Author: admin

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

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 27 January (HL5039), whether they are now able to say whether a stated aim of the recently approved application by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to perform genome editing in human embryos by means of CRISPR-Cas9 was, and remains, to better understand why miscarriages occur in some pregnancies; and if not, whether the description of that research that will be made public will disclose the specific assay the researchers concerned had proposed using to determine whether embryos subjected to gene editing might be either able or unable to implant in a womb.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) publishes on its website the inspection report relating to a licence renewal application and the minutes of the Licence Committee’s decision. It does not publish other information associated with a licence application.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended) permits the genetic modification of embryos in research, subject to an HFEA licence. As the regulator, the HFEA’s responsibility is to apply the test in the legislation, namely that the research is necessary or desirable for any of the purposes specified in the Act and that the use of embryos is necessary. The Licence Committee has added a condition to the licence that no research using genome editing may take place until it has received approval from an NHS Research Ethics Committee.

01/01/2023
Lord Beecham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to minimise the risk to aircraft from the use of drones, and whether those steps include a system of registration of ownership.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Drones are becoming increasingly popular and have the potential to bring significant economic benefits, but it is vital that they are operated safely, in a way that does not put members of the public and other aircraft at risk. There are existing regulations in place that require users of drones to maintain direct, unaided visual contact with their vehicle and to not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property. Work is underway to better understand the level of risk posed by flying drones close to commercial planes. We are talking to both the Civil Aviation Authority and airports to find technical solutions to the problems around airport, these include mandated geo-fencing or frequency jammers.

The department is leading efforts with international bodies to develop a stringent regulatory framework focusing on safety. We are currently undertaking public dialogues ahead of a public consultation which will help to inform a government strategy to be published this year. The consultation will look at a range of options including regulation, registration and licensing options and a database to increase transparency on the use of drones for the general public.

The Civil Aviation Authority is undertaking activities to raise awareness of the basic safety requirements, including an ongoing ‘Dronecode’ safety awareness campaign, issuing safety leaflets at the point of sale, publishing an animated video on their website, and running ‘small UAS’ Risk and Hazard workshops with industry as part of the Mid Air Collision Programme.

01/01/2023

Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what (1) proportion, and (2) volume, of excavated spoil from each of the Thames Tideway Tunnel construction sites will be transported from them by river.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The Development Consent Order for the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) requires 100% of the specified materials to be transported by river for construction sites on the Thames foreshore, unless an approved derogation is in place. Derogations could include periods when it is not possible to use river transport due to factors such as river closures, incidents, weather and supply chain failures, and for material not suitable for river transport such as contaminated material that needs specialist disposal or material that is too wet for safe transit without specialist vessels.

The commitment to transportation by river from the construction sites was secured through the River Transport Strategy, which was included in Thames Water’s application for Development Consent for the Tunnel, although it only applies to specific material listed in the Strategy (including excavated material from the main tunnel at main tunnel drive sites and material excavated from the shafts at foreshore sites).

Bazalgette Tunnel Limited (operating as Tideway), the company appointed to design, finance, build and operate the TTT, has estimated the proportion and volume of excavated spoil that will be transported by river from each of the TTT construction foreshore sites (see Table 1 below). The percentages shown for each site demonstrate the anticipated effect of derogations on the amounts of excavated spoil they will be able to transport by river.

However, Tideway and appointed mains works contractors have made commitments to maximise their use of river transport and are therefore working on opportunities to increase the extent of river transport further in liaison with the Local Authorities, Greater London Authority, Port of London Authority and Transport for London.

Table 1 – Excavated specified material percentage and volume by river transport

SITE	% of all excavated specified material transported by river	Volume to be transported by river (m3)
Putney Bridge Foreshore	90%	14,000
Carnwath Road Riverside	90%	353,400
Cremorne Wharf Depot	90%	9,000
Chelsea Embankment	90%	44,400
Kirtling Street	81%	693,600 *
Heathwall Pumping Station	82%	16,300**
Albert Embankment	90%	56,300
Victoria Embankment	90%	27,900
Blackfriars Bridge	90%	72,100
Chambers Wharf	90%	416,100
King Edward Memorial Park	90%	57,500

*excludes shaft and excavated material from ‘other’ minor structures, due to restricted river frontage

**excludes ‘excavated material from ‘other’ minor structures’, due to site constraints

01/01/2023

Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 28 January (HL Deb, col 1405), what is the estimated cost of the next two years’ work by Network Rail that has now been cancelled on (1) the stabilisation of the cliff between Parsons and Teignmouth, and (2) breakwaters, groynes and revetments in the Dawlish area; and what are the new estimated completion dates for those works.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

No work on this study has been cancelled. Network Rail is currently progressing the Exeter to Newton Abbot geo-environmental study on the existing route via Dawlish to explore options which will reduce the chances of future route failure. The work will produce a short-list of options for further strengthening of the existing railway from Control Period 6 (CP6) (2019 to 2024) and beyond. It is due to be fully complete in May 2016 and will feed into the funding deliberations for CP6 and beyond.

Plans for Control Period 6 will be defined through the standard industry planning processes. These will take into account the recommendations of the Bowe and Shaw reviews and the re-profiling carried out by Sir Peter Hendy, along with the views of both PRTF and Network Rail .This process is led by Network Rail, with input from a wide range of stakeholders and funders, and covers the needs of each 5-year Rail Investment Strategy (RIS) with consideration of longer term requirements up to 2043.

01/01/2023
Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what economic benefits are attributed in the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs document of October 2015 Creating a River Thames fit for our future: An updated strategic and economic case for the Thames Tideway Tunnel to (1) the Lee Tunnel, and (2) the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) are key aspects of a wider improvement scheme for the Thames Tideway designed to meet the environmental standards set for the Tideway and achieve the environmental requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

The updated assessment of October 2015 provided a cost-benefit analysis focused on the TTT in isolation, to inform Government’s decision on whether to proceed with that project as the last major phase of the wider Tideway environmental improvement works. Research set out in this assessment showed that the Lee Tunnel, while having significant local benefit, would not in itself deliver the wider environmental outcomes sought from the overall Tideway improvement scheme. The 2015 assessment therefore assumed no benefits are secured by the Lee Tunnel on its own. It demonstrated the benefits of the TTT, based on an assessment of people’s willingness to pay, to be in the region of £7.4 billion to £12.7 billion (at 2014 prices).

Defra carried out two sensitivity tests on this assumption (published alongside the main results in the cost-benefit annex to the Strategic and Economic case), to ensure the robustness of that decision. One test factored in the cost of the Lee Tunnel to the cost-benefit analysis for the TTT, and the second assumed that the Lee Tunnel reduced the benefit attributed to the TTT by 40%. In neither test did the economic case for the TTT become unfavourable.

01/01/2023

Lord Boswell of Aynho – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Boswell of Aynho on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, for each government department, from July to December 2015, on how many occasions the scrutiny reserve resolution in (1) the House of Lords, and (2) the House of Commons, was overridden, and in respect of how many documents an override occurred in (1) both Houses, or (2) either House.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Between July and December 2015, 434 Explanatory Memoranda on EU documents were submitted for scrutiny. There were 54 occasions when the Government supported decisions in the EU Council of Ministers before the scrutiny procedures had been completed by either one or both Scrutiny Committees. In each case the Government wrote to the Scrutiny Committees to explain the reasons why it was important for the Government to support the proposal before the scrutiny process could be completed or where the Committees were unable to provide a waiver for the Government to support the proposal whilst retaining the issue under scrutiny. As with previous six-monthly periods, the largest category of instrument were fast-moving EU restrictive measures where there were overrides on 40 such measures (74 per cent of the total number) of which 12 measures addressed the situation in Iran.

The figures requested are set out below:

Department	(1). House of Lords Override	(2). House of Commons override	(1). No. of overrides in both Houses	(2). Total no. of overrides
Foreign and Commonwealth Office	42	44	41	45
HM Treasury	7	7	7	7
Culture, Media and Sport	1	1	1	1
Food Standards Agency	0	1	0	1
Totals	50	53	49	54

I refer the noble Lord to my answer of 29 July 2015 (HL1633) which presented the figures for overrides for the period January-June 2015. That answer contained two errors. In a letter dated 16 September 2015 to the Chairs of the two Scrutiny Committees, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), undertook to correct the errors when providing figures for the period July-December 2015. One Foreign and Commonwealth Office override on the Council decision extending the mandate of the EU Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina had been counted twice. This brings the overall total down from 90 to 89. The total in the House of Lords (54) is unchanged since the Committee cleared that proposal before adoption, but it does reduce the number declared for the House of Commons from 86 to 85. The answer also stated that the 39 measures (the largest category of the total) were the Common Foreign and Security Policy restrictive measures. A recalculation has shown the figure to be 38. The earlier answer also highlighted an unresolved issue of whether an override needed to be recorded against a Commission Communication on the Paris Protocol (‘A Blueprint for tackling Global Climate Change beyond 2020’) because discussion with the European Scrutiny Committee had at that stage not been concluded. It was subsequently agreed that agreement of the document did not need to be recorded as a scrutiny override.

01/01/2023

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Campbell of Pittenweem on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what conclusions they have drawn from the recent study of the UK’s future rotary wing requirements carried out by the Joint Helicopter Command.

Earl Howe

The 2015 Air Manoeuvre Future Capability Study reviewed and confirmed a number of major assumptions made about Battlefield Helicopter capabilities in the Rotary Wing Strategy of 2009. These were further tested through the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010 and in the Defence Rotary Wing Capability Study of 2011. These included:

Attack Helicopter capability will be sustained through the Apache Capability Sustainment Programme until at least 2040.

Rotary Wing Heavy Lift capability will be sustained through a Chinook Capability Sustainment Programme until at least 2040.

An opportunity exists to review the means by which medium lift capabilities are delivered from the mid-2030s, following the out of service dates for Puma Mk 2 and Merlin Mk 3/4. This will be examined initially through a capability investigation that will also consider the broader utility of unmanned aviation.

01/01/2023
Baroness Featherstone – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Featherstone on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect work to commence on the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon.

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

On 10 February the Government announced that it will commission an independent review to assess the strategic case for tidal lagoons and whether they could represent good value for consumers. We anticipate that the review will be completed in the autumn.

The Government is currently in the first phase of a Contract for Difference negotiation with the developer of the proposed Swansea Bay tidal lagoon project. At present there is no timeframe for how long the negotiation process may take. The timeframe depends on a number of factors, many of which would be outside the control of the Department.

The work programme and the construction timetable for the proposed lagoon are matters for the developer.

01/01/2023
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on patients of the decision by NHS England to refuse funding for micro-processor knees.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England has not refused to fund micro-processor knees. A revised policy proposal for the routine commissioning of microprocessor controlled knees was considered by NHS England’s expert Clinical Priorities Advisory Group which recommended its adoption for routine commissioning. The proposal was then considered by NHS England’s Specialised Commissioning Oversight Group at its meeting on 9 December 2015 where it was agreed that NHS England would support this service development as a possible call on its resources. However given the potential scale of investment and the need to consider its priority relative to other treatments which would also have a possible call on the specialised commissioning resources it was decided that the policy should go forward for consideration as part of NHS England’s next annual prioritisation round in June 2016.

01/01/2023
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether the decision by NHS England to refuse funding for micro-processor knees is consistent with its Five Year Forward View, which states that the NHS needs to adapt to take advantage of the opportunities that science and technology offer patients and carers.

Lord Prior of Brampton

NHS England has not refused to fund micro-processor knees. A revised policy proposal for the routine commissioning of microprocessor controlled knees was considered by NHS England’s expert Clinical Priorities Advisory Group which recommended its adoption for routine commissioning. The proposal was then considered by NHS England’s Specialised Commissioning Oversight Group at its meeting on 9 December 2015 where it was agreed that NHS England would support this service development as a possible call on its resources. However given the potential scale of investment and the need to consider its priority relative to other treatments which would also have a possible call on the specialised commissioning resources it was decided that the policy should go forward for consideration as part of NHS England’s next annual prioritisation round in June 2016.

01/01/2023