To match an exact phrase, use quotation marks around the search term. eg. "Parliamentary Estate". Use "OR" or "AND" as link words to form more complex queries.


View sample alert

Keep yourself up-to-date with the latest developments by exploring our subscription options to receive notifications direct to your inbox

Written Question
Trade Promotion
Tuesday 20th April 2021

Asked by: Lord Balfe (Conservative - Life peer)

Question to the Department for International Trade:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to appoint trade envoys for (1) Mongolia, (2) Uzbekistan, (3) Kazakhstan, (4) Kyrgyzstan, (5) Tajikistan, and (6) Afghanistan; if so, when those envoys will be appointed; and what is the process by which they (a) select, and (b) appoint, such envoys.

Answered by Lord Grimstone of Boscobel

My noble Friend Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne was appointed Trade Envoy in July 2017 to Kazakhstan and in October 2020 the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, Daniel Kawczynski, was appointed Trade Envoy to Mongolia. There are no plans to appoint a Trade Envoy to Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan or Afghanistan.

My Rt Hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoys are drawn from both Houses and across the political spectrum. They are chosen based on relevant skills and experience required to undertake the role. This experience can be related to their assigned market or UK industry knowledge, or their Government-to-Government experience, as well as willingness and an ability to undertake some international travel. Trade Envoys are appointed by the Prime Minister, usually following a recommendation by my Rt Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade.


Written Question
Military Aid
Thursday 25th March 2021

Asked by: Lord Tunnicliffe (Labour - Life peer)

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what countries the British Armed Forces provided training to on UK territory in (1) 2020, and (2) 2021.

Answered by Baroness Goldie - Shadow Minister (Defence)

Personnel from the countries listed in the table below have attended defence education or training in the UK in 2019-20 and 2020-21.

Year

Countries

2019/20

AFGHANISTAN ALBANIA ALGERIA ANGOLA ANTIGUA & BARBUDA ARGENTINA ARMENIA AUSTRALIA AUSTRIA AZERBAIJAN BAHAMAS BAHRAIN BANGLADESH BARBADOS BELARUS BELGIUM BELIZE BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA BRAZIL BRUNEI CAMEROON CANADA CHILE CHINA COLOMBIA CROATIA CYPRUS CZECH REPUBLIC DENMARK EGYPT ESTONIA ETHIOPIA FIJI FINLAND FRANCE GAMBIA GEORGIA GERMANY GHANA GREECE GRENADA GUYANA HUNGARY INDIA INDONESIA IRAQ IRELAND ISRAEL ITALY JAMAICA JAPAN JORDAN KAZAKHSTAN KENYA KOSOVO KUWAIT KYRGYZSTAN LATVIA LEBANON LESOTHO LITHUANIA LUXEMBOURG MALAWI MALAYSIA MALDIVES MALI MALTA MAURITIUS MEXICO MOLDOVA MONGOLIA MONTENEGRO MOROCCO MOZAMBIQUE NEPAL NETHERLANDS NEW ZEALAND NIGER NIGERIA NORTH MACEDONIA NORWAY OMAN PAKISTAN OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES PAPUA NEW GUINEA PARAGUAY PHILIPPINES POLAND PORTUGAL QATAR ROMANIA RWANDA SAUDI ARABIA SENEGAL SERBIA SIERRA LEONE SINGAPORE SLOVENIA SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH KOREA SPAIN SRI LANKA SWEDEN SWITZERLAND THAILAND TONGA TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO TURKEY UGANDA UKRAINE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES URUGUAY USA UZBEKISTAN VIETNAM

2020/21

AFGHANISTAN ALBANIA ARMENIA AUSTRALIA AUSTRIA AZERBAIJAN BAHAMAS BAHRAIN BANGLADESH BELGIUM BELIZE BHUTAN BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA BOTSWANA BRAZIL BRUNEI CAMEROON CANADA CHILE COLOMBIA CYPRUS CZECH REPUBLIC DENMARK EGYPT ESTONIA ETHIOPIA FIJI FINLAND FRANCE GEORGIA GERMANY GHANA GREECE HUNGARY INDIA INDONESIA IRAQ IRELAND ISRAEL ITALY JAMAICA JAPAN JORDAN KENYA KOSOVO KUWAIT LEBANON LITHUANIA MALAWI MALAYSIA MALDIVES MALI MALTA MOLDOVA MONGOLIA MONTENEGRO MOROCCO NEPAL NETHERLANDS NEW ZEALAND NIGER NIGERIA NORTH MACEDONIA NORWAY OMAN PAKISTAN OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES PARAGUAY POLAND PORTUGAL QATAR ROMANIA SAUDI ARABIA SIERRA LEONE SINGAPORE SLOVAKIA SOUTH KOREA SPAIN SRI LANKA SWITZERLAND THAILAND TONGA TUNISIA UGANDA UKRAINE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES URUGUAY USA

Note: MOD records information on International Defence Training (IDT) by financial year, rather than by calendar year. Information is taken from a central IDT database. Some activity may not be captured on that database.


Written Question
Arms Trade: Export Controls
Wednesday 24th February 2021

Asked by: Emma Lewell (Labour - South Shields)

Question to the Department for International Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 17 December 2020 to Question 115685 on Arms Trade Export Controls; what those errors were; what period of time elapsed before those errors were identified and the licences revoked; whether any inappropriate deliveries were made under those licences before revocation; and what steps her Department is taking to prevent similar errors recurring.

Answered by Ranil Jayawardena

One OIEL had one destination revoked (Isle of Man). The Isle of Man is a British Crown Dependency and we do not licence exports of military goods to there from the United Kingdom. A licence was issued on 9th January 2014, the error was identified on 10th February 2015 and the licence revoked 11th February 2015.

One OIEL for a variety of goods to a large number of countries had some items for three destinations (Hong Kong, Mongolia and Taiwan) recommended for rejection by one adviser. A licence was issued on 12th May 2015, the error was identified on 29th May 2015, and the licence revoked on 3rd July 2015. The procedure for partial refusal recommendations from advisers has now been amended.

One OIEL had 31 destinations revoked (Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Barbados, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Gibraltar, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Namibia, New Caledonia and Dependencies, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, St Helena, Switzerland, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, United States and Uruguay). The items included on this application required import authorisation from recipient countries before an export licence is granted specifying quantities, which could not be obtained. A licence was issued on 12th February 2019 and the error identified on 15th July 2019; the licence was revoked 17th July 2019.

Two OITCLs for Sierra Leone had goods revoked because the licences were issued in error (Criterion 1). The activity licenced, which was the promotion of supply of less-lethal weapons, was outside the scope of policy as set out by Lord Howell on 9th February 2012. One licence was issued on 5th January 2017 and another on 14th June 2017. The errors were identified on 22nd July 2019 and the licences revoked 29th July 2019.

We keep our processes under constant review and have an ongoing staff training programme. We do not hold information on any transfers that took place under these historic licences, but these licences have been corrected now. We have implemented a transformation programme which, amongst other things, will be improving our processes and control mechanisms, as well as implementing recommendations from an internal audit report.


Written Question
Arms Trade: Export Controls
Thursday 17th December 2020

Asked by: Emma Lewell (Labour - South Shields)

Question to the Department for International Trade:

To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, how many times the Government has suspended or revoked an existing Arms Export licence in the last five years; what the grounds were for those actions; and which countries those licences were for.

Answered by Ranil Jayawardena

Since 2015, we have taken revocation action 74 times on individual licences; and suspended licences, pending further investigations, four times.

I have provided the Hon. Lady with instances below where a licence was revoked in full; where a country was removed; where goods were removed; or where goods for a country were removed.

  • 9 SIELs for Ukraine were revoked following increasing tensions in the region (Criterion 3).
  • 3 SIELs for Yemen and 1 OIEL destination were revoked further to the deteriorating situation in-country and the risk of diversion (Criteria 3, 7)
  • 1 OIEL had seven destinations revoked (Taiwan, Spain, Qatar, Greece, Canada, Australia and Afghanistan) when extended beyond its original validity date.
  • 1 OIEL has one destination revoked (Isle of Man) having been issued in error.
  • 1 OIEL had three destinations revoked (Japan, Norway and Switzerland) due to the sensitivity of the goods (Criterion 5)
  • 1 SIEL for the Philippines was revoked following a change of situation in country and the risk of items being used to commit abuses of rights and responsibilities (Criterion 2)
  • 3 SIELs for Germany, Italy and the United States were revoked where the goods were for onward export to Venezuela following the introduction of restrictive measures by the EU in 2017 (Criterion 1).
  • 2 SIELs and 13 OIEL destinations for Venezuela were revoked following the introduction of restrictive measures by the EU in 2017 (Criterion 1).
  • 1 OIEL had three destinations revoked (Hong Kong, Mongolia and Taiwan), having been issued in error.
  • 1 SIEL for Iraq was revoked following new information indicating a risk of diversion (Criterion 7)
  • 1 SIEL for Bangladesh was revoked following the provision of additional technical information on the capabilities of the equipment, giving rise to concerns over rights and responsibilities (Criterion 2)
  • 1 OIEL destination for Belarus was revoked because of the risk of contravening EU financial sanctions including asset freezes (Criterion 1)
  • 2 SIELs for China were revoked following new information indicating a risk of diversion (Criteria 5a and 7)
  • 1 SIEL and 3 OIEL destinations for Myanmar (Burma) were revoked following the expansion of EU Sanctions there in 2018 (Criterion 1)
  • 1 OIEL had 31 destinations revoked (Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Barbados, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Gibraltar, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Namibia, New Caledonia and Dependencies, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, St Helena, Switzerland, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, United States and Uruguay), having been issued in error.
  • 6 SIELs for China were revoked following new information indicating a risk of diversion (Criteria 5a and 7), 4 of these SIELs were initially suspended.
  • 1 SIEL for Pakistan was revoked following new information indicating a risk of diversion to a WMD programme (Criterion 1)
  • 2 SIELs for Sweden and Saudi Arabia and 2 OIEL destination for Jordan and Saudi Arabia were revoked because they were contrary to Secretary of State’s commitment to Parliament that no new licences would be granted for export of arms or military equipment to Saudi Arabia or its coalition partners for possible use in the conflict in Yemen.
  • 1 OIEL destination for Saudi Arabia was revoked because of the risk of internal repression and violations of rights and responsibilities (Criterion 2a)
  • 2 OITCLs for Sierra Leone had goods revoked because the licences were issued in error (Criterion 1).
  • 1 SIEL for Turkey was revoked following new information indicating a risk of diversion to a third country of concern (Criteria 1 and 7)
  • 1 SIEL for Uganda was revoked following new information indicating a risk of diversion to a third country of concern (Criteria 1 and 7)
  • 1 SIEL and 1 OIEL destination for Iraq was revoked following a change of situation in country and the risk of items being used to commit abuses of rights and responsibilities (Criterion 2)
  • 3 SIELs for Israel were revoked following new information indicating a risk of diversion to a third country of concern (Criteria 1, 5a and 7)
  • 3 SIELs for South Africa, Spain and Jordan, 3 SIELs for the United Arab Emirates and 1 OIEL destination for the United Arab Emirates were revoked following new information indicating a risk of diversion to a third country of concern (Criteria 1 and 7)

In seeking to be open with the Hon. Lady, this data is provided from management information and may, therefore, not align with published official statistics. My department has identified some instances where revocations were not reported. For example, following the introduction of EU restrictive measures in 2017, we revoked Venezuela from 13 OIELs, but five were not reported. My department has identified the cause of this and put in place measures to ensure there is no re-occurrence. The data will align with the next official statistics update and the official estimates will be revised.


Written Question
Mongolia: Human Rights
Friday 16th October 2020

Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of news reports of protests in Inner Mongolia about (1) the suppression of the Mongolian language, and (2) the destruction of the Mongolian ethnic identity.

Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

We are aware of the recent protests in Inner Mongolia and will continue to monitor developments closely.


Written Question
NATO: Protective Clothing
Friday 10th July 2020

Asked by: Baroness Helic (Conservative - Life peer)

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what use they have made of the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre's civil emergency response mechanism as a means of sourcing personal protective equipment in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and whether they have made any requests for assistance to the Centre.

Answered by Lord Bethell

To date, seven allied and nine partner nations have requested international assistance through the NATO Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC). In chronological order of requesting, these are: Ukraine, Spain, Montenegro, Italy, Albania, the Republic of North Macedonia, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Colombia, Slovenia, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Bulgaria, Tunisia and Iraq. Many of these requests were for personal protective equipment (PPE) and medical equipment. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs also asked for airlift support. The United Kingdom has not requested assistance through the EADRCC but we have responded to a small number of requests, including from Ukraine, Georgia, North Macedonia and Moldova, where PPE and medical equipment has been supplied. In these cases, equipment has been procured locally in the country concerned and within the constraints of our domestic response.

As part of the COVID-19 PPE team seconded to work with the Cabinet Office on PPE procurement, teams from Defence Equipment and Support have been using the NATO Support and Procurement Agency framework to order PPE for the National Health Service.


Written Question
NATO: Protective Clothing
Friday 10th July 2020

Asked by: Baroness Helic (Conservative - Life peer)

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what use they have made of the NATO Support and Procurement Agency in attempting to procure personal protective equipment for the NHS.

Answered by Lord Bethell

To date, seven allied and nine partner nations have requested international assistance through the NATO Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC). In chronological order of requesting, these are: Ukraine, Spain, Montenegro, Italy, Albania, the Republic of North Macedonia, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Colombia, Slovenia, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Bulgaria, Tunisia and Iraq. Many of these requests were for personal protective equipment (PPE) and medical equipment. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs also asked for airlift support. The United Kingdom has not requested assistance through the EADRCC but we have responded to a small number of requests, including from Ukraine, Georgia, North Macedonia and Moldova, where PPE and medical equipment has been supplied. In these cases, equipment has been procured locally in the country concerned and within the constraints of our domestic response.

As part of the COVID-19 PPE team seconded to work with the Cabinet Office on PPE procurement, teams from Defence Equipment and Support have been using the NATO Support and Procurement Agency framework to order PPE for the National Health Service.


Written Question
Wildlife: Smuggling
Monday 28th October 2019

Asked by: Ranil Jayawardena (Conservative - North East Hampshire)

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what diplomatic steps his Department is taking to tackle the illegal wildlife trade.

Answered by Heather Wheeler

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) works with a wide-range of partners to raise awareness and promote action to tackle the Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT). During visits to Asia in September and October, I discussed IWT with ministers in Mongolia and Cambodia, and in Laos I raised awareness with students about the catastrophic impacts the trade has on wildlife populations.

We have also worked with international partners to help secure a strong IWT Resolution at this year's United Nations General Assembly. We are increasing our support for Africa-led Green Corridors initiatives to further support wildlife conservation, community development and safe movement of animals across borders. The FCO also supports Defra to deliver projects overseas, including those funded by the IWT Challenge Fund.

In 2018 the FCO, together with the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra), and the Department for International Development, convened the largest ever global IWT conference, at which 65 countries and a number of multilateral organisations signed up to the London Declaration.


Written Question
Mongolia: Embassies
Tuesday 30th July 2019

Asked by: John Grogan (Labour - Keighley)

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Steppe Inn at the British Embassy in Ulaanbaatar to promote UK soft power.

Answered by Heather Wheeler

The Steppe Inne is a well-known institution at the British Embassy in Ulaanbaatar and has hosted Embassy contacts, Mongolian and British alike, for more than 30 years. With the forthcoming move to new Embassy premises, the Steppe Inne will close but plans are being developed to arrange Steppe Inne nights at an alternative venue in Ulaanbaatar. The Steppe Inne has played a role in UK soft power but is part of a much wider Embassy effort to promote British interests in Mongolia.


Written Question
Korea: Nuclear Weapons
Friday 9th November 2018

Asked by: Emily Thornberry (Labour - Islington South and Finsbury)

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether it is his policy to support the inclusion of Mongolia in the six-party talks on the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

Answered by Mark Field

Six-party talks have not taken place since 2009. There are however ongoing talks between the US and North Korea, and talks between South and North Korea, in which North Korea has committed to work towards complete denuclearisation. We now want to see North Korea take decisive steps to fulfil that commitment as required by multiple UN Security Council Resolutions. There is no immediate prospect of six-party talks resuming but if that situation were to change and all the parties involved supported the inclusion of Mongolia we would have no objection.