Author: admin

  • Caroline Lucas – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Caroline Lucas – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what briefing his Department provided to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on (a) the promotion and sale of arms and military equipment and (b) human rights before his trip to the Middle East; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister for the Middle East at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Tobias Ellwood) to Question 224052.

  • stored for patients’ use or “stored for donation” – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    stored for patients’ use or “stored for donation” – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by stored for patients’ use or “stored for donation” on 2015-02-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 8 January 2013 (WA 24–6), 24 February 2014 (WA 174–5) and 5 February 2015 (HL4367), whether the total number of embryos allowed to perish as stated as 1,717,375 between 1991 and 2011 represents the same set of embryos recorded in the earlier answer as stored for research” or “discarded”

    Earl Howe

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that the number of embryos allowed to perish between 1991 and 2011 is 1,717,375, as stated in my written answer of 5 February 2015 (HL4367). In relation to the figures given in my written answer of 8 January 2013 (WA 24-6), the comparator would be the figures recorded as “Embryos reported on the Treatment form as being discarded” and “Embryos reported on the Gamete Movement form as being removed from storage and discarded”.

    The total figures differ from the later answer (HL4367) because the latter does not include embryos stored for research. Any further difference in the figures is due to reconciliation work performed on the data since my answer of 8 January 2013.

    The descriptive term “head of a pin” was intended to give the noble Lord an indication of the size of the embryo involved, in my written answers of 24 February 2014, HL5165 (WA 174-5), and 5 February 2015, HL4367.

    “

  • Angus Robertson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Angus Robertson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Angus Robertson on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many personnel are taking part in the Seedcorn initiative; what the location is of each such member of personnel; with what equipment those personnel are training; and what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the Seedcorn initiative in each of the next two years.

    Mr Mark Francois

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 February 2015 to Question 223239, giving the number of personnel, their location, and type of equipment those personnel are training on, as part of the Seedcorn initiative.

    The cost of the Seedcorn initiative in financial year 2015-16 is £2.5 million. Funding beyond that date is yet to be determined.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2015-02-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that the government of North Korea uses forced and uncompensated labour, including school children, in the construction of tourist sites visited by United Kingdom tourists; and whether United Kingdom legislation prohibits the use of such sites by United Kingdom-based businesses or individuals.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We are aware of reports regarding the use of conscripted military personnel in the construction of sites that foreigners visit in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and of the use of forced and uncompensated labour for construction projects more generally. Our Embassy in Pyongyang has seen activity corroborating these reports, such as military personnel working on the new Pyongyang airport terminal and Masik Pass Ski Resort, and we are aware of situations in which university students have been taken out of classes to participate in construction projects. We are unaware of specific reports regarding the use of school children in the construction of tourist sites, and we have not witnessed this in Pyongyang. Our officials have seen children, who appear to be of school age, taking part in extracurricular activities including street cleaning and grass cutting, and also being used as agricultural labour at harvest time.

    There is no legislation prohibiting the use of, or access to, DPRK tourist sites by UK-based business or individuals.

  • Paul Murphy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Paul Murphy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Murphy on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many guests he plans to invite to the service of commemoration at St Paul’s Cathedral on 13 March 2015; and what proportion of those guests are family members of service personnel who died during operations in Afghanistan.

    Anna Soubry

    Approximately 2,000 invitations will be issued, of which over 900 have so far been allocated to the families of those who lost their lives in the conflict. A further 900 or so have been allocated to Service personnel and veterans.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2015-02-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of comments by United Nations Special Rapporteur Marzuki Darusman that the human rights situation in North Korea can only improve if the Kim family is removed and a new leadership is installed.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We continue to be extremely concerned by reports of gross violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). We have repeatedly urged the DPRK authorities to address these violations, including by immediately closing political prison camps. We have also made clear that we will respond positively if the regime demonstrates a genuine willingness to deliver improvements on the ground. However, until and unless such improvements take place we will continue to work with partners to maintain international pressure on the DPRK. We support the work of the Special Rapporteur in monitoring the human rights situation in the DPRK and briefing the UN Human Rights Council as an important part of these efforts.

  • Paul Murphy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Paul Murphy – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Murphy on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many family members of each of the service personnel who died in Afghanistan will be able to attend the service of commemoration at St Paul’s Cathedral on 13 March 2015.

    Anna Soubry

    Invitations have been extended to the Next of Kin and one guest.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2015-02-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their current understanding of the Warnock Committee’s recommendations on the level of respect to be afforded to human embryos; whether they continue to adhere to those original principles; and how they and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority give effect to those principles in their policies.

    Earl Howe

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended, which builds on the recommendations made in the July 1984 report of The Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (the “Warnock Committee”), takes account of the special status of the human embryo because of its potential to develop into a human being.

    The Government and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) recognise the special status of embryos. This is reflected in the strict regulatory controls that continue to be applied to the use of embryos in treatment and research.

    The HFEA has advised that it requires all licensed centres to ‘have proper respect for the special status of the embryo when conducting licensed activities’. This is a principle which informs every part of its Code of Practice, which HFEA licensed centres are expected to adhere to. This can be found on the HFEA’s website at:

    http://www.hfea.gov.uk/184.html

    “

  • Vernon Coaker – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Vernon Coaker – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Vernon Coaker on 2015-02-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Written Statement of 10 February 2015, HCWS273, on gifting of counter-IED equipment to Iraq, what protection will be provided to the members of the Armed Forces being deployed as part of the C-IED training package in Erbil.

    Michael Fallon

    UK Armed Forces personnel deploying to deliver the C-IED training in Erbil will conduct a comprehensive package of pre-deployment training and will be equipped with appropriate personal protective equipment. They will be armed for self defence purposes and the deployment will include a dedicated force protection element. Coalition partners will also provide force protection at the training location.

  • Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord McColl of Dulwich – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2015-02-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 9 February (HL4411), how the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 make provision for the follow-up studies to investigate how mutations vary in each of the different cells of the resulting children; at what age or ages the children would be when their cells would be examined in that way; how many different tissues and of which type would have to be biopsied to obtain the cells of interest; how informed consent would be obtained from the children for that purpose; and at what point such children would be informed of the techniques used in their conception.

    Earl Howe

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015, if approved by Parliament, will not come into force until 29 October 2015. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) will consider how best to apply a monitoring framework to clinics awarded a licence to carry out mitochondrial donation treatment, against which it would inspect.

    The HFEA will announce its proposals for the regulation and monitoring of mitochondrial donation treatment cycles following the approval of regulations by Parliament.