Tag: Andrew Rosindell

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-03-22.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he plans to take to monitor the location and use of the recently announced military equipment being given to Ukraine.

Michael Fallon

All equipment being gifted is non-lethal in nature, and includes night vision goggles, global positioning sets (GPS), helmets, body armour, ruggedized laptops, large tents, heating units, cold weather clothing and individual first aid kits.

This equipment has helped save lives in contested areas in the Donbas. Given its non-lethal nature, we see no need routinely to monitor its location and usage.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what recent progress has been made on the construction and procurement of HMS Prince of Wales and the accompanying aircraft for both Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Philip Dunne

The construction, test and commissioning of HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH and HMS PRINCE OF WALES continues in Rosyth. Around 80% of the structure of HMS PRINCE OF WALES has been built, and she will be structurally complete this summer. Aircraft will continue to be purchased incrementally, as part of a coherent build-up of capability, and we remain on track to deliver an Initial Operating Capability in the Carrier Strike role from 2020.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many prosecutions there have been under legislation on tobacco display in retail outlets since 2010.

Jane Ellison

The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts under legislation on tobacco display in retail outlets, England and Wales, 2010 to 2014 can be viewed in the table:

Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts under legislation on tobacco display in retail outlets¹ England and Wales, 2010 to 2014^2,3

2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
2	2	6	5	4

¹ Includes Sec 8, and 16(2) of Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002

² The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been cautioned for or found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

³ Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services – Ministry of Justice.

Court proceedings data for 2015 are planned for publication in due course.

Legislation restricting the display of tobacco products in retail outlets came into force for large stores in 2012 and for all other retailers in April 2015. The penalty for non-compliance is a fine not exceeding £5,000 on summary conviction in a magistrates’ court. Trading standards have taken a compliance building approach at both stages of implementation, providing information and advice on the first visit, with follow up visits if needed and issuing warnings before considering court action. Compliance by large retailers has been almost universal since the legislation came into force. Early indications are that compliance in small shops is also high.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-04-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps the UK is taking to assist its allies in adapting to the recent use of hit-and-run tactics by Daesh.

Penny Mordaunt

We are aware that Daesh has deployed tactics, especially in Libya, to attack high profile targets like oil fields.

These, and other attacks on Libyan infrastructure and towns, demonstrate the threat that Daesh poses to the stability of Libya and the wider region, and potentially to the UK and our interests. We need to tackle this threat wherever it arises, and that is why we are engaging the new Libyan government on this issue as a high priority. The UK is working closely with international partners to develop a comprehensive approach to defeat Daesh.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-05-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether (a) the Government will be able to bring cases to Investor State Dispute Settlements tribunals and (b) UK companies will be able to instigate actions against the US administration through such tribunals under the current terms of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Anna Soubry

Investment protection provisions in trade and investment treaties such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) aim to protect international investors from discriminatory or unfair treatment by a state. Their investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions allow international investors to bring claims if they think the obligations set out in the treaty have been breached by the host state. As such, Governments cannot initiate claims against investors. Under the European Commission’s proposals for TTIP, in line with normal investment treaty practice, UK investors would be able to bring ISDS claims against the US Government.

The jurisdiction of any ISDS tribunal established in TTIP will be set out in the investment protection and ISDS provisions of the agreement. The aim of the European Commission’s proposals for investment protection provisions in TTIP is to clearly define the scope for ISDS claims and tribunal jurisdiction, including protecting the right of governments to regulate lawfully in the public interest. If an ISDS tribunal did exceed its jurisdiction in making an award, typically those elements of the resulting award would not be enforceable.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-05-24.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment his Department has made of the potential link between the foreign funding of Islamic cultural centres in Belgium and a rise in extremism and terrorism (a) in that country and (b) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Tobias Ellwood

We do not have evidence to prove that the funding of Islamic cultural centres is linked to the rise of extremism and terrorism. We work closely with all levels of government in Belgium and with faith communities to discuss issues of mutual concern, including terrorism and extremism. We have a constructive partnership with Belgium to tackle these shared challenges. We will continue to work with a range of partners to protect UK and British interests.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-06-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what progress he has made on implementing the request by the governments of British Overseas Territories during the December 2015 Joint Ministerial Council on establishing parity of treatment between all British Overseas Territories on the uprating of pensions for UK state pension holders residing in those territories.

Justin Tomlinson

The Government has a clear position which has remained the same for around 70 years and we have no plans to change this policy: UK State Pensions are payable worldwide and are uprated abroad where we have a legal requirement to do so, for example in the European Economic Area or countries where we have a reciprocal agreement that allows for uprating. Annual increases are paid to UK state pension recipients in Bermuda and in Gibraltar.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-06-28.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he plans to meet his US counterparts to discuss the effect of the recent EU referendum on UK-US relations.

Mr Hugo Swire

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), met Secretary of State John Kerry in London on 27 June. Both Governments agree that an unbreakable bond exists between the US and the UK; that Britain’s global role remains undiminished, and that the Special Relationship remains a strong and crucial relationship.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-10-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment his Department has made of the possible diplomatic benefits of recommissioning HM Yacht Britannia.

Alok Sharma

The Government is determined to make a success of our global role in the world, but re-commissioning the Royal Yacht Britannia is not on our agenda, nor is commissioning a new yacht. There was a debate in Westminster Hall about this very topic on 11 October which aired a range of issues including feasibility and cost. My Rt Hon Friend, the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson MP), the Foreign Secretary, also told the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on 13 October that he hoped a consortium of philanthropists would come forward to finance the cost of a new yacht.

The former Royal Yacht was used on just 37 occasions for trade promotion and signing trade deals during the last seven years of its commission (1989-1997) and only 27 trips were made overseas – four times per year. There is no evidence that the yacht made a difference to the trade deals secured in these years and this level of use would not represent a good return on investment.

The Government does not have potential costs for the reintroduction of the Royal Yacht Britannia or building of a new royal yacht because neither a feasibility study nor a review has been carried out since the decommissioning of the Britannia in 1997.

We shall continue to make full use of the FCO global network of nearly 270 embassies, high commissions and consulates to promote UK interests overseas. We shall also continue to make full use of existing Royal Navy ships for promotional purposes when they are in foreign ports.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2016-10-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will take steps to review the level of limited diplomatic representations of the UK in Central America.

Sir Alan Duncan

The UK Government’s links with the Central American region are strong and were enhanced in 2012 following the then Government’s decision to reopen our Embassy in El Salvador. We have Embassies located in five of the seven Central American countries – Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Panama. We also have Honorary Counsuls in Nicaragua and Honduras.

Our Ambassadors to Guatemala and Costa Rica are non-resident Ambassadors to Honduras and Nicaragua respectively. They and their staff in Guatemala City and San José visit Honduras and Nicaragua regularly and engage across the full range of our interests in the region. While we keep our diplomatic network under review, there are currently no plans to change the UK’s diplomatic footprint in Central America.

I look forward to meeting my counterparts from across Central America at the EU-CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) Foreign Ministers meeting in the Dominican Republic on 25-26 October.