|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
However, there remains considerable cause for concern. The Congolese army continues to steal from and harass the population. This has been exacerbated where attempts to carry out a mixing process between the army and remaining militia groups has increased ethnic tensions in certain areas and has led to large numbers of people being displaced. In the Kivus, the population also continue to be harassed by the foreign armed group the FDLR (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Rwanda). Throughout the region sexual
violence remains unacceptably high and outbreaks of disease such as cholera, meningitis and plague add to the suffering of the population. For those areas where greater stability means that people can return home, they need help with the basics such as health care, clean water and assistance to restart farming. This is also true for many areas throughout the country where infrastructure and services have been destroyed or neglected.
The DRC Humanitarian Action Plan, developed by the humanitarian community in DRC, estimates the total need for 2007 to be US $687 million. This includes interventions to save lives and to help people return home or to have access to basic services when there is no other support. DFID expects to spend about £35 million on humanitarian aid for DRC in 2007. This will include a contribution of £30 million to the DRC Humanitarian Pooled Fund (in support of the Humanitarian Action Plan). The first £15 million for the pooled fund has already been transferred, as has £2 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross for their annual appeal for DRC.
Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral aid initiatives the UK is undertaking in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 
Hilary Benn: The UK had £67 million development assistance available to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in financial year 2006-07. Approximately half of these funds have been spent on emergency humanitarian support through the UN and non-governmental organisations, with the remainder on supporting the 2006 electoral process, improving transport links to some isolated areas, supporting police and justice reform, supplying anti-malarial bednets and basic health, education, water and sanitation services and tackling HIV/AIDS. Additionally, through the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool, we are supporting the EU mission advising on reform of the army; the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of militia groups; and the provision of tents, water and sanitation and human rights training to soldiers in the new integrated brigades (and their families and local communities) to try to stop them preying on civilian populations to make ends meet.
Available funds are set to increase if the country continues to make progress. We are currently finalising our post-elections strategy for the DRC. We are doing this under the umbrella of the Common Assistance Frameworka joint strategy with all DRCs other major donors. This will help ensure that donor support to the DRC is co-ordinated and so more effective. All of our programmes are developed in consultation with other donorssuch as the World Bank, UN, European Commission, the United States, Belgium and Sweden, and many will be jointly implemented. For example, the programme we are developing on road rehabilitation will be implemented through the World Bank, and also financed by the European Commission. Our humanitarian support to those most in need is implemented by the UN and non-governmental organisation and funded by several donors through a pooled fund mechanism which allows DRCs humanitarian co-ordinator to deploy funds quickly and flexibly to wherever the need is greatest.
1. Building an effective and accountable stateincluding reform of the police, army and justice sector.
2. Enabling democratisation and accountability.
3. Supporting the provision of basic serviceshealth, education and infrastructureto the population and tackling HIV/AIDS.
4. Enabling growth by rebuilding roads and promoting better management of the DRCs natural resources.
5. Providing immediate humanitarian assistance to those in desperate need of assistance.
Mr. David Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what total (a) value and (b) proportion of debts belonging to heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) is owned by commercial creditors; and how much debt relief has been provided by commercial creditors under the HIPC initiative. 
Hilary Benn: The World Bank and IMF estimate that approximately 5 per cent. of the total outstanding debt of all HIPC countries (US$63.2 billion in Net Present Value terms) was owed to commercial creditors.
Countries that receive debt relief from multilateral organisations and bilateral (Government) creditors are required to negotiate equivalent debt relief from other creditors, including commercial banks and companies. Many commercial banks are part of the London Club and offer debt relief under the HIPC framework. However, a survey of 24 HIPCs in 2006 led the IMF and World Bank to estimate that only a limited number of commercial creditors (holding approximately 5.5 per cent. of the total commercial debts) have provided their share of HIPC debt relief directly.
Many of the remaining commercial creditors have agreed to around 90 per cent. debt reduction as part of operations managed by the World Bank under their Debt Reduction Facility (DRF), the remaining 10 per cent. of the debt is paid for by the World Bank and donors with some contribution from HIPCs towards the costs. By mid-2006, over $4.5 billion worth of commercial debt owed by HIPCs had been eliminated in this way.
However, some of the remaining commercial debt is bought by vulture funds. These companies wait until a countrys circumstances have improved (for example after debt relief) and then press their case through the courts, seeking large settlements. We are working bilaterally and multilaterally with HIPC Governments to raise awareness of this issue and encourage preventative action. DFID is co-funding a Debt Management Capacity Building programme and supports a wide range of other activities to strengthen public financial management and accountability. DFID also supports the World Banks DRF, and we have recently agreed to provide a contribution of $3.5 million to a package that will help Nicaragua buy back over $1.3 billion-worth of commercial debt.
James Duddridge: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with representatives of the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative on treatment for (a) malaria and (b) other diseases. 
Hilary Benn: DFID is providing £6.5 million to the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi) from 2005 to 2008. Officials from the Central Research Department hold regular discussions with DNDi about their work to develop new treatments for malaria and such neglected tropical diseases as leishmaniasis, sleeping sickness and Chagas disease.
Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding his Department provided to (a) the IPPR and (b) IPPR Trading Ltd. in each year since May 1997; and for what purposes. 
|Table 1: IPPR Funding|
|Table 2: IPPR Trading Limited|
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations he has made to the Government of Uganda on the distribution of (a) development funds and (b) budget support to that countrys regions. 
The overarching framework for allocating budget resources in Uganda is the Governments own Poverty Eradication Action Plan. DFID participates in the process through which the Government of Uganda determine the distribution of budget funds which include
assessments of performance and financing needs in individual sectors and an annual Public Expenditure Review in which development partners and civil society are consulted about budget plans for the next year and the medium term. Allocations to the Poverty Action Fund, through which poverty reduction expenditure is prioritised, are now nearly 40 per cent. of the Governments budget compared to about 20 per cent. at the end of the 1990s. DFIDs Poverty Reduction Budget Support (PRBS) supplements the Governments own resources in the budget. Decisions about PRBS take into account the Governments commitments to poverty reduction, strengthening financial management and accountability and respecting human rights and international obligations.
The distribution of support to the countrys regions is an important part of the discussions which DFID has about performance and financing needs in individual sectors such as health, education, water and agriculture. The provision of services at district level is largely funded by the central Government. Ensuring that the criteria for allocating resources to districts take proper account of poverty is a priority for DFID. We have worked closely with the Government in different sectors to improve allocation criteria so that the distribution of funds and the provision of services better reflects needs. In recent years there has been a shift in the allocation of resources in favour of poorer districts, although there is scope for further improvement. A recent National Audit Office study noted the contribution DFID has made to bringing about positive changes in the district budget allocation system.
A particular focus for our discussion about support to Ugandas regions has been the situation in the north where the humanitarian consequences of conflict have created major additional needs on top of normal per capita expenditure, including the requirement for large scale food distribution. These additional needs have largely been met by the donor community. We have pressed the Government to do more. The Government responded in the 2006-07 budget by making available an extra £5.3 million (approximately) for the districts of the north affected by conflict.
Mr. Vaizey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what procedures her Department is following in drafting Part I of the Creative Economy Green Paper; and when she expects the Green Paper to be published. 
Mr. Woodward: Part 1 of the forthcoming Creative Economy Green Paper will set out a clear analysis of the state of the UKs creative economy, the factors that have driven its recent success and the challenges the sector faces.
In preparing this, we will draw on the findings of seven Working Groups set up at the outset of the Creative Economy Programme, our existing evidence base and specially commissioned research, as well as responses to an earlier online consultation and a range of industry summits and bilateral discussions.
Mr. Woodward: The Department appointed the Work Foundation on a single tender, taking into account several factors. Principal among these was that the Work Foundation was undertaking a major wider project on The Knowledge Economy, of which the creative economy is a part. This enabled the organisation to produce expert, innovative and specialised work for this consultancy drawing on their wider experience, evidence base and stature.
The consultancy project also demands powerful leadership with the ability to help the Department engage in challenging discussion with a wide range of senior figures in the private and public sector. These additional factors also supported the appointment of the Work Foundation.
Mr. Vaizey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what opportunity was given to stakeholders to comment on the evidence received by the Gowers Review prior to publication of the Gowers Report. 
The Gowers Review conducted a public call for evidence in the early stages of the review. Over 100 respondents made their evidence publicly available prior to the publication of the review for wider discussion. The review also met with a wide range of stakeholdersincluding representatives from the creative industries and consumer groupsthroughout 2006 to discuss emerging evidence.
Mr. Vaizey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 14 March 2007, Official Report, columns 322-4W, on film, which other industry summits she (a) has held and (b) plans to hold to inform the further development of the Joint Creative Economy Programme with the Department of Trade and Industry; and who has been invited to each. 
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what requests she has received from any authority within European member states in respect of the restitution of museum artefacts from those states which are held by British museums. 
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with her counterparts in other EU member states on the restitution of museum artefacts. 
Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many businesses based in (a) the London Borough of Newham, (b) the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, (c) the London Borough of Hackney, (d) the London Borough of Waltham Forest and (e) the London Borough of Greenwich have secured tenders for the construction phase of the London Olympics; 
(3) how many businesses based in (a) the London Borough of Newham, (b) the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, (c) the London Borough of Hackney, (d) the London Borough of Waltham Forest and (e) the London Borough of Greenwich have submitted applications for contracts during the construction phase of the London Olympics; 
Mr. Caborn: The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) is currently engaged in a process of procuring contracts for the construction phase of the Olympic and Paralympic facilities. To date, the ODA has not awarded any construction phase contracts. The ODA has awarded the contract for the project and programme management of the Olympic Park, and has had the contracts for the undergrounding of the powerlines and remediation and demolition work novated over to them from the London Development Agency.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|