|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the impact of UK aid to Pakistan on levels of (a) anti-British extremism, (b) violations of religious freedom and (c) freedom of speech in Pakistan. 
Mr. Thomas: DFID is in the process of preparing a new Country Assistance Plan for Pakistan for 2008 to 2012. As part of that preparation, we have commissioned an independent evaluation of DFIDs impact on the three strategic outcome areas of the 2005 Country Assistance Plan: (1) increased incomes for the poor; (2) improved delivery of education, health and population services to the poor; and (3) greater accountability of the state to its citizens. We aim to publish this evaluation by the summer.
We have also just completed consultations within Pakistan, and with the Pakistan Diaspora, on what our future priorities should be. The overwhelming sense from these consultations was that DFIDs programme in Pakistan has been making an impact, and that we should look to increase our efforts in support of Pakistans poverty reduction strategies and plans.
DFIDs work, especially in the aftermath of the 2005 earthquake, has won the UK many friends in Pakistan and has contributed to strengthening the ties between our two countries. This was illustrated in November last year when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister signed a 10 year Development Partnership Arrangement (DPA) with Pakistans Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz. The DPA is based on a shared commitment to pursuing poverty reduction objectives, respecting the human rights obligations entered into, and improving financial management and accountability in Pakistan.
Mr. Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid his Department gave to Pakistan in each of the last five years; and what planned expenditure is for the next three years. 
|Table 1: DFID bilateral expenditure to Pakistan|
UK funding to multilateral institutions cannot be directly attributed to any country; however table 2 contains estimates of the UKs imputed shares of multilateral aid to Pakistan. These estimates are based on the UKs funding of each multilateral institution and each multilaterals distribution of aid to Pakistan. They are only available on a calendar year basis.
|Table 2: imputed UK share of multilateral aid to Pakistan for 2001 - 05|
|Imputed aid (£000)|
The list of multilateral organisations used in the production of these data is not exhaustive; the multilaterals analysed are those that provide the Development Assistance Committee with detailed information about their distribution of funds to Pakistan and to whom DFID provided funds over the period.
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will support the deployment of a human rights monitoring mechanism across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. 
Hilary Benn: Any third party, such as a human rights observation force, would only be able to achieve its goals with the full support of the Government of Israel (GoI) and the Palestinian Authority. Such support is unlikely in the current climate.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much UK-funded support has been made available to aid groups in Thailand assisting those displaced from their homes in Burma in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. 
Of those aid groups based in Thailand, DFID provides £1.8 million (over three years2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08) to the Thailand-Burma Border Consortium for the provision of food, shelter, cooking fuel and non-food items for the 166,000
refugees in the nine camps on the Thai-Burma border, and for their support to internally displaced people, particularly those in hiding in areas of ongoing conflict. We provide an approximately equivalent amount of funding to the Thailand-Burma Border Consortium's refugee work through our contributions to aid provided by the European Union.
DFID acknowledges the importance and value of cross-border aid, especially in supporting many of the 100,000 internally displaced people living in conflict areas in eastern Burma. We also acknowledge the value and importance of work by community based groups inside the country, who are able to reach many of the 400,000 internally displaced people living in Government controlled areas, mixed administration areas (where both ethnic armed groups and the Burmese army are present) and cease-fire areas. We believe strongly that the two mechanisms should be seen as complementary to each othernot as competitors.
We have removed the restriction on the use of UK funds provided to Thailand-based non-Governmental organisations for cross-border assistance. But while several Governments already fund cross-border work, the UK is the only bilateral donor currently supporting community-based groups reaching internally displaced people from inside Burma. Our judgment is that the best use for our additional money is to support community based organisations working inside Burma, which is why we also provide assistance to internally displaced people through community-based groups inside Burma (£400,000 in 2007-08) to provide emergency relief, health and education programmes in eastern Burma.
Mr. Thomas: In 2006, the UN Secretary-General set up a High Level Panel (HLP) on UN System-wide Coherence. The Panel, with the Chancellors participation, reported in November 2006 with recommendations to improve the UNs position and response to new global development challenges, and to achieve greater efficiency and co-ordination. This included the establishment of One UN pilots at country level. The pilots are testing an approach based on one integrated UN programme with one consolidated budget, managed by one UN leader (the Resident Co-ordinator), where appropriate housed in one UN location. The aim is to create a genuinely united nations at country level, operating in partnership with, and responding directly to the needs of developing countries in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
One UN is currently being piloted in eight countries: Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, Pakistan, Vietnam (all priorities for the UK), Cape Verde, Uruguay and Albania. The HLP recommended that the programme expand to up to 40 countries by 2010. DFID is working closely with country offices, governments, and the UN system to ensure that One UN is successful. Progress is already being made in aligning the UN with national priorities, in greater efficiency and in taking the necessary change management steps. DFID is working closely
with partners and the UN system to ensure robust monitoring and evaluation processes are in place, so that lessons learned and best practice are fully utilised in future One UN countries.
John Barrett: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will take steps to facilitate the provision of healthcare free at the point of access in (a) Zimbabwe and (b) Rwanda. 
Hilary Benn: DFID is committed to helping countries that want to remove charges at the point of delivery. DFID made a commitment in the recent White Paper to help partner governments abolish user fees for basic health services and help them tackle other barriers to access, including discrimination against women.
In Rwanda, the Government and major aid donors are conscious that financial barriers are inhibiting poor people from accessing health services. DFID is therefore working closely with the Government to investigate how DFID aid and technical assistance can best be provided to reduce the level of out-of-pocket expenditures on health services. In particular, DFID is looking at various options to specifically address the needs of the very poor that are most adversely affected by present patient charges.
In Zimbabwe, access to health services is rapidly decreasing as the economy contracts, inflation surpasses 4500 per cent. government capacity to maintain services diminishes and travel for most people becomes harder. User fees are currently charged for most health services other than preventive care to children under five and HIV treatment services. Where commodities have been donated, the Ministry of Health policy is that these should not be sold through fees but passed on for free. We are all aware of the situation in Zimbabwe which prevents a development partnership between DFID and the Zimbabwean government. However, DFID engages whenever the opportunity arises to discuss the adverse effects of user fees. DFID provides technical assistance and financial support for research in order to strengthen the evidence base and support the policy process.
John Barrett: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support his Department provided to health systems in (a) Zimbabwe and (b) Rwanda in each of the last five years. 
Since then, DFID Zimbabwe has provided over £63 million through NGOs to ensure the poorest people continue to access essential health services. Support has been provided for reduction in preventable deaths (vaccination programmes, malaria prevention); mother and child services (including antenatal care, maternity services, prevention of mother to child transmission and emergency obstetric care); sexual and reproductive health (including family planning services, treatment for STIs); and HIV/AIDS (including prevention and treatment, behaviour change and care for orphans).
Hilary Benn: DFID bilateral aid to Zimbabwe in the fiscal year 2005-06 was £34.1 million of which £1.6 million was in the form of financial aid. The UK is one of the largest bilateral donors of humanitarian support to Zimbabwe, supporting over 1.5 million of the poorest people. Our funding prioritises HIV/AIDS, food insecurity and supporting orphans and vulnerable children. Our current programmes will help ensure that an additional 30,000 people receive anti-retroviral treatment, will provide health care for around 350,000 children, promote food security in both urban and rural areas and assist extremely vulnerable displaced people. The UK does not give direct funding to the Government of Zimbabwe. All DFID's bilateral funding is channelled through NGOs and UN agencies, much of it programmed jointly with other donors.
I have had many such meetings, including with the mayors or leaders of the five host boroughs last Tuesday, and Ken Livingstone last Thursday. One of the main legacies of the 2012 Games
will be to transform the heart of East London with new homes, new public transport, new employment and business opportunities and new spaces to work, live and play in.
11. Mr. Blizzard: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether she has made an estimate of the amount of revenue that the new logo will attract for the hosting of the Olympic Games in 2012. 
Mr. Caborn: The new London 2012 brand, of which the logo is one element, will help the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) to raise the £2 billion they need to host and stage the games. Sponsors will buy rights to the brand and it will underpin LOCOGs merchandising strategy. LOCOG believe that the brand will make an effective and decisive contribution to the full £2 billion budget.
13. Siobhain McDonagh: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress is being made to ensure that the poorest and most disadvantaged areas of London benefit from the economic legacy of the 2012 London Olympics. 
Tessa Jowell: A significant amount of activity is already under way to help local people secure jobs, to help local businesses to compete successfully for Olympic-related contracts and to regenerate East Londonone of the most deprived parts of the capital. Jobcentre Plus has already placed 110 local people into jobs on the Olympic site; 3,000 businesses have already registered for information about Olympic-related contract opportunities; and 11 pre-volunteer programme pilots are already giving 450 Londoners the opportunity to develop skills through volunteering. These objectives were central to our bid for the games and are ones which we are wholly committed to achieving.
Mr. Hollobone: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will investigate the capacity constraints and legacy effects of holding the equestrian events for the 2012 Olympics in Greenwich park. 
Mr. Caborn: The London Organising Committee has appointed a course designer, and work is under way to assess the overlay plan for the park, including looking at optimisation of space. The venue was endorsed by the International Federation, the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) which also had a delegation visit the site earlier this year.
Work is ongoing with all stakeholders to ensure the Olympic events do not have a detrimental effect on this unique world heritage site, and that opportunities are maximised to showcase the site and the sport of equestrianism to the world.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|