Blog

  • Tom Pursglove – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Tom Pursglove – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Pursglove on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what estimate his Department has made of how many (a) children, (b) women and (c) men have been killed by Daesh/ISIL; and what his Department’s estimate is of the number of women who have been raped by Daesh.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The Government is not able to estimate the number of people who have been murdered, raped or subjected to sexual violence at the hands of Daesh. However, the UN and other international organisations have reported on the scale of Daesh violence in Iraq and Syria.

  • Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how many press and public relations staff are employed by (a) UK Trade and Investment, (b) FCO Services, (c) Wilton Park, (d) the British Council, (e) the Great Britain-China Centre, (f) the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission and (g) the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, (h) Government Communications Headquarters and (i) the Secret Intelligence Service; how many of those employees earn more than (i) £50,000 and (ii) £100,000; and what the total expenditure was on press and public relations by each of those organisations in the most recent year for which figures are available.

    Mr David Lidington

    The number of press and public relations staff employed in each organisation is
    as follows:

    FCO Services: 0.5 full-time equivalent
    Wilton Park: 0
    The British Council: 7
    The Great Britain-China Centre: 0
    The Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission: 0
    The Westminster Foundation for
    Democracy: 0

    i) The number of press and public relations employees who
    earn more than £50,000 in each organisation is as follows:

    FCO Services: 0
    Wilton Park: 0
    The British Council: 1
    The Great Britain-China
    Centre: 0
    The Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission: 0
    The Westminster
    Foundation for Democracy: 0

    ii) No press and public relations employee
    earns more than £100,000 in any of the organisationslisted above.

    iii)
    The total expenditure on press and public relations by each organisation in
    2014/15, excluding staff costs, is as follows:

    FCO Services: £21,312

    Wilton Park: Nil
    The British Council: £126,041
    The Great
    Britain-China Centre: Nil
    The Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission: Nil

    The Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Nil

    It is long standing government policy not to publish Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) and Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) expenditure or staff figures to the requested level of detail. However, other data on the intelligence agencies’ expenditure and staff numbers are normally published in the annual reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

    Across Government the government communications profession saved £330 million for taxpayers last year compared to 2009 to 2010 – by making its campaigns more cost effective. This means the government reduced communications spending by a total of £1 billion during the last Parliament.

  • Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how much his Department spent on (a) travel, (b) first or business class flights for officials, (c) first or business class flights for Ministers, (c) first class train travel for officials and (d) first class train travel for Ministers in 2014-15.

    Mr David Lidington

    The FCO ensures value for money in all its expenditure to help reduce the overall costs of Government. Staff are expected to find alternatives to overseas travel where possible, including by making use of video conferencing facilities.

    Where travel is necessary, FCO policy is that staff should ensure maximum efficiency, remembering that it is public money being spent. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, FCO officials may fly business class only if the flying time is ten hours or longer.

    All FCO staff are directed to use standard class for rail travel unless there are exceptional circumstances e.g. illness, disability or where first class facilities are essential for working while travelling. In these exceptional circumstances, prior line management approval must be given.

    In 2014-15 the FCO’s spend on air and train travel originating in the UK and booked through the Government’s nominated travel agency in the UK totalled £10,879,831 and £365,145 respectively.

    For comparison, in 2009-10 the equivalent figures were £14,503,576 and £328,184 respectively. This represents a 25% reduction in expenditure on air travel and a 11.3% increase on train travel since 2009-10.

    In 2014-15 the figures break down to £6,838 on first class flights (exceptions were made to ensure attendance at the funeral for a Head of State and for officials to attend crucial talks on Libya), £4,501,110 on business class flights, £6,371,883 on economy and premium economy flights, £3,057 on first class rail travel and £362,088 on standard rail travel.

    For comparison, in 2009-10 the figures break down to £11,852 on first class flights, £11,307,923 on business class flights, £3,183,801 on economy and premium economy flights, £195,447 on first class rail travel and £132,737 on standard rail travel.

    It is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on either air or rail travel by Ministers and by officials: disaggregating the class of travel from all the individual journeys taken by ministers and officials could only be carried out at disproportionate cost.

  • Bob Stewart – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Bob Stewart – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bob Stewart on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, through what means his Department communicates with and receives communications from Christian communities in Syria; and how he assesses the quality of information received otherwise by his Department on the situation of such communities in that country.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office representatives meet Church leaders and Non-Governmental Organisations representing Christian communities in Syria on a regular basis in London, through our Embassy to the Holy See and at our Syria Offices in Beirut and Istanbul. We also receive regular correspondence from groups highlighting the situation of Christians in Syria. These sources provide us with valuable insights into the situation facing Christians in Syria and the region. We recognise the contribution that recognised religious leaders can make on the Syria political track. They and other leading members of civil society will need a strong voice in the debate on Syria’s future.

  • Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Diana Johnson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Diana Johnson on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many press and public relations staff are employed by (a) the Forestry Commission, (b) the Water Services Regulation Authority, (c) the Animal and Plant Health Agency, (d) the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, (e) the Rural Payments Agency, (f) the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, (g) the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, (h) the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, (i) the Consumer Council for Water, (j) the Environment Agency, (k) the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, (l) the Marine Management Organisation, (m) the National Forest Company, (n) Natural England and (o) the Sea Fish Industry Authority; how many of those employees are paid more than (i) £50,000 and (ii) £100,000; and what the total expenditure was on press and public relations by each of those orqanisations in the most recent year for which figures are available.

    George Eustice

    Defra is in the midst of a corporate services and network transformation programme which is yielding significant reductions in communication staff. Our rigorous controls on communication spending are expected to save £1 million in 2015-2016. The detail requested will be placed in the Library of the House.

  • David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Anderson on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment her Department has made of the dependency that hen welfare has on the frequency of human attention regardless of the position of the cages in which they are kept.

    George Eustice

    The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) enforces the relevant welfare legislation and carries out welfare inspections on farms to check that the UK legislation, which implements European law, is being followed. This includes spot checks and planned risk based inspections.

    In addition, a programme of inspections is carried out under EU cross compliance legislation to farmers that claim cross-compliance subsidies. The APHA also enforce the requirement for owners or other responsible persons to inspect their hens at least once a day.

    Our expert advisory committee, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, has concluded that stockmanship, and the correct application of husbandry standards, whatever the system of production, is key to ensuring good welfare for farmed animals. This view is relevant to all livestock, whether in intensive or extensive production systems. The EU Commission’s Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare recognised that there is a wide variety of enriched cage designs for laying hens, and that the layout of some cages can affect bird inspection. Both the EU Commission in its 2008 report on the welfare of laying hens in various systems and the Farm Animal Welfare Committee recognise the welfare benefits of enriched cages and have given their support to this system of production.

  • David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    David Anderson – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Anderson on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the inspection regime is for ensuring that hens are housed in conditions compliant with relevant EU directives.

    George Eustice

    The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) enforces the relevant welfare legislation and carries out welfare inspections on farms to check that the UK legislation, which implements European law, is being followed. This includes spot checks and planned risk based inspections.

    In addition, a programme of inspections is carried out under EU cross compliance legislation to farmers that claim cross-compliance subsidies. The APHA also enforce the requirement for owners or other responsible persons to inspect their hens at least once a day.

    Our expert advisory committee, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, has concluded that stockmanship, and the correct application of husbandry standards, whatever the system of production, is key to ensuring good welfare for farmed animals. This view is relevant to all livestock, whether in intensive or extensive production systems. The EU Commission’s Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare recognised that there is a wide variety of enriched cage designs for laying hens, and that the layout of some cages can affect bird inspection. Both the EU Commission in its 2008 report on the welfare of laying hens in various systems and the Farm Animal Welfare Committee recognise the welfare benefits of enriched cages and have given their support to this system of production.

  • Philip Hollobone – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Philip Hollobone – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Philip Hollobone on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what (a) guidelines, (b) regulations and (c) EU directives are in place which restrict the use of antibiotics for livestock.

    George Eustice

    The rules governing the authorisation and use of veterinary medicines are set at the European level through an EU Directive and these apply to all Member States. All antibiotic veterinary medicines in the UK are available only on prescription by a veterinary surgeon, who in turn is only permitted to prescribe to animals under their care.

    The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), an executive agency of the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra), published the ‘Code of Practice on the responsible use of animal medicines on the farm’ in December 2014. The guidance makes it clear that the Government does not support the routine preventative use of antibiotics, or the use of antibiotics to compensate for poor animal husbandry.

    A number of UK veterinary and farming organisations have well established guidance on the prescription and use of veterinary medicines, including antibiotics.

  • Mrs Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Mrs Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mrs Anne Main on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will publish an analysis of the outcomes and costs of the third badger cull.

    George Eustice

    The Government has published a summary of badger control monitoring during 2015 on the GOV.UK website. The Government will publish its costs once they have been finalised.

  • Mrs Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Mrs Anne Main – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mrs Anne Main on 2015-12-17.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether she plans to extend badger culls into new areas.

    George Eustice

    As outlined in a Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December, the Government wants to see badger control over a wider number of areas this year. This is in line with the UK Chief Veterinary Officer’s advice and our comprehensive strategy to eradicate bovine TB in England.