Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Department for International Development
LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING-UP QUESTIONS IN ORAL EVIDENCE
I very much appreciated the opportunity provided
by the Committee to discuss DFID's work in Burma over the last
twelve months. I believe that we have come a long way in addressing
the concerns which the Committee expressed in its report last
year, and it was useful to be able to bring the Committee up to
date with our humanitarian response to Cyclone Nargis. The evidence
session raised a few points which I would like to follow up.
Under question 4, I said that I would look into
your question about an Evening Standard report on the numbers
of visas which, according to the Burmese state press, had been
issued by the Burmese Government to United Nations and NGO staff.
The reported total figure of 1,670 visas, half to work in storm-hit
areas, may not be wholly incompatible with the United Nations
estimate that by 7 July more than 270 UN international staff,
and at least as many international staff from NGOs, had actually
travelled to the affected areas in the Irrawaddy Delta. However,
as we agreed, neither figure bears comparison with the scale of
the international relief effort following the 2004 tsunami. The
main point is that the situation is now significantly better than
it was in the weeks immediately after the cyclone struck.
Under question 25, the Committee raised the
matter of the numbers of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) which
had been agreed between the Burmese Government and international
NGOs, and whether our Embassy in Rangoon was involved in their
negotiation. Neither the DFID office nor the Embassy in Rangoon
maintains a comprehensive record of NGOs with MoUs. The international
NGOs themselves compile an annual list, which currently contains
48 NGOs, most but not all of which have completed the negotiation
of MoUs. The Embassy and the DFID office do not routinely offer
support to NGOs on MoU negotiations, although they are sometimes
approached for advice. The NGOs regularly talk to each other about
their MoUs.
Under question 27, the Committee heard critical
remarks about the team which undertook DFID's review of aid to
refugees and internally displaced people on the Thailand-Burma
border, although it is not clear how widely-held these views were
amongst those met by the team. I made my own views clear in the
evidence session. I would like to confirm that I, and senior DFID
management, have every confidence in the quality of the team's
report and its recommendations.
The issue of funding for the Shan Women's Action
Network (SWAN) was raised In question 38. The problem is that
the Thai banking system, perhaps understandably, is unwilling
to open accounts in the name of organisations which do not have
legal status In the country; and we in turn have great difficulty
in providing advances to organisations without bank accounts.
In view of the importance we attach to being able to provide support
to SWAN, DFID staff will continue to seek a way of resolving this
problem without compromising our accountability for spending public
funds.
I would like again to express my appreciation
of the Committee's continued interest in DFID's work in Burma
and with Burmese refugees in Thailand. I will continue to keep
the Committee up to date on major developments in these programmes.
21 August 2008
| 
