Written Answers
Tuesday, 1st December 1998.
Democratic Republic Of Congo: Funding Of Conflict
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether any contracts have been signed since May 1997 for equipment or other forms of aid which could in any way support the military forces on either side of the current conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [HL21]
We have substantial co-operation programmes with Uganda and Zimbabwe, and a smaller programme with Namibia. Our aid effort to Rwanda is at a lower level at present. We are providing only humanitarian assistance to Angola, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.In all these countries our aid is provided to support carefully-defined activities which are designed to eliminate poverty. But is it impossible to guarantee that funding provided under our programmes does not indirectly make easier the purchase of military equipment or that goods provided under our programmes are not diverted for military use. We have systems in place to ensure that we make every effort to avoid this, and if we become aware of breaches we take swift action.In Uganda, Rwanda and Zimbabwe, we have provided assistance to support the establishment of civilian police forces responsible to the communities they serve. In all cases, our assistance has included the provision of equipment. In Rwanda we have helped to rehabilitate their communications infrastructure in an effort to assist with the reintegration of large numbers of returning refugees. We have had no reports of this equipment being used for military purposes. We would view this very seriously.
Uganda: Education Plan And Expenditure
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they accept the allegation on page 210 of
The Reality of Aid 1998–99, published by Earthscan, that the bulk of Ugandan education expenditure was either retained at Districts or embezzled; and, if so, why they now believe that supporting Ugandan Government education expenditure is the most efficient way of improving primary education in that country. [HL32]
The figures cited on page 210 of The Reality of Aid 1998–99 concern Government of Uganda contributions to primary schools between 1991–94. There were many problems preventing funds reaching schools, as the article describes. Since then, a number of changes have been instigated, some of which are documented in the same article.Since 1997–98, primary education in Uganda has been funded by conditional grants. The grants are specifically earmarked by central government to go to each publicly-funded school. Central government now publicises its monthly disbursements made to districts and schools through the mass media, and schools must clearly display the amounts received. New measures have been taken to strengthen capacity in the Auditor-General's office, including its outreach to Districts. The new Poverty Eradication Fund established by the Ugandan Government will also earmark additional resources for tracking education and health spending.The Department for International Development (DFID) has also undertaken some monitoring of its own to examine how funds are being used. The audit of 1997–98 Programme Aid to Uganda investigated a representative sample of education expenditures and concluded that, while there were still some problems in some districts, the situation has improved considerably since 1994. Ninety per cent. of salary spending is accurately distributed to school staff and the bulk of non-salary spending was released to the special primary education accounts. More work is now needed to strengthen school-level accounting. Among the conditions that DFID and other donors have agreed concerning their support for the Education Sector Investment Plan is that an annual verification exercise of Ugandan Government primary education expenditure is carried out. Subsequent releases of donor funds will depend on the outcome of these exercises.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of the Government of Uganda's Education Sector Investment Plan (ESIP) 1997–2003, to which they propose to contribute £67 million. [HL28]
The Education Sector Investment Plan (ESIP) has been presented by the Minister of Education to the Ugandan Cabinet for approval. Cabinet approval is a condition for Department for International Development (DFID) release of the first tranche of the £67 million and is also a condition for support from the European Commission. When the ESIP is approved, DFID will provide a copy of the final document to the Libraries of both Houses.
asked Her Majesty's Government:What independent assessments they intend to carry out, and when, of the progress of Uganda's Education Sector Investment Plan (ESIP) and of the effectiveness of their contribution to it. [HL31]
The Ugandan Government has agreed to independent evaluations of all its key education programmes, including financial management systems. The timetable for most of these evaluations has yet to be finalised, but it is intended that those investigating financial management systems will be on an annual basis.
asked Her Majesty's Government:By what measures they will judge the success of their support for Uganda's Education Sector Investment Plan (ESIP); what the value of these measures is now; what they anticipate the value of these measures will be in 2003 and at any intermediate point; and who will make these measurements and how; and [HL29]What information they expect to receive, and when, from the Government of Uganda as to the progress made with their Education Sector Investment Plan (ESIP). [HL30]
The Education Sector Investment Plan (ESIP) contains clear targets for the education sector. There is also an ESIP Sector Work Plan that identifies clear steps to be taken in order to ensure that the ESIP targets are achieved.The overall success of the Department for International Development's (DFID) support to the ESIP will be measured by the achievement of key ESIP
| Table 1: Measures of Success for DFID Support to Education Sector Investment Programme | |
| Goal Level | Goal Level Measures |
| Educated Ugandan citizens, improved livelihoods, reduced poverty. | High quality basic education for all by 2003 Increased levels of adult literacy in 15–24 age range Real national income growth in 6%–8% range Percentage of people living in poverty reduced |
| Purpose Level | Purpose Level Measures |
| To achieve the targets of the agreed education sector programme. | |
| 1. Improved access and equity at all levels of the education system. | 1.1 Increased enrolment in primary schools from current 5.3 million to 6.6 million by 2003. |
| 1.2 Increased post-primary enrolments from current 0.41 million to at least 0.73 million by 2003, with a secondary school provided in every sub-county. | |
| 1.3 Significant increases in the participation of females (47% at primary, 42% in lower-secondary, 35% at upper-secondary and 30% at university), disadvantaged children and children with special education needs (targets to be agreed). | |
| 1.4 Increased opportunities for out of school children through expansion of existing complementary education opportunities (targets to be set). | |
| 1.5 Increase in higher education enrolments from 25,000 to 50,000 by 2003. | |
| 1.6 Increase in completion rates for primary and post-primary levels (targets to be set). | |
| 1.7 Establishment of up to 850 community polytechnics by 2001, with 0.1 million graduates by 2003. | |
| 2. Improved quality of education, particularly at the primary school level. | 2.1 All primary schools provided with water and sanitation and 25,000 new classrooms constructed by 2003, and 12,000 part finished classrooms completed by 1999. |
| 2.2 Books available in all core subject areas on a 1:2 basis for all primary pupils by 2002. | |
| 2.3 Teacher deployment (primary) on basis of new school or district based staffing norms completed by 1999. | |
| 2.4 Teacher training and development network completed with a negligible number of untrained primary teachers remaining by 2003. | |
| 2.5 National network of secondary school core teaching and learning resources available by 2001. | |
| 2.6 Student performance in literacy and numeracy at primary and secondary levels increased (targets to be set). | |
targets. These are presented in Table 1 below, which also provides information, where available, on the current status of these measures.
In addition to DFID, other donors are providing flexible budget support to the ESIP. These donors have all agreed to a system of joint sector monitoring and evaluation for the education sector. This will involve joint annual monitoring missions. The first mission will take place in April 1999. DFID will be represented in the joint missions and will be provided with progress on the measures indicated in Table 1.
DFID is linking the releases of budget support to key undertakings by the Ugandan Government. There is a set of undertakings that have to be complied with each year, some of which are relevant every year and others which are specific to different years during the five-year programme. Table 2 shows these undertakings. The specific undertakings for financial year 2000–01 and beyond will be negotiated in April 1999 during the first joint monitoring mission. The Ugandan Government has to report progress on achievement of undertakings during each annual monitoring mission.
| 3. Strengthened sector management and planning | 3.1 Primary education pupil to teacher ratios (PTR) and school establishment formula to continue to be determined on basis of overall staff ceiling determined through budget process with gradual improvement from current overall PTR of 57:1 to 40:1 by 2003. |
| 3.2 Secondary education PTR to increase from current 20:1 to 30:1 by 2002. | |
| 3.3 Recurrent expenditure in education maintained at around 31% of total discretionary expenditure over project period, with primary education share increasing from 56% to 60%, secondary education share at least maintained at 14% and tertiary education share declining from 14% to 12%. | |
| 3.4 Maintain recurrent non-salary expenditures in primary education at between 25%–30%. | |
| 3.5 Development expenditure of minimum 70% for primary education until 2000, with secondary education increasing from 4% to minimum 20% by 2003, and tertiary education maintained at around 10%. | |
| 3.6 Average cost per pupil to move within agreed limits for each sub-sector. | |
| 3.7 Efficient teaching and learning materials supply system (time taken for delivery and the proportion of books and other learning materials ordered). | |
| 3.8 Efficient school construction and rehabilitation systems (unit costs, time from proposal submissions to completion). | |
| 3.9 Efficient disbursement and use of school and district conditional grants (time taken for money to reach districts/schools, use of money in districts/schools, time taken to account for funds used at district/schools, time taken to pay teachers). | |
| 3.9 District education plans developed and funded, minimum 12 districts by end of 1999, minimum further 20 districts by end of 2000. |
Table 2: Undertakings by Ugandan Government for DFID releases of budget support
£12 million per annum of budget support from DFID contingent upon progress against key undertakings (conditions) jointly agreed through annual consultations.
For every financial year:
Budget and release funds in line with the rolling medium term expenditure framework, maintaining a minimum of 31 per cent of recurrent discretionary expenditure for the education sector over the period 1998 to 2003.
Extend the rolling medium term expenditure framework and work plan to cover all development spending (Ugandan Government and donor) in education, prepare budget, make releases and demonstrate that expenditures have been made in line with the framework and sector work programme, without shifting expenditures to development activities outside the three-year framework and work programme for education.
Convene meetings every six months with education donors to review progress reports on the achievement of time-bound indicators as set out in the sector programme work plan and the ESIP policy and strategic framework.
Convene meetings annually with relevant education donors to share draft budget submissions and to agree undertakings (conditions) for budget support, with interim monitoring missions as jointly agreed.
For 1998–99 budget release the key indicators are:
Cabinet approval of revised ESIP Strategic and Programme Framework.
Agreement by Government (Ministry of Education and Sports [MoES] and Ministry of Finance [MoFPED]) and donors of a revised three-year financing plan (1998–99 to 2001–02) for the entire education sector, covering both development and recurrent expenditures.
Agreement by MoES and MoFPED of an instructional materials plan and an interim schools construction plan for completing unfinished schools.
MoES approved sector development work plan.
For 1999–2000 budget release the key indicators are:
MoES provides, by April, an independent evaluation of recurrent expenditures on education salaries and conditional grants and all development expenditures in education which verifies that expenditures have been made and outputs achieved in line with the framework and sector work programme.
Implementation of the agreed action plan to update the teachers' payroll based on the new staff establishment policy.
Agreement by MoES and MoFPED of a medium-term school facilities plan and an integrated teacher development plan.
Action plan for improved performance monitoring and financial management agreed by MoES, MoFPED and donors.
Policy and plan for decentralisation of development expenditures agreed by MoES and MoFPED.
Definition and communication of policies in relation to parental/community participation in universal primary education and teacher management (deployment, multi-grade and double-shift teaching).
Ucas: Website
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they wish to express any opinion to higher education institutions on the promotion by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) on the home page of its website of a student website featuring extensive pro-drugs information. [HL27]
The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) is a private company which administers the application process for and on behalf of higher education institutions. My department has no statutory powers in relation to UCAS, and we have no locus to intervene in its activities.
Bioethics
asked Her Majesty's Government:What publicly appointed bodies in the United Kingdom are currently examining issues of bioethics; how they have been appointed, when and by whom; by whom they are funded and serviced; and to whom they report. [HL8]
Bioethical issues may arise from a wide range of contexts, including developments affecting man, animals, agriculture and the environment. Such issues may therefore be considered by any publicly appointed body in those fields when considering matters within the terms of reference of the body. Details of the main publicly appointed bodies whose terms of reference may include the examination of ethical issues are listed as follows.The Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing was established in 1996 by United Kingdom health Ministers, to whom it reports. It is funded by UK health departments and serviced by the Department of Health.The Gene Therapy Advisory Committee was established in 1993 by UK health Ministers, to whom it reports. It is funded by UK health departments and serviced by the Department of Health.The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was established in 1991 by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Members are appointed by UK health Ministers. The authority, and the executive which services it, is funded by the UK health departments; the authority reports to UK health Ministers.The Human Genetics Advisory Commission was established in 1996 by UK health and industry Ministers, to whom it reports. It is funded by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Health and serviced by a joint secretariat from those departments.
The UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority was established in 1997 by UK health Ministers, to whom it reports; it is funded by the UK health departments and serviced by the Department of Health.
In England, local research ethics committees established pursuant to guidance from the Department of Health in 1991 advise National Health Service bodies within their district. They are funded and serviced by district health authorities, to whom they report. Comparable arrangements exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In England, multi-centre research ethics committees were established pursuant to Department of Health guidance in 1997. They are funded and serviced by the regional offices of the Department of Health and report to the Secretary of State for Health. Comparable arrangements exist in Scotland and Wales.
The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes was originally established in 1981 and was reconstituted in 1988 by UK Health and Agriculture Ministers, to whom it reports. It is funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and serviced jointly by the department and the Department of Health.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council was established in 1979 by Great Britain Agriculture Ministers, to whom it reports. It is funded and serviced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Animal (Scientific Procedures) Committee was established by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Members are appointed by, and report to, the Home Secretary. It is funded and serviced by the Home Office.
Human Fertilisation And Embryology Authority
asked Her Majesty's Government:What changes have been made in membership of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [HL139]
We are pleased to announce the following appointments made on behalf of the United Kingdom health Ministers:Mrs. Jane Denton—Nursing Director of the Multiple Births Foundation, reappointed as Deputy Chairman until 6 November 2001;Dr. Anne McLaren—Principal Research Associate, Wellcome Cancer Research Campaign Institute, reappointed as a member until 6 November 2001;Mr. John Williams—Dean at the Faculty of Economic and Social Studies at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, reappointed as a member until 6 November 1999;Ms Sara Nathan—until recently Editor, Channel 4 News, appointed as a member until 6 November 2001;
Professor Brenda Almond—Professor of Moral and Social Philosophy at the University of Hull, appointed as a member until 6 November 2001;
Ms Sharmila Nebhrajani—Head of Corporate Planning at the British Broadcasting Corporation, a Chartered Accountant and former Management Consultant, appointed as a member until 6 November 2001;
Professor Henry Leese—Professor of Biology at the University of York, appointed as a member until 6 November 2001;
Dr. Sadia Muhammed—General Medical Practitioner in York and Forensic Medical Examiner to the North Yorkshire Police, appointed as a member until 6 November 2001.
We are very grateful to Ms Elizabeth Forgan, Mr. Richard Jones, Mr. David Greggains and Professor Anthony Thiselton, who are retiring from the authority this year. We also wish to thank Dr. Ruth Chambers, who left the authority on 6 November at her request.
These appointments were made in accordance with the guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
John Murray V The United Kingdom: Response To Judgment
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will set out the Government's response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of
John Murray v. the United Kingdom. [HL124]
In the case of John Murray v the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that it was a breach of Article 6 of the Convention to deny the applicant access to legal advice in circumstances where inferences could be drawn from his silence during questioning. The Government have concluded that the only sure way to prevent a repetition of the circumstances which prevailed in the Murray case is to amend the relevant legislation and the Codes of Practice made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, so as to prohibit the drawing of inferences from silence when a suspect is questioned at a police station while denied access to legal advice. The Government therefore intend to introduce the necessary legislation in the forthcoming Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill and this legislation will be extended to Northern Ireland by way of Negative Resolution Order in Council.In the interim, the Government will take such steps as are possible, without legislation, to ensure that no one is put in the same position as arose in the Murray case. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General will shortly be issuing guidance to prosecutors and, in parallel, the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office will shortly be issuing a circular to the police. This guidance will seek to ensure that the usual practice will be for suspects to have access to legal advice before being interviewed at a police station. Where access to legal advice is denied, the police will be encouraged to put inference-bearing questions again after the suspect has been given the opportunity to obtain such advice. Additionally, prosecutors will be advised not to seek reliance on inferences drawn from silence before access to legal advice was granted. A copy of the guidance to the police will be placed in the Library.
Strategic Export Controls
asked Her Majesty's Government:What were the results of the public consultation following publication of the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls. [HL93]
The department has received 54 responses to the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls. I am placing copies of the responses, except two for which complete confidentiality has been requested, in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Library of the Department. I have also arranged for copies of the responses to be made available on request from the Department's Export Control Organisation.We are currently reviewing our proposals in the light of the responses received, and will make a further announcement in due course.
Internal Market Council, 9 November
asked Her Majesty's Government:What was the outcome of the European Union Internal Market Council held on 9 November. [HL96]
I represented the UK at the Internal Market Council in Brussels on 9 November.The Council considered three elements of the Single Market Action Plan, which aims to improve the operation of the Single Market. It discussed the rolling Joint Work Programme of the three Presidencies; Member States' progress towards implementation of the Single Market Action Plan; and mutual recognition. The Commission presented the latest Single Market Scoreboard, which showed that the number of directives not yet implemented in all member states had been cut from 26.7 per cent. last November to 14.9 per cent. currently and noted that at 15 October 40 actions out of 66 of the Single Market Action Plan had been completed. There was agreement that the Single Market Scoreboard should be regularly updated to help maintain progress in building the Internal Market. The Commission gave a progress report on its work on mutual recognition of national standards.
The Commission introduced an open debate on legislative simplification with a report on the simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM) initiative. The Council expressed general support for continuing SLIM and Business Test Panels, the Commission initiative aimed at improving consultation with business on the likely impact of selected legislative proposals.
The Commission presented reports on: the Expert Committee on Commercial Communications, which is addressing trade barriers in the field of advertising; public procurement; a proposal for a directive which aims to set noise limits for tyres; the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and the Single Market; the intervention mechanism aimed at removing obstacles to the free movement of goods; and Units of Measurement (Supplementary Indications), with the Commission announcing its intention to extend dual metric/imperial marking for a further 10 years.
The Council reached political agreement on a measure on cableways, which harmonises safety aspects of cableway installations, and on the fee arrangements structure for the European Medicine Evaluation Agency (by a qualified majority with UK and Germany maintaining scrutiny reserves).
The Council also briefly discussed the draft chocolate directive and agreed to reconsider the dossier after further work by the Commission.
Over lunch, Ministers discussed the issue of economic reform and organisation of Council business.
Industry Council, 16 November
asked Her Majesty's Government:What was the outcome of the European Union Industry Council held on 16 November. [HL94]
I represented the UK at the EU Industry Council on 16 November.The Council agreed to tighten the rules on government aid to industry. A new regulation will codify the existing Commission procedures for the control of state aid and it will also strengthen the ability of the Commission both to recover aid paid illegally and to undertake on-site monitoring of companies receiving state aid. The Commission agreed to publish final state aid decisions in all the languages of the Official Journal and to take a formal decision before compelling a company to co-operate where it refused to allow on-site monitoring. With these two amendments, all outstanding reserves were lifted. The Presidency concluded that a political agreement had been reached on the text of the regulation while the Council awaited the opinion of the European Parliament.This was followed by a discussion on a Commission monitoring report on aid to certain shipyards in Germany and Spain and a brief presentation by the Commission on the impact of the crisis in Korea on shipbuilding.The Council had an open debate on the Competitiveness of European Industry. The Commission opened the debate and noted that European industry was catching up with world competition, but that worker productivity was still behind the USA and Japan. This was followed by a round table discussion on competitiveness which included the results of four benchmarking studies and the Commission's response to the Business Environment Simplification Task Force (BEST) report.The Council adopted conclusions on benchmarking and the competitiveness of business services. The Presidency concluded the debate by welcoming the progress on benchmarking and invited COREPER to take forward further work on this and the Commission response to the BEST Report.A meeting with industry Ministers from the CEEs and Cyprus began in formal session and continued over lunch. A number of applicant states made prepared statements describing the reforms they are undertaking. During the discussion it was emphasised that applicant states needed to both complete industrial restructuring and take on the regulatory acquis before accession. The Commission also proposed a closer working-level dialogue in eight key sectors, including coal, steel and automotive industries, which could provide analysis of the CEEs' progress. The Presidency concluded that this should be followed up and that there was a general consensus for increasing bilateral contacts and advice to the applicants.An orientation debate was held on the draft directive on late payment in commercial transactions. During this debate, all member states expressed support for the objective of the proposal, but had concerns on the degree of harmonisation of other aspects of national civil law. The Presidency concluded that discussions should be continued at official level with a view to reaching a Common Position as soon as possible. The Council also adopted Conclusions on the restructuring of the steel industry and the competitiveness of the recycling industry.The Commission gave presentations on the Ottawa Conference on Electronic Commerce, the 10th Monitoring Report on the Control of Aid to the Steel Industry, the 27th Annual Report on Competition Policy, the Observatory for Textiles and Clothing, and Delocalisation.