|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
providing a resource centre for trades unions.
DFID-funded training for trades union leaders is conducted through the UK public services trade union, UNISON. The aim is to contribute to the social and economic stability of Iraq by building the capacity of trades unions through the training of a new generation of union leaders. Training has focused on the role of trades unions in the workplace and society; negotiating collective agreements; union organisation; and women's involvement in the unions.
DFID support for a resource centre for trades unions in Baghdad has been undertaken with the International Centre for Trades Union Rights (ICTUR). The purpose of this project is to establish an independent NGO office to provide information, technical support services, expertise and legal advice to Iraqi trades unions and act as a centre for open discussions between trades unionists and the legal, academic and NGO communities. The centre studies and promotes basic principles of trades union and labour rights throughout Iraq and aims to influence government policies on labour rights and standards.
Hilary Benn: Bilateral Aid from the Department for International Development (DFID) to the Palestinian Territories in 2005-06 was £15.058 million The full breakdown of Bilateral Aid is published in Table 12.3 of Statistics on International Development 2001-02 and 2005-06; a copy of which is available in the Library.
In addition, DFID gave £14.985 million of Multilateral Aid to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). UNRWA provides basic services for Palestinian refugees in the occupied Palestinian territory and elsewhere in the region.
Mr. Francois: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) on what dates his Department met representatives of the Portland Trust in the last three years; and what the purpose was of each meeting; 
(2) how many (a) members of the Portland Trust and (b) officials in his Department took part in his meeting of 11 October 2005 with the Portland Trust; and what the purpose of the meeting was. 
Hilary Benn: Officials from the Department for International Development have met with the Portland Trust on a number of occasions over the past three years and I met representatives of the Trust earlier this month. These have included bilateral meetings, meetings with other government departments, and meetings as part of wider discussions with other agencies to discuss ways of supporting economic development in the occupied Palestinian territory. As was the case with previous administrations, it is not the Governments policy to provide details of all such meetings.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support his Department is providing to governments of third-world countries to help them provide clean water to their people; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Thomas: DFID will double its commitment to water and sanitation in Africawhere the Millennium Development Goal targets on water and sanitation are most off-trackto £95 million a year by 2007-08. We will then more than double funding again to £200 million a year by 2010-11.
In November, DFID published its global call to action on water and sanitation. This is our encouragement to developing country governments and to other donors to do more. It highlights the need for all of us to invest more in water and sanitation, to ensure that this money is spent effectively and fairly, and to put the right structures in place to make this happen.
For this to happen governments and the international community must organise themselves better and be held to account more effectively. To make this work we have proposed that there should be one annual report to monitor progress towards achieving the water and sanitation Millennium Development Goal targets and one high-level global annual meeting to agree action. At the country level there should be for water and sanitation one national plan, one co-ordinating group and one lead United Nations body.
November also marked the recognition by the UK Government that safe and affordable water is a right for all. The right to water sets a global standard. It places a legal obligation on governments to ensure that everyone has equal access to water and it gives greater legitimacy to peoples demands for water. It means that water services are not a matter of policy preference or charity but a legal requirement.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what (a) percentage and (b) amount of the UKs aid budget is channelled through the (i) World Bank and (ii) International Monetary Fund. 
Hilary Benn: The UK provides core financial support to the International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank which provides grants and concessional loans to the worlds poorest countries. Donors pledge support to IDA for a three-year period. In February 2005, the UK pledged £1.43 billion to the fourteenth replenishment of IDA. This was comprised of (i) a core contribution of £1.33 billion, to be paid in three equal instalments of £443 million in 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09; and (ii) an additional contribution of £100 million contingent on progress on harmonisation and conditionally, to be paid in two equal instalments of £50 million in 2006-07 and 2007-08. Payment is by promissory note. Expenditure is charged to DFIDs budget when the note is deposited with the IDA but notes will be encashed over a nine-year period. The UK will therefore spend £493 million on IDA 14 in the current financial year. This represents approximately 10 per cent. of DFIDs total budget in 2006-07.
As part of our IDA 14 replenishment package, the UK also set aside a further £250 million to support the World Bank in responding to specific needs arising from the enhanced focus in 2005 on Africa and the achievement of the MDGs. We committed £200 million to the Africa Catalytic Growth Fund (ACGF)part of the Banks Africa Action Plan resulting from Gleneaglesand £50 million to the Education Fast Track Initiative (FTI), whose Catalytic Fund and Education Programme Development Fund are administered by the Bank. Payments commenced in 2006-07, when we expect to spend £30 million on the ACGF and £70 million on the FTI (£20 million from the initial FTI commitment plus £50 million from an additional commitment of £100 million made in the autumn of 2005).
The Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) provides 100 per cent. relief on the debts owed by qualifying Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) to the IDA. The UK and other donors are making additional contributions to IDA to offset IDA reduced debt service receipts. To date the UK has paid £26.85 million in additional contributions.
The UK is also a major contributor to other trust funds administered by the World Bank Group (mainly IDA, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the International Finance Corporation). Trust funds cover a wide range of activities. They can be used for the World Bank to provide technical assistance, advice and research, as well as supporting post conflict countries or co-financing projects. Some Trust funds support the Banks own development operations and work programmes. Others support broad global initiativessuch as the Global Fund to Combat AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; the Global Environment Facility; and the HIPC Initiativefor which the Bank manages resources on behalf of the international community. Contributions to individual Trust Funds are normally determined and financed by the DFID Division with responsibility for the relevant country/regional/sector programme or policy issue. Details of expenditure through World Bank Trust Funds are not held centrally.
The UK has agreed to contribute up to £50 million to the IMFs Exogenous Shocks Facility which helps poor countries to cope better with external shocks, such as an increase in oil prices. The first contribution of
£10 million was paid in 2005-06. Under the MDRI, the cost of cancelling the IMF debts of eligible countries will largely be met from the IMFs own resources. However, donors agreed to make a contribution towards these costs. The UK paid £13.728 million in 2005-06. The UK also provided £780,737 to IMF in 2005-06 to deliver technical assistance to a number of countries in Africa. Total UK expenditure of £24.5 million on IMF in 2005-06 represented 0.37 per cent. of UK aid expenditure.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of complaints from (a) Ecuador, (b) Colombia and (c) Panama against the EU to the World Trade Organisation on the European banana import regime; and what steps he expects to be taken as a consequence of these complaints; 
Barry Gardiner: In order to ensure compatibility with WTO obligations and to respect the Understandings reached with the US and Ecuador in 2001, the EU moved to a tariff-only regime for imports of bananas with effect from 1 January 2006. I am aware that certain Latin American suppliers maintain that the EU tariff of €176/tonne is too high, even though the quota ceiling on their potential exports was removed as part of the new import regime. I am also aware that some African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) suppliers consider that the tariff is too low to maintain their access to the Community market. Following introduction of the new import arrangements, the Trade Minister of Norway was appointed as facilitator and mediator of an independent panel monitoring imports of all bananas into the EU. The Commission has stated that the findings of this independent panel will allow changes to be made if appropriate.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason a police presence was deemed necessary during the attempt to seize bovine animal UK OX0564 00177 on 10 January 2007. 
Mr. Bradshaw: A pre-arranged joint State Veterinary Service (SVS) and Trading Standards visit took place on 9 October 2006. Regrettably, during this visit, both inspectors were subjected to intimidation and verbal abuse by a hostile group of protestors. The protestors intentionally obstructed both inspectors and prevented them from gaining access to the field where bovine animal UK OX0564 00177 was located.
A pre-arranged joint SVS and Trading Standards visit also took place on 24 October 2006. During this visit the owner refused to cooperate fully and stated that he would not permit the animals removal.
As there had been public disorder and intentional obstruction during the pre-arranged visit of 9 October 2006, there was an unacceptable risk of public disorder and obstruction at the removal visit. This risk had to be managed and the police were consulted. The SVS and Trading Standards decided that they could not safely attempt the removal of the animal without a police presence. This was put to the police, who agreed to support them.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was to (a) his Department and (b) the State Veterinary Service of the attempt to seize bovine animal UK OX0564 00177 on 10 January 2007. 
Mr. Bradshaw: This was a State Veterinary Service (SVS) operation. The planning, preparation, office work and time at the attempted removal visit totalled 72 man-hours. Including travel costs, the total cost to the SVS was around £3,500.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason notification was not given to the owners of the attempt to seize bovine animal UK OX0564 00177 on 10 January 2007. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The owners of bovine animal UK OX0564 00177 have maintained an unwillingness to co-operate with the State Veterinary Service (SVS) and Trading Standards over the animals removal. On previous visits inspectors have been subjected to obstruction and verbal abuse. To limit and manage the risk of public disorder and intentional obstruction, pre-notification was not given.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions (a) his Department and (b) the State Veterinary Service had with local police prior to the attempt to seize bovine animal UK OX0564 00177 on 10 January 2007. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The State Veterinary Service (SVS) and Trading Standards considered that there was an unacceptable risk of public disorder and intentional obstruction during the removal visit. To address this risk, the police were consulted on the proposed operation. The police advised the SVS and Trading Standards on public order and obstruction. This advice was taken into account in the planning. Joint planning meetings were held on 3 January 2007 and 8 January 2007 at which the SVS, Trading Standards and police were present. There was no contact between DEFRA and the police.
Mr. Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what grants were received by British Waterways in each of the last five years, broken down by main budget headings. 
Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was paid in sterling to British farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy in each of the last three years. 
Barry Gardiner: The following table shows payments made through CAP schemes and rural development programmes to farmers in the United Kingdom for the period 2003 to 2005 as recorded in the production and income account of the economic account for agriculture. They exclude payments made through the over thirty month scheme, compensation for losses due to animal disease and capital transfers.
|Direct payments made through CAP schemes and rural development programmes to farmers in the United Kingdomshows payments after deduction for modulation where appropriate|
|(1) CAP hops and herbage seeds support; hemp and flax aid; oilseed rape and linseed support; protein crop premium; area aid for nuts; energy crops aid (2) Includes extensification premium and deseasonalisation premium (where applicable). (3) Includes agri-monetary compensation; dairy premium and additional dairy premium. (4) Tir Mynydd in Wales, less favoured area compensatory allowance scheme in Northern Ireland, less favoured areas support scheme in Scotland and hill farm allowance in England. (5) Includes Moorland, habitat and countryside access farming schemes; entry level pilot scheme.|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|