Blog

  • Lord Ouseley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Ouseley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Ouseley on 2016-03-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to setting a limit to how long individuals can be held at immigration removal centres.

    Lord Bates

    The Government does not believe that a time limit on immigration detention would be appropriate. Home Office published policy is centred on a presumption in favour of liberty. Depriving someone of their liberty is subject to careful consideration and scrutiny, with appropriate account taken of individual circumstances. The introduction of an arbitrary time limit could lead to the release of foreign criminals and illegal immigrants even when their removal is imminent. Home Office guidance is clear that detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period reasonably necessary to achieve its purpose. Published statistics show that, in the year to December 2015, over 90 per cent of individuals leaving detention had been detained for no longer than four months.

  • Lord Lansley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Lansley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lansley on 2016-03-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of asylum claims resolved after six months were found to be well-founded in the latest period for which the statistics are available.

    Lord Bates

    In 2015 there were a total of 10,199 asylum claims which were concluded six months or more after their initial application date. Of these, 4,620 claims were found to be entitled to a grant of asylum based on a well-founded fear of persecution.

  • Lord Kilclooney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Lord Kilclooney – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Kilclooney on 2016-03-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether levels of VAT in the UK can be reduced without the approval of the EU.

    Lord O’Neill of Gatley

    Member States have full autonomy over VAT within an agreed EU framework. Member States can apply a standard rate of VAT no lower than 15 per cent and apply a reduced rate of VAT no lower than 5 per cent.

  • Lord Green of Deddington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lord Green of Deddington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Green of Deddington on 2016-03-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the change, if any, in the number of households in London with a (1) UK-born, and (2) non-UK-born, Household Reference Person between 2000 and 2015.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

  • Lord Green of Deddington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lord Green of Deddington – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Green of Deddington on 2016-03-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the change, if any, in the number of households in the UK with a (1) UK-born, and (2) non-UK-born, Household Reference Person between 2010 and 2015.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

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

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

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Birt on 2016-03-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will consider exempting traditional windmills producing high-quality artisan flours from any obligations to introduce additives.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    In the UK iron, niacin and thiamin are added back by law to all UK milled flour (except wholemeal) to restore nutrients lost in milling. Flour milled in the UK is also fortified with calcium to reduce the risk of calcium deficiency, a condition associated with poor bone health and osteoporosis. The Government is currently considering requests to exempt certain minor flour uses from these mandatory fortification requirements. This exercise could be extended to consider exempting traditional stoneground mills producing low volumes of flour should a case be made.

  • Lord Beecham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Beecham – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Beecham on 2016-03-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what savings they estimate will derive from their courts closure programme; and how much, and over what period, they plan to invest in technology to reduce the demand for court facilities in the justice system.

    Lord Faulks

    The Impact Assessment published alongside the consultation document outlines estimated savings of £170m over a 10-year period.

    The Government is committed to modernising the way in which justice is accessed and delivered. We are investing over £700m over the next 4 years to update the court and tribunal estate, installing modern IT systems and making the justice system more efficient and effective for modern users.

  • 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 2016-03-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 14 February (HL6504), who made the decision; whether it was approved by members of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) by a vote; and when the last lay summary for an embryo research licence application was on the awaiting approval” section of the HFEA website.”

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that it cannot confirm who decided the change in practice. This was an operational decision and not subject to a vote of Authority members. The last lay summary of an embryo research licence application on the HFEA website was research licence 0188 which was approved in May 2012.

  • 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 2016-03-14.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 2 February (HL5773) and 7 March (HL6225), whether the previously licensed research to perform genome editing in human embryos by means of CRISPR-Cas9 has commenced; if so, when that research actually commenced and when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) received evidence of ethics approval; if not, how the HFEA has confirmed that the newly approved activities have not already commenced prior to receipt of evidence of ethics approval; and whether the delay due to the absence of evidence of ethics approval has applied only to genome editing or also to all activities previously covered by the same licence.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that the research referred to by the Noble Lord has not commenced. When ethics approval has been received, the person responsible is required to provide evidence of this to the HFEA. The ethics approval applies to new activities in the research project, including the use of CRISPR-Cas9.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-03-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what estimate he has made of the average time taken to provide reimbursement when a benefit sanction is overturned by appeal in the last 12 months.

    Priti Patel

    The information requested is not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.