Tag: Lord Naseby

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2016-01-28.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Prior of Brampton on 21 December 2015 (HL4603 and HL4606), whether they plan to investigate the activities of the group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in providing the secretariat to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Smoking and Health and the use of public grants for lobbying activities in the light of the fact that the Department of Health has received 90 items of correspondence from the APPG originating from a postal or email address belonging to ASH in the last five years.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The conditions applicable to grants awarded to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) are set out in the grant award letters. The Department has made clear that none of this funding is to be used for lobbying purposes.

The Section 64 grant must be spent in delivering the the agreed project outputs set out in the grant award letter and it does not fund secretariat support for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health.

ASH’s compliance with the conditions of the grant is assessed at the grant monitoring meetings held between the Deputy Director of tobacco control and representatives from ASH as well as in the final full year grant monitoring and governance reports.

The Department is required to retain information relating to Section 64 grants for six years. The full amount of the grant was spent for each year that a grant was provided to ASH in the past six years.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2015-10-28.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will publish annually a list of Alternative Investment Market companies that qualify for Inheritance Tax relief.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) do not have a list of Alternative Investment Market companies that qualify for Business Property Relief.

The claim to the relief will depend on the circumstances of each case. Shares in a company might no longer qualify for Business Property Relief if the company went into liquidation or moved to a full listing on the UK Stock Exchange after publication. Any information provided by HMRC about a company may become out of date quickly raising the risk that relief is claimed incorrectly.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2016-01-28.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, for each year in which a grant was provided to the group Action on Smoking and Health, how much (1) was spent against the original grant, (2) constituted underspend, and (3) was returned to the Department of Health.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The conditions applicable to grants awarded to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) are set out in the grant award letters. The Department has made clear that none of this funding is to be used for lobbying purposes.

The Section 64 grant must be spent in delivering the the agreed project outputs set out in the grant award letter and it does not fund secretariat support for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health.

ASH’s compliance with the conditions of the grant is assessed at the grant monitoring meetings held between the Deputy Director of tobacco control and representatives from ASH as well as in the final full year grant monitoring and governance reports.

The Department is required to retain information relating to Section 64 grants for six years. The full amount of the grant was spent for each year that a grant was provided to ASH in the past six years.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2015-10-28.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the UN OISL report published in September, what action they intend to take to bring to justice those British citizens residing in the United Kingdom who are alleged to have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity whilst fighting for the Tamil Tigers.

Lord Bates

The investigation and prosecution of all criminal offences, including whether an offence has been committed, is an operational matter for the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of the budget estimate in relation to the projects to be delivered in the 2015–16 grant application from the group Action on Smoking and Health and all other budget estimates received by the Department of Health in each of the last five years from that organisation.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The proposed budget estimates received from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) for each of the last five years for a Section 64 grant is attached. Commercially sensitive information has been redacted.

As the agreed project outputs make clear, the 2015-16 Section 64 grant funding awarded to ASH will be spent in the current financial year, including work relating to preparation for legislation coming into force later in 2016.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2015-11-09.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which rebel groups in Syria are recognised and supported by the UK.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We support several moderate opposition groups in Syria who we would want to see involved in a political process. We define these groups in terms of ideology and tactics: moderates are liberal, secular or Islamist in their political outlook, call for a wider pluralistic system that respects the rights of all Syrians and reject terrorism and terrorist tactics, for example by seeking to protect civilians from harm and to prevent abuses. Several moderate opposition groups refer to themselves as being part of the Free Syrian Army. The UK does not support designated terrorist organisations in Syria or groups who use terrorist tactics, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Jabhat al Nusra, which are designated terrorist organisations under the UN al Qaeda sanctions regime.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2016-02-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the grant awarded to Action on Smoking and Health for 2015–16 relates to activities to be delivered beyond the end of the financial year; and, as the grant conditions stipulate that such activities must be delivered prior to that day, whether they will investigate.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The proposed budget estimates received from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) for each of the last five years for a Section 64 grant is attached. Commercially sensitive information has been redacted.

As the agreed project outputs make clear, the 2015-16 Section 64 grant funding awarded to ASH will be spent in the current financial year, including work relating to preparation for legislation coming into force later in 2016.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2015-11-09.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which rebel groups in Syria are not supported by the UK.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We support several moderate opposition groups in Syria who we would want to see involved in a political process. We define these groups in terms of ideology and tactics: moderates are liberal, secular or Islamist in their political outlook, call for a wider pluralistic system that respects the rights of all Syrians and reject terrorism and terrorist tactics, for example by seeking to protect civilians from harm and to prevent abuses. Several moderate opposition groups refer to themselves as being part of the Free Syrian Army. The UK does not support designated terrorist organisations in Syria or groups who use terrorist tactics, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Jabhat al Nusra, which are designated terrorist organisations under the UN al Qaeda sanctions regime.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2016-02-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps the Department of Health plans to take to ensure that it complies with the announcement of the Cabinet Office on 6 February that no payments or grants awarded to organisations should be used for the influencing or attempted influencing of (1) Parliament, government or political parties, (2) the awarding or renewal of contracts and grants, or (3) legislative or regulatory action.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department will review the terms of its grant awards and associated grant monitoring processes in line with guidance issued by the Cabinet Office on the 6 February 2016.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Naseby on 2015-11-18.

To ask the Chairman of Committees what consultation there has been about the proposals for record copies of public acts to be printed on paper rather than vellum.

Lord Laming

The House of Lords agreed to cease using vellum for public Acts in 1999, with a resolution to that effect being passed on 14 October 1999. At that time, the change was not agreed by the House of Commons.

Since then the House of Lords has continued to pay for the production of two copies of each public Act of Parliament, printed on vellum. (One copy is retained in the Parliamentary Archives; one copy is sent to the National Archives.) The Lords has done this even though it is not in accord with the October 1999 resolution of this House.

In the past six years (2009/10 to 2014/15) the Lords has spent a total of £620,440 on vellum Acts; an average of just over £103,000 per year.

This is despite the availability of archival paper which is of extremely high quality and durability. Private Acts of Parliament have been printed on archival quality paper since 1956, and I am not aware that vellum is now used for any other governmental or parliamentary records.

The National Archives have confirmed the view they took in 1999; that they do not require a vellum copy, and that archival quality paper is sufficient to maintain the public record.

Switching from vellum to high quality archival paper would, on a conservative estimate, save approximately 80% on current costs – or around £80,000 per year. The exact level of savings to public funds will depend on the number of Acts passed, and number of pages per Act, per year, and the precise specification and contractual arrangements agreed for future printing.

As well as being an expensive raw material, vellum requires a highly specialised form of printing which is not widely available, the machinery for which is expensive to maintain, and which is likely to be more difficult to procure on the expiry of the House’s current printing contract in March 2016.

As the start of a new Parliament seemed a natural point at which to implement the change previously agreed by this House, the main party Leaders, the Convenor and the Lord Speaker were consulted early in the present session, and the House Committee was informed in July 2015. I then wrote to the Chairman of the House of Commons Administration Committee on 17 September to invite that House to agree to the change.