Author: admin

  • Lord Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lucas on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the announcement of the sale of Corbis, Corbis Motion and Veer, what assessment they have made of how the interests of the UK and of the National Gallery, whose picture bank was put into data files and a database by Corbis, have been protected.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The National Gallery operates at Arm’s length from DCMS, and as such has responsibility for its own mage licensing arrangements. The arrangements between the National Gallery and Corbis in relation to the licensing of National Gallery images came to an end on 31 August 2008. When the arrangements terminated all National Gallery images were returned to the Gallery. As a result, the sale of Corbis, Corbis Motion and Veer, has no implications for the National Gallery. Ownership of the National Gallery database of images rests with, and has always rested with, the Gallery itself.

  • Lord Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lucas on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of who now owns the National Gallery database of images, and of the arrangements in place to protect the database of the National Gallery from being exploited to the prejudice of that institution.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The National Gallery operates at Arm’s length from DCMS, and as such has responsibility for its own image licensing arrangements. Ownership of the National Gallery database of images rests with, and has always rested with, the Gallery itself. The arrangements between the National Gallery and Corbis in relation to the licensing of National Gallery images came to an end on 31 August 2008. When the arrangements terminated all National Gallery images were returned to the Gallery.

  • Lord Naseby – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Naseby – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 21 December 2015 (HL4603 and HL4606), whether they plan to investigate the activities of the group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in providing the secretariat to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Smoking and Health and the use of public grants for lobbying activities in the light of the fact that the Department of Health has received 90 items of correspondence from the APPG originating from a postal or email address belonging to ASH in the last five years.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The conditions applicable to grants awarded to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) are set out in the grant award letters. The Department has made clear that none of this funding is to be used for lobbying purposes.

    The Section 64 grant must be spent in delivering the the agreed project outputs set out in the grant award letter and it does not fund secretariat support for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health.

    ASH’s compliance with the conditions of the grant is assessed at the grant monitoring meetings held between the Deputy Director of tobacco control and representatives from ASH as well as in the final full year grant monitoring and governance reports.

    The Department is required to retain information relating to Section 64 grants for six years. The full amount of the grant was spent for each year that a grant was provided to ASH in the past six years.

  • Lord Naseby – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Naseby – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, for each year in which a grant was provided to the group Action on Smoking and Health, how much (1) was spent against the original grant, (2) constituted underspend, and (3) was returned to the Department of Health.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The conditions applicable to grants awarded to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) are set out in the grant award letters. The Department has made clear that none of this funding is to be used for lobbying purposes.

    The Section 64 grant must be spent in delivering the the agreed project outputs set out in the grant award letter and it does not fund secretariat support for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health.

    ASH’s compliance with the conditions of the grant is assessed at the grant monitoring meetings held between the Deputy Director of tobacco control and representatives from ASH as well as in the final full year grant monitoring and governance reports.

    The Department is required to retain information relating to Section 64 grants for six years. The full amount of the grant was spent for each year that a grant was provided to ASH in the past six years.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 27 January (HL5040), what assessment they and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) have made of the case for all women and their children receiving equal protections; and what recommendations the HFEA has made to the Department of Health on that issue.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Human Fertilisation and Embyrology Authority has not made an assessment of the case for women who obtain sperm in a private arrangement (and any resulting children) to have the same protections as women who obtain sperm through a licensed clinic, for the reasons set out in the response to the Noble Lord on 27 January (HL5040).

  • Lord Campbell of Pittenweem – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    Lord Campbell of Pittenweem – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Campbell of Pittenweem on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the Scottish Government about the future electrification of the East Coast Main Line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

    Lord Dunlop

    UK and Scottish Government officials have regular discussions regarding transport policy, and the rail industry is undertaking studies to identify the best value cases for further route electrification in Scotland, England and Wales. The introduction of bi-mode intercity express trains on East Coast Scottish services from 2018 is expected to help the business case for electrification between Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

  • Lord Darling of Roulanish – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Darling of Roulanish – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Darling of Roulanish on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the total amount of payment protection insurance payments made since 2010.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The most recent figures available from the FCA show that a total of £393.8m was paid in November 2015 to customers who complained about the way they were sold PPI. This takes the amount paid out since January 2011 to £22.2bn.

    The most recent analysis of the impact on GDP is the Office for Budget Responsibility’s 2012 Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, which stated that its economic growth forecast of 0.8% over 2 years would be mainly due to the impact of PPI fee repayments.

  • Lord Darling of Roulanish – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Darling of Roulanish – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Darling of Roulanish on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the impact of payment protection insurance payments made since 2010 on UK gross domestic product.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The most recent figures available from the FCA show that a total of £393.8m was paid in November 2015 to customers who complained about the way they were sold PPI. This takes the amount paid out since January 2011 to £22.2bn.

    The most recent analysis of the impact on GDP is the Office for Budget Responsibility’s 2012 Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, which stated that its economic growth forecast of 0.8% over 2 years would be mainly due to the impact of PPI fee repayments.

  • Lord Green of Deddington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Green of Deddington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Green of Deddington on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many third country nationals have been transferred to the UK from other EU member states under (1) Article 8, (2) Article 9, and (3) Article 10, of the Dublin Regulations for their asylum cases to be heard by the UK authorities in each of the years for which data are available, and from which EU member state those individuals came.

    Lord Bates

    Data on cases progressed under the Dublin Convention is recorded on the main immigration database. However, this data is not currently available in the form requested as it is not held in a way that allows it to be reported on automatically.

  • Lord Green of Deddington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Green of Deddington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Green of Deddington on 2016-01-28.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many asylum seekers have been transferred from the UK to other EU member states under the Dublin Regulations owing to (1) family reasons (Articles 8, 9 and 10), and (2) irregular entry (Article 13.1), in each of the years for which data are available.

    Lord Bates

    Data is available from 2007. In those years there have been no transfers to other EU member states under the Dublin Regulations owing to family reasons (Articles 8, 9 and 10). The table below indicates those years and numbers where we have transferred cases for reasons of Irregular Entry (Article 13.1)

    Year of Return

    Returns

    2014

    20

    2015

    75