|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mark Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reconstruction and development objectives his Department set for (a) education, (b) water and sanitation, (c) healthcare, (d) microfinance and (e) poppy eradication prior to the invasion of Afghanistan; what assessment he has made of the extent to which they have been achieved; and if he will make a statement. 
Hilary Benn: Prior to September 2001, DFID's development strategy for Afghanistan supported the UN-led strategic framework for Afghanistan. Between September 2001 and the fall of the Taliban regime, DFID's objectives were primarily humanitarian, specifically to:
Help meet immediate life-saving needs in areas such as food, water, healthcare and shelter;
Support refugee needs for assistance and protection in neighbouring countries (and cross-border operations where feasible), for example through programmes in health, food, water and sanitation;
Strengthen international humanitarian agency capacity and coordination;
Help re-establish the international community's presence in Afghanistan; and
Support peacemaking efforts and encourage forward planning for Afghanistan's post-conflict recovery.
Having helped to avert a humanitarian catastrophe and support the establishment of an interim Afghan Administration, DFID's focus shifted from humanitarian assistance to reconstruction and development.
Mark Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what (a) proposals and (b) strategies his Department had in place prior to the invasion of Afghanistan for the reconstruction and development of that country. 
Hilary Benn: DFID's development strategy in Afghanistan prior to September 2001 was to support the UN-led strategic framework for Afghanistan. Prior to, during and immediately after the invasion our work was focused on supporting the humanitarian response and meeting immediate life-saving needs in areas such as food, water, healthcare and shelter. From late 2001, DFID's approach supported the Bonn agreement, which set out the key milestones to recreating a legitimate Afghan government. Our strategy has been to support such a government in identifying its priorities for Afghan reconstruction and development, which we can then support.
Details of specific proposals we received from UN agencies, NGOs and others are no longer easily accessible as they have been archived. Searching for the broad range of all proposals in place prior to the invasion would unfortunately, involve a disproportionate cost.
Ms Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the US about the impact of a new definition of orphans and vulnerable children on eligibility for support from the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief from March; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Thomas: We have regular discussions, at both ministerial and official level, with colleagues in the US Office of the Global AIDS Co-ordinator, who are responsible for the operation of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). We understand they have no plans to adopt a new definition of orphans and vulnerable children.
We believe the most widely adopted international definitions are those agreed by the members of the Joint United Nations Programme for HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Monitoring and Evaluation Reference Group. They define an orphan as a child below the age of 18 who has lost one or both parents. They further define a child made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS as below the age of 18 and:
Having lost one or both parents, or
Having a chronically ill parent (regardless of whether the parent lives in the same household as the child), or
Living in a household where in the past 12 months, at least one adult died and was sick for three of the 12 months before he/she died, or
Living in a household where at least one adult was seriously ill for at least three months in the past 12 months, or
Living outside of family care (i.e. living in an institution or on the streets).
DFID supports the UNICEF view, agreed at the 2004 and 2006 Global Partners Forums, that national and international partners should advance action for children affected by AIDS rather than orphans and vulnerable children to reflect the range of ways that HIV and AIDS can make children vulnerable, including children: living in households that have taken in orphans; living with HIV themselves; who have lost access to school; or whose parents are struggling with a terminal illness.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what total funding for education his Department allocated in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 
|Table 1: DFID Bilateral expenditure on education|
DFID also contributes to the funding of a range of multilateral organisations much of which will go towards education. The total amount of funding through the major relevant multilateral organisations is published in Statistics on International Development, a copy of which is available in the Library. Summary information is provided in Table 2.
|Table 2: Total DFID expenditure on the funding of selected multilateral organisations|
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 28 February 2007, Official Report, column 1404W, on gaming clubs, for what reasons the research paper commissioned by the Casino Advisory Panel was not received in time to provide background to assist in the scoping phase of the panels work. 
Mr. Caborn: The research paper commissioned by the Casino Advisory Panel was not received in time to provide background to assist in the scoping phase of the Panels work because the process of conducting the research revealed that there was more material in existence than had been anticipated by the researcher.
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 28 February 2007, Official Report, column 1403W, on gaming clubs, which members of the Casino Advisory Panel had expertise in each of the categories of expertise stated in the answer to question 123659. 
Mr. Caborn: Biographical details of the five individuals selected to become the Chair and members of the Casino Advisory Panel were included in the press release, issued on 30 September 2005, which announced the establishment of the Panel.
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 28 February 2007, Official Report, column 1404W, on gaming clubs, on what date the Casino Advisory Panel asked her Department for its 2006 budget to be determined; and on what date the Panel was informed of its budget. 
Mr. Caborn: The Casino Advisory Panels budget was discussed and carefully monitored throughout the latter part of 2005 and during 2006. In the period leading up to the examinations in public, held in August and September 2006 for the local authority areas short listed for the regional casino, funding for the remainder of 2006 was confirmed and extra staffing was allocated to the Panel. This is recorded in the minutes of the Casino Advisory Panel meeting held on 5 July 2006, which are available on the Panels website at:
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the implications for the Big Five Lottery distributors of changes in funding levels resulting from preparations for the 2012 Olympic Games. 
Tessa Jowell: It was always understood when we bid that National Lottery funding for London 2012 would involve some loss of income to the non-Olympic good causes. Non-Olympic distributors may lose an average of 5 per cent. of their income because of sales diversion to Olympic Lottery games over the period 2005-06 to 2012-13. In addition, we have already announced that £410 million will be taken from non-Olympic Lottery proceeds between 2009 and 2012. No decision has been made about how that amount will be shared between the various non-Olympic good causes.
Tessa Jowell: I refer the hon. Member to the Committee for Culture, Media and Sport hearing on 21 November 2006, where I gave a detailed breakdown of the recent estimate into the costs of the London 2012 Olympic Games. The transcript is available in the Committees Second Report of the Session 2006-07, London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games: funding and legacy (HC 69-ii).
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what consideration the Government has given to the exclusion of Zimbabwe from participating in the London 2012 Olympic Games; and if she will make a statement. 
Tessa Jowell: The involvement of individual nations or territories in the Olympic Games is a matter for the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Nations of the world send competitors to the Games under the auspices of their respective National Olympic Committee (NOC). The IOC grants recognition to individual NOCs, and then invites them to participate in each Games.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether Zimbabwe meets the criteria for participating in the London 2012 Olympic Games; and if she will make a statement. 
Tessa Jowell: The main role of the 203 National Olympic Committees, as recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), is to ensure that athletes from their respective nations attend the Olympic Games. Only a NOC is able to select and send teams and competitors for participation in the Olympic Games. Responsibility for establishing and applying the criteria for participating in the Games is a matter for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and, depending upon the sport in question, the appropriate International Sports Federation.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact on commercial radio serving local communities of changes in advertising revenue over the last three years. 
Mr. Woodward: None. However, Ofcoms review of radio which has outlined a number of challenges currently facing the industry, including the impact of falling advertising revenue to the commercial radio sector. The next stage of their review will be published shortly.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|