Author: admin

  • David Mowat – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    David Mowat – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Mowat on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress he has made on reducing the proportion of the defence budget which is spent on legal fees.

    Penny Mordaunt

    A fraction of one per cent of the defence budget is spent on legal fees, most of it necessary to protect the interests of the taxpayer in securing value for money or in protecting the operational freedom and reputation of the Armed Forces. We have work in hand to reduce opportunistic litigation which is harmful to Defence and diverts funds from the front line.

  • David Rutley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    David Rutley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Rutley on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the effect on national security of the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.

    Michael Fallon

    Successive UK Governments have concluded that for as long as nuclear weapons exist, a nuclear deterrent, based on a continuous at sea deterrence, has a vital role to play in our security and that of our NATO allies. It provides the ultimate guarantee of our national security and way of life.

  • Graham Evans – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Graham Evans – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Graham Evans on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what recent assessment she has made of the level of the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    The threat level in Northern Ireland is SEVERE meaning an attack is highly likely. Threat levels are kept under constant review.

    There were 16 national security attacks in 2015 and there has been one so far this year. Many more attacks and murders by violent dissident republicans have been foiled.

  • Chris Green – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Chris Green – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Green on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what steps the Government is taking to tackle organised crime in Northern Ireland.

    Mrs Theresa Villiers

    I refer the hon Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon Member for Tonbridge and Malling.

  • Danny Kinahan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Danny Kinahan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Danny Kinahan on 2016-02-23.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what assessment she has made of the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on cross-border trade in Northern Ireland.

    Mr Ben Wallace

    As the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom will be stronger, safer and better off by remaining in a reformed European Union.

    This includes Northern Ireland, where UK membership of the EU helps ensure a stable and secure relationship for trade and investment within the Union and in particular with its largest export partner, the Republic of Ireland.


  • 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 2016-02-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that funds, financial assets or economic resources are not being made available by UK nationals, UK-owned businesses, including tour companies, or other entities within UK territory, to sanctioned North Korean entities, or to that country’s nuclear and ballistic missiles programme.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    UN sanctions measures on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) include the requirement of all member states to freeze funds, other financial assets and economic resources on their territories, which are owned or controlled by individuals and entities designated by the UN Sanctions Committee or Security Council as being engaged in or supporting DPRK’s nuclear or ballistic missile programmes. The EU has legislated to give effect to UN sanctions. In the case of the DPRK it has gone beyond them by designating additional individuals and entities at the EU level. It is a criminal offence within the UK to make available funds or economic resources to a listed individual or entity under UN or EU DPRK sanctions measures.

  • 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 2016-02-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether any projects funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are within one hundred miles of Kyo-hwa-so camps, Kwan-li-so camps, Ku-ryu-jang centres, Jip-kyul-so prisons or Ro-dong-dan-ryeon-dae centres; and what steps they are taking through the British Embassy in Pyongyang to access prisoners in those camps.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    We are not aware of any Foreign and Commonwealth Office funded projects that take place within one hundred miles of Kyo-hwa-so camps, Kwan-li-so camps, Ku-ryu-jang centres, Jip-kyul-so prisons or Ro-dong-dan-ryeon-dae centres. Together with other EU member states resident in Pyongyang, our Embassy has requested access to these camps on numerous occasions, and will continue to do so. However, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continues to refuse access by independent observers.

  • 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 2016-02-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what meetings have been held between the new UK Ambassador to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and that country’s government, and what access the UK non-resident defence attaché to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has had within that country since their appointment.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    On 24 December 2015 our Ambassador in Pyongyang met Kim Yong Nam, the President of the Supreme People Assembly, to present his credentials. Since then our Ambassador has called on senior officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other government departments. The non-resident Defence Attaché meets officials from the Korean People’s Army during his visits to Pyongyang and most recently attended events held in October 2015 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Workers Party of Korea.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-02-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government,  further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 27 January (HL5039) and 12 February (HL5911), whether they are now able to confirm that the stated aims of the application recently approved by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to perform genome editing in human embryos by means of CRISPR-Cas9 had never included increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriages”; and which of the purposes as set out in the previous Written Answer were instead deemed to be fulfilled by the project.”

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s role in granting a research licence is to ensure that any project fulfils one of the purposes set out in the legislation. The Person Responsible applied for the same purposes as those which were granted. These are set out in paragraph 1.18 of the minutes of the Licence Committee meeting held on 14 January 2016; a copy of the minutes is attached.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-02-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 11 February (HL5773, HL5959 and HL5960), why they have not placed in the Library of the House a full copy of the original licence application submitted to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to perform genome editing in human embryos by means of CRISPR-Cas9; why they have not placed in the Library of the House copies of the patient information and consent forms submitted to the HFEA by the person responsible in order to perform such work; how the conditions stipulated under paragraph 13 of Section G in Direction 0008 version 4 as published by HFEA on 29 October 2015 (http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/ General_Directions_0008. pdf) regarding Information to be submitted to the HFEA as part of the licensing process” were satisfied in the case of the decision; and why they will not place in the Library of the House a full copy of the responses to peer reviewers by the person responsible.”

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) publishes on its website the inspection report relating to a licence renewal application and the minutes of the Licence Committee’s decision. It does not publish other information associated with a licence application.

    The Licence Committee considering the application to which the noble Lord refers was satisfied that the requirements of General Directions 0008 were met, with the exception of evidence of ethics approval, which must be submitted to the HFEA before any licensed research can begin.

    The HFEA has advised that licence conditions R18-R27 and T97 address any potential conflict between the use of embryos in research and the use of embryos in the provision of treatment services. The person responsible did not give a reason on the application form for requesting that reference to surplus embryos should be removed from the research project title, nor are they required to do so. The removal of ‘surplus’ from the title does not reflect a change in the way embryos will be donated to the research.