|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Thomas: DFID is not involved in this project, either directly or through its shareholding in the multilateral banks such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. These institutions along with the European Commission have confirmed that they are not involved in the project, nor have they, or DFID made any separate assessment of its impact.
The UK Government are committed to the development of an open and rules-based international trading system that fulfils its potential to contribute to the reduction of poverty in poorer countries. Our key policy commitments on trade and development, as well as our objectives for the current Round of multilateral trade talks, are set out in the Government's White Papers, Making Globalisation a Force for Good" (July 2004) and Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor" (December 2000). The UK Government are working hard to support the poorest and most vulnerable producers, be it through multilateral negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or regional trade agreements such as the Economic Partnership Agreements.
16 Nov 2005 : Column 1251W
The UK Government do not support forced liberalisation or unfettered free trade. The UK Government fully supports the view that developing countries should be allowed to develop their own trade policies. At the G8 summit this principle was endorsed by others who agreed that within the WTO negotiations
In the long-term the removal of trade barriers, if managed properly, can help developing countries can gain better access to developed country markets and more competitively priced inputs. However, the agenda is broad. We must not only reduce barriers to trade such as subsidies and import tariffs but also invest in developing countries capacities to trade. To do this we are providing additional development assistance to poor countries to help them undertake this investment and give them the time and space to adjust to trade reforms.
The G8 also agreed to provide increased funds for trade related capacity building to assist developing countries take advantage of the new opportunities from a positive conclusion to the Round. There is increased international support for increased 'Aid for Trade' as reflected at the recent World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) meetings and the G8 summit in Gleneagles. It is important that we build rapidly on the outcome of these meetings.
We now have less than five weeks to go before Hong Kong and are working with international partners to deliver on the ambition of Doha and build on G8 commitments. The UK Government are working to achieve an outcome that delivers real gains for developing countries, including the poorest. These gains should include improved participation by developing countries in the world trading system, through substantially increased market access for developing countries and the dismantling of trade-distorting agricultural subsidies by industrialised countries.
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to increase the resources allocated to water and sanitation by the infrastructure plans of the Africa Partnership Forum. 
Hilary Benn: The main role of the Africa Partners Forum relating to water and sanitation will be to monitor progress against commitments made at the G8 summit in Gleneagles. These included commitments to: implement the G8 water action plan agreed at Evian in partnership with the African Development Bank (AfDB) initiative on rural water and sanitation, to increase aid for water and sanitation, and maintain political momentum and commitment in these areas.
As one response to these commitments, we have played a leading role in establishing the infrastructure consortium, which aims to accelerate progress towards
16 Nov 2005 : Column 1252W
meeting urgent infrastructure needs in Africa. It will address both national and regional constraints to infrastructure development and encourage better co-ordination and collaboration in key infrastructure sectors. The consortium is not a financing agency, but will act as a platform to broker more donor financing of infrastructure projects and programmes in Africa.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will meet the Scottish Executive to discuss putting a case to the International Olympic Committee for a separate Scottish team for the 2012 Olympics. 
Mr. Caborn: As I said in my previous answer to the hon. Member on 3 November 2005, Official Report, column 1261, it is highly unlikely that the International Olympic Committee would consider the issue of a separate Scottish Olympic team because of Scotland's constitutional relationship with the rest of UK. I therefore have no plans to take this matter further.
Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the London Development Agency (LDA) about the tendering process for Olympic projects; and if she will ask the LDA to publish the names of companies shortlisted for tenders. 
Mr. Caborn: My officials are in discussion with the Interim Olympic Delivery Authority team, based in the London Development Agency (LDA), in relation to their procurement strategy, the initial draft of which is expected to be ready in December. I will not ask the LDA to publish shortlists in all cases, as on occasion this may hinder open and effective competition. A case-by-case judgment will need to be made.
Mr. Caborn: Since 1997 lottery distributors have awarded the following amounts in each calendar year to projects relating to asylum seekers. Due to the nature of lottery awards and the way in which information is stored on the Department's lottery awards database, some of this money will have gone to a wider group of people than just those seeking asylum. Similarly other lottery awards will have indirectly benefited asylum seekers.
|2005 (To date)||2,278,837|
This information, derived from the Department's lottery award database, is searchable at www.lottery.culture.gov.uk, which uses information supplied by the lottery distributors.
16 Nov 2005 : Column 1254W
Mr. Caborn: London 2012's candidate file includes a table that sets out estimates of average and maximum spectator numbers for all Olympic venues based on modelling work to provide an understanding of demand. Average figures are based on expected ticket sales and maximum figures are based on 87 per cent. of gross venue capacity to ensure adequate spectator transport capacity.
|Venue||Spectators per day||Spectators per session|
|Olympic Park Arena 1||18,200||31,200||7,600||10,400|
|Olympic Park Arena 2 (Basketball preliminaries)||21,200||31,200||7,500||10,400|
|Olympic Park Arena 2 (Modern Pentathlon: shooting, fencing)||3,200||4,400||3,200||4,400|
|Olympic Park Arena 3||13,700||26,100||5,700||8,700|
|Olympic Park Arena 4||7,400||10,400||3,700||7,000|
Mr. Caborn: The Olympic transport proposals contained in the candidature file submitted to the International Olympic Committee encourage all spectators to use public transport, to walk, or to cycle, except for those whose mobility is impaired, for whom car parking provision will be made.
Mr. Caborn: While the exact design of the Olympic Park is yet to be finalised, it is envisaged that car parks will be kept to the minimum necessary to provide for those disabled visitors unable to use public transport, and for the vehicles needed to transport the athletes and officials.
Mr. Caborn: The Olympic Transport Proposalsas set out in the Candidature File presented to the International Olympic Committeeencourage all spectators to use public transport, to walk, or to cycle. They therefore make no provision for spectator parking in the Olympic Park, or in the surrounding streets, except for people with impaired mobility.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|