| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 Mar 2004 : Column 192W—continued
Sports (Participation)
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people (a) over and (b) under the age of 16 take part in sporting activity in (i) the north west, (ii) Lancashire and (iii) Chorley. [161445]
Mr. Caborn: The Health Survey for England 1998 indicated that 14.0 per cent. of people aged 16 and over in the north west participated in sport and walking for a minimum of 30 minutes at least five times a week and that 21.4 per cent. did so at least three times a week. Disaggregated information for Lancashire and Chorley is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
The information requested on people under the age of 16 is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Data on the number of pupils who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high-quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum are now being collected for the first time and will be published in April.
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Common Agricultural Policy
Mr. Wills: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the impact of Common Agricultural Policy export subsidies on poverty in developing countries; and if he will make a statement. [160590]
16 Mar 2004 : Column 193W
Hilary Benn: The Government acknowledge the damaging impact that export subsidies have on the poor in developing countries by depressing world market prices and distorting trade. Evidence suggests that with elimination of all agricultural export subsidies from the expected levels in 2005, it is estimated that annual global incomes would be US$3.6 billion a year higher by 2010, than if expected levels of export subsidies persisted and there were no further reforms.
It is for this reason we have pressed for reductions in the use of export subsidies in Europe. We fully support the commitment made at the Doha ministerial meeting in 2001, which agreed that agriculture negotiations would aim to achieve: substantial improvements in market access; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support.
However, export subsidies cannot be tackled in isolation, as they are a consequence of high internal support prices and restricted access to the EU market for developing country exporters. While the Common Agricultural Policy reforms agreed in June last year don't deal explicitly with export subsidies, they will result in the de-linking of domestic support from production and this is expected to lead to real changes in output, by gradually reducing the incentives for EU farmers to over-produce. This in turn will reduce the need to dispose of surpluses onto the world market through the use of export subsidies. The reforms that have been made to the CAP mean that the EU is now able to reduce its export subsidies to about 25 per cent. of the level that was paid 10 years ago.
EU Aid
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what the explanation is for the Euros72.73 million excess of payment over funds committed in respect of Mediterranean projects that were financed from the Commission Budget in 2002; [161118]
- (2) what the destination was of the difference between the Euros574.87 million committed and the Euros454.25 million euros paid on Asia projects that were financed from the General Commission Budget in 2002; [161112]
(3) what the destination was of the difference between the Euros520.32 million committed and the Euros474.25 million paid on Humanitarian Aid projects that were financed from the General Commission Budget in 2002; [161113]
(4) what the destination was of the Euros430.69 million difference between the funds committed and funds paid to the pre-accession from the General Commission Budget in 2002; [161107]
(5) what the destination was of the difference between the Euros333.22 million committed and the Euros181.79 million paid on Latin American projects that were financed from the General Commission Budget in 2002; [161115]
(6) what the destination was of the Euros710.65 million difference between funds committed and funds paid to the pre-accession-ISPA project that was financed from the General Commission Budget in 2002; [161109]
16 Mar 2004 : Column 194W
(7) what the destination was of the difference between the 505.96 million euros committed and the Euros417.31 million paid on Food Aid projects that were financed from the General Commission Budget in 2002; [161110]
(8) what the destination was of the Euros581.48 million difference between funds committed and funds paid to the pre-accession-PHARE project that was financed from the General Commission Budget in 2002; [161108]
(9) what the destination was of the difference between the Euros147.95 million committed and the Euros18.87 million paid on the pre-accession projects for Malta, Cyprus and Turkey that were financed from the General Commission Budget in 2002; [161111]
(10) what the destination was of the difference between the Euros124.18 million committed and the Euros119.26 million paid on South African projects that were financed from the General Commission Budget in 2002. [161105]
Mr. Gareth Thomas: The European Commission budget is approved annually. This approval process sets two distinct budget figures. The first is for commitments adopted and reflects the total value of all operations which the Commission expects to be approved over the financial year. The payments budget line on the other hand represents the aggregated spending forecast for the year, based on various approvals from previous years. There is therefore no one single identifiable country or thematic destination for the sum to which the questions refer.
There is no direct causal or operational linkage between the commitments and payments appropriations figures in external action or pre-accession budget lines. Individual projects or programmes may span several years from the date of commitment, stretching the spending horizon accordingly. In addition the actual rate of forecasted spend can be affected by project or programme-specific or wider external factors.
EU Development Finance
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will break down by main category the Euros104.25 million classified as unallocated/unspecified in the financial tables on page 256 of the Annual Report 2003 from the European Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the EC Development Policy and the Implementation of External Assistance in 2002. [160717]
Mr. Gareth Thomas: The information requested is not available. Unallocated/unspecified ODA refers to expenditure that cannot easily be placed within a sector. This may be because a project covers a number of sectors and cannot easily be divided up between them or because expenditure does not fit within any sectoral definition.
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will break down by main category the 141.86 million euros of administrative costs of donors in the EU's Official Development Assistance in 2002, as referred to in the financial tables on page 256 of the Annual Report 2003 from the European
16 Mar 2004 : Column 195W
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the EC Development Policy and the Implementation of External Assistance in 2002. [160718]
Mr. Gareth Thomas: The information requested is not available. Each year the Commission publishes details of its expenditure along with plans for the current year in the Official Journal in February. This includes details of "Expenditure on administrative management" for the budget lines along with the way in which the commission organises its expenditure. The commission does not routinely publish administrative expenditure by sector.
Project Funding
Mr. Colman: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many (a) solely state-financed and (b) public-private partnership and private finance initiative projects for which his Department is responsible have been launched in each of the last 10 years; [160955]
- (2) how much was spent by (a) the Government on solely state-financed projects and (b) the (i) Government and (ii) private sector on public-private and private finance initiative projects for which his Department is responsible in each of the last 10 years. [160956]
Hilary Benn: DFID does not record its projects or spending solely under the categories indicated in the questions and the information could not be obtained without incurring a disproportionate cost.
DFID regards building a healthy private sector in developing countries as essential for poverty reduction. Successful private firms are the principal engines of growth in productivity, employment and income needed to eliminate poverty. DFID's work to encourage private sector development includes but goes well beyond projects directly with the private sector. In summary, DFID works with the public sector to improve the environment for investment and business; with the private sector to expand its access to finance and markets, and to improve its impact on the poor; and with public private partnerships to improve the delivery of public services and technology for the poor.
For information on PFI projects, the Signed Projects List can be found on the Treasury website. This is at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/documents/public private partnerships/ppp pfi stats.cfm.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |