|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Vadera): The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) takes lead responsibility for conducting independent assessments of overall official development assistance to various countries. It last conducted an assessment of official development assistance to Afghanistan in the 2006Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration, for which Afghanistan was used within the indicators.
The UK National Audit Office undertook a programme review of DfIDs aid programme to Afghanistan in August 2007. It also conducted a value-for-money assessment in September 2007 as part of its investigation into DfID expenditure in hostile environments.
DfIDs internal audit department plans to undertake an audit of DfIDs programme in Afghanistan during the first quarter of 2008. DfIDs internal audit department has visited the DfID office to audit DfIDs internal administrative systems in three of the past four years.
UK funds disbursed through multilaterals such as the Asian Development Bank, the UN and the World Bank are subject to the auditing processes of those organisations. Similarly, aid provided to NGOs will be subject to their own independent external audits.
Whether they will review the extent of their support for the national Afghan ministries, and reconsider the balance between capacity building at the centre and achieving visible and transparent results through non-governmental organisations. [HL48]
Baroness Vadera: We believe that we have a good balance. DfIDs Afghanistan programme channels more than 80 per cent of its funding through Afghan government systems, as this is the best way of extending the legitimacy and authority of the Government, strengthening government capacity and co-ordinating donor funding. It is also an effective way of spending aid money. A study by the Peace Dividend Trust conducted in 2006-07 estimated the local economic
15 Nov 2007 : Column WA28
However, DfID works indirectly with NGOs across Afghanistan since NGOs are the major implementing partners for the Afghan government programmes that DfID funds with other donors. For example, the National Solidarity Programme disburses funding through 23 NGOs.
UK funds are also available for NGO work in Afghanistan through the joint DfID, MoD, and FCO Global Conflict Prevention Pool and through various DfID-wide funding pools for civil society and humanitarian work.
What financial or other support they are giving to the Independent Directorate of Local Governance in Afghanistan; and what expectations they have of its influence on the present provincial, district and village administrations. [HL49]
Baroness Vadera: DfID Afghanistan is currently considering how best to support the Independent Directorate of Local Governance (IDLG). The IDLG is seeking both political and financial support from donors, and officials have met with the director, Gilani Popal, and other government Ministers on a number of occasions to discuss plans for the IDLGs activities. President Karzai has mandated the IDLG with securing insecure provinces to the south and south-east of Kabul in the short to medium-term and with improving governance at provincial, district and community level to improve the delivery of basic services. It is too early to judge how successful this will be, as the IDLG was established only eight weeks ago and is still discussing its mandate and work plan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): The export of strategic exportsthat is, military and dual-use goods from the UK or a UK individual or company overseasrequires an export licence. All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against The Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, also known as the Code of Conduct. No licence is issued for equipment to be exported to any country if it is considered that the equipment or its likely use in a given country is inconsistent with the Code of Conduct.
Criterion 2 of the Code of Conduct specifically covers respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including careful consideration of equipment that could be used for torture or other cruel acts.
15 Nov 2007 : Column WA29
For the smallest levels for which statistics are kept, how many applications have been made for exclusions to access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 since the introduction of Part I of that Act in each region; how many applications were approved; how many of the approved exclusions were temporary and how many are permanent; what is the breakdown of categories of exclusions; and what is the area of land to which approved permanent and temporary exclusions in each category currently apply; and [HL2]
For the smallest levels for which statistics are kept, how many applications have been made for restrictions to access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 since the introduction of Part I of that Act in each region; how many applications were approved; how many of the approved restrictions were temporary and how many are permanent; what is the breakdown of categories of restrictions; and what is the area of land to which approved permanent and temporary restrictions in each category currently apply. [HL3]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): Natural England, which administers the restrictions and exclusions regime under Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, has received 241 applications for exclusions and restrictions. Applicants do not always specify whether they are applying for an exclusion or a restriction. The regional breakdown is as follows: north-west 33, south-east 46, east Midlands 32, Yorkshire and Humber 40, south-west 63, north-east 20, east of England 2, West Midlands 5.
The applications that resulted in exclusions or restrictions are outlined below. The terms short term and long term are used rather than temporary and permanent, as all long-term exclusions and restrictions are reviewed at least once every five years.
|Table detailing exclusions since the introduction of Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000|
|Region||Approved in total||Long term||Total long term, hectares||Short term||Total short term, hectares||Total land management exclusions||Total public safety exclusions|
|Table detailing restrictions since the introduction of Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000|
|Region||Approved in total||Long term||Total long term, hectares||Short term||Total short term, hectares||Total land management restrictions||Total public safety restrictions|
For the smallest levels for which statistics are kept, how many 28-day restrictions on access have been notified under Section 22 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 since the introduction of Part I of that Act in each region. [HL4]
Lord Rooker: There have been 124 discretionary notifications in the north-west region, 584 in the north-east, 550 in Yorkshire and Humber, 73 in the east Midlands, three in the West Midlands, nine in the east of England, 239 in the south-west, 68 in the south-east and four in London.
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|