UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Jonathan Evans

  • Jonathan Evans – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Jonathan Evans – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jonathan Evans on 2014-07-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what proportion of regulated procedures conducted in Wales under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in 2013 were performed in (a) public health laboratories, (b) universities and medical schools, (c) NHS hospitals, (d) government departments, (e) other public bodies, (f) non-profit making organisations and (g) commercial organisations.

    Norman Baker

    During 2013 in Wales, regarding the number of regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA):
    (a) 36,010 involved mice, of which:
    (i) 18,886 involved genetically-modified animals
    (ii) 7,206 involved animals with a harmful genetic defect
    (b) 3,345 involved rats, of which:
    (i) 10 involved genetically-modified animals
    (ii) none involved animals with a harmful genetic defect
    (c) 24 involved guinea pigs, of which:
    (i) none involved genetically-modified animals
    (ii) none involved animals with a harmful genetic defect
    (d) none involved hamsters
    (e) 3 involved rabbits, of which:
    (i) none involved genetically-modified animals
    (ii) none involved animals with a harmful genetic defect
    (f) none involved horses and other equids
    (g) 396 involved sheep, of which:
    (i) none involved genetically-modified animals
    (ii) none involved animals with a harmful genetic defect
    (h) none involved pigs
    (i) 643 involved birds, of which
    (i) none involved genetically-modified animals
    (ii) none involved animals with a harmful genetic defect
    (j) 165 involved amphibians, of which
    (i) 9 involved genetically-modified animals
    (ii) none involved animals with a harmful genetic defect
    (k) none involved reptiles
    (l) 11,927 involved fish, of which:
    (i) none involved genetically-modified animals
    (ii) none involved animals with a harmful genetic defect
    (m) none involved cats
    (n) none involved dogs
    (o) none involved new world primates
    (p) none involved old world primates

    During 2013 in Wales, regarding the proportion of regulated procedures under ASPA in different types of designated establishment:
    (a) 2.8% (1,462) were performed in public health laboratories
    (b) 96.7% (50,826) were performed in universities and medical schools
    (c) none were performed in NHS hospitals
    (d) none were performed in Government Departments
    (e) none were performed in other public bodies
    (f) none were performed in non-profit making organisations
    (g) 0.5% (251) were performed in commercial organisations

    During 2013 in Wales, regarding the proportion of regulated procedures under ASPA:
    (a) all (52,539) were carried out for fundamental and applied studies other than toxicity.
    (b) none were carried out for toxicity tests or other safety and efficacy evaluation.

    In 2013 in Wales, regarding the number of animals used in regulated procedures under ASPA:
    (a) 18,707 genetically modified animals were used
    (b) 7,206 animals with a harmful genetic defect were used

    During 2013 in Wales, 59.3% (31,202) of regulated procedures under ASPA were undertaken without anaesthesia.

    During 2013 in Wales, 51,576 animals were used in regulated procedures under ASPA.

    During 2013 in Wales, 52,539 regulated procedures under ASPA were conducted

  • Jonathan Evans – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Jonathan Evans – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jonathan Evans on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she expects to conclude her consideration of the Coroner’s ruling in the case of Alexander Litvinenko; and if she will make a statement.

    Karen Bradley

    The Home Secretary is giving fresh consideration to the exercise of her
    discretion to establish an inquiry following the Court of Appeal’s judgment of
    14 February 2014 relating to Mr. Litvinenko. Once this is concluded, a
    statement will be made. In the meantime, the Government continues to co-operate
    fully with the Inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death.

  • Jonathan Evans – 2022 Letter to Government Over Rejecting Much of Committee’s 2019 Report on Local Government Ethical Standards (Baron Evans of Weardale)

    Jonathan Evans – 2022 Letter to Government Over Rejecting Much of Committee’s 2019 Report on Local Government Ethical Standards (Baron Evans of Weardale)

    The letter written by Jonathan Evans, Baron Evans of Weardale, to Simon Clarke, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, on 20 October 2022. Lord Evans expressed disappointment that many of the Committee’s recommendations had not been accepted by the government despite clear evidence that the sector backed our call to strengthen the arrangements in place to support high ethical standards. Lord Evans urged the government to the reconsider the Committee’s recommendations.

    Letter (in .doc format)

  • Jonathan Evans – 2002 Speech on US Tariffs on Steel

    Jonathan Evans – 2002 Speech on US Tariffs on Steel

    The speech made by Jonathan Evans, the then Conservative MEP for Wales, on 13 March 2002.

    This week in Barcelona the European Council will gather to seek to build upon the Lisbon Process. At that meeting, we will be pressing for more action to be taken on deregulation, and for more liberalisation, ensuring that we learn the lessons of employment flexibility. There are those of us who have felt, ever since we have arrived in the European Parliament, that there is a lot of rhetoric in this place about free trade, but also a great deal of protectionism with Member States here in Europe.

    The entire agenda in Europe of taking forward a uniform competition policy and bearing down on state aid is geared towards ensuring that we have free trade. In these circumstances, those of us who count ourselves as the best friends of the United States are hugely disappointed by the action that the US President has taken. It is not putting it too strongly to say that, in a sense, we feel betrayed by it.

    I do not link this to our support for the United States following the events of September 11. The events of September 11 were so horrific that they should not be linked with any sort of agreement in any other policy area. But for those of us who have been pointing to the United States as an example of a deregulated and liberalised economy, it has been a shattering blow to see the way in which President Bush, faced with the difficulties that his steel industry is encountering, has gone for protectionism.

    What is even worse is to read in the Financial Times today a justification of this action from Robert Zoellick, the US Trade Representative. I feel sorry for Mr Zoellick, whom again we would regard as a friend of British Conservatives, because I must say that article destroys any credibility that he had in terms of discussion of trade issues.

    The US representatives watching this debate need to know that, while we may have heard from the usual suspects in terms of anti-Americanism, those of us who are friends of the United States feel very badly let down indeed.

  • Jonathan Evans – 2002 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    Jonathan Evans – 2002 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    The speech made by Jonathan Evans to Conservative Spring Forum on 23 March 2022.

    This afternoon we are going to discuss the international situation. There is no more important issue. It touches the future, indeed the very survival, of our nation.

    War against Terror

    Since last autumn, the world scene has darkened. The stakes have risen. The choice between good and evil has become starkly clearer.

    The horror of September 11th, the liberation of Afghanistan, the menacing threat from Iraq – these events have brought into sharp focus the challenges we face. Challenges underlined by further terrorist murders this week in Israel, Peru, Spain and Italy.

    It is a poisonous cocktail. Ruthlessly organised, fanatically motivated terrorists, keen to inflict mass bloodshed on innocent citizens. Rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction, who regard the West as their enemy, and see these terror networks as useful tools.

    Faced with these massive threats, some shy away. Others fumble for excuses.

    I believe President Bush is right to fight this war against terrorism. And it is vital that the battle is won.

    Dividing Lines in Europe

    In the European Parliament – where our team works for Britain, day after day – we are putting the case for united European support of our American allies.

    We are arguing for strong defences, for NATO rather than a European army, for taking a stand for what we all know to be right.

    Whatever Mr Blair says, his Labour Party in Europe is fighting a very different battle.

    In Europe, Labour’s priority is not a Europe of nation states backing the America – but the familiar narrow agenda of building continental socialism.

    That’s why Labour always vote for new burdens on business, for rigid labour markets, for harmonised taxes – and for changes in Europe’s rules that would weaken our right to sometimes simply say no.

    And the LibDems are no better: in fact, they are even worse. They want a European federation – a United States of Europe – and they want it now.

    Crossing the Floor

    A couple of weeks ago, something rather unusual and very important happened.

    Labour’s longest-serving MEP walked away from his party, crossed the floor and joined us. Richard Balfe, London’s Labour representative in Europe for 20 years, became our 36th Conservative MEP – the first switch of a serving parliamentarian to the Conservative Party in a quarter of a century.

    Why? Because he had had enough of the cronyism and control-freakery of New Labour – and was disgusted by the arrogance and deceit of Tony Blair.

    And Richard wanted to be part of our Party – an open, tolerant Party – a Party prepared to reflect and to be humble – a Party which wants to have a serious debate about the future of our public services and the big challenges facing the country.

    Delivering for Britain

    In joining us, Richard has become part of what is increasingly recognised as a powerful cohesive and effective Conservative team. A team united in positively representing Britain’s interests in Europe, rather than representing Europe’s interests in Britain.

    My commitment as European leader is that we will regularly punch above our weight in a parliament where British Conservatives are now the second largest party grouping.

    That means identifying what really matters to people and pushing those issues hard.

    And we have achieved real success.

    Our MEPs have been the champions of British business over new environmental and employment laws.

    We have been at the forefront in promoting the consumer’s right to cheaper car prices.

    We have led the attack on the failure of France to obey the law over the import of British beef, and for the liberalisation of France’s energy market.

    And on Zimbabwe, my colleague Geoffrey Van Orden has relentlessly led the pressure for EU sanctions against Mugabe.

    Earlier this year, against massive resistance from Whitehall and New Labour, the European Parliament set up the first and only public inquiry into last year’s foot and mouth disaster.

    This was a direct initiative of Robert Sturdy and taken forward with other British colleagues, including Agriculture spokesman Neil Parish. We won the support of every group in Europe for this inquiry, except of course Labour and their Socialist allies.

    As a result of our efforts, Nick Brown next week faces his first public questioning about the Government’s handling of a scandal which crippled not just British farming, but also thousands of rural businesses.

    Turning the Tide

    Our mission is to pose the right choices in Europe, and to get the right results for Britain. It is not easy work – especially as Europe’s governments have been dominated by socialists for far too long.

    Slowly but surely, we are beginning to turn the tide. Last weekend, Portugal threw out the left, and returned our centre-right allies to power. In Italy, in Austria, in Denmark, other socialist governments have already fallen.

    Soon, France and Germany will decide whether to stick with socialism or to set the people free.

    Across Europe, a new mood is dawning. A new generation is tired of the sterile uniformity of the left. Younger people in Europe like the market, want more freedom, and relish the chance to take control of their own lives.

    In Britain too, I think we have reached a turning-point. The gloss is coming off New Labour. The defeat of Tony Blair is no longer unimaginable.

    The mood of our conference is clear.

    We want to honestly engage with people over the issues that really matter to them. That is the only route to the Conservative Party again fully winning the trust and confidence of Britain.

  • Jonathan Evans – 2003 Speech Ahead of the Preparation for the European Council in Thessaloniki

    Jonathan Evans – 2003 Speech Ahead of the Preparation for the European Council in Thessaloniki

    The speech made by Jonathan Evans, the then Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, on 4 June 2003.

    Mr President,

    I congratulate you, President-in-Office, on the progress that has been made during the Greek Presidency on progressing enlargement. The special Athens Council in April was a landmark in the history of Europe following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and we look forward to the ten applicant states taking their rightful place in the new Europe.

    However, looking at the priorities which were set out by the Presidency, two of them in particular have, sadly, been a disappointment.

    First, the Lisbon process. After three years, this agenda is stalled, indeed going backwards. It is disappointing that the Presidency has been unable to persuade Governments to get their act together on an issue that is fundamental to the prosperity of people across the Union. As a result, many EU countries are looking to a future of economic stagnation and deflation.

    Second, the Presidency wanted to see “the new Europe as an international motor for peace and co-operation”. Of course, the Iraq crisis was a difficult one. However, the way in which, during the Greek Presidency, the ‘Gang of Four’ convened in April in Brussels to consider alternative defence structures to NATO, merely reinforced anti-American sentiment.

    Thessaloniki will also mark the end of the Convention on the Future of Europe, when former President Giscard presents the conclusions of eighteen months of discussion. The Convention still has work to do in the coming two weeks, but I wanted to comment today on the emerging draft Articles published last week.

    At Laeken, Heads of State and Government said: “Within the Union, the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens”. Having looked at the draft Articles in this Convention document, I fear that this noble ambition has fallen somewhat short of the mark. Indeed, I would say that, in many ways, it heads in precisely the opposite direction.

    The Convention is proposing a European Union that is more centralised, more bureaucratic, in many ways less democratic and certainly more federalist than is currently the case.

    I am a long-standing supporter of Britain’s membership of the European Union. But, the document that Heads of Government are likely to see in Thessaloniki is one that does, in my view, change the nature of the relationship between Member States and the European Union.

    In summary:

    A Constitution

    Incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

    Legal status for the Union

    A President for the EU

    A Foreign Minister for the EU

    The collapse of the second and third pillars

    A Common Foreign and Security Policy

    The eventual framing of an EU defence policy

    A requirement for economic policies to be co-ordinated

    Harmonisation of certain taxes

    The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor

    The British Government has called the Constitution a “tidying-up exercise”, and therefore not worthy of being put to the people in a referendum. In contrast, the Danish Prime Minister is to submit the Constitution to a referendum because: “the EU’s constitution is so new and large a document that it would be right to hold a referendum on it”. 80% of the British public agrees.

    The former Prime Minister of Italy, Lamberto Dini, who also sits in the Convention, has said: “The Constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people’s lives … “.

    This is not just a case of the British Government dismissing the right of the British people to have a say on their own future, it is also that the Convention proposals fundamentally change the relationship between the Union and the Member States and the way in which we are all governed.

    For those who have cherished the concept of a United States of Europe, the blueprint has been set out by Giscard, and the debate on the consequences of this draft Constitution should be based on this fundamental fact so honestly and sincerely articulated by President Prodi and many speeches in this debate.

    When the Inter-Governmental Conference begins its work later this year, my Party is determined to see that the accession states not only have a right to contribute to the discussion, they must also have a vote in Council on the crucial decisions it will take. The outcome of the IGC will impact on people in Warsaw, Prague and Budapest, just as much as London, Paris and Berlin. It is unacceptable for the EU 15 to impose a radical new Constitution on these new Member States without them having a proper, democratic role in the outcome.

    We have long been the most ardent supporters of enlargement and the rights of the accession states to take their place at the European top table. But our Europe is one where diversity is celebrated, not one where countries are forced into an institutional straightjacket. We want a Europe that is democratic, prosperous, works with the United States to defend our freedoms and confront common threats. The Convention takes us down a different route to a Europe where the nation state is no longer the foundation on which the Union rests.

  • Jonathan Evans – 2003 Speech on the European Council in Thessaloniki

    Jonathan Evans – 2003 Speech on the European Council in Thessaloniki

    The speech made by Jonathan Evans, the then Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, on 4 June 2003.

    Mr President,

    I congratulate you, President-in-Office, on the progress that has been made during the Greek Presidency on progressing enlargement. The special Athens Council in April was a landmark in the history of Europe following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and we look forward to the ten applicant states taking their rightful place in the new Europe.

    However, looking at the priorities which were set out by the Presidency, two of them in particular have, sadly, been a disappointment.

    First, the Lisbon process. After three years, this agenda is stalled, indeed going backwards. It is disappointing that the Presidency has been unable to persuade Governments to get their act together on an issue that is fundamental to the prosperity of people across the Union. As a result, many EU countries are looking to a future of economic stagnation and deflation.

    Second, the Presidency wanted to see “the new Europe as an international motor for peace and co-operation”. Of course, the Iraq crisis was a difficult one. However, the way in which, during the Greek Presidency, the ‘Gang of Four’ convened in April in Brussels to consider alternative defence structures to NATO, merely reinforced anti-American sentiment.

    Thessaloniki will also mark the end of the Convention on the Future of Europe, when former President Giscard presents the conclusions of eighteen months of discussion. The Convention still has work to do in the coming two weeks, but I wanted to comment today on the emerging draft Articles published last week.

    At Laeken, Heads of State and Government said: “Within the Union, the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens”. Having looked at the draft Articles in this Convention document, I fear that this noble ambition has fallen somewhat short of the mark. Indeed, I would say that, in many ways, it heads in precisely the opposite direction.

    The Convention is proposing a European Union that is more centralised, more bureaucratic, in many ways less democratic and certainly more federalist than is currently the case.

    I am a long-standing supporter of Britain’s membership of the European Union. But, the document that Heads of Government are likely to see in Thessaloniki is one that does, in my view, change the nature of the relationship between Member States and the European Union.

    In summary:

    A Constitution

    Incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

    Legal status for the Union

    A President for the EU

    A Foreign Minister for the EU

    The collapse of the second and third pillars

    A Common Foreign and Security Policy

    The eventual framing of an EU defence policy

    A requirement for economic policies to be co-ordinated

    Harmonisation of certain taxes

    The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor

    The British Government has called the Constitution a “tidying-up exercise”, and therefore not worthy of being put to the people in a referendum. In contrast, the Danish Prime Minister is to submit the Constitution to a referendum because: “the EU’s constitution is so new and large a document that it would be right to hold a referendum on it”. 80% of the British public agrees.

    The former Prime Minister of Italy, Lamberto Dini, who also sits in the Convention, has said: “The Constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people’s lives … “.

    This is not just a case of the British Government dismissing the right of the British people to have a say on their own future, it is also that the Convention proposals fundamentally change the relationship between the Union and the Member States and the way in which we are all governed.

    For those who have cherished the concept of a United States of Europe, the blueprint has been set out by Giscard, and the debate on the consequences of this draft Constitution should be based on this fundamental fact so honestly and sincerely articulated by President Prodi and many speeches in this debate.

    When the Inter-Governmental Conference begins its work later this year, my Party is determined to see that the accession states not only have a right to contribute to the discussion, they must also have a vote in Council on the crucial decisions it will take. The outcome of the IGC will impact on people in Warsaw, Prague and Budapest, just as much as London, Paris and Berlin. It is unacceptable for the EU 15 to impose a radical new Constitution on these new Member States without them having a proper, democratic role in the outcome.

    We have long been the most ardent supporters of enlargement and the rights of the accession states to take their place at the European top table. But our Europe is one where diversity is celebrated, not one where countries are forced into an institutional straightjacket. We want a Europe that is democratic, prosperous, works with the United States to defend our freedoms and confront common threats. The Convention takes us down a different route to a Europe where the nation state is no longer the foundation on which the Union rests.