Author: admin

  • David Morris – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    David Morris – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Morris on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whether he has made an assessment of the resilience of the (a) mobile telephone network, (b) landline telephone network and (c) fibre optic broadband network after a power cut; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    Government continually assesses the resilience of the communications network and works closely with the communications industry to do this. Power is the main dependency of the communications sector, and the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), published in November 2015, highlighted Government’s commitment to enhancing the UK’s resilience to power disruption. Government will continue to work with industry to ensure the ongoing resilience and availability of services across the sector in the event of power loss.

  • Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Brake on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department has established a civilian casualties tracking cell to investigate reports of alleged incidents involving RAF aeroplanes in Syria and Iraq.

    Penny Mordaunt

    As you know, I am committed to review all claims of civilian casualties, which we take very seriously. The Ministry of Defence has robust processes in place to review reports of alleged incidents. An assessment is carried out after every British strike; we determine the scale of the damage that has been caused and review very carefully whether there are likely to have been civilian casualties. Investigations are launched where appropriate.

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

    David Davis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Davis on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment of the merits of the Protector drone and other current and projected UK capability requirements was made to underpin the recent £1.5 billion UK-France collaboration on a joint unmanned combat air vehicle.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    As part of last year’s Strategic Defence and Security Review, we conducted a comprehensive assessment of our future capability requirements including for combat air. Within this, we looked at what could be provided by current and planned capabilities including Protector. The next phase of our collaboration on Unmanned Combat Air Systems with France will mature advanced technologies to inform future acquisition choices.

    As part of last year’s Strategic Defence and Security Review, we conducted a comprehensive assessment of our future capability requirements including for combat air. Within this, we looked at what could be provided by current and planned capabilities including Protector. The next phase of our collaboration on Unmanned Combat Air Systems with France is looking at capability need beyond Protector and so will mature advanced technologies to develop operational demonstrators.

  • Steven Paterson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Steven Paterson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steven Paterson on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, on how many occasions his Department has not provided substantive answers to written parliamentary questions by stating that disclosure of the information would likely prejudice the capability, effectiveness, or security of our Armed Forces or Allies in this parliamentary session.

    Penny Mordaunt

    Since the start of the 2015-16 session of Parliament to 17 March 2016, 47 written parliamentary questions (PQs) tabled to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) were not answered because disclosure would have been likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness, or security of our Armed Forces or Allies. This figure represents 2% of the total number of 2,318 PQs answered by the MOD during that period.

    In 19 further PQs, only part of the answer was withheld so as to protect the capability, effectiveness, or security of our Armed Forces or Allies.

  • Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Brake on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 9 March 2016 to Question 29390, what definition of principle of proportionality his Department uses to assess whether an incident counts as a violation of international humanitarian law.

    Penny Mordaunt

    International Humanitarian Law is founded in customary international law but now extensively codified in international agreements, most notably the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols. The UK’s interpretation of the principles of proportionality, military necessity, humanity and distinction is set out in the Ministry of Defence’s Joint Service Publication (JSP) 383, the Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, which is available online (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/jsp-383).

  • Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Brake on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 9 March 2016 to Question 29390, what definition of principle of military necessity his Department uses to assess whether an incident counts as violation of international humanitarian law.

    Penny Mordaunt

    International Humanitarian Law is founded in customary international law but now extensively codified in international agreements, most notably the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols. The UK’s interpretation of the principles of proportionality, military necessity, humanity and distinction is set out in the Ministry of Defence’s Joint Service Publication (JSP) 383, the Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, which is available online (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/jsp-383).

  • Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Brake on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 9 March 2016 to Question 29390, what definition of principle of humanity his Department uses to assess whether an incident counts as a violation of international humanitarian law.

    Penny Mordaunt

    International Humanitarian Law is founded in customary international law but now extensively codified in international agreements, most notably the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols. The UK’s interpretation of the principles of proportionality, military necessity, humanity and distinction is set out in the Ministry of Defence’s Joint Service Publication (JSP) 383, the Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, which is available online (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/jsp-383).

  • Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Brake – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Brake on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 9 March 2016 to Question 29390, what definition of principle of distinction his Department uses to assess whether an incident counts as a violation of international humanitarian law.

    Penny Mordaunt

    International Humanitarian Law is founded in customary international law but now extensively codified in international agreements, most notably the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols. The UK’s interpretation of the principles of proportionality, military necessity, humanity and distinction is set out in the Ministry of Defence’s Joint Service Publication (JSP) 383, the Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, which is available online (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/jsp-383).

  • Tom Pursglove – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Pursglove – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Pursglove on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what proportion of UK military personnel have been deployed on (a) NATO, (b) UN and (c) EU-coordinated operations and training over the lpast 10 years.

    Penny Mordaunt

    The Strategic Defence and Security Review reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to providing contributions to NATO, UN, and EU operations and exercises. However, the MOD does not hold the information in the format requested and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  • Steven Paterson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Steven Paterson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Steven Paterson on 2016-03-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, for what reasons his Department will not give a substantive answer to Parliamentary questions.

    Mark Lancaster

    Ministers answer Parliamentary Questions in accordance with the Ministerial Code which states that:

    "Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000".

    In addition, Parliamentary Questions may not receive a substantive answer if the information requested is not held, if providing the answer to a written question would incur disproportionate cost, if the answer contains personal or confidential information which is not appropriate for publication or if it is not possible to respond in the time available before prorogation.