|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr Robathan: The George Medal was instituted, together with the George Cross, on 24 September 1940. It is awarded to civilians for acts of great bravery, but not so outstanding as to merit consideration for the George Cross. The George Medal is also awarded to military personnel for those acts for which military honours would not normally be granted, such as acts of great bravery not in the presence of the enemy.
|Number of George Medals awarded|
|Number of Conspicuous Gallantry Crosses awarded|
Mr Andrew Mitchell: The Department for International Development is currently reviewing all our country programmes, including our programme in Afghanistan. The Bilateral Aid Review is focusing on results, delivery mechanisms and the relationship between costs, outputs and outcomes. It also takes account of what other donors are doing, and considers where DFID can add value. The review will be completed by February 2011.
Mr Andrew Mitchell:
The total number of Department for International Development (DFID) projects active since 2004 is 130, of which 80 have been completed.
Obtaining information on project completed from 2001 to 2004 would incur disproportionate cost as electronic records and hard copy project paperwork prior to 2004 have been archived.
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of (a) structural adjustment programmes and (b) poverty reduction strategy papers on reducing poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. 
Mr O'Brien: Structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) were economic policy reform programmes supported by World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) lending in the 1980s and 1990s, which aimed to improve macro-economic stability and economic growth. The SAPs of the 1990s helped to lay the macro-economic policy foundations for many sub-Saharan African countries to achieve faster economic growth since 2000. However, they were often criticised for inducing adverse social impacts.
The poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) approach was launched by the World Bank and IMF in 1999 to help guide their financing and aid received from other donors, and to ensure that debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) programme would help to reduce poverty. Core principles of PRSPs are that strategies are country-owned, multi-year and designed to achieve poverty reduction results, particularly those linked to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). PRSPs are still the basis for many World Bank and IMF lending programmes.
There have been numerous assessments of the impacts of SAPs and PRSPs. The Secretary of State has not made a formal assessment of the effectiveness of SAPs or PRSP's in reducing poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. What we are interested in going forward, is how to make faster progress against the MDGs and deliver value for money with all UK aid.
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many contracts his Department has with Capita; and how much it has paid to Capita under such contracts in 2010-11 to date. 
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many officials in his Department have been (a) subject to disciplinary action, (b) removed from post, (c) transferred to another position and (d) dismissed for matters relating to their (i) disciplinary record and (ii) performance in each year since 1997. 
Available information on the number of Department for International Development (DFID) staff that have been subject to disciplinary action, removed
from post, transferred to another position or dismissed in each year since 1999 is provided as follows. Where the total number of staff concerned is fewer then five we are unable to provide more specific data as this could potentially identify the individuals involved and so breach confidentiality. Information prior to 1999 cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.
|Number of staff subject to disciplinary action||Removed from post||Transferred to another position||Number dismissed|
|n/a = Information not available without incurring disproportionate cost.|
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was paid to officials in his Department and its non-departmental public bodies in bonuses and other payments in addition to salary in each year since 1997; how many officials received such payments; and what the monetary values was of the largest 20 payments made in each such year. 
Mr Duncan: Details of the total value of performance-related pay and other payments in addition to salary in each financial year from 2004-05 are included in the following table. The figures provided do not include payments to cover the reimbursement of business expenses nor the reimbursement of education fees.
|Financial Year||Total (£)|
There are 13 categories of payment aggregated in the totals above and it is not possible to provide the numbers of individual members of staff receiving payments as many will have received payments under more than one heading. The following table provides details of the 20 largest payments made in each financial year.
Information prior to financial year 2004-05 cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost. The Commonwealth Scholarship Commission, DFID's only non-departmental public body, does not employ staff and has therefore not made any such payments.
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what allowances and payments in addition to salary were available to officials in his Department in each year since 1997; and what the monetary value was of payments and allowances of each type in each such year. 
Mr Duncan: Details of the allowances payable in addition to salary, together with the total value of each payment type from 2004-05 are included in the following tables. The figures provided do not include payments to cover the reimbursement of business expenses nor the reimbursement of education fees. Where the total number of staff concerned is fewer than five, we are unable to provide more specific data as this could potentially identify the individuals involved and so breach confidentiality. Information prior to 2004-05 cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.
|Payment description||Total (£)||Number of recipients||Total (£)||Number of recipients||Total (£)||Number of recipients|
|2007 -0 8||200 8 -0 9||200 9 - 10|
|Payment description||Total (£)||Number of recipients||Total (£)||Number of recipients||Total (£)||Number of recipients|
|(1) Data withheld where the number of recipients is less than 5.|
Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for how many days on average his Department's staff in each pay grade were absent from work as a result of ill health in 2009-10. 
|Average working days lost to sickness absence|
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he made of the cost to his Department and its non-departmental public bodies of compliance with (a) domestic, (b) European and (c) other international human rights requirements in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. 
The Department for International Development (DFID) does not collate information on the costs of compliance with human rights requirements.
DFID takes account of the domestic and international human rights framework in developing all its policies and practices, as it does all other relevant legal obligations. An accurate estimate of the total cost of compliance with human rights obligations could not be made without incurring disproportionate cost.
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many days his Department has lost to staff sickness in each year since 1997; and what estimate he made of the cost to his Department of sickness absence in each such year. 
Mr Duncan: Details of the number of days lost to sickness absence in the Department for International Development (DFID) in each financial year since 2005-06 and an approximation of the associated costs of such sickness absence are provided in the table. Information prior to 2005-06 cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.
|Financial year||Number of days lost to sickness absence||Approximate sickness absence cost (£)|
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many officials in his Department have had (a) fewer than five days, (b) five to 10 days, (c) 10 to 15 days, (d) 15 to 20 days, (e) 20 to 25 days, (f) 25 to 50 days, (g) 50 to 75 days, (h) 75 to 100 days, (i) 100 to 150 days, (j) 150 to 200 days, (k) more than 200 days, (l) more than three months, (m) more than six months and (n) one year on paid sick leave (i) consecutively and (ii) it total in each year since 1997. 
Mr Duncan: Details of the number of Department for International Development (DFID) staff who have had total annual sick absences within the ranges requested, in each financial year since 2007-08, are provided as follows. Information on the number of consecutive absences and details prior to 2007-08 cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost, sufficient
|Sickness absence periods||2007-08||2008-09||2009-10|
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 14 September 2010, Official Report, column 920W, on developing countries: maternity services, what datasets his Department collects on its maternal and newborn health programmes in each (a) region and (b) country. 
Mr O'Brien: In order to assess the effectiveness of our programmes to improve maternal and newborn health, the Department for International Development (DFID) draws on national data and statistics, as well as data and statistics collected by DFID's partners, including agencies such as the GAVI Alliance and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.
At the global level, DFID also draws on data from the United Nations Statistics Division's Millennium Development Goal (MDG) database, to assess progress against MDGs 4 and 5, pertaining to maternal and child health.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding his Department plans to allocate to programmes related to the preservation of biodiversity on Henderson Island in each of the next three years. 
Mr Duncan: Through the Overseas Territories Environment Programme, the Department for International Development (DFID) is contributing £18,000 in 2010-11 and £85,000 in 2011-12 towards a project to eradicate rats from Henderson Island. A successful eradication will help preserve this unique island's World Heritage status and secure the long-term future of its wildlife.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment his Department has made of future levels of biodiversity on Henderson Island; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Duncan: The Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP), a joint programme of the Department for International Development (DFID) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), has funded research into the impacts of Pacific Rats on the wildlife of Henderson Island and feasibility studies of their eradication. These studies have concluded that a number of species, such as the Henderson Petrel, are under severe threat with over 90% of chicks eaten by rats. Permanent eradication of rats without damaging other wildlife is reported to be technically feasible.
Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding his Department has allocated to support (a) food aid programmes and (b) agricultural development in each country in (i) sub-Saharan Africa and (ii) Asia in each of the last five years. 
Mr O'Brien: Details of the Department for International Development's (DFID) expenditure are published annually in Statistics on International Development (SID) which is available on the DFID website and in the Library. The relevant figures are reproduced as follows.
|(a) DFID bilateral expenditure on food aid in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia|
|(b) DFID bilateral expenditure on agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia|
|2005- 06||2006- 07||2007- 08||2008- 09||2009- 10|
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what types of aid his Department has given to Pakistan to assist with the aftermath of the recent floods; and what the (a) monetary value and (b) cost of that aid has been. 
Mr Andrew Mitchell: I refer the hon. Member to my written statement of 12 October 2010, Official Report, column 12WS, which sets out details of UK aid for the humanitarian crisis in Pakistan. The UK Government are providing £134 million, of which goods in kind account for £1,967,680. This figure does not take account of transportation costs and is subject to exchange rate fluctuations.
In line with standard humanitarian practice, none of this funding has been provided to the Government of
Pakistan. For further details of organisations to the floods, I refer the hon. Member to my written answer of 11 October 2010, Official Report, column 125W, and to the Floods Monitor on DFID's website.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with (a) Ministerial colleagues and (b) his international counterparts on the Pitcairn Islands in the last six months. 
|Financial year||Amount (£)|
Mr Duncan: Ministers have not had any discussions with the Sri Lankan Government regarding the return of Tamils to their homes. However, the British high commissioner in Colombo discusses this issue regularly with the Government of Sri Lanka in order to encourage the Sri Lankan authorities to allow those people who remain in camps for internally displaced people to return to their home areas as soon as possible.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the distribution of aid to the Tamil population in Sri Lanka. 
Ministers have had no direct discussions with the Foreign Secretary regarding the distribution of aid to the Tamil population in Sri Lanka. However, officials from the Department for International
Development (DFID) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) are in contact regularly about DFID's ongoing humanitarian aid programme in Sri Lanka, which is aiding displaced persons and funding de-mining.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much his Department allocated for expenditure through the World Bank in each of the last five years; for what purposes such funding was used; what evaluation he has made of the outcomes of the expenditure; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Duncan: The Department for International Development (DFID) provides core funding to the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank. IDA is the concessional arm of the bank, providing low interest loans and grants to programmes in 79 of the poorest countries to boost economic growth, deliver the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and improve living conditions. DFID funding to IDA in the last five years is as follows:
|Financial year||£ million|
The UK also contributes to Trust Funds that are administered by the World Bank Group. This includes funding to large Global Funds such as the Education Fast Track Initiative or Climate Investment Funds which have their own governance structures and where the bank acts as a financial intermediary. DFID also contributes to country level and thematic Trust Funds.
The bank have just issued a paper which sets out major achievements from IDA financing over the last decade, including saving at least 13 million lives, providing access to a clean water source to over 113 million people and bringing better education to more than 100 million children each year.
DFID is carrying out a Multilateral Aid Review to assess the effectiveness of IDA and others. This is to ensure that we get best value for money from UK contributions to these organisations. The results of the review will be published in February 2011.
|Department||Overseas travel cost (SCS)( 1) (£)|
|(1) Data cover financial year 2009-10. (2) TSol data also cover AGO and HMCPSI (3) CPS data include costs for RCPO from 1 October 2010. RCPO data prior to this date could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.|
Mrs Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much her Department has spent on national public awareness campaigns to reduce the level of (a) alcohol abuse, (b) drug abuse and (c) domestic violence in each of the last five years. 
James Brokenshire: The following table summarises Home Office spend on national public awareness campaigns to combat (a) alcohol abuse, (b) drug abuse and (c) domestic violence in each of the last five years.
|Alcohol abuse||Drug abuse||Domestic violence|
Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps she plans to take to implement her proposal to prohibit the sale of alcohol below cost price following the consultation on re-balancing the Licensing Act 2003; and if she will make a statement. 
James Brokenshire: The Government are committed to banning the sale of alcohol below cost price. We are considering all options and plan to introduce this measure at the earliest opportunity without unduly impacting on industry or responsible drinkers.
Mr Woolas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions she has had with the French government on the border controls at (a) Calais, (b) Gare du Nord and (c) Charles de Gaulle airport. 
Damian Green: The UK holds regular discussions, at both ministerial and official level, with the French authorities on the issue of border controls at French ports, including Calais. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have both met French counterparts to discuss migration issues, including the juxtaposed controls and wider bilateral co-operation, and it is expected that agreement will soon be reached on the next phase of UK-France collaboration at the border controls at Calais and other northern ports.
The Secretary of State has not held any recent discussions with the French Government on border controls at Paris Gare du Nord or Charles de Gaulle airport. The UK Border Agency operates immigration controls at Gare du Nord where UK Border Agency officials are in regular contact with their French counterparts about matters of mutual interest and to ensure the security of the UK border. No rail services operate to the UK from Charles de Gaulle Airport and there is no UK border control at the location.
Lindsay Roy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the effect on the e-Borders programme of the absence of an agreement at EU level on passenger data requirements for journeys within the EU. 
The decision to terminate the e-Borders contract with the prime supplier, Raytheon Systems Limited (RSL), and re-let the contract to another supplier was based on the poor performance of RSL to date. The Government are determined to get value for money from their major contracts and require the highest standard of performance from their suppliers.
Officials continue to engage in regular dialogue with the EU Commission and member states on matters relating to the e-Borders programme. These include a mutual understanding of how the programme operates in a way that is compatible with EU law on free movement and data protection.
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts her Department has with Capita; and how much it has paid to Capita under such contracts in 2010-11 to date. 
Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 13 October 2010, Official Report, column 201W, on the Criminal Records Bureau, what estimate she has made of the number of people who were in receipt of out of work related benefits for up to 30.86 days on average because of the time taken for the Criminal Records Bureau to process a disclosure in the latest period for which figures are available. 
Lynne Featherstone: The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) does not hold the information requested. The bureau's system stores information based upon each application and not on each individual applicant. Each application is treated as a new application and the current employment status of the individual is not captured in the application process. Therefore it is not possible to identify if the person is on benefits or not.
Amber Rudd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people (a) nationally and (b) resident in Hastings and Rye constituency have been subject to more than one Criminal Records Bureau check within 12 months during the latest period for which figures are available. 
|1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010||Applications received by CRB||More than one application received for applicant at same postcode||Percentage|
The data represent where more than one application has been received where the applicant has the same postcode. They exclude applications received prior 1 October 2009 and applications received by post on 30 Sept 2010.
Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment her Department has made of the effect on foreign direct investment of the inclusion of inter-company transfers within the proposed non-EU economic migrant cap. 
Damian Green: The Government's consultation on the introduction of an annual limit on those admitted to work in the UK from outside the European Union-including the coverage of limits-closed in September. The Government will bring forward their proposals in due course. The Government will publish a full impact assessment when their proposals are announced.
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate she has made of the cost to her Department and its non-departmental public bodies of implementing and monitoring compliance with legislation transposing EU requirements in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement; 
(2) what estimate she has made of the cost to her Department and its non-departmental public bodies of compliance with (a) domestic, (b) European and (c) other international human rights requirements in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. 
Damian Green: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 19 July 2010, Official Report, column 27W, in which I provided details of the estimate which the Home Office had made of known costs to the Department resulting from statutory obligations which stemmed from EU legislation over a requested one-year period (July 2009 to June 2010). The Home Office has no central estimate of the costs to the Department or its non-departmental public bodies of compliance with human rights requirements (domestic and international) or with legislation transposing EU requirements. Such an estimate could be collated only at a disproportionate cost.
Impact assessments are increasingly valuable in determining the costs of EU proposals and, in preparing or contributing to them, we would normally aim to identify all the costs likely to arise, including those of significance falling on the public sector.
Stephen Barclay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date her Department received an application for the arrest of Dr Daniel Ubani under the European arrest warrant procedure. 
Nick Herbert [holding answer 18 October 2010]: The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) received a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) in respect of Dr Daniel Ubani from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on 9 March 2009. The warrant was returned to the CPS by SOCA requesting minor corrections. The amended EAW was received by SOCA on 12 March and sent to Germany on 13 March 2009.
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many UK citizens have been (a) extradited and (b) transferred to face criminal proceedings in each other EU member state in each year since 1997; 
Nick Herbert: Since 1 January 2004, extradition between EU member states has been governed by the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and Crown Office (for Scotland) are the designated central authorities for the receipt and transmission of EAWs within the UK. Under the EAW process "surrender" is used to describe "extradited" and "transferred".
Since the inception of the EAW on 1 January 2004 up to 31 March 2010, 145 UK citizens have been surrendered to other European member states pursuant to EAWs. Information on the member state that issued the EAW is available for the period 1 October 2008 to 31 March 2010. It should be noted that surrenders do not correlate to the requests made in the same period. Some surrenders can occur weeks or months following the initial request. The following tables identify the member states that made the request.
Data on the member states which have issued EAWs for 101 UK citizens surrendered in the period prior to 1 October 2008 are unavailable. These data could be provided only by a manual examination of all SOCA case records for that period. This would incur a disproportionate cost.
The nationality of persons subject to extradition requests from EU member states was not routinely recorded prior to 2004. To provide the figures for 1997 to 2004 would incur disproportionate cost as this would require a manual examination of Home Office files.
The third table shows the number of extradition requests made to England and Wales (and Northern Ireland since 1 April 2008) and processed by the Home Office since 1997. Due to the way in which extradition requests have been recorded by the Home Office, the following information will include all requests made outside the EAW framework. It will therefore include some requests made by EU member states prior to them operating the EAW. It has not been possible to break down these numbers so as to identify either the person's nationality or the state which requested extradition as this would entail a manual examination of all files, which would again incur disproportionate cost.
Finally, it should also be emphasised that an extradition request is not always finalised in the same year as a request is made. The figures quoted may, therefore, include extradition requests made before 1997.
|October 2008 to March 2009, British Nationals, EAW cases and surrenders|
|Business year 2009-10, British Nationals, EAW cases and surrenders|
|Extradition requests received, 1997 to 2009|
|Requests received||Surrendered||Not returned|
It is not possible precisely to tally the number of requests received with the number of those extradited or not returned (whether discharged by the courts or Secretary of State, withdrawn by the requesting state etc.) in a defined period for a number of reasons. At any one stage there are a number of active extradition requests under consideration which will not count as either surrendered or not returned until they have been finalised.
Additionally there may be a small number of people, subject to extradition proceedings, who for example have absconded, are serving a domestic sentence, or have not been arrested but remain wanted. These cases also cannot be closed until a final outcome has been reached. A further complicating factor is that some of the return figures will relate to requests made before the start of the defined period.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|