Written Ministerial Statements
British Antarctic Survey/National Oceanography Centre
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
The council of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) met on 1 November to discuss the proposed merger of the British Antarctic Survey and the National Oceanography Centre. NERC Council considered the responses to its public consultation as well as feedback from Parliament, Government, the polar affairs community, scientists and NERC staff.
NERC’s handling of the responses was subject to external independent scrutiny by Professor Robert Allison, vice-chancellor and president of Loughborough university.
The British Antarctic Survey is a national and international asset that delivers world-class environmental science, and this country’s strategic presence in Antarctica and the South Atlantic. The UK’s commitment to continuing this dual mission in the region is as strong as ever.
NERC has already committed to maintain the funding of the British Antarctic Survey at £42 million a year for the rest of this spending review period.
Looking to the future—though without pre-empting the timing and size of the next spending review settlement—I consider that NERC should have a discrete funding line for Antarctic infrastructure and logistics from within the ring-fenced science budget to ensure a visible UK commitment to maintaining Antarctic science and presence.
Having completed its consultation, NERC council agreed that it will not proceed with the proposal for merger. The British Antarctic Survey and National Oceanography Centre will remain as NERC’s centres.
Chief of Staff
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)
In response to parliamentary questions from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on 17 September 2012, Official Report, column 456, I provided information on the costs of household staff supporting the chief of the defence staff, the vice-chief of the defence staff and the chiefs of the naval, general and air staffs.
I noted in that answer that it was not yet possible to give the hon. Member for North Durham the costs for the financial year 2011-12, as they were still being compiled. I am now in a position to provide those figures, and they are set out in the table below.
The 2009-10 and 2010-11 figures in the table have been reviewed and updated and are now consistent with the methodology used to calculate the 2011-12 figures, on a capitation rate basis.
Post | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 |
|---|---|---|---|
Chief oft he Defence Staff | 107,000 | 114,000 | 117,000 |
Vice Chief of the Defence Staff | 44,000 | 46,000 | 57,000 |
First Sea Lord/Chief of the Naval Staff | 161,000 | 155,000 | 113,000 |
Chief of the General Staff | 124,000 | 91,000 | 59,000 |
Chief of the Air Staff | 112,000 | 116,000 | 121,000 |
Total for Chiefs of Staff | 548,000 | 522,000 | 467,000 |
Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand pounds and, as before, do not include drivers.
The table shows that the total costs of the household staff of the five chiefs of staff have been reduced by some 15% since 2009-10.
In addition, it has been decided that once the current service chiefs of staff leave their posts, we will take the opportunity to rationalise the provision of residences. This will enable the release of tenancies including that in Kensington palace.
We remain committed to bearing down on the costs associated with senior staff. Changes to the entitlements for senior officers, which have been implemented since 2010, include a revised policy on official hospitality, saving £2.5 million per year, and the discontinuation of official service residence status, estimated to save a further £3 million annually. Broader measures range from a new model for outer office support staff, to restrictions on first and business class travel.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 22 to 24 October in Luxembourg was attended by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who is responsible for natural environment, water and rural affairs.
On fisheries, the Council agreed a partial general approach on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. The UK worked successfully to secure an outcome in line with UK priorities for common fisheries policy (CAP) reform. This will focus funding on measures to increase the sustainability of fishing, and limit or remove more traditional fleet subsidy payments. Baltic sea fishing opportunities for 2013 were agreed, following detailed preparation in the BALTFISH group of concerned member states. Ministers also held an initial exchange of views on forthcoming EU-Norway fisheries consultations and on the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna annual meeting.
On agriculture business, the Council discussed the Commission’s proposal under CAP reform that member states should all move towards flat rate per hectare direct payments at a national or regional level (internal convergence); an issue which was last debated in April 2012. This is a major political issue for many member states, and also has direct relevance to those parts of the UK which do not yet have a per hectare payment system. The Commission (Commissioner Ciolos) argued that for CAP reform to be credible, direct payments had to move away from historic allocations. The Commission would consider alternative models as long as they delivered significant convergence during the next financing period. All member states accepted the need for some internal convergence of payments, with an emphasis on national flexibility over the pace and detailed steps towards convergence. The presidency noted the discussion and variety of views without giving an indication of next steps.
The presidency sought views on whether the proposed young farmer’s scheme in pillar one of the CAP should be voluntary or mandatory. The Council debate was split between those who wanted to leave it to member states to decide, and those who wanted, or could accept, a mandatory scheme in pillar one. The UK and like-minded member states argued for a flexible approach.
The presidency sought views on whether recognition of agricultural producer organisations should be mandatory for member states. France, Spain, Hungary and Portugal were in favour of mandatory recognition of extending producer organisations’ rights to all agricultural sectors. In advance of the Council, the UK, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Sweden and the Czech Republic tabled a joint paper calling for CAP tools to promote greater market orientation, while maintaining a safety net.
The Commission presented its proposal on transparency of data on CAP beneficiaries, under which names and payment details would be made publically available, and which is intended to reintroduce greater transparency following a 2010 European Court of Justice ruling.
Afghanistan (Monthly Report)
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 21st progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
September has been a sombre month for British forces in Afghanistan. The loss of eight members of our armed forces has been keenly felt. We offer our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of those who have died and pay tribute to their bravery. They will never be forgotten.
The attack on Camp Bastion reminded us that we face a determined enemy in Afghanistan and we must expect challenges ahead. But tangible progress continues to be made as we work with the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) towards delivering our shared security objectives. Transition is working well and gathering pace. In part this is because of the increasing strength, confidence and capability of the ANSF. With the help of UK and the international security assistance forces (ISAF), they are steadily developing into capable and professional forces.
We continue to work closely with ISAF and our Afghan partners to mitigate the threat of insider attacks. Vetting and screening of recruits to the ANSF is getting stronger. Counter-intelligence efforts have been stepped up. Cultural awareness training has been intensified. The surveillance and monitoring of Afghan forces deemed to be at risk has been increased.
Insider attacks remain the exception. The overwhelming majority of our forces work well with their Afghan colleagues. The ANSF are increasingly in the front line in combating the insurgency and they too face the insider threat. We will not allow these terrible incidents to detract from the very real progress which has been, and continues to be, made in Afghanistan. Nor will we let them derail our strategy or our commitment to the mission, while taking steps to reduce the threats to the absolute minimum.
The UK Government continued efforts to promote women’s rights in Afghanistan and ensure women have the opportunity to take decisions that affect their own lives. We continued to promote sustainable development in Helmand, by supporting community-led development projects, including the building of a major health clinic and repairs to schools and canals. The UK is also helping the provincial government in Helmand to access national Government finance and encourage international partners, public and private, to work in Helmand up to and after transition. This will help to ensure that development gains in Helmand endure.
We continue to support an Afghan-led political process to support peace and stability to Afghanistan. We agree with the Afghan Government that there is a role in this process for all Afghan groups that renounce violence, split from international terrorism and respect the Afghan constitutional framework. We recognise the way forward will be challenging but we are committed to supporting the Afghan Government’s efforts.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).
Airports Commission
(12 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
On 7 September, the Government announced their intention to create an independent commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, to identify and recommend to Government options for maintaining the UK’s status as a global aviation hub. Following discussions with Sir Howard, the Government are now in a position to announce the full membership and terms of reference for this body, which will be named the Airports Commission.
In selecting members of the Airports Commission, the Government worked with Sir Howard to identify individuals with a range of skills, backgrounds and experience. The commission also intends to appoint a panel of expert advisers, to enhance its capability to address issues that fall outside of the direct experience of the commissioners.
In addition to Sir Howard Davies, the full membership of the commission includes:
Sir John Armitt, the former chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority and former chief executive of Network Rail.
Professor Ricky Burdett, professor of urban studies at the London School of Economics and director of the LSE cities research centre.
Vivienne Cox, the former CEO and executive vice- president of BP alternative energy and a former member of the BP executive management team.
Professor Dame Julia King, vice-chancellor of Aston university and a member of the committee on climate change, with a background in the aerospace industry.
Geoff Muirhead CBE, the former CEO of the Manchester Airport Group.
The commission’s terms of reference will be as follows:
The commission will examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important aviation hub; and it will identify and evaluate how any need for additional capacity should be met in the short, medium and long-term.
It should maintain a UK-wide perspective, taking appropriate account of the national, regional and local implications of any proposals.
It should engage openly with interested parties and members of the public, providing opportunities to submit evidence and proposals and to set out views relevant to its work.
It should seek to engage with a range of stakeholders, including with local and devolved Government as well as the Opposition, to build consensus in support of its approach and recommendations.
The commission should report no later than the end of 2013 on:
Its assessment of the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of the steps needed to maintain the UK’s global hub status; and
Its recommendation(s) for immediate actions to improve the use of existing runway capacity in the next five years—consistent with credible long-term options.
The assessments and recommendations in the commission’s interim report should be underpinned by a detailed review of the evidence in relation to the current position in the UK with regard to aviation demand and connectivity, forecasts for how these are likely to develop, and the expected future pattern of the UK’s requirements for international and domestic connectivity.
Its assessments of potential immediate actions should take into account their economic, social and environmental costs and benefits, and their operational deliverability. It should also be informed by an initial high-level assessment of the credible long-term options which merit further detailed development.
The commission should report no later than summer 2015 on:
Its assessment of the options for meeting the UK’s international connectivity needs, including their economic, social and environmental impact;
Its recommendation(s) for the optimum approach to meeting any needs; and
Its recommendation(s) for ensuring that the need is met as expeditiously as practicable within the required time scale.
The commission should base the recommendations in its final report on a detailed consideration of the case for each of the credible options. This should include the development or examination of detailed business cases and environmental assessments for each option, as well as consideration of their operational, commercial and technical viability.
As part of its final report in summer 2015, it should also provide materials, based on this detailed analysis, which will support the Government in preparing a national policy statement to accelerate the resolution of any future planning applications for major airports infrastructure.