Blog

  • Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick on 2016-04-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the UK, along with the other countries that have committed to the Sustainable Development Goals, delivers clean water for all by 2030.

    Baroness Verma

    In the UK Aid Strategy published in November 2015, we committed to help 60 million people get access to clean water and sanitation in support of goal 6 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

    We will achieve this target through projects managed by our Country Offices, the Department for International Development offices based in the UK and through our contributions to multilateral organisations such as the World Bank. We will continue to invest in country and regional programmes to improve water resources management, water efficiency and improve water quality.

  • Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick on 2016-04-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the claim by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the proposal to stop collecting data on the wealthiest 1 per cent in the UK would lead to their wealth being underestimated.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    The Government is not proposing to stop collecting data on the wealthiest 1 per cent in the UK.

    HM Revenue and Customs consulted on a proposal to cease producing statistics on personal wealth based on Inheritance Tax returns. The consultation suggested that the Office for National Statistics’ estimates of personal wealth, based on the household Wealth and Assets Survey, give a better indication of the overall distribution of wealth.

    The Government has not yet published a formal response to the consultation, which has now closed.

  • Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Taylor of Warwick – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Taylor of Warwick on 2016-04-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent data from Begbies Traynor showing that the number of British manufacturers that are struggling financially has risen by 20 per cent.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    We have not made an assessment of this report. The UK has some of the best manufacturing in the world, and we are focussed on a competitive tax regime and supporting science and innovation to make the UK an even better place to do business. There are a number of global headwinds which are currently placing significant pressures on UK manufacturing, making it more important than ever that we stick to our long term economic plan for sustainable growth.

  • Lord Rowe-Beddoe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Rowe-Beddoe – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Rowe-Beddoe on 2016-04-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of costs incurred by them in connection with the recent visit of the President of the United States.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    It is long established Government policy not to comment upon matters of personal protective security and their associated costs. Disclosure of such information could compromise the integrity of those arrangements and affect the security of the individuals concerned.

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

    Lord Lexden – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the The Lord Chairman of Committees

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lexden on 2016-04-26.

    To ask the Chairman of Committees what are the implications of the vote in the House of Commons on 20 April in favour of retaining vellum for the printing of record copies of public Acts of Parliament.

    Lord Laming

    The House Committee considered this matter at its meeting on 3 May. The Committee agreed that, in response to the letter from the Clerk of the House of Commons about the debate, I should write to the Chairman of the House of Commons Administration Committee in the following terms:

    “I am writing further to the backbench debate on printing record copies of public Acts of Parliament on vellum. I have consulted the House of Lords House Committee in preparing this reply.

    As you know, this House agreed in 1999 to move to printing Acts of Parliament on archival paper instead of vellum. We are persuaded that printing on archival paper is a more appropriate use of public funds, and that the case for continuing to print on vellum is not made.

    If, in the light of the debate, the House of Commons wishes to arrange a contract for printing record copies of public Acts on vellum then the House of Lords Administration will gladly share experience of managing the legacy contract to assist you in making any such arrangements. I am sure you will appreciate that this House does not wish to contribute financially to any future printing on vellum. It is also important that we ensure the longevity of any public Acts, as the Clerk of the Parliaments must certify a record copy of them.

    Perhaps at our next regular meeting it would be possible for us to discuss some of the points made in the debate. I am, as ever, grateful to you for all your help in this matter.”

    I wrote accordingly on 4 May.

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Campbell of Pittenweem on 2016-04-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the establishment of (1) the Royal Navy, (2) the Army, and (3) the Royal Air Force, and how many vacancies there are in each service.

    Earl Howe

    The requested information, as at 1 March 2016, is provided below:

    Service

    Liability (establishment)

    Full-time trained strength

    Deficit (vacancies)

    Royal Navy/Royal Marines

    30,220

    29,730

    480

    Army

    83,580

    79,840

    3,740

    Royal Air Force

    33,150

    31,000

    2,150

    Note: All figures are rounded. Totals and sub-totals are rounded separately and may not equal the sums of their rounded parts.

    Full details of liabilities and trained strengths are included in the UK Armed Forces Monthly Service Personnel Statistics, which can be found at the following address:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-monthly-service-personnel-statistics-2016

    “

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Campbell of Pittenweem on 2016-04-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to maintain warship building capability in the UK and what are their preferred locations for doing so.

    Earl Howe

    The Government has appointed Sir John Parker as the Independent Chair of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, which is intended to place UK shipbuilding on a sustainable long-term footing. Sir John Parker will consider a range of locations around the UK and report by the end of 2016.

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Campbell of Pittenweem on 2016-04-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their programme for the development of the Type 26 Frigate.

    Earl Howe

    I refer the noble Lord to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Philip Dunne), in the House of Commons on 11 April 2016 to Question 32497.

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-03-24/32497/

  • 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 2016-04-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 17 March (HL7118) and 25 April (HL7391), what assessment they have made of (1) the specific steps during the evolution of the peer-review process by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) over the last 10 years that allow specific members of the HFEA Licence Committee to overrule recommendations by the HFEA’s appointed peer reviewers; and (2) the relative impact on the licensing of proposed research over the last 10 years of (a) scrutiny by a team of inspectors, (b) scrutiny by an external, independent peer reviewer and (c) scrutiny by the HFEA’s Licence Committee; how participants in each of those levels of scrutiny have been (i) briefed regarding the impact of their recommendations and (ii) remunerated for their efforts; and how many research licence applications have ultimately been rejected following scrutiny over the last 10 years.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that its Licence Committee acts under delegated power from the Authority to make decisions on licences based on information put before it, which includes recommendations from peer reviewers. Given that they are the decision makers appointed by the HFEA in accordance with its statute, they are able to accept or reject information as appropriate. This therefore includes rejecting or accepting recommendations of peer reviewers. The Committee’s effectiveness is reviewed on an annual basis.

    The Licence Committee is made up of authority members who are remunerated on an annual basis. The remuneration figures are publicly available in the HFEA’s annual reports. Peer reviewers receive a fee of £189.67 per review.

    Inspectors receive a yearly salary and are not remunerated per inspection, unless they are external inspectors who are used occasionally.

    The information regarding research licenses is only held in a readily accessible format from 2011 onwards and before this date can only be provided at disproportionate cost. Since March 2011 there have been no research applications rejected by the Licence Committee. The HFEA works closely with licence applicants to develop their applications and resolve any issues prior to being submitted to the Licence Committee.

  • 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 2016-04-26.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 17 March 2015 (HL5319) and by Lord Prior of Brampton on 25 April (HL7391), how the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) has been substantially reduced as a result of changes introduced by the HFEA since the publication of the McCracken Report in accordance with recommendations 10 and 11 and in the light of paragraphs 4.40 and 4.44; and what assessment they have made of the extent to which the lack of reporting by the HFEA of any adverse incidents to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has mitigated the risks of OHSS.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that Ovarian HyperStimulation Syndrome (OHSS) is primarily a matter for clinical judgement and professional standards. The responsibility for reporting adverse reactions in accordance with the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 rests with clinics and the treating clinician. The number of serious adverse incidents of OHSS reported to the HFEA in each of the three years 2010-2012 was approximately 60. In 2013 it was 46, and in 2014 it was 42. Figures for 2015 will be published in September 2016.

    Where the HFEA is made aware of information relevant to the regulatory functions of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the information is shared between the two organisations.

    Recommendations 10 and 11 of the McCracken Report relate to a variety of issues not just OHSS. The HFEA has advised that its strategy for 2014–2017 fulfils these recommendations.