Tag: Madeleine Moon

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2016-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what anti-corruption measures were agreed at the Brussels Conference on Afghanistan, held on 4-5 October 2016; what steps she plans to take to ensure the effectiveness of such measures; and if she will make a statement.

Rory Stewart

Helping Afghans to tackle corruption is a key priority for the UK’s engagement in Afghanistan, where we focus first and foremost on anti-corruption efforts that contribute to the building of a stable and self-reliant state. Anti-corruption was a key theme of the Brussels Conference on Afghanistan. At the Conference, the Afghan government announced that the new Anti Corruption Justice Centre (ACJC) was operational. They also made a commitment that five revenue generating ministries will publicly report on implementation progress of their anti-corruption action plans in 2017.

The UK and the rest of the international community will continue to press the Afghan government to deliver on these commitments to ensure that core government functions are transparent, accountable and consistent, and that violations are met with legal, timely and consistently applied sanctions.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2015-10-15.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Wilson Doctrine has been consistently applied to the communications of the hon. Member for Bridgend; and whether she has been subject to surveillance.

Mr John Hayes

The Government’s position on the Wilson Doctrine was set out by the Prime Minister in a written ministerial statement made on 4 November 2015.

As the Prime Minister made clear, the Wilson Doctrine has never been an absolute bar to the targeted interception of the communications of Members of Parliament or an exemption from the legal regime governing interception. The Doctrine recognised that there could be instances where interception might be necessary.

The Prime Minister announced that as matter of policy the PM will be consulted should there ever be a proposal to target any UK Parliamentarian’s communications under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State. This applies to Members of Parliament, members of the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and UK members of the European Parliament. It applies to all activity authorised by a warrant issued by a Secretary of State: any instance of targeted interception and, electronic surveillance and equipment interference, when undertaken by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. This is in addition to the rigorous safeguards already in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Code of Practice issued under it which set out a series of robust safeguards for any instance of interception.

It is long standing policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny any specific activity by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it is an offence for anyone to identify an individual interception warrant or an individual interception that takes place.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will take steps to enable the establishment of a market in 100 per cent sustainable timber by 2020.

Rory Stewart

Defra is committed to tackling the trade in illegal timber. We implement the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), which makes it an offence to place illegally logged timber on the EU market for the first time, and the EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Regulation, which aims to combat illegal logging and improve the supply of legal timber to the EU. The EU FLEGT Regulation establishes Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) between the EU and timber producing countries. Once VPAs have been agreed, timber producing countries will issue exports with a ‘FLEGT licence’ which verifies the timber’s legality.

The Government’s Timber Procurement Policy also requires Government Departments, Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies to procure timber and timber products that are both legal and sustainable.

Domestic forests provide about 20% of the UK’s timber needs. They are managed in accordance with the UK Forestry Standard, the reference standard for sustainable forest management in the UK. Moreover, about 85% of UK timber production is independently certified, providing additional assurances of sustainability. We are strongly supportive of initiatives such as Grown in Britain, which create new sustainably managed woodland to increase the supply of British timber destined for use by local people and businesses. Timber and wood products labelled with the Grown in Britain logo are from trees and forests assured as compliant with the UK Forestry Standard.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what assessment she has made of the effect on carbon emissions of the reduction on feed-in tariffs; and if she will make a statement.

Andrea Leadsom

In order to meet the 2050 target, we know we will need significant cuts in emissions across all parts of the economy.

This will not depend on any single technology, but rather will need a balanced mix of low carbon technologies, including nuclear, renewables, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) in order to help tackle the threat of climate change while keeping the lights on and ensuring the best value for consumers.

The feed-in tariff scheme has been extremely successful in deploying small-scale renewables. The scheme has already exceeded our 2020/21 projections for hydro, wind, and anaerobic digestion and is within the projected range for solar PV. Given this, alongside the risk of rising costs to consumers, it is right to consider cost control measures.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2015-10-09.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will assess the effect on the bee population of the repeal of the ban on neonicotinoid pesticides; and if she will make a statement.

George Eustice

The UK Government has not repealed a ban on neonicotinoids. There is not a ban, but an EU restriction on the use of three neonicotinoids that has been in place since 1 December 2013. A number of uses of these neonicotinoids remain approved. The restriction has been implemented in full in the UK.

EU rules on pesticides allow for the limited and controlled use of restricted neonicotinoids in emergency situations to control a danger which cannot be contained by any other reasonable means. In assessing applications for limited and controlled use, the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides considers all the relevant environmental and agronomic factors, including the effects on bees and the value of the products as a consequence of safeguarding crop yields. Recently, Ministers followed the Committee’s advice in the granting of two authorisations to use neonicotinoids to protect an area equivalent to 5% of the national oilseed rape crop.

The European Commission has begun a review of the science on neonicotinoids and pollinators. The UK Government is participating fully in that process.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2015-10-14.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will bring forward legislative proposals to limit the use of antibiotics on farms to sick animals.

George Eustice

There are no plans to significantly revise the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 until the conclusion of the current review of the EU legislative framework on veterinary medicines and medicated feedingstuffs.

The Government has reissued guidance on the responsible use of animal medicines on the farm to emphasise that we do not support the routine preventative use of antibiotics, or the use of antibiotics to compensate for poor animal husbandry.

Under the current UK legislation, all antibiotic veterinary medicines are only available through a prescription from a veterinary surgeon, who in turn can only prescribe to animals under their care following a clinical diagnosis. Using antibiotics responsibly is a requirement of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Code of Professional Conduct for Vets.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2014-06-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the full out-turn cost was of AFC Harrogate in each year since 2006, including (a) building maintenance, (b) staffing costs, (c) training costs and (d) salaries for recruits; and if he will make a statement.

Anna Soubry

Financial data is held from financial year 2007-08 onwards. The Ministry of Defence’s budgetary structure is organised into a number of different Top Level Budget areas. This means that the cost of activities at a single location can often be split between a number of different budgets which are not managed centrally. For example infrastructure costs (including utilities) are managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation through contracts which do not split out the costs for individual units operating on a particular site. Similarly, equipment costs are managed across whole fleets of items by Defence Equipment and Support, and not by individual location. For this reason the full running costs of the Infantry Training Centre and the Army Foundation College cannot be provided in the format requested. However the costs attributable to the Army can be provided from financial year 2007-08 onwards.

The Army’s anticipated outturn for the Army Foundation College Harrogate in 2014-15 is £66.204 million, and for Infantry Training Centre Catterick is £90.793 million.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Madeleine Moon on 2014-06-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the full outturn cost of (a) building maintenance, (b) staffing, (c) training, (d) salaries for recruits and (e) other costs were at Catterick Infantry Training Centre in each year since 2006; and if he will make a statement.

Anna Soubry

Financial data is held from financial year 2007-08 onwards. The Ministry of Defence’s budgetary structure is organised into a number of different Top Level Budget areas. This means that the cost of activities at a single location can often be split between a number of different budgets which are not managed centrally. For example infrastructure costs (including utilities) are managed by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation through contracts which do not split out the costs for individual units operating on a particular site. Similarly, equipment costs are managed across whole fleets of items by Defence Equipment and Support, and not by individual location. For this reason the full running costs of the Infantry Training Centre and the Army Foundation College cannot be provided in the format requested. However the costs attributable to the Army can be provided from financial year 2007-08 onwards.

The Army’s anticipated outturn for the Army Foundation College Harrogate in 2014-15 is £66.204 million, and for Infantry Training Centre Catterick is £90.793 million.