§ Mrs. ClwydTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when his Department received a formal request from DTI to appraise his radio studios rehabilitation project in Indonesia; on what date his Department completed its appraisal of the project; whom his Department engaged to appraise the project; on what dates visits were made to the radio studios for the purposes of the appraisal and by whom the visits were made; at the time of the economic appraisal; what were (i) the "present value" of the benefits and (ii) the "present value" of the costs of the project; how the actual costs and benefits compared with those foreseen at the time of appraisal; what view his Department takes of the record in relation to freedom of expression of(a) the department responsible for the project, and (b) the project beneficiary; what factors were taken into account in assessing whether the project represented value for money; on what date the Treasury gave its consent to the project; on what date the project was approved by the sub-committee for aid and trade; on what date the project was approved by the Minister; what considerations caused his Department to separate the project from the Bandung TV studio project; what was (1) the approved cash cost and (2) the actual cost of the project; in what respect and to what extent the project benefited the poorest people in Indonesia; and what were (x) the projected completion date and (y) the actual completion date of the project; [34709]
(2) pursuant to his answer of 15 June, Official Report, column 631, in respect of the shortwave radio transmitters project in Indonesia, at what locations the high frequency transmitters were installed and if they included locations in East Timor; which Indonesian companies were involved; on what date his Department received from the DTI a formal request to appraise the project; on what dates site visits were made for the purposes of the appraisal; what sites were visited and by whom the visits were made; at the time of the economic appraisal, what were (a) the present value of the costs and (b) the present value of the benefits of the project and how the actual costs and benefits compared with those foreseen at the time of appraisal; if his Department carried out institutional appraisals in respect of (i) the Department responsible for the project and (ii) the project beneficiary, and what were the outcomes of those appraisals; what 956W factors were taken into account in assessing whether the project represented value for money; on what date the Treasury gave its consent to the project; in what respect and to what extent the project benefits the poorest people in Indonesia; what was (1) the approved cash cost and (2) the actual cost of the project; what were (x) the projected completion date and (y) the actual completion date of the project; and if he will place a copy of the project completion report in the Library; [25176]
(3) pursuant to his answer of 30 June, Official Report, column 802, which Indonesian companies were involved in the Ministry of Forestry radio communications system project in Indonesia; on what date his Department received from the DTI a formal request to appraise the project; on what date his Department completed its appraisal of the project; whom his Department engaged to appraise the project; on what dates site visits were made for the purposes of the appraisal, what sites were visited and by whom the visits were made; at the time of the economic appraisal, what were (a) the present value of the costs and (b) the present value of the benefits of the project and how the actual costs and benefits compared with those foreseen at the time of the appraisal; if his Department carried out an institutional appraisal in respect of the Ministry of Forestry and what was the outcome of that appraisal; what factors were taken into account in assessing whether the project represented value for money; on what date the Treasury gave its consent to the project; on what date the project was approved by the sub-committee for aid and trade; on what date the project was approved by the Minister; in what respect and to what extent the project benefits the poorest people in Indonesia; what was (i) the approved cash cost and (ii) the actual cash cost of the project; what were (1) the projected completion date and (2) the actual completion date of the project; and if he will place a copy of the project completion report in the Library; [35177]
(4) pursuant to his answer of 14 June, Official Report, column 567, which is the lead British company involved in the construction of the Samarinda power station in Indonesia; which Indonesian companies are involved; on what date his Department received from the DTI a formal request to appraise the project; on what date his Department completed its appraisal of the project; whom his Department engaged to appraise the project; on what dates site visits were made for the purposes of the appraisal and by whom the visits were made; to what extent his Department consulted local people affected by the project; at the time of the economic appraisal, what were (a) the present value of the benefits and (b) the present value of the costs of the project; at the time of the appraisal; what were (i) the social cost, (ii) the social benefits, (iii) the environmental costs and (iv) the environmental benefits of the project; if his Department carried out an institutional appraisal in respect of the Indonesian Electricity Authority and what was the outcome of that appraisal; what factors were taken into account in assessing whether the project represented value for money; on what date the Treasury gave its consent to the project; on what date the project was approved by the sub-committee for aid and trade; on what date the project was approved by the Minister; in what respect and to what extent the project benefits the poorest people in Indonesia; what is the projected completion date of the project; and if he will make a statement about his Minister's recent visit to the project. [35178]
957W
§ Mr. HanleyAnswers covering such a wide range of issues could be provided only at disproportionate cost.