The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2016-03-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether the BBC’s Royal Charter should be for at least 10 years.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
These issues are being considered as part of Charter Review. The Government will set out its proposals in the forthcoming White Paper.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-03-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government by what criteria they define a serious crime as opposed to other crimes.
Lord Faulks
Various definitions of serious crime are used in different contexts. Sections 2, 2A and 3 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Serious Crime Act 2007 define ‘involved in serious crime’ for the purposes of Part I of that Act, which relates to serious crime prevention orders. Section 81 (2) and (3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 defines ‘serious crime’ for the purposes of that Act.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2016-03-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 23 February (HL6333), whether they have had specific discussions with the government of Bahrain on past and pending deprivations of citizenship, and on potential discrimination against the Shia Scholars Council and the Al Wefaq Party; and if so, with what results.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), discussed human rights and political reform with the Bahraini Ambassador on 8 March. We use the strength of our relationship and engagement to encourage reform. We continue to encourage the Government of Bahrain to meets its human rights obligations and honour all conventions to which it is a party – including on citizenship rights. We also urge all sides to engage in constructive political dialogue.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hylton on 2016-03-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Prime Minister, on 7 March in Brussels, described those fleeing across the Aegean Sea as illegally crossing, in the light of the fact that Turkey is not a party to the UN Convention on Refugees, which Greece and other EU member states are.
Lord Bates
Migrants travelling across the Aegean Sea may be referred to as illegally crossing if they have no permission (such as a visa) to enter Greece or another Member State. The same would apply if someone applied for asylum in the UK: if they have entered the UK illegally, then they would be treated as an illegal entrant, irrespective of whether they make a claim for asylum or not.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Grey-Thompson on 2016-03-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what involvement the Department for Work and Pensions has had with disabled people and their families to inform their thinking on the forthcoming white paper on improving support for disabled people and people with health conditions.
Baroness Altmann
The department regularly engages with disability charities and organisations, as well as disabled people and their families and carers, at both Ministerial and official level. We proactively seek stakeholder views on current health, care and employment services to understand what works and where improvements can be made through roundtables, focus groups and face-to-face meetings. These discussions inform and provide the opportunity to test our thinking as we being to develop proposals for the forthcoming White Paper, and we will continue to engage at all levels over the coming months.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-03-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Welsh Government about alternative options to the M4 relief road south of Newport, including investing in additional rail services, stations and infrastructure.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Consideration of the case for alternative options to the M4 relief road south of Newport is a matter for the Welsh Government. However, we are working closely with the Welsh Government on the development of the next Rail Investment Strategy to ensure that relevant Welsh priorities for rail investment in Control Period 6 (2019-2024) are reflected. No decision on any major investment in Wales is made without taking into account the views of the Welsh Government.
The Welsh Government will gain much greater control over the development of rail services in Wales as a result of the agreement reached between the two Governments in November 2014 to devolve executive franchising rail functions in Wales, so that the Welsh Government can lead on the procurement of the next Wales and Borders franchise from 2018. Subject to agreement on final terms, I would expect the Welsh Government to be leading on the specification of future service levels in Wales in the next franchise.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-03-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the total overall cost of the planned M4 relief road south of Newport, and what funding they will provide, if any, for that project.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The Department for Transport (DfT) is in regular contact with the devolved governments in both Scotland and Wales to discuss strategic matters and to co-operate on cross border roads. In this case, the M4 relief road south of Newport is entirely a matter for the Welsh Assembly and DfT have made no assessment of the scheme.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Berkeley on 2016-03-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they are proposing to discontinue the use of the Westbury East Loop Junction and Hawkeridge Junction line for passenger services, and whether such a change will prevent that line from being used for diversion routes for passenger services in future.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The proposal is to withdraw one regular passenger train service in one direction only Monday to Friday over this short curve on the grounds of low usage and for the service instead to serve the nearby important station of Westbury. The service was designated as experimental in 2011.
The withdrawal of the experimental status for the passenger service in question does not affect the line itself, which will continue to remain open for diverted passenger trains and freight.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-03-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 22 January 2013 (WA194–5) and by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Department of Health, Mr George Freeman, on 8 March (HC29426), what control the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has over the contents of any external website, such as that maintained by the Francis Crick Institute; what prior examples they can provide in which (1) either centre 0157 or 0206, or (2) any other licensed centre, has immediately and voluntarily altered the publication on their websites of clinical success rate data or information on costs in response to a request from the HFEA to do so; and what assessment they have made of how any expectations that licensed centres would comply with such requests might be affected by the Francis Crick Institute’s claim that it is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as a private body that has hitherto not provided copies of the patient information and consent forms directly for that reason.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) Code of Practice, at section 4.5, sets out the obligations on a licensed treatment centre regarding information provided on its website; other relevant marketing communications; and in relation to associated satellite and transport centres. This is in line with the Advertising Standards Authority Code. This guidance does not apply to licensed research centres.
Assessment of the websites of licensed treatment centres is made during inspections undertaken by the HFEA, or in response to ad hoc instances where information has come to us suggesting breaches of these requirements. There have been a number of examples where clinics have voluntarily and immediately amended the content of their websites and it would not be proportionate to set out all such examples. The HFEA has no statutory powers relating to the costs of treatment.
The fact that the Francis Crick Institute is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 has no impact on the HFEA’s expectations of licensed centres’ websites.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool on 2016-03-11.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 7 March (HL6225) and 8 March (HL6323), and the letter from the Chief Executive of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to both Lord Alton of Liverpool and the Department of Health on 7 March, whether there are any principled reasons why copies of the patient information and consent forms submitted to the HFEA by the person responsible in order to perform genome editing in human embryos by means of CRISPR-Cas9 have not yet been made publicly available; if so, what those reasons are; and if not, when they will place those documents in the Library of the House.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that it is has no objections to these documents being placed in the Library. While licence applications and associated documents are not routinely placed in the public domain, inspection reports relating to licence renewal applications and the minutes of the licensing Committee’s decision, which contain lay summaries, are published on the HFEA’s website.
Licence applications may contain third party personal information. On this occasion, a copy of the research licence application and associated documents is attached with third party personal information redacted.