Blog

  • Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Prime Minister, on what date and which Minister signed off the decision to give permission to the Chilcot Inquiry to disclose quotations or gists of the content of notes from Tony Blair or records of discussions between the UK Prime Minister and the President of the United States; when detailed consideration of the gists and quotations requested by the Inquiry bagan; how many (a) gists and (b) quotations of Tony Blair are under consideration; whether the publication of any gists or quotations has yet been agreed; and which Minister will approve the decisions on which gists or quotations can be published.

    Mr David Cameron

    The Inquiry is completely independent of government and should be allowed to complete its work without interference.

    At the outset of the Inquiry, Government and the Inquiry agreed a documents protocol on the handling of information provided to the Inquiry. The protocol names the Cabinet Secretary as final arbiter in discussions about disclosure. He is the right person to perform this role. He is the most senior civil servant and can see papers of a previous government Sir John Chilcot’s letter of 28 May describes the background against which the Inquiry made its requests for gists and quotes. Sir John also makes clear that the gists and quotes are sufficient for the Inquiry’s purposes.

    Sir John Chilcot’s letter of 28 May is available on the Iraq Inquiry website and I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.

    The Government will not comment further on the extent or detail of the Inquiry’s declassification requests. I have made clear my hope that the Inquiry will be able to complete its work by the end of the year.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the letter of 28 May 2014 from Sir John Chilcott to the Cabinet Secretary, which Government Minister agreed, and on what date, that there was no prospect of reaching agreement that Notes or records of discussions between the UK Prime Minister and the President of the United States should be disclosed in their entirety or with redactions.

    Mr David Cameron

    The Inquiry is completely independent of government and should be allowed to complete its work without interference.

    At the outset of the Inquiry, Government and the Inquiry agreed a documents protocol on the handling of information provided to the Inquiry. The protocol names the Cabinet Secretary as final arbiter in discussions about disclosure. He is the right person to perform this role. He is the most senior civil servant and can see papers of a previous government Sir John Chilcot’s letter of 28 May describes the background against which the Inquiry made its requests for gists and quotes. Sir John also makes clear that the gists and quotes are sufficient for the Inquiry’s purposes.

    Sir John Chilcot’s letter of 28 May is available on the Iraq Inquiry website and I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.

    The Government will not comment further on the extent or detail of the Inquiry’s declassification requests. I have made clear my hope that the Inquiry will be able to complete its work by the end of the year.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to the Answer of 25 November 2013, Official Report, column 20W, on Bovine Tuberculosis, and to Answer 3 of his Department’s response to Freedom of Information request RFI 6487, Investigations into culling as an option, published on 7 May 2014, for what reasons the Answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion did not give information on the trials into using gas as a potential method for culling badgers which began in Summer 2013; on what date those trials commenced; and if he will make a statement.

    George Eustice

    In August 2013, we commissioned new research into alternative methods of culling badgers.

    The first step involved reviewing and updating the ‘Review of effectiveness, environmental impact, humaneness and feasibility of lethal methods for badger control’ published in 2005. The review was completed in September 2013.

    In October and November 2013 we carried out initial trials of nitrogen-filled foam to analyse its dispersal in an artificial sett-like environment. These trials did not involve the use of active setts or tests on live animals.

    Further research is now planned into the use of carbon monoxide as a potential sett-based means of humane culling.

  • Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the Answer of 4 February 2014, Official Report, column 169W, on Djibouti, whether the UK personnel embedded with US forces under US command at Camp Lemonnier provide any support to the US drone programme in Yemen; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr Mark Francois

    UK Armed Forces personnel embedded in Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti, are responsible for the planning and support of US military operations in East Africa. They do not provide any support to US Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) operations in Yemen; CJTF-HOA does not oversee operations in the Middle East.

  • Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the Answer of 29 April 2014, Official Report, column 636W, on the Air Force, whether any such UK personnel are embedded or otherwise interact with the US Air Force’s 17th Reconnaissance Squadron.

    Mr Mark Francois

    732nd is an Operations Group which comprises four Reconnaissance Squadron’s – 17th, 22nd, 30th and 867th. No UK Remotely Piloted Air System personnel are embedded with, or interact with the 732nd Operations Group Squadrons.

  • Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the Answer of 29 April 2014, Official Report, column 636W, on the Air Force, whether any such UK personnel are embedded or otherwise interact with the (a) 22nd, (b) 30th, (c) 867th and (d) 732nd Air Force Reconnaissance Squadrons.

    Mr Mark Francois

    732nd is an Operations Group which comprises four Reconnaissance Squadron’s – 17th, 22nd, 30th and 867th. No UK Remotely Piloted Air System personnel are embedded with, or interact with the 732nd Operations Group Squadrons.

  • Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the Answer of 10 February 2014, Official Report, column 474W, on unmanned air vehicles: guided weapons, if he will take steps to receive parliamentary approval before the deployment of the armed forces to the redeployment of armed drones abroad.

    Mr Mark Francois

    There is no intention for Parliamentary approval to be sought before decisions on deployment or redeployment of individual items of equipment are made, though the Ministry of Defence may of course notify Parliament of significant deployments, as it does at present.

  • Gordon Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Gordon Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gordon Brown on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will publish the advice received by his Department on health risks of the radiation contamination at Dalgety Bay.

    Mr Mark Francois

    In 2006 the then Health Protection Agency (HPA) Radiological Protection Authority advised that radioactive contamination on Dalgety Bay presented a low risk to the public. A more recent scoping risk assessment undertaken in 2011 by the HPA Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards at the bequest of the Scottish Government concluded that the risk to health was very low.

    The view of the Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (now part of Public Health England) remains unchanged. However, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is completing a detailed quantitative risk assessment to inform the longer term management strategy which will be available in due course.

    Copies of the advice received by MOD together with a copy of the more detailed risk assessment, when published, will be placed in the Library of the House.

  • Gordon Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Gordon Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gordon Brown on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he was first made aware of health risks at Dalgety Bay.

    Mr Mark Francois

    In 2006 the then Health Protection Agency (HPA) Radiological Protection Authority advised that radioactive contamination on Dalgety Bay presented a low risk to the public. A more recent scoping risk assessment undertaken in 2011 by the HPA Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards at the bequest of the Scottish Government concluded that the risk to health was very low.

    The view of the Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (now part of Public Health England) remains unchanged. However, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is completing a detailed quantitative risk assessment to inform the longer term management strategy which will be available in due course.

    Copies of the advice received by MOD together with a copy of the more detailed risk assessment, when published, will be placed in the Library of the House.

  • Gordon Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Gordon Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gordon Brown on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will visit Dalgety Bay to discuss the time taken to clean up radiation contamination there.

    Mr Mark Francois

    In 2006 the then Health Protection Agency (HPA) Radiological Protection Authority advised that radioactive contamination on Dalgety Bay presented a low risk to the public. A more recent scoping risk assessment undertaken in 2011 by the HPA Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards at the bequest of the Scottish Government concluded that the risk to health was very low.

    The view of the Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (now part of Public Health England) remains unchanged. However, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is completing a detailed quantitative risk assessment to inform the longer term management strategy which will be available in due course.

    Copies of the advice received by MOD together with a copy of the more detailed risk assessment, when published, will be placed in the Library of the House.