Blog

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentage of objections submitted to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator about the admission arrangements of schools were submitted by (1) groups and organisations, and (2) local parents, in each of the years from 2012 to 2015 inclusive.

    Lord Nash

    There is currently no requirement for an objector to identify themselves, or whether they belong to, or represent, a campaign group or organisation. Some objectors volunteer this information. However, some wish to remain anonymous and other parent objectors may not reveal whether they submitted the objection on behalf of a campaign group. We have no means of identifying this.

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what general steps they plan to take to ensure that all schools change their admission arrangements in line with recommendations by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator.

    Lord Nash

    Where the Schools Adjudicator determines that a school’s admission arrangements do not comply with the School Admissions Code, the admission authority has a statutory duty to revise its admission arrangements. The school must comply with the Adjudicator’s decision within two months of the decision or by 28 February following the decision, whichever is sooner, unless an alternative timescale is specified by the Adjudicator.

    An Adjudicator’s decision is binding and enforceable by the Secretary of State.

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the findings of the report An Unholy Mess, published by the Fair Admissions Campaign and the British Humanist Association last year, and specifically, its recommendation that a range of standard templates for school admissions policies be created to ensure that all schools’ policies are fully compliant with the School Admissions Code.

    Lord Nash

    The Government is giving careful consideration to the report of the Office of the Schools Adjudicator as part of our current review of the School Admissions Code, in addition to other research and publications.

    We will be conducting a full public consultation in due course and will give careful consideration to all the views expressed in that consultation.

  • Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 2016-02-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Prior of Brampton on 22 February (HL5978), how many, and which, management consultancies engaged in failed initiatives from the previous rounds of consultancy-driven recovery initiatives will be excluded from NHS Improvement’s current round.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    NHS Improvement undertakes its procurements in compliance with procurement rules and good practice. As such, no consultancies are automatically excluded from any consultancy driven recovery initiatives. However as part of this, NHS Improvement takes into account past performance of suppliers to the fullest extent permissible in its procurements.

  • Lord Falconer of Thoroton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Falconer of Thoroton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 2016-02-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to reform legal aid provision for victims of domestic abuse in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment The Queen (On The Application Of Rights Of Women) v The Lord Chancellor And Secretary Of State For Justice [2016] EWCA Civ 91 on 18 February.

    Lord Faulks

    We are pleased the court confirmed that the Lord Chancellor did have the power to set domestic violence evidence requirements. We are now carefully considering the judgment as we decide how best to respond to the court’s concerns. We are determined to make sure victims of domestic violence can get legal aid whenever they need it.

  • Lord Black of Brentwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Black of Brentwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Black of Brentwood on 2016-02-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many responses they have received to their consultation on the repeal of section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government received 39 responses to its consultation: “The balance of payments between television platforms and public service broadcasters". This included questions about possible repeal of s.73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988.

  • Lord Black of Brentwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Lord Black of Brentwood – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Black of Brentwood on 2016-02-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 23 July 2015 (HL1549) and 12 February (HL5902), why there has been a delay in publication of proposals to repeal section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which, according to Written Answer HL1549, was due by the end of 2015.

    Baroness Neville-Rolfe

    The Government is still considering its response to the balance of payments consultation which asked a number of questions on a range of topics. We will publish a response in the coming months.

  • 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 2016-02-23.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 11 February (HL5909, HL5910 and HL5960) and 12 February (HL5909), what specific licence conditions have been required by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in accordance with its Code of Practice in order to resolve any potential or perceived conflict between the demand for sufficient numbers of zygotes to perform genome editing successfully and the usual practice of transferring embryos to the uterus following assessment of their potential to develop further after at least two to three days; what reasons the person responsible provided when requesting that reference to surplus embryos should be removed from the research project title; and whether they will now place in the Library of the House 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.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) publishes on its website the inspection report relating to a licence renewal application and the minutes of the Licence Committee’s decision. It does not publish other information associated with a licence application.

    The Licence Committee considering the application to which the noble Lord refers was satisfied that the requirements of General Directions 0008 were met, with the exception of evidence of ethics approval, which must be submitted to the HFEA before any licensed research can begin.

    The HFEA has advised that licence conditions R18-R27 and T97 address any potential conflict between the use of embryos in research and the use of embryos in the provision of treatment services. The person responsible did not give a reason on the application form for requesting that reference to surplus embryos should be removed from the research project title, nor are they required to do so. The removal of ‘surplus’ from the title does not reflect a change in the way embryos will be donated to the research.

  • Paul Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Paul Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Monaghan on 2016-02-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effect of the UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia on human rights in that country.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    We use the strength of our relationship and engagement with Saudi Arabia to encourage reform. Saudi Arabia remains a Foreign and Commonwealth human rights priority country and we do not shy away from raising legitimate human rights concerns when it is appropriate to do so – I raised them most recently when I visited Riyadh last month. The Government of Saudi Arabia is well aware of our position on Human Rights issues.

  • Paul Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Paul Monaghan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Paul Monaghan on 2016-02-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what diplomatic progress has been made by the international community in delivering peace in Syria.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    On 11 February, the Foreign Secretary took part in the latest round of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) meeting in Munich. At that meeting ISSG foreign ministers discussed how to support the political process, including through confidence building measures and steps towards a ceasefire, as called for in UNSCR 2254.

    The ISSG agreed the need to implement a cessation of hostilities within a week, to delivering humanitarian assistance to named besieged communities by the weekend of 13-14 February and to facilitate rapid progress in negotiations aimed at political transition. If implemented fully and properly by every ISSG member, this will be an important step towards relieving the killing and suffering in Syria.