|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Whitehall and Westminster World,
Y Cymro, and
David Mundell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place since the Scottish Parliamentary elections in May between the Secretary of State and returning officers on the process of auto-adjudication used during the counting process. 
David Cairns [holding answer 10 September 2007]: None. The decision on the content of the user agreement in relation to how the system dealt with ballot papers, including auto-adjudication, was the responsibility of returning officers and the e-counting provider. The Scotland Office did not take any decisions on the inclusion of auto-adjudication. These matters will come within the scope of the independent review of the recent Scottish elections led by Mr. Ron Gould.
The devolved administration and legislature in Scotland are funded through the Scottish block grant. This is paid for through general UK taxation and voted on by the UK Parliament. The costs of the Scottish Parliament building are met from within the block grant.
David Mundell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Governments review of the experience of new voting systems will take account of information to be reported by the current Electoral Commissions review chaired by Ron Gould of the recent Scottish elections. 
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations his Department has received from African, Pacific and Caribbean countries on implementation of the reform of the Common Agricultural Sugar Policy. 
Mr. Thomas: DFID Ministers and officials have had a productive and ongoing dialogue with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries on the issue of European Union (EU) sugar reforms. This has included meetings and correspondence and has covered the depth and pace of the reforms, the amount and allocation of transitional assistance and the implications for sugar of the EU's duty and quota free market access offer under the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA's).
Most recent communication between DFID and the ACP countries has been about the European Commission's proposal to terminate the sugar protocol (SP). A number of ACP countries have been concerned about the impacts of the ending of the protocol. However, it is a logical consequence of the EU internal sugar market reforms and the offer of duty and quota free market access as part of the EPAs.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the effect on sugar producers in developing countries of the implementation of the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy sugar regime. 
Mr. Thomas: In 2003 the European Commission undertook an impact assessment of the proposed reform of the European Union (EU) internal sugar market (this was formally adopted by the Agricultural Council in February 2006). In May 2006 DEFRA undertook a comprehensive regulatory impact assessment of the reform. This assessment looked at the potential impact of the reform on all stakeholders including African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries that supply sugar to the EU market under a preferential trade agreement. In addition DFID has commissioned a number of independent studies looking at the impacts of the reform on the sugar industry in developing countries, with particular emphasis on the least developed countries (LDC's).
The assessments and studies all suggest that the reform will present challenges for the ACP countries who will see the value of their preference decline. They also show that the reform will provide impetus for some of the ACP countries to move their economies away from large scale dependency on sugar and thereby provide long term economic benefit in the form of efficiency gains. However the assessment also suggests
the ACP countries will need financial assistance to help them diversify their economies and adapt to the reforms.
In response to these assessments DFID successfully lobbied the Commission to provide transitional assistance for the ACP countries. As a result of the lobbying the EU has earmarked around €1.244 billion between 2007 and 2013. Allocation of these funds is based on a national Sugar Action Plan submitted independently by the ACP countries. DFID has provided technical and financial support to a number of ACP countries to draw up their individual plans.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding his Department provided to the public-private infrastructure advisory facility in each year since its inception. 
Mr. Malik: DFID has supported the public private infrastructure advisory facility (PPIAF) over three phases since its inception in 1999. Our total commitment to PPIAF from 1999 to 2008 is £53.3 million, broken down annually as follows:
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department has taken to establish the first global roster for education in emergencies since the announcement of its establishment on 5 April. 
Mr. Malik: At a UK-chaired donor/agencies meeting on 22 May 2007 in Geneva, UNICEF and the Save the Children Alliance (SCA), the lead agencies for education in emergencies, confirmed that establishing a global roster of education experts was the priority in a programme of measures they are leading to build the capacity of UN and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). DFID has discussed follow up on this with UNICEF and the SCA, and is monitoring progress closely.
DFID has also provided UNICEF with £4 million per year over four years to support their role in responding to emergencies. This includes building education response capacity through the Education Cluster Support Unit.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the £20 million funding announced on 5 April for activities in emergency and post-crisis countries over the next four
to five years will be used to fund the first global roster for education in emergencies. 
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment his Department has made of the humanitarian situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Malik: We assessed the humanitarian situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea at the end of August, in response to the flooding there. As a result of the assessment, DFID has contributed up to £700,000 in response to the Flash Appeal issued by the United Nations on 27 August. £650,000 has gone to programmes under way and being implemented by Save the Children UK and the World Food Programme. We have also offered support to the UN if required to assist with coordinating the relief effort, which is estimated to last a further three months.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions his Department has had with AIDCO and ECHO on support for the work of non-governmental organisations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 
The Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid (ECHO) will close its programmes in North Korea in May 2008. This is primarily because the North Korean Government requested its donors to end humanitarian aid for the first time in August 2004 and then enforced it in August 2005.
AidCo will now assume the lead on the EU assistance programme, and they plan to allocate a total of €35 million between 2007 and 2010, including €8 million in 2007, largely concentrating on food security. Non-governmental organisations in Pyongyang (and possibly others not currently based in the country) will be bidding for a share of the €8 million. AidCo will take over responsibility from ECHO for the NGOs operating in North Korea.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding his Department channelled through the (a) World Bank, (b) International Monetary Fund, (c) United Nations and (d) World Trade Organisation in each of the last 10 years. 
Data on DFIDs multilateral assistance to the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and United Nations over the last 10 years are
set out in the following table. The World Trade Organisation does not act as a donor but as a forum for trade negotiations and therefore no funding is channelled through it. These figures do not include the element of the DFID bilateral programme channelled through the listed multilateral organisations.
|DFID multilateral assistance to World Bank, IMF and United Nations, 1997-98 to 2006-07|
|World Bank||IMF||United Nations|
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding his Department has provided for water projects in the last 10 years, broken down by (a) project and programme and (b) country. 
Mr. Thomas: A detailed breakdown of DFID support for the water sector over the last five years can be found in the two reports titled Financial Support to the Water Sector 2002 to 2004 and Financial Support to the Water Sector 2004 to 2006, prepared for DFID by WS Atkins Plc. Both are available on DFIDs website,
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|