Blog

  • Lord Maginnis of Drumglass – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass on 2016-05-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what have been the practical benefits to the UK of the July 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, and of the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Iran in August 2015, in respect of obtaining the release back to the UK of prisoners such as Kamal Foroughi, and Nazanin Ratcliffe and her child.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action applies only to Iran’s nuclear programme, but offers a real opportunity for Iran to normalise its relations with the international community. Reopening our Embassies in August 2015 offers greater opportunity to discuss a range of issues, including consular cases. We regularly raise our concerns on all consular cases, both in London and Tehran. Most recently the Foreign Secretary, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), raised them with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif on 17 May, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), raised them with the Iranian Charge d’Affaires in London on 18 May.

  • Lord Maginnis of Drumglass – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass on 2016-05-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what, if any, extra security measures are being implemented, and at what cost, following the decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to refuse the Home Office the right to deport six individuals, allegedly linked to al-Qaeda, to Algeria.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    We do not comment on security matters. However national security remains our primary consideration and we have taken, and will continue to take, all necessary measures to protect our national security.

  • Lord Maginnis of Drumglass – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass on 2016-05-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to refuse the Home Office the right to deport six individuals, allegedly linked to al-Qaeda, to Algeria; and what is their current assessment of the total cost implications of complying with that ruling without further appeal.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The Government is disappointed by the 18 April 2016 decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission which relates to cases dating back over ten years.

    There are no separately identifiable costs for complying with that ruling.

  • Lord Lexden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Lexden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lexden on 2016-05-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to extend VAT zero-rating to building work in independent schools that do not charge VAT on school fees and are therefore not registered for VAT.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The construction of a new building is normally subject to the standard rate of VAT.

    However, the construction of buildings that are either designed as a dwelling, to be used solely for a relevant residential purpose, or to be used solely for a relevant charitable purpose may be zero-rated for VAT.

    This relief is available to eligible consumers and businesses regardless of their VAT registration status.

  • Lord Lexden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lord Lexden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lexden on 2016-05-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their planned legislation to enfranchise British citizens resident abroad for over 15 years will be introduced in the current Session.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    The Government is committed to removing the 15 year time limit on the voting rights of British citizens living overseas, and will bring forward a Bill to make a permanent change on overseas voting rights as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  • Baroness King of Bow – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Baroness King of Bow – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness King of Bow on 2016-05-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 11 May (HL8079), and in the light of the judgment In re. Z(A Child) (No.2) [2016] EWHC 1191(Fam), whether they now intend to review the legislation relating to surrogacy.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Surrogacy is a complex issue, the legislation about which has not been significantly addressed by respective administrations since the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. The Government recognises the arguments for the need for a review, and we have therefore asked the Law Commission, as part of the consultation on its 13th work programme this summer, to consider including a project on surrogacy

    The Government has accepted the judgment by Sir James Munby from the High Court. We will be looking to update the legislation on Parental Orders, and are now considering how best to do this.

    The Government recognises surrogacy as an important option for some people wishing to start a family and is currently considering how best to clarify the current legal arrangements for intended parents, surrogates and their families. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service campaign to increase awareness of Parental Orders is ongoing and targeted at health workers, local authority registration staff and surrogacy agencies. It will be evaluated in full upon completion in autumn 2016; in-campaign monitoring indicates its messaging is reaching the target audience.

  • Baroness King of Bow – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Baroness King of Bow – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness King of Bow on 2016-05-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Sir James Munby’s ruling in In re. Z(A Child) (No.2) [2016] EWHC 1191(Fam) that UK law is incompatible with the human rights of single parents who have children born through surrogacy.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Surrogacy is a complex issue, the legislation about which has not been significantly addressed by respective administrations since the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. The Government recognises the arguments for the need for a review, and we have therefore asked the Law Commission, as part of the consultation on its 13th work programme this summer, to consider including a project on surrogacy

    The Government has accepted the judgment by Sir James Munby from the High Court. We will be looking to update the legislation on Parental Orders, and are now considering how best to do this.

    The Government recognises surrogacy as an important option for some people wishing to start a family and is currently considering how best to clarify the current legal arrangements for intended parents, surrogates and their families. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service campaign to increase awareness of Parental Orders is ongoing and targeted at health workers, local authority registration staff and surrogacy agencies. It will be evaluated in full upon completion in autumn 2016; in-campaign monitoring indicates its messaging is reaching the target audience.

  • Baroness King of Bow – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Baroness King of Bow – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness King of Bow on 2016-05-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the views of surrogates, academics, parents through surrogacy, and legal practitioners, about the case for surrogacy law reform, in particular with regard to legal parenthood following surrogacy.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Surrogacy is a complex issue, the legislation about which has not been significantly addressed by respective administrations since the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. The Government recognises the arguments for the need for a review, and we have therefore asked the Law Commission, as part of the consultation on its 13th work programme this summer, to consider including a project on surrogacy

    The Government has accepted the judgment by Sir James Munby from the High Court. We will be looking to update the legislation on Parental Orders, and are now considering how best to do this.

    The Government recognises surrogacy as an important option for some people wishing to start a family and is currently considering how best to clarify the current legal arrangements for intended parents, surrogates and their families. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service campaign to increase awareness of Parental Orders is ongoing and targeted at health workers, local authority registration staff and surrogacy agencies. It will be evaluated in full upon completion in autumn 2016; in-campaign monitoring indicates its messaging is reaching the target audience.

  • Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the The Lord Chairman of Committees

    Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the The Lord Chairman of Committees

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark on 2016-05-23.

    To ask the Chairman of Committees how many staff in the House of Lords are employed on zero-hours contracts.

    Lord Laming

    The House of Lords does not employ any staff on zero-hours contracts on an exclusive basis. It employs 28 staff on zero-hours contracts in the Catering and Retail Services department, primarily for banqueting events. These are roles where staffing demands vary significantly week to week and are often unpredictable. The House also employs 22 freelance Hansard reporters. In order to meet overnight publication deadlines for Grand Committee debates, Hansard needs to supplement its permanent team with temporary reporters

    Zero-hours staff employed by the House of Lords are free to turn down shifts offered by the House. They have equivalent employment rights to full-time staff including pension and holiday pay entitlements, which are better than those of most agency staff. All staff in the House of Lords, including those on these contracts, are paid at least the London Living Wage.

  • Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the The Lord Chairman of Committees

    Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the The Lord Chairman of Committees

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark on 2016-05-23.

    To ask the Chairman of Committees what plans are there to support Fairtrade fortnight.

    Lord Laming

    Catering and Retail Services stock a range of Fairtrade products, including tea, coffee, cake, biscuits and bananas. Catering and Retail Services raised awareness of these lines during Fairtrade Fortnight this year and ran related promotions.