Previous Section Index Home Page

28 Nov 2006 : Column 538W—continued


28 Nov 2006 : Column 539W

28 Nov 2006 : Column 540W
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-present Total

Total complaints received by the SBE

2,948

3,566

3,861

3,836

1,996

Complaints received by authority type

Parish/Town Council

1,630

1,754

1,486

1,543

774

All other local authorities

1,318

1,812

2,375

2,293

1,222

Not referred for investigation

1,689

2,144

2,756

2,842

1,527

Not referred for investigation in percentage

56

66

69

72

76

Cases referred to the APE by the SBE

Parish/Town Councils

90

53

40

48

1

232

Other local authorities

16

33

68

45

4

166

Total

106

86

108

93

5

398

Cases received by the APE

London

0

1

10

6

0

17

East of England

10

13

16

10

0

49

South East

32

8

15

11

0

66

South West

16

19

8

13

3

59

Midlands

25

20

20

13

1

79

North East

7

2

8

8

1

26

North West

13

9

5

5

1

33

Total

103

72

82

66

6

329

Case upheld by the APE

Parish/Town Councils

29

104

17

39

5

194

Other local authorities

0

21

34

44

11

110

Total

29

125

51

83

16

304

Cases not upheld by the APE

Parish/Town Councils

0

4

7

1

0

12

Other local authorities

1

1

2

12

3

19

Total

1

5

9

13

3

31

Overall total

30

130

60

96

19

335


International Development

Afghanistan

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response the Government plans to make to President Musharraf's call in his recent meeting with the Prime Minister for increased UK aid for South Eastern Afghanistan. [103113]

Hilary Benn: Since 2001, DFID has spent over £390 million on reconstruction and development in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is DFID's fifth largest programme and we are the second largest bilateral donor, spending over £100 million in 2005-06.

DFID has already increased aid for southern Afghanistan in 2006-07, by committing £20 million to Helmand province, of which £14 million has been spent so far.

This includes £2 million of DFID money spent on quick impact projects (QIPs). Examples of what that funding has delivered include humanitarian assistance to IDPs and drought victims, permanent vehicle checkpoints to improve security, river bank walls reinforced and flood defences built.

It also includes £11 million to the government of Afghanistan which is supporting agriculture and rural development (Helmand Agricultural and Rural Development Programme). The first tangible results will be seen in the next few weeks when the first of 200 wells will be dug in and around Lashkar Gah and construction of 49 km of roads begun.

DFID expects to spend at least £50 million in Helmand over the next three years. Helmand gets more aid than any other province in the south of Afghanistan, according to government of Afghanistan figures. We are in discussion with donor partners on their plans for development assistance in the south of Afghanistan.

Aid Statistics

Mr. Lilley: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many countries to which his Department has contributed funds via (a) basket funding and (b) direct budget support have provided evidence of funds being spent as agreed with
28 Nov 2006 : Column 541W
the (i) UK and (ii) lead donor; and in how many recipient countries audits of such budgets have been undertaken by non-governmental auditors. [100664]

Hilary Benn: DFID country offices monitor how basket funding and budget support is spent to ensure that there is evidence it has been used for the purposes agreed with partner governments. An important aspect of country monitoring arrangements is ensuring adequate audit arrangements are in place.

Given the diverse nature of the countries in which DFID works and the different partners (both government and international) involved, the design of monitoring and audit arrangements varies considerably for both basket funds and budget support. The best figures we can provide are for funds disbursed in the 2005 budget year of the countries concerned.

DFID contributed to some 45 basket funds in 18 different countries in 2005 and delivered aid through poverty reduction budget support in 16 countries. In all these cases, DFID staff reviewed relevant financial information on how funds were used and participated in meetings with government and donor partners to discuss progress.

Around half of the basket funds were audited by the national audit institution and half by a specially appointed auditor. Poverty reduction budget support in 11 countries was audited by the national audit institution and in five, by a specially appointed auditor.

The nature of basket funding and budget support means that common agreements usually exist between government and donors on how funds will be used and the monitoring and auditing arrangements. Therefore there is no distinction between UK and lead donor arrangements.

There is no standardised definition of a basket fund. In order to respond to the question, we have defined it as having a common bank account into which at least two donors pool resources to support a government to implement an agreed sector programme or set of activities; and procedures relating to the operation of the bank account are additional to government’s own procedures and are governed by an agreement between government and donors.

Nearly all national audit institutions are statutorily independent of the executive branch of government and in this sense are non-governmental auditors, although they are the auditors of government’s expenditure. In many cases and particularly in regard to budget support, this is the form of independent audit carried out. This reply distinguishes between audit by the national audit institution and an audit carried out by a private sector auditor appointed outside normal national procedures to meet donor requirements.

Mr. Lilley: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the total amount for aid recorded as bilateral aid on page 9 of the 2005 Statistics for International Development publication was given to each multilateral aid agency (a) to administer specific projects agreed with his Department and (b) in total. [101153]


Next Section Index Home Page