The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Lavery on 2015-02-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether any employees of Rio Tinto plc has been seconded to his Department in the last five years.
Jo Swinson
The Department has not seconded any employees from Rio Tinto plc.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Lavery on 2015-02-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether any former officials his Department have taken employment with Rio Tinto plc in the last five years.
Jo Swinson
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) does not hold details of the future employment arrangements of all employees leaving BIS. The Business Appointment Rules (BAR) apply to civil servants who intend to take up an appointment or employment after leaving the Civil Service. These currently apply to members of the Senior Civil Service for two years after their last day of service, and for more junior employees they apply for one year. We have no record of any applications under the BAR for employment with Rio Tinto plc in the last five years.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Williams on 2015-02-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the declaration by the African Union that the Crans Montana Forum in Dakhla, occupied Western Sahara, should be cancelled.
Matthew Hancock
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has received and declined an invitation to this forum and my Department does not plan to send a representative. We are aware of reports that the African Union has called for the forum to be cancelled but we do not intend to make any assessment.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Menzies Campbell on 2015-02-11.
To ask the Attorney General, whether he has issued a direction under 4(b) of the Protocol Between the Attorney General and the Prosecuting Departments to the Serious Fraud Office on a case under investigation by that office in the last four months; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Robert Buckland
It would not be appropriate to give a running commentary on SFO investigations. I am aware of the provisions within paragraph 4(b)4 of the Protocol, which state that if any such direction were to be made then I would make a report to Parliament, so far as was compatible with national security.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Teverson on 2015-02-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that Post Office accounts can accept monies belonging to customers of credit unions and other providers of low cost lending when those customers and members need to be paid back monies due to them.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The Post Office is one of the leading challengers in the UK financial services market and offers services under its Post Office Money brand and also services on behalf of third parties. Presently more than 95% of UK current accounts are accessible across Post Office’s counters. Post Office already works with a number of Credit Unions, and customers of these organisations are able to undertake basic financial transactions at Post Office branches. Post Office is also working with the Association of British Credit Unions on its Credit Union expansion project; this is ongoing and Post Office hopes to play a role in any solutions identified.
All of Post Office’s contracts – including with Credit Unions – are commercial arrangements and it would not be appropriate for Government to intervene in these. We support Post Office’s strategy to grow its successful financial services business to reach more customers, including potentially those of the Credit Union sector.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by on 2015-02-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they support the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that a ban on subsistence hunting, where hunting is an essential element in the culture of the community”
Lord De Mauley
The UK Government is fully committed to promoting and protecting human rights for all individuals, including indigenous people, without discrimination on any grounds. We continue to work overseas and through multilateral institutions to improve the situation of indigenous people internationally, and have long provided political and financial support to the economic, social and political development of indigenous peoples around the world.
We regard the General Comments and Decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee as valuable guidance for all State Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). We do not, however, consider that they are legally binding and have therefore made no assessment of whether a ban on subsistence hunting breaches Section 27 of the ICCPR.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 2015-02-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the United for Wildlife’s follow-up to the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, what representations they are making to ensure that subsistence hunters are not being criminalised or evicted from their lands in the name of conservation.
Lord De Mauley
We have not made any specific representations on this issue.
The UK is one of the global leaders in the response to the illegal trade in wildlife. At the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade held in February 2014 more than 40 Governments committed to action designed to strengthen law enforcement, reduce demand and support alternative livelihoods of communities affected by poaching and trafficking. These Governments recognised the illegal trade in wildlife as a major barrier to sustainable, inclusive and balanced economic development that damages ecosystems, undermines good governance and the rule of law, threatens security, and reduces the revenue and local benefits earned from economic activities such as wildlife‐based tourism and the sustainable utilisation of and legal trade in wildlife. They recognised that sustainable livelihoods will be best supported by engaging with communities living in and around protected areas to reflect their needs alongside those of local wildlife.
We welcome the leadership of the Botswana Government in hosting the Kasane Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade on 25 March as a follow-up to the London Conference.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town on 2015-02-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the oral statement by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 19 November 2014 (HL Deb, col 505), whether they will confirm the terms of reference for their review of unsafe product recall, and name the chair of the review and the date by which it will report.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I expect the review of consumer product recalls to be launched in early March 2015, The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) will make public the Terms of Reference, the name of the Chair and the timescale for the Review at that time.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2015-02-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they consider that the principles and prohibitions regarding eugenic practices in the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine form part of the constitutional traditions common to member states of the European Union.
Earl Howe
The United Kingdom has not signed or ratified the Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2015-02-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government which European Union legislation they have considered in framing the proposed draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015; what view they have taken on the applicability of the European Union legislation; and what is the basis for their view.
Earl Howe
As I said in the debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 on 24 February 2015 (columns 1570 and 1617-8) the Government is satisfied that the Regulations do not contravene any aspect of European Union law. It has carefully considered recent arguments relating to the Clinical Trials Directive (Directive 2001/20/EC) but is satisfied that the Directive is not relevant in this context as it relates to clinical trials of medicines.