lives of cats in the Greek islands. I very much hope that he is successful in that worthy, commendable and almost divine enterprise.

---