Tag: Caroline Lucas

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the Answer of 22 November 2011, Official Report, column 272W, on AWE, what his most recent estimate is of the (a) anticipated out-turn cost and (b) projected in-service date of each of the new build projects in the Atomic Weapons Establishment Site Development Context Plan.

Mr Philip Dunne

The tables show the current new build projects, with approved costs and in-service dates, at the Atomic Weapons Establishment.

Projected in-service dates are shown in bandings to avoid prejudice to national security and defence. No costs are attributed to projects detailed in table 2 as these have yet to be approved.

Table 1 – current new build projects that have been through the Ministry of Defence approval process

Ongoing projects	Function	Projected In-Service Period	Approved cost £million
Conventional Manufacturing – Phoenix	Manufacturing/production	2014-15	57
Hydrodynamics trials-Technology Development Centre	Testing/research	2014-15	40
High Explosives fabrication – Circinus	Manufacturing/Production	2014-15	231
Warhead assembly/disassembly – Mensa	Manufacturing/production	2016-20	734
Uranium components – Pegasus	Manufacturing/production	2016-20	634

Table 2 – projects currently planned for but which have yet to go through the formal Ministry of Defence approvals process

Ongoing projects	Function	Projected In-Service Period
Salts Processing – Octans	Testing/research	2020-25
Initiator system manufacture-Taurus	Manufacturing/production	2020-25
Large Scale formulations-Scorpius	Manufacturing/production	2025-30
Small Scale formulations-Cepheus	Manufacturing/production	2025-30
New Plutonium (Pu) Facility – not yet named	Manufacturing/production	2025-30
New depleted Uranium Facility	Manufacturing/production	2025-30
Assembly for Trials-Columba	Testing/research	2025-30
High Explosive Climatic Trials	Testing/research	2025-30
Non-Metallics & materials R&D-Libra	Testing/research	2025-30
Chemical processing-Astra	Manufacturing/production	2025-30

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.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make representations to his Israeli counterpart in favour of the removal of demolition orders from all structures at the Tent of Nations farm outside Nahalin village on the West Bank.

Hugh Robertson

We have no plans, at the moment, to raise this specific issue with the Israeli authorities. However, we repeatedly make clear to the Israeli authorities our serious concerns about continued demolitions of Palestinian property and the need to abide by their other obligations under international law. Officials from the British Embassy in Tel Aviv raised the broad issue of demolitions on 28 May with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-17.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, on what date each of the 25 firms named and shamed for breach of the national minimum wage by his Department on 8 June 2014 was issued with the relevant Notice of Underpayment of the minimum wage by HM Revenue and Customs.

Jenny Willott

I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

The dates that the Notice of Underpayments (NoU) were issued for the 25 firms named and shamed for breach of the national minimum wage (NMW) are as follows.

Month	NoUs
December 2013	1
January 2014	9
February 2014	10
March 2014	4
April 2014	1

They were issued under the revised Naming Scheme which was introduced on 1 October 2013. It takes time for cases to work their way through the system as there is a process to follow before an employer can be named. If HMRC investigates an employer that is breaking NMW law they will be issued with a Notice of Underpayment (NOU) by HMRC. An employer has 28 days to appeal against the NOU and 14 days from when the case closes to make representations to BIS.

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.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment he has made of whether precursors of genocide exist in Burma for the Rohingya; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Hugo Swire

It is the policy of the British Government that any judgement on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for international judicial decision, rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies. Our approach is to seek an end to all violations, and to prevent their further escalation, irrespective of whether these violations fit the definition of specific international crimes. We consistently lobby the Burmese government for further action to address the humanitarian situation in Rakhine State, to improve security, to deliver accountability and to find a sustainable solution on citizenship. I raised our concerns with the Burmese government during my visit in January, summoned the Burmese Ambassador to press for humanitarian access in April, and discussed the situation with Deputy Foreign Minister U Thant Kyaw again on 13 June.

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.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-11.

To ask the Attorney General, whether officials of the Crown Prosecution Service have (a) met the Attorney General of Nigeria since January 2012, (b) had any conversations about the sale of the OPL 245 oil concession in Nigeria involving Shell and ENI with (i) the Attorney General of Nigeria and (ii) any other senior official of the Nigerian government and (c) received any requests for mutual legal assistance regarding the OPL 245 case.

Oliver Heald

The CPS Criminal Justice Advisor in Abuja has met with the Attorney-General of Nigeria a number of times since January 2012 to discuss criminal justice reform. The CPS are not aware of any other contact between CPS officials and the Attorney General of Nigeria.

The CPS is not aware of any of its officials having conversations with the Attorney General of Nigeria or with any other senior official of the Nigerian government about the sale of the OPL 245 oil concession in Nigeria involving Shell and ENI.

Requests for mutual legal assistance attract a duty of confidentiality to the requesting country and, therefore, the CPS can neither confirm nor deny the receipt of any such requests.