---

26 Oct 2004 : Column 1145W—continued

Somalia

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions (a) he and (b) members of his Department have had with (i) the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (ii) members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (iii) the Secretary of State for Defence and (iv) members of the Ministry of Defence concerning (A) the humanitarian situation in Somalia and (B) Somalia's President Abdullahi Yusef's call for international intervention on 14 October; and if he will make a statement. [193010]

 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1146W
 

Hilary Benn: DFID is in close and regular touch with relevant Whitehall Departments—at both Ministerial and official level—to discuss UK and international support for the envisaged new Transitional Federal Government in Somalia. In addition the UK is committed to providing assistance to address the most urgent humanitarian needs in the country. DFID has recently agreed an additional £2 million in humanitarian allocations to meet urgent needs in Somalia.

Sugar

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his assessment is of the effects of the Common Agricultural Policy sugar regime on local sugar production in developing nations in (a) Africa and (b) Asia; and if he will make a statement. [192869]

Hilary Benn: The EU's CAP regime for sugar is a heavily regulated, highly protected and discriminatory one. It is also extremely costly to the consumer and taxpayer. By maintaining high guaranteed prices for production which are well above world market prices, high tariffs on most imports, and heavily subsidising exports, the regime encourages over-production in the EU and dumps millions of tonnes of subsidised sugar onto world markets each year. It has the effect of depressing world prices, and it crowds developing countries out of local markets which they would otherwise be able to supply. Some traditional suppliers from the African, Caribbean and Pacific regions (ACP), do have preferential access to the EU market under an arrangement called the Sugar Protocol. Most of the countries in Africa and Asia who are sugar producers or potential sugar producers are currently denied preferential access to the EU market. For these and other reasons, reform of the regime is both necessary and desirable, and long overdue.

The European Commission presented a Communication to the Agriculture Council on 19 July that set out their preferred approach to reform. The Communication proposes to substantially reduce sugar exports and export refunds, abolish intervention, restructure EU production at a lower level, reduce the internal sugar price and grant a de-coupled payment to sugar beet farmers. The reform process would start in July 2005. This should make the regime more market oriented and reduce the quantity of EU sugar exported to third markets. If the option were to be agreed, the Commission estimate that the combined, aggregate effect of the proposals on support price and quota reduction would be a significant reduction in the level of EU production under quota, from 17.3 million to 14.5 million tonnes per year. In turn, as a consequence of the substantial reduction in the overall level of EU production, EU subsidised sugar exports—dumping—are projected to fall by around 2 million tonnes. The Commission Communication will be the subject of discussion between the EU member states over the coming months.

However, there will be winners and losers from this reform, just as there are winners and losers from the current regime. Those preferential suppliers to the EU who receive prices very similar to EU producers will see these prices fall. DFID has always stressed the need to
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1147W
 
take account of the impact that reform of the EU sugar regime will have on our developing country preferential suppliers. We are conscious that substantial reform will give rise to transitional problems for the ACP counties, and for Least Developed Countries (LDC) seeking to develop an export trade to Europe under the Everything But Arms initiative.

In order to help inform the debate and ensure the impact on developing countries is taken sufficiently into consideration, DFID commissioned a study last year with LMC International and Oxford Policy Management, 'Addressing the Impact of Preference Erosion in Sugar on Developing Countries'. The study is divided into two sections. The first part assesses the economic and social impact on the ACP Sugar Protocol countries of the various reform scenarios suggested by the European Commission. The latter part of the study assesses alternative options for addressing the impact of preference erosion in sugar. The purpose of this analysis was to identify various options for debate by the ACP and the EU.

DFID has recently commissioned two further pieces of work on this issue. The first report has been commissioned with LMC International, 'EU Sugar Reform: the Implications for the Development of LDCs' and should be finalised very soon. The second report has been commissioned from the Overseas Development Institute, 'Forthcoming changes in EU sugar/banana markets: a menu of options for an effective EU transitional assistance package' and should also be finalised very soon. This report should help those countries affected by reform determine their priorities for a transitional package. This report will include some analysis of alternative uses for sugar.

Uzbekistan

Mr. Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what (a) monetary and (b) non-monetary assistance the Uzbek Government receive from the United Kingdom Government; and if he will make a statement. [193171]

Mr. Gareth Thomas [holding answer 25 October 2004]: Approximately 90 per cent. of United Kingdom development assistance to Uzbekistan has been in the form of DFID funded technical assistance, focusing on supporting the Government of Uzbekistan's efforts to improve the quality and accessibility of primary health care to the rural poor. Support has also been given to targeted local civil society organisations to help strengthen capacity, independence and effectiveness. In monetary terms this amounted to £559,000 in financial year 2003–04. The planned figure for 2004–05 is £500,000. Additionally, the UK's attributed share of multilateral assistance (including EC) to Uzbekistan in calendar year 2002 (the most recent year figures are available) was £1,700,000.

Other UK Government Departments have provided support to civil society organisations and the British Council and through the Global Conflict Prevention Pool; the Home Office and FCO have funded a small amount of anti-drug training. The Ministry of Defence has been providing non-development assistance,
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1148W
 
through the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, in the form of defence reform and helping build regional capacity for peace support operations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Business Regulation

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many reviews of the working and impact of major pieces of regulation affecting business put forward by (a) her Department and (b) regulatory agencies sponsored by her Department since 2001; and if she will make a statement. [190000]

Nigel Griffiths: There have been six reviews of the working and impact of major pieces of legislation. Review is an important element of the Government's Better Regulation programme.

Consultants

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many consultancy firms or companies have been retained by the Department since June 2001; what the projects are for which each has been retained; and what the total is of the fees paid or incurred in each case. [193424]

Ms Hewitt: This information is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Export Credits Guarantee Department

Mr. Brazier: Export Credits Guarantee Department cover for ventures in Iraq since the end of the recent Gulf War; and which have (a) been accepted, (b) been rejected and (c) not yet been dealt with. [192272]

Mr. Alexander [holding answer 21 October 2004]: An overall US$100 million ECGD short-term credit facility was available between 5 December 2003 and 28 June 2004, to assist exporters to finance contracts by providing guarantees to UK based banks issuing letters of credit for the purchase of UK goods and services.

During this period, 15 exporters with contracts or potential contracts approached ECGD regarding the facility. No applications were received. The Banks continued to issue Letters of Credit without requiring ECGD cover.

No formal applications for cover have been received outside of these dates.

---