Author: admin

  • Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Richard Burden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Burden on 2016-07-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of existing regulations on drones; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The Government’s primary responsibility is the safety and security of our citizens. That is why we apply one of the highest regulatory safety standards for commercial aviation in the world.

    There are existing regulations in place that require users of drones to maintain direct, unaided visual contact with their vehicle and to not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property. Guidance on tackling the risks of criminal drone use has been provided to constabularies across the UK.

    The Department and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) work with a wide range of industry partners across the aviation sector, (including manufacturers, airports, and airlines), to ensure our understanding of potential hazards to aircraft remains up-to-date and mitigations effective. Further work is underway to better understand the risk posed by flying drones close to commercial planes to ensure that regulations remain fit for purpose.

    Awareness and education on current restrictions are vitally important. The Civil Aviation Authority is undertaking activities to raise awareness of the basic safety requirements, including an ongoing ‘Dronecode’ safety awareness campaign, issuing safety leaflets at the point of sale, publishing an animated video on their website, and running ‘small UAS’ Risk and Hazard workshops with industry as part of the Mid Air Collision Programme.

  • Mark Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Mark Field – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Field on 2016-07-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions (a) he and (b) officials of his Department have had with Transport for London on the (i) timetable and (ii) provisions of legislation on pedicabs in London to ensure that they are able to regulate swiftly once primary legislation is in place.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The need for urgent action on pedicabs was discussed at the Secretary of State’s meeting with the Mayor on 13 June, and at Lord Ahmad’s meeting with the Deputy Mayor for Transport on 16 June. Officials from the Department for Transport have had regular meetings with their opposite numbers in Transport for London to ensure that TfL are ready to respond as soon as the necessary primary legislation is enacted.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-07-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the US Treasury decision to impose sanctions on North Korean senior officials in the light of reported human rights abuses; and whether they plan to impose similar sanctions.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The US decision to designate senior members of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) regime follows its decision to introduce the US North Korea Sanctions Policy Enhancement Act in February 2016. The British Government shares the objective of maintaining pressure on the DPRK to fulfil its international human rights obligations and is deeply concerned by the human rights situation in the DPRK. It regularly consults with partners such as the US, the EU and regional partners on the best way to achieve this.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-07-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of China about the case of Guo Feixiong; and what response they have received.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The former Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), raised the case of Guo Feixiong with the Chinese Ambassador on 3 December 2015, who said the case was being handled according to Chinese law. More recently, we supported an EU statement on 22 June 2016. That statement called for Guo, along with several other individuals detained for seeking to protect the rights of others, such as their right to freedom of expression, to be released.

    We continue to monitor Guo’s case and report on it via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy. We will raise Guo’s case at the next round of the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-07-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what information they have about (1) land confiscation, (2) military activity, (3) health, (4) education, (5) drug use and its consequences, (6) local drug supply and drug use, (7) the killing of civilians, (8) arbitrary taxation, and (9) the displacement of villagers and forced recruitment, in Burma’s Karen state; and whether they plan to discuss those issues with the new government of Burma.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The British Government follows events in Burma’s Karen State closely, including those listed in the noble Lord’s question. Staff from our Embassy in Rangoon visit regularly. Many of these issues are connected to the legacy of conflict. We play a key role in international efforts to resolve the conflict across Burma. As part of these efforts, we have supported both the previous and current Governments of Burma, as well as the Ethnic Armed Groups that are party to the conflict (including the Karen), to find a negotiated political settlement. In addition, the Department for International Development (DFID) has a major development programme in Burma, of which Karen State is a beneficiary, including on health and education. For example, DFID works with several non-government organisations to fund programmes for the prevention and treatment of malaria which is prevalent in Karen State, and to establish community based schools and centres for early childhood development. The UK discusses conflict-related issues with the Government of Burma on a regular basis.

  • Lord Empey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Empey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Empey on 2016-07-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have been advised by the government of Ireland that it intends to represent the people of Scotland at meetings of the European Council.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The Government of Ireland has not advised Her Majesty’s Government that it intends to represent the people of Scotland at meetings of the European Council.

    The United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union until it leaves and as such will continue to represent the whole of the UK in the European Council.

  • Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2016-07-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of the Philippines regarding the enforcement of the Anti-Child Pornography Act 2009, in particular the provisions requiring internet service providers to filter and block images of child abuse.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The Philippines is a committed partner in the WePROTECT Global Alliance and is serious about tackling child sexual exploitation online and offline. We have ongoing and regular dialogue with the Philippine Government on child sexual exploitation, including the implementation of the Anti-Child Pornography Act 2009. The Philippine Government is working to ensure the Act is fit for purpose. The Philippine Interagency Council against Child Pornography has requested that the Department of Justice order internet service providers to comply with the Act.

    In April 2016, the British Embassy participated in an Online Child Sexual Exploitation technical working group, hosted by the Philippine Committee for the Special Protection of Children. Experts from the Philippine Department of Justice, prosecutors, representatives from UNICEF, other diplomatic missions and foreign law enforcement also participated. The Act and other legislation formed part of the discussion. In June 2016, the National Crime Agency participated in further discussions on the Philippine Government’s strategy and the WePROTECT national model.

    We have supported the Philippine Government’s participation at the WePROTECT Summits in London and most recently in Abu Dhabi. The National Crime Agency also works closely with Filipino partners in the fight against child sexual exploitation and provides training on the forensic analysis of digital media.

  • Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2016-07-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what conclusions they have drawn from the reports of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Bassiouni Commission on the solitary confinement, torture and ill-treatment of prisoners in Bahrain; and whether they plan to ask the International Committee of the Red Cross to inspect prison conditions in Jaw Central Prison, Al-Hawd Al-Jaf prison and all other prisons and places of detention, and to make recommendations.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The British Government unreservedly condemns torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and it is a government priority to combat it wherever it occurs. We are aware that there have been allegations in Bahrain, and we raise concerns with the authorities. Our support to Bahrain’s reform programme focuses on strengthening independent oversight bodies such as the Ministry of Interior Ombudsman and the Prisoners and Detainees Rights Commission (PDRC) who provide oversight of police behaviour and detention standards. In May, the PDRC released an independent report which included testimonies of detainees and highlighted a number of key concerns in respect to prison conditions at Jau Prison. We welcome the transparent approach taken by the PDRC, and the Ministry of Interior’s commitment to implement all recommendations made in the report. We continue to call upon the Government of Bahrain to agree a visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

  • Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Hylton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2016-07-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the collapse of the Dolmabahçe Agreement, whether they will discuss with the government of Turkey the proposal by Open Democracy of 15 steps for Turkish–Kurdish peace.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We understand that the Government of Turkey did not commit itself to specific undertakings following the talks at the Dolmabahçe Palace in February 2015. We have been very clear that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) violence must end in order to create the conditions for political resolution of the difficulties in the south east.

  • Lord Stevenson of Balmacara – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Stevenson of Balmacara – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stevenson of Balmacara on 2016-07-08.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have received about the decision of Birmingham Assay Office, pursuant to the Legislative Reform (Hallmarking) Order 2013, to open an office in Mumbai on 18 July that will use a mark for silver to be imported into the UK that is similar to the established anchor mark used for domestic production; and whether they will publish any assessment they have made of the prospective impact of that decision on the Birmingham silversmithing trade.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    Hallmarks are not an indication of geographic origin and are already applied widely to articles manufactured in places other than the location of the four UK Assay Offices, including to articles manufactured outside the UK.

    Government has received four representations expressing concern about the decision of Birmingham Assay Office, pursuant to the Legislative Reform (Hallmarking) Order 2013, to open a sub-office in Mumbai.

    An impact assessment of the costs and benefits of removing the restrictions on overseas hallmarking was published alongside the government consultation on the proposals in 2012, and covered the whole of the hallmarking sector. The Impact Assessment estimated that there would be a benefit to business of £3.44 m. A copy of the impact assessment can be found on the Parliament website accompanying the Legislative Reform (Hallmarking) Order 2013.