|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department has taken to work in partnership on AIDS prevention with government bodies in those countries to which his Department provides aid to reduce the incidence of AIDS. 
Gillian Merron: National Governments have responsibility for resourcing, coordinating and delivering effective AIDS responses, but they need support from a wide range of other stakeholders. The Department for International Development (DFID) supports countries to develop and implement evidence-informed HIV prevention strategies that promote and protect human rights; that are relevant to the local epidemic context; and that promote comprehensive approaches to HIV prevention based on the realities of peoples lives.
There is strong evidence for the effectiveness of many approaches to HIV prevention, including condom use, family planning, methods to prevent mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT), and for people who inject drugs, comprehensive harm reduction services, particularly needle and syringe exchange and drug treatment programmes, including non-injectable substitutes.
In countries with strong commitments to development, we focus on supporting the implementation of comprehensive country-led HIV and AIDS strategies, directly funding governments and working with civil society partners and donor agencies. In more fragile states, where governments are less effective, we provide technical support to strengthen government capacity as well as direct support for service delivery by civil society organisations.
A copy of the updated strategy Achieving Universal Accessthe UKs strategy for halting and reversing the spread of HIV in developing world and supporting evidence paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. These are also available on the DFID website:
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects and programmes his Department funds (a) to address critical health worker shortages and (b) to secure long-term sustainable financing to strengthen health systems in countries where HIV positive and AIDS are endemic. 
Gillian Merron: The Department for International Development (DFID) provides flexible funding to back national plans and priorities and to help strengthen health systems as a whole. UK Government health spend in developing countries was £750 million in 2006-07. Addressing the shortage of health workers in these countries is a high priority for DFID. For example, in Ethiopia DFID is contributing to the massive scale-up of community health workersfrom fewer that 3,000 in 2004 to 24,000 now and 30,000 by 2009. In Malawi, DFID is contributing to the Emergency Human Resources Programme, which aims to double the number of nurses and triple the number of doctors. DFID has also provided £1 million to the Global Health Workforce Alliance from 2007-09.
In "Achieving Universal Accessthe UK's Strategy for Halting and Reversing the Spread of HIV in the Developing World" the Government have committed £6 billion to strengthen health systems and services over seven years to 2015 in poor countries where HIV and AIDS are a major problem. We have also committed £1 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria by 2015. A copy of the updated strategy 'Achieving Universal Accessthe UK's strategy for Halting and
Reversing the Spread of HIV in the Developing World' and supporting evidence paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. These are also available on the Department for International Development (DFID) website:
Mr. Malik: The Department for International Development (DFID) has budgeted to spend £279,000 on food through our catering contracts for our two UK offices in the current year. Information on the breakdown of food based on country of origin is not collated, and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost. Information for previous years is not available as DFID changed its catering contractors at the beginning of 2008.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development from which five countries of origin the greatest amount of food was procured by his Department in the last year for which figures are available; and what the (a) cost and (b) quantity procured was in each case. 
Mr. Malik: The Department for International Development is unable to answer this question as we do not require our catering contractors to maintain records of the country of origin of food procured, and to obtain this information would incur disproportionate cost.
John Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department has provided to enable Kenyan families displaced by post-election violence to return to their homes. 
Although DFID has currently not committed funds to the resettlement of internally displaced people, we are working with the international community and the Government of Kenya to ensure resources are allocated to meeting the needs of those displaced and in finding ways of successful resettlement.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to paragraph 7.53 of his Department's 2008 Annual Report, which Millennium Development Goals his Department is not on track to meet by 2015. 
Mr. Malik: The official assessment of progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is made by the United Nations (UN) each year. The last assessment was published last autumn in the UN's annual report "The Millennium Development Goal Report 2007", which is available at:
This assessment of progress was also reproduced in Annex 3 of the Department's 2008 annual report. The next update of global progress towards the MDGs is expected to be published later in September by the United Nations.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what scenario and contingency planning his Department has employed in its country programmes relating to fragile states; what the cost of such planning was; and what dialogue it has promoted with other Government departments, with reference to paragraph 8.10 of his Department's Annual Report 2008. 
Gillian Merron: Scenario and contingency planning has been carried out by Department for International Development (DFID) country offices in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Nepal, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. DFID has also participated in joint UK Government scenario planning exercises in Kosovo and Iraq. Scenario and contingency planning has helped DFID develop a better, shared understanding of context within country offices and with other Government Departments, particularly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Ministry of Defence (MOD). It has helped DFID think through the mix of aid instruments and partnerships we should use, improve risk assessment and management, and define and test options for country plans and HMG strategies.
Six DFID country offices have drawn on some support from external experts as part of the work (Bangladesh, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan) and the estimated cost of this work has been £130,500. The majority of country offices have carried out the work in-house. A cross-Whitehall scenario planning group (comprising DFID, FCO, MOD, Stabilisation Unit and the Horizon Scanning Centre) has also been established centrally, and this group is sharing lessons and experiences of scenario planning work. DFID's new country planning guidance (issued on 14 July 2008) requires all country offices to include scenario and contingency planning as part of the process.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in meeting the objectives of the Millennium Development Goals Call to Action; what steps have been taken to increase the number of countries supporting the Call to Action; how much his Department has spent on Call to Action; what administrative costs his Department has incurred; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Call to Action. 
45 countries and the EC have signed up to the Call to Action, showing their dedication to achieving the MDGs. We expect the number of signatories will continue to grow.
The G8 and the EU in its Agenda for Action have reaffirmed their commitments on aid and agreed ways of accelerating progress on the MDGs.
Over 60 private sector leaders have signed up to the Business Call to Action. Some of these set out in the Business Call to Action event organised with UNDP in May how they will contribute through their core business to reaching the MDGs. Others will do the same at the UN meeting on the MDGs in September.
Civil society and faith groups are engaging in support of the Call to Action.
We have seen close co-operation by countries and others in co-ordinating partnership events that will help shape a common vision of how to accelerate action on the MDGs.
In order to help increase the number of signatory countries, UK Government representatives, working closely with our partners, have sought to raise the Call to Action with bilateral partners in a range of meetings over the past year.
Based on salary costs, the administrative spend so far on the CtA, has been approximately £300,000 for the core team. In addition to this there are unquantified costs for the time of a range of other staff, who provide support as part of their wider responsibilities, and in-country costs incurred by the UK Mission in New York.
The CtA has been very effective in engaging a broad set of players to harness their potential to help achieve the MDGs. However there is still much to be done and we will continue to work closely with the UN and others.
|Sum allocated to the ACMD (£)|
In addition the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs secretariat staff and other civil servant costs have not been allocated as such costs are subsumed within normal salaried remuneration and within existing budgets.
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 15 September 2008]: The Airwave service is already being used operationally throughout both City of London Police and the Metropolitan Police Service. Migration to Airwave from the previous radio systems was completed by September 2007.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the guaranteed lifespan of the aerials used in the Airwave project is; and what preventative maintenance programme for these aerials has been put in place. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 15 September 2008]: The Airwave service is provided by Airwave Solutions Ltd. (ASL) and is paid for by the National Policing Improvement Agency and police authorities by means of a service charge. The responsibility for aerials and any associated preventative maintenance rests with ASL. The Airwave contract does not make specific reference to either aerial life or aerial maintenance but ASL are obliged to maintain service levels as specified in the Airwave contract.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what options her Department has considered for integrating talk groups within the Airwave system; and what estimate it has made of the cost of implementing the preferred option. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 15 September 2008]: Talk groups are a basic component of the Airwave service and as such are included in the core charge for the service. They exist within every police force and have been implemented progressively ever since Lancashire Constabulary first started using Airwave in September 2001.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions her Department has had with construction industry representatives on the inclusion of Airwave technology in large construction projects. 
Mr. McNulty [holding answer 15 September 2008]: There is no legal requirement for Airwave to be installed within large construction projects and the service is usually provided on a bespoke basis at the behest of the local force under a provision in the Airwave contract for Special Coverage Solutions. In such situations, the cost is borne by the appropriate police authority. We are not aware of any discussions that have been held on this issue with the construction industry.
Ms Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) supplying, (b) breeding and (c) scientific procedure establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 there were in Scotland on 31 December 2007. 
Meg Hillier [holding answer 10 September 2008]: As at the 31 December 2007 in Scotland there were 11 supplying, 18 breeding and 32 user establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Ms Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences were (a) granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in 2007 and (b) in force at the end of 2007 in respect of work to be carried out in Scotland. 
Meg Hillier [holding answer 10 September 2008]: During 2007 102 project licences were granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in Scotland. On 31 December 2007 there were 482 project licences in force in Scotland.
Ms Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the regulated procedures conducted in Scotland in 2007 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were performed in (a) public health laboratories, (b) universities and medical schools, (c) national health service hospitals, (d) Government Departments, (e) other public bodies, (f) non-profit making organisations and (g) commercial organisations. 
Meg Hillier [holding answer 10 September 2008]: During 2007, in Scotland, based on the numbers of procedures, universities and medical schools carried out 68 per cent. of the regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, Government Departments 1 per cent., other public bodies 13 per cent. and commercial organisations 18 per cent.
Ms Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the regulated procedures conducted in Scotland in 2007 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were carried out for (a) fundamental and applied studies other than toxicology and (b) toxicity tests or other safety and efficacy evaluation. 
Meg Hillier [holding answer 10 September 2008]: During 2007, in Scotland, 84 per cent. of the regulated procedures conducted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were carried out for fundamental and applied studies other than toxicology and 16 per cent. for toxicity tests or other safety or efficacy evaluation.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|