|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development with reference to the answer of 30 October 2008, Official Report, columns 1323-24W, on departmental ICT, what the (a) expected completion date and (b) expected cost was at the outset of each project. 
Mr. Douglas Alexander: The original planned completion date for the ARIES Finance, Procurement and Reporting System was end of October 2008. The original contracted cost of the project was £11 million. Built into the original contract were a number of additional cost options (such as usability improvements, improved compliance with Accessibility and Disability Equality standards and a major software upgrade) which were subsequently taken up. This further work has extended the project time and cost. The current total contract value is £17.6 million, and is now due to complete in September 2009.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development with reference to the answer of 6 May 2008, Official Report, column 778W, on the departmental internet, if he will list the changes made. 
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development with reference to the answer of 28 October 2008, Official Report, column 935W, on departmental temporary employment, how many staff were recruited through each company in each year; and for how long on average staff recruited through these companies worked for the Department in each year. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: As temporary agency staff are not employed by DFID, they are not paid directly through our payroll, nor are they recorded centrally on our HR database. Consequently there is no historical record of how many staff were recruited through each company, and it is not possible to say for how long on average staff worked in DFID in each year.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many individuals have worked in his Department on (a) paid and (b) unpaid work experience or internships in each of the last three years; on average how many hours a week were worked by such people in each year; what types of work each was involved in; what proportion were in full-time education; what proportion did not complete their set period of work experience; and how much those who received remuneration were paid on average per week in each year. 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The Department for International Development (DFID) has participated in two cross-Government internship schemes aimed at helping address the historic under-representation of women, ethnic minority groups and people with a disability in the civil service. These programmes are specifically for undergraduates/graduates from those groups and are focused on developing an increased understanding of civil service career opportunities. As such, the opportunities provided encompass a wide range of roles across the department. In each of the last three years, eight internships were offered under these schemes. Participants on the scheme worked an average of 36 hours a week. In 2006, the average salary received was £319 a week. In 2007, it was £320 a week. In 2008, it has been £337 a week. All 24 participants, with one exception (4 per cent.), completed their internships.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what criteria his Department uses to ensure that multilateral donors have at least as good financial and physical safeguards in place as a bilateral aid project undertaken by his Department; 
Mr. Ivan Lewis: When the Department for International Development (DFID) funds multilateral partners for specific projects we subject them to regular mandatory project cycle management design and approval procedures to establish accounting and audit, in-year and end of project reporting standards and processes. To safeguard UK taxpayers' investment, these include detailed narrative and financial reports on project expenditure, progress achieved with resources used, and assurance that any problems identified are being addressed.
For grants to international organisations, we insist on evidence about the use of funds from the organisation's own audited accounts, or special audited statements. Our requirements are set out in standard (MOU) texts and are built into the funding agreement. It is mandatory for projects with an approved commitment of £1 million and above and which are at least one year old to be reviewed and scored annually.
For core funding, which is general support to the multilateral institution's overall budget, DFID uses institutional strategies (ISs) to set the framework for the funding relationship. ISs include a performance framework that contains measurable indicators and targets, with baselines and data sources that are clearly specified. IS objectives are scored annually. DFID uses the agency's own monitoring systems as far as possible supplemented by independent reviews as required on an annual basis. We insist on evidence about the use of funds from the organisation's own audited accounts, or special audited statements, as well as additional internal controls. For example, the World Bank provides us with an annual set of accounts that has been audited by an external, private sector audit firm, as well as an annual external audit of their financial risk controls. The World Bank also has a strong internal audit department and an independent evaluation arm that regularly tests the quality of the project portfolio and reports publicly. Similarly, the European Union's administrative structures include anti-fraud and internal audit units and the European Court of Auditors, as well as an Evaluation Department.
It is rare for us to provide physical assets to an international organisation. Where we do, these typically remain the property of the UK Government. If the organisation wishes to dispose of the assets or use them for a different purpose to that originally intended, DFID must approve the decision.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what (a) financial, (b) administrative and (c) other resources his Department (i) has provided and (ii) plans to provide in each of the next five years to the Returns and Reintegration Fund from (A) its central budget and (B) its country offices. 
Mr. Douglas Alexander: The Department for International Development (DFID) has made available up to £35 million over two financial years (2008-09 and 2009-10) to the Returns and Reintegration Fund (which is a pooled fund comprising DFID, FCO, UKBA and MOJ financial resources and expertise, administered by the FCO) of which we have provided £4 million so far this financial year.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate. Thousands have been hit by cholera and hundreds have died. Basic services have collapsed. The health services can only respond because of the help ourselves and others are giving. 5 million people need food aid, and more disease outbreaks are likely.
Mugabe has led his country to this humanitarian catastrophe and now denies it exists. We are doing everything we can to save lives, but fundamental change is now required to give power back to the Zimbabwean people and bring this crisis to an end.
Jim Fitzpatrick [holding answer 15 December 2008]: In 2003, The Future of Air Transport White Paper set out a strategic framework for the development of airport capacity in the United Kingdom over the next 30 years. In it we said that our basic aim is to limit and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise.
Prior to entry into service, the noise levels generated by any aircraft design are measured by the applicant/manufacturer and then approved by a certificating authority. With regard to the UK, the approving authority is the European Aviation Safety Organisation (EASA), except for light propeller aircraft and microlights where the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) retains responsibility. Certification noise limits are set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The most recent Chapter 4 noise limits for large aircraft were introduced on the 1 January 2006.
The Department for Transport is responsible for specific noise mitigation measures at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. These include noise preferential departure routes, noise departure limits for both day and night with, additionally, strict limits of movements and a quota systemto encourage use of quieter aircraftat night.
In terms of measuring noise, aircraft noise contours for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted using the Leq metric are produced annually for the Department by the CAA. Elsewhere in the UK, it is the responsibility of airports to produce aircraft noise contours as appropriate.
Under the European Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC, all major airports in the UK have been required to produce noise maps for 2006, based on the Lden metric. The directive also requires airports to
publish action plans designed to manage noise issues and effects arising from aircraft departing from and arriving at their airport, including noise reduction if necessary. Implementation of the directive in England is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland it is the responsibility of the devolved Administrations.
Given the difference in parameters, caution should be exercised in attempting any comparison between Leq aircraft noise contour maps and aircraft noise contour maps produced in accordance with the Environmental Noise Directive.
Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria will be used to assess the bid for funding by Lancashire County Council and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council for the Pennine Reach scheme. 
Paul Clark: Blackburn with Darwen borough council is currently clarifying the design of the scheme and has yet to submit a bid for funding. Any bid received will be assessed in accordance with the Department for Transport's guidance entitled Guidance for Local Authorities seeking Government funding for major transport schemes which is available on the Department's website.
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil servants in his Department have been (a) investigated, (b) suspended and (c) dismissed for (i) losing and (ii) deliberately disclosing (A) data stored on departmental equipment and (B) confidential information in each year since 1997. 
Mr. Hoon: Prior to 2006, the central Department and its agencies recorded no cases of employees being (a) investigated, (b) suspended and (c) dismissed for (i) losing and (ii) deliberately disclosing (A) data stored on departmental equipment and (B) confidential information.
Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many members of staff in his Department have received gifts valued at £100 or higher in the course of their duties in each of the last three years; what these gifts were; and from whom they were received. 
Fountain penInstitute of Highway Incorporated Engineers
SatnavInstitute of Highway Incorporated Engineers
Crystal modelDubai Road Transport Authority
The Departments policy is that all gifts other than low value items i.e. diaries, must be refused. The only exception to the above is where refusal would cause offence to the donor or misunderstanding.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff in his Department undertook courses funded by the Department for (a) undergraduate degrees, (b) postgraduate degrees or diplomas, (c) Masters degrees, (d) MBA degrees and (e) PhD degrees in the last 12 months, broken down by pay band. 
Mr. Hoon: The central Department has delegated budget responsibility to the line and therefore does not hold the information centrally. However, the Departments agencies funded the following courses during the last 12 months (November 2007-October 2008):
|Department for Transport||PB1||PB2||PB3||PB4||PB5||PB6||PB7||SCS 1||SCS2||SCS3||Total|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|