|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much (a) financial, (b) material, (c) personnel and (d) other aid the UK Government (i) pledged and (ii) delivered to Iran after the Bam earthquake. 
After the Bam earthquake, DFID pledged around £2.15 million, of which we have disbursed all apart from £450,000 which we had pledged
21 Feb 2005 : Column 383W
to the International Federation of the Red Cross but which was subsequently not needed because their appeal was sufficiently funded by other contributions they received.
Of the money spent, £1,206,640 was channelled through United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations as financial support. From the balance, DFID provided 68 search and rescue specialists and four DFID personnel, 450 family winterised tents and other shelter materials for distribution by the Iranian Red Crescent as well as two cargo aircraft put at the disposal of the Iranian Government.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports his Department has received on corruption within the UN aid distribution network in Southern Iraq; what investigations have been undertaken by agencies within the Basrah UN node; what losses have been estimated of UN assets; and if he will make a statement. 
Lembit Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what steps the Government have taken to provide medical assistance to civilians injured during the conflict in Iraq; and if he will make a statement; 
Hilary Benn: Improving health services presents major challenges and will take time. The system has suffered from neglect and decades of under-investment. The Iraqi Ministry of Health (MoH) have acknowledged these challenges and, with support from donors, has identified priorities for investment and development. Despite the security situation steady progress is being made: for example salaries have improved, hospital and primary care clinics rehabilitated and national immunisation programmes organised.
The UN and the World Bank managed multi-donor Trusts Funds are providing support to the health sector in partnership with the MoH, focusing on emergency and primary health care services which affect the poorest and most vulnerable. DFID has contributed £70 million to the multi-donor trust funds, £5 million to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and technical assistance to the MoH.
Lembit Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what resources the Government have provided to assist civilians suffering from psychological distress as a result of the conflict in Iraq; and if he will make a statement; 
Hilary Benn: In its 'Health in Iraq' report of September 2004, the Iraqi Ministry of Health (MoH) notes the lack of mental health services and that new approaches to community mental health are needed. The report also highlights the need to address psychosocial issues, mental health promotion at individual and community level integration of mental health into primary care. A national workshop, conducted by the MoH in June 2004, discussed priorities for mental health promotion and strengthening of services. The MoH has taken this agenda forward through the development of a new planning process for 2005, published as the 'Planning Guidelines for 2005', in which the MoH have set out national priorities, objectives and standards.
DFID's support for the health sector in Iraq, including psychosocial support, is primarily channelled through the multi-donor Trust Fund managed by the United Nations, to which DFID has made an initial contribution of £30 million. UN work in this sector will focus on the provision of technical assistance to develop mental health and psychosocial support services at the primary level. DFID has also provided technical assistance to the MoH, directly and through the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with the Government of Kazakhstan about the use of oil revenues to promote sustainable development. 
Mr. Gareth Thomas: DFID has had numerous discussions with the Government of Kazakhstan, to urge them to participate in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), a UK-led international initiative to promote transparency over revenues from oil, gas and mining. The UK Government believe that EITI could lead to significant improvements in resource management in Kazakhstan, and help to ensure that Kazakhstan's significant oil revenues fulfil their potential as an engine for growth and poverty reduction.
Kazakhstan sent representatives to the EITI conference held in London in 2003, and signed the statement of principles agreed at that conference. However, DFID is not aware of any significant progress by the Government of Kazakhstan towards EITI implementation since then. The UK Government have raised this issue at official level on a number of occasions, and will continue to do so. We also hope to be able to discuss it with Kazakh representatives at the forthcoming EITI conference on 17 March, and the issue is part of the broader UK-Kazakhstan Energy Dialogue.
The UK Government are also supporting a project through the FCO's Global Opportunities Fund, which is developing Kazakhstan's Energy Strategy to 2020. A sound energy policy will help promote sustainable development. The same fund is being used to support a series of Chatham House workshops on good governance in oil and gas producing countries, to which Kazakhstan has been invited.
21 Feb 2005 : Column 385W
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the level of corruption in Kenya; and what discussions he has had with the Kenyan Government on (a) tackling corruption and (b) establishing good governance. 
Hilary Benn: The anti-corruption ticket, which swept the Kenyan Government into power in 2002, has been almost totally discredited. Though Transparency International records a slight reduction in the perception of petty corruption and bribery, grand corruption seems to have returned to pre-2002 levels and possibly higher. The resignation on 7 February of the Permanent Secretary in the Office of Governance and Ethics, John Githongo, was a particularly severe blow to the Government's anti-corruption credentials.
In continued dialogue with the Government, the UK and other donors have made clear that allegations about unsatisfactory tendering and contracting procedures are serious and need to be fully investigated. We have remained categorical that firm action should be taken against those found to have acted corruptly. We have continued to press the Government to pass important legislation including the Public Procurement Bill, and the Public Financial Management Bill.
At the same time, we continue to encourage the Kenyan Government to give their full and undivided support to the country's anti-corruption institutions. The UK authorities have assisted the Kenyan authorities with their ongoing investigations. We will continue to give them co-operation and would consider further help with investigations into corrupt cases that are followed through with energy and probity. They should be followed through to their conclusion and those found responsible made to answer for their wrongdoings, regardless of position or connections.
To this end, DFID is supporting the central Government systems that are intended to ensure that public financial resources are monitored and used more effectively. DFID, alongside 16 other donors, is also supporting the Kenyan Governance, Justice, Law and Order sector. This programme is working to strengthen key institutions that are directly involved in fighting corruption. There is to be increased support to the Director of Public Prosecution, Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission and civil society organisations, such as Transparency International, that work to improve the transparency of public resources. The donors will take recent events into account when making their assessments and planning their joint ongoing support, and the emphasis must be on building the institutions over the medium term, but the Kenyan Government will have to demonstrate that they are serious about tackling corruption.
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what mechanisms his Department has put in place to ensure that effective delivery of aid is not prevented by corruption in Kenya. 
DFID's programme in Kenya is subject to the same rigorous safeguards as all our development assistance. These are intended to ensure that funds are
21 Feb 2005 : Column 386W
spent in line with our objectives and with minimal risk of fraud or misappropriation. DFID is not providing poverty reduction budget support to the Kenyan Government, since we are not convinced that the Government are either seriously committed to fighting corruption or to making good progress on its overall reform programme. However, we can make progress on the Millennium Development Goals by supporting specific sectors and projects.
DFID, alongside 16 other donors, is also supporting the Kenyan Governance, Justice, Law and Order sector. This programme is working to strengthen key institutions that are directly involved in fighting corruption. There is to be increased support to the Director of Public Prosecution, Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission and civil society organisations, such as Transparency International, that work to improve the transparency of public resources.
Hilary Benn: Our Country Assistance Plan, launched with the Government of Kenya in June 2004, makes clear that we want to support the implementation of Kenya's Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS). Our CAP makes provision to increase our development assistance to £50 million in 200506, but final decisions will depend on ERS progress, including tackling corruption. Our assistance is designed to support long term change in Kenya that will lead to improved governance, and to help Kenya to make sustainable progress towards the MDGs. The faster the pace of reform, and the more conducive the environment, the faster progress we will make.
However, we are not providing poverty reduction budget support to the Kenyan Government, since we are not convinced that the Government is seriously committed to fighting corruption and making good progress on its overall reform programme.
Nonetheless, we believe that we can make progress on the Millennium Development Goals by supporting specific sectors and projects. For example there are opportunities for constructive engagement in, and support to, the education and justice, law and order sectors. In these we have pooled our funding with other donors to support the Government of Kenya's own strategies such as free primary education, without putting our money directly into their systems. Under these arrangements, we helped the Government to set up reliable school management systems to attract large support for learning materials for primary schools. All 18,000 primary schools in Kenya now have textbooks.
In addition, there are opportunities even in sectors that have less well-established strategies by the Government of Kenya. In health for example, DFID is funding the social marketing of insecticide treated bed nets that is expected to reduce the rate of under-five mortality by 14 per cent. (68,000 lives saved).
21 Feb 2005 : Column 387W
Hilary Benn: Progress on governance by the Kenyan Government has generally been disappointing. However, there have been a few exceptions. The Government established a governance, justice, law and order reform programme with support from 16 donors, including support for anti-corruption institutions, police training, and judicial reform. In addition, the investigations into the Goldenberg scandal have continued credibly; all public servants (including the president) have declared their assets; land policy has been formulated and land laws are being reviewed; and there have been wider governance achievements around improved national budgetary processes and primary school management. Progress is being made in the implementation of the national integrated Monitoring and Evaluation system at both central and devolved level, and this will be fully rolled out during 2005.
However, progress on dealing with corruption, especially on prosecutions, remains too slow. The biggest blow came last week with the resignation of the Permanent Secretary in the Office of President in charge of Public Ethics and Governance. The Public Procurement Bill has still not been passed. The continuing failure to bring the Constitutional Review process to a satisfactory conclusion has impeded progress towards the Government's objective of decentralisation and empowerment of local communities.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|