Blog

  • Lord Hunt of Chesterton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lord Hunt of Chesterton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Chesterton on 2016-04-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the average training period for graduates newly appointed to the UK civil service, and whether that training includes learning about UK government and history.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    The Civil Service graduate programme is known as the Fast Stream and its average training period is up to four years. The Fast Stream core curriculum includes learning about UK Government and history and the central induction for Fast Streamers also has activities relating to this topic. Graduates can also enter the civil service via direct appointment without being part of a formal training scheme. Those who do so have access to a wide range of training options, including how the UK government operates.

  • Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lord Berkeley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-04-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Bridges of Headley on 19 April (HL Deb, col 543) on government grant agreements, whether an academic research institution which is also a charity and is in receipt of government funding from research councils will be covered by the proposed anti-lobbying clauses expected to be introduced in grant agreements from 1 May.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    As the Minister for the Cabinet Office the Rt Hon Matthew Hancock made clear on 27 April, we are committed to protecting taxpayers’ money from being wasted on government lobbying government. We are pausing the implementation of this clause into grant agreements, pending a review of the representations made.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-04-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that witness statements by potential genocide survivors in Iraq and Syria are given to the International Criminal Court and that the collection of forensic evidence and the protection of mass graves is prioritised.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    In Syria, the UK is supporting the work of non-governmental organisations who are gathering evidence of human rights violations. This is being done to the international standard required for criminal prosecution against high level perpetrators in a domestic or international court. In Iraq, we are considering how the UK might best complement similar efforts already underway with funds from other donor countries.

    Cases are being prepared for international prosecution should a referral to the International Criminal Court be forthcoming or should individuals be subject to litigation by hybrid, specialised or national courts. We are therefore doing everything we can to assist in the gathering and preservation of evidence that could in future be used by judicial bodies to make a judgement on this matter. It is vital that this is done now, before evidence is lost or destroyed.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-04-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they consider that non-judicial bodies such as the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the US House of Representatives are competent to make a declaration that a genocide is underway; and whether they consider that the UK Parliament can do so, and if not, why not.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The Government believes that recognition of genocide should be a matter for judicial decision. It should be a legal, rather than political determination, decided by judges after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process. Political pronouncements on whether genocide has occurred, such as the European Parliament resolution, are not legally binding and do not create legal obligations on member states.

  • Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Alton of Liverpool – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-04-21.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the reply by Baroness Anelay of St Johns to the private notice question from Lord Alton of Liverpool on 21 April, which members of the United Nations Security Council they believe would veto a referral to the International Criminal Court of evidence of genocide against Christian, Yazidi and other minorities in Iraq and Syria.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor set out some of the complicated issues involved in the ICC investigating Daesh in her press statement of 8 April 2015. It is not possible to refer Daesh itself to the ICC. Any referral would cover ALL potential crimes against international humanitarian law within a specified geographic area, rather than a specified organisation or set of actors.

    When efforts were made to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC in 2014, it was vetoed by Russia and China. We expect that any Security Council resolution at this time seeking to refer the situations in Iraq or Syria to the ICC would likewise be blocked.

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

    Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wills on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend fully to fund measures to implement the recommendations set out in the Choice in end of life care review.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government recognises that the response to the Review of Choice in End of Life Care is keenly awaited. Ensuring that everyone at, or nearing, the end of life receives high quality, compassionate care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences is a priority for this Government, and the response to the Choice Review is therefore being carefully considered.

    As previously set out, in its response the Government will address each of the Review recommendations including: care coordination; improving the quality, availability and responsiveness of care; improving the quality and use of data; care planning and the use of digital care records; and the involvement of family members and carers in discussions about care. Further details regarding the publication of the response, which is expected shortly, will be made available when it is appropriate to do so.

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

    Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wills on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their formal response to the Choice in end of life care review will be published before the purdah period ahead of the EU referendum begins.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government recognises that the response to the Review of Choice in End of Life Care is keenly awaited. Ensuring that everyone at, or nearing, the end of life receives high quality, compassionate care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences is a priority for this Government, and the response to the Choice Review is therefore being carefully considered.

    As previously set out, in its response the Government will address each of the Review recommendations including: care coordination; improving the quality, availability and responsiveness of care; improving the quality and use of data; care planning and the use of digital care records; and the involvement of family members and carers in discussions about care. Further details regarding the publication of the response, which is expected shortly, will be made available when it is appropriate to do so.

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

    Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wills on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have not provided a specific date for when they will publish a response to the Choice in end of life care review, and why that response has not yet been published.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government recognises that the response to the Review of Choice in End of Life Care is keenly awaited. Ensuring that everyone at, or nearing, the end of life receives high quality, compassionate care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences is a priority for this Government, and the response to the Choice Review is therefore being carefully considered.

    As previously set out, in its response the Government will address each of the Review recommendations including: care coordination; improving the quality, availability and responsiveness of care; improving the quality and use of data; care planning and the use of digital care records; and the involvement of family members and carers in discussions about care. Further details regarding the publication of the response, which is expected shortly, will be made available when it is appropriate to do so.

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

    Lord Wills – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wills on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on people at the end of life of delaying the publication of their response to the Choice in end of life care review.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Government recognises that the response to the Review of Choice in End of Life Care is keenly awaited. Ensuring that everyone at, or nearing, the end of life receives high quality, compassionate care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences is a priority for this Government, and the response to the Choice Review is therefore being carefully considered.

    As previously set out, in its response the Government will address each of the Review recommendations including: care coordination; improving the quality, availability and responsiveness of care; improving the quality and use of data; care planning and the use of digital care records; and the involvement of family members and carers in discussions about care. Further details regarding the publication of the response, which is expected shortly, will be made available when it is appropriate to do so.

  • Baroness Whitaker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Baroness Whitaker – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Whitaker on 2016-04-22.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, where a dog or horse is being micro-chipped and its owner is of no fixed abode, such as in the case of Gypsies and Travellers, whether they have considered allowing a mobile phone number or address of a friend or relation of the owner to be recorded rather than the owner’s address.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    Owners of horses and dogs without a fixed address should provide the address of a family member or close friend with whom they keep in contact. Defra have worked with the veterinary representative organisations on their guidance for vets on microchipping of dogs.