To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has received regarding the desirability of the United Kingdom Government's achieving the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. gross national product for overseas aid.

We continue to receive representations from hon. Members and others.

Why does not the Minister listen to those representations—representations which might have prevented the disgraceful position in which he has placed the country, which has dropped to 13th in the league of aid-giving countries per head of population? Why does he not listen to the representations of Scottish Education and Action for Development, the Scottish Churches Council, Oxfam and all the other organisations and citizens in this country who are keen to ensure that the Government play their part in helping the third worldßža part they are manifestly failing to play at present?

The hon. Gentleman should listen to some of the facts. Expenditure figures relating to the last year for which such figures are available show an increase of 3 per cent. on the year before in real terms, and expenditure in the coming year is to increase by 1 per cent. in real terms on last year's expenditure. At a time of great economic stringency, that is indeed success for the ODA budget.

Is it not a fact that our aid programme is one of the best-focused on poverty? In a tough year for expenditure, we have increased the budget for overseas development to £1·9 billion. Does not that show the generosity of people in this country, working with the non-governmental organisations, which also contribute a significant amount to the third world?

Yes. At a time of difficulty, we have done extremely well for the ODA budget. It is also true that there are considerable contributions from other quarters. United Kingdom direct investment overseas is half the European Community total; the 1991 estimate was £3,000 million.

How can the Minister justify cutting the aid budget as a proportion of gross national product by almost half over the past 13 years, and planning further substantial real cuts in two of the next three years, when over the past four years his Government have given British banks £2·25 billion—50 per cent. more than the ODA's total annual aid budget⁁in tax reliefs against possible defaults on third world loans? In fact, there have been no defaults, and not a penny of that money has been used to defray the debts of some of the world's poorest nations.

Ministers like to say—as this Minister does—that they concentrate on the poorest. Since when have Barclays and the National Westminster bank been in that category? If there is now great pressure on public expenditure, would it not be better for the banks, rather than some of the poorest nations on earth, to feel the draught?

The hon. Gentleman asks several questions. Let us deal with the public expenditure survey for the next three years. At a time of great economic stringency, if he takes all forms of external assistance, he will find an increase of 10 per cent. in cash terms and 1 per cent. in real terms. [Interruption.] It is the ODA's budget. If the hon. Gentleman were to penalise the banks' accounting procedures for lending to the third world. It would stop them lending to the third world.

Does my hon. Friend agree that to the recipients of aid the quality of aid is as important as its quantity? Will he compare the quality of British aid with that of other donor countries?

The quality of aid certainly is important, but the enormous pressure on other aid programmes must be recognised. For example, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the United States and Italy have all announced plans to cut their aid budgets—in some cases substantially.