Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

106156

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Leader of the House of Lords
	answering dept id	92
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name	Leader of the House of Lords
	hansard heading	Oral Questions
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask the Leader of the House whether she will propose to the Procedure Committee a review of the system for tabling oral questions in the House of Lords in respect of the requirement for members to queue.
	tabling member printed	Lord Avebury
	uin	HL2628
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>The process for tabling oral questions was considered in detail in the 2012-13 session. In response to concerns raised about the current “first-come-first-served” system - including a concern about the requirement to queue raised by my Noble Friend, Lady Sharples - the Procedure Committee proposed the introduction of a ballot in its place (Procedure Committee, 3rd Report, Session 2012-13). The House remitted the issue back to the Procedure Committee for further consideration (HL Deb 9 Jan 2013, cols 145-172). <br><br>That further review did not identify a clear consensus as to whether a ballot was preferred to the “first-come-first-served” system (see Procedure Committee, 5th Report, Session 2012-13; see also HL Deb 24 April 2013, cols 1406-1417). <br><br>I know that strong views persist on both sides of the argument about this issue. I will write to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee on my Noble Friend’s behalf to suggest that the matter might be discussed at a future meeting of the Procedure Committee.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Baroness Stowell of Beeston question first answered 18/11/2014 14:34:08 answering member 4205 label Biography information for Baroness Stowell of Beeston
	tabling member	1665 label Biography information for Lord Avebury

106147

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Department for Education
	answering dept id	60
	answering dept short name	Education
	answering dept sort name	Education
	hansard heading	Education
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Nash on 23 October (HL2026), why students without grade C maths and English whose school leaving age was raised in 2013 will have to wait until September 2015 for the new core maths level 3 and will be without a special "stepping stone" qualification in English.
	tabling member printed	Lord Quirk
	uin	HL2619
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>The new core maths qualification is designed for students who have already achieved a GCSE grade C and wish to continue studying maths but not necessarily at AS/A level.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Qualifications are already available for students that have not achieved a GCSE C grade in either maths or English but are not yet ready to retake their GCSE.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>A list of 263 stepping stone qualifications for teaching from September 2014 was published on 17 July and is updated regularly. 178 of those qualifications are specifically for English, 79 for maths and 6 combined.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Nash question first answered 18/11/2014 15:48:59 answering member 4270 label Biography information for Lord Nash
	tabling member	3254 label Biography information for Lord Quirk

106165

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Prerogative of Mercy
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many times the royal prerogative of mercy has been exercised in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively in the past five years; and of that number, how many, if any, in each of the countries have been without consultation with the relevant police authorities.
	tabling member printed	Lord Rogan
	uin	HL2637
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>The exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy may currently take one of three forms:</p><p> </p><p>i) The grant of a Free Pardon;</p><p>ii) The grant of a conditional Pardon;</p><p>iii) Remission of all or part of a penalty by either a) a pledge of public faith, which most commonly occurs when an offender's release dates are incorrectly calculated or b) for meritorious conduct, such as saving the life of another offender/member of staff or coming to the aid of a member of staff.</p><p> </p><p>By Constitutional convention, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (in succession to the Home Secretary) is responsible, in England and Wales (and the Channel Islands), for recommending to Her Majesty the Queen the exercise of the prerogative of mercy to grant a Royal Pardon. In Northern Ireland the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for reserved matters and the Justice Minister for Northern Ireland for devolved matters, and in Scotland it is devolved to the First Minister. The Secretary of State for Defence also has the responsibility in relation to members of the armed forces.</p><p> </p><p>In the past five years, only two free pardons were granted by Her Majesty the Queen in England in 2009 and 2014 respectively.</p><p> </p><p>With regard to Remission Pardons the Royal Prerogative of Mercy has not been exercised on this basis. However, for England &amp; Wales no records are held for the period prior to 1 February 2013.</p><p> </p><p>In respect of the two free pardons that have been issued, the Police Authority was consulted in one of these decisions while the other pardon was granted posthumously and the Police Authority was not consulted.</p> answering member printed Lord Faulks question first answered 18/11/2014 13:37:45 answering member 4183 label Biography information for Lord Faulks
	tabling member	2478 label Biography information for Lord Rogan

106182

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Cabinet Office
	answering dept id	53
	answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
	answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
	hansard heading	Politics and Government
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government which of the proposals contained in the section "Political Reform" of <i>The Coalition: our programme for government</i> have been fully implemented, partially implemented, are in the process of being implemented or remain unimplemented, respectively.
	tabling member printed	Lord Norton of Louth
	uin	HL2653
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>In January 2013, the Government published The Coalition: Together in the National Interest, which was a mid-term review providing an update on the progress of proposals contained within “The Coalition: our programme for government” including those relating to political reform.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Since the publication of this document, a fair and decisive referendum has taken place in Scotland, legislation has been brought forward to introduce a power of recall and the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 has received Royal Assent.</p> answering member printed Lord Wallace of Saltaire question first answered 18/11/2014 16:28:15 answering member 1816 label Biography information for Lord Wallace of Saltaire
	tabling member	3187 label Biography information for Lord Norton of Louth

106188

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Department for Transport
	answering dept id	27
	answering dept short name	Transport
	answering dept sort name	Transport
	hansard heading	Cycling: Helmets
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to make it a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets; and if not, why not.
	tabling member printed	Lord Laird
	uin	HL2659
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>We have no plans to make it a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.</p><p> </p><p>Government policy is that the cycle helmets offer a degree of protection for cyclists in the event of a fall from a cycle and some types of collisions. In line with the Highway Code rule 59, we encourage their use by all cyclists and in particular by children. However people and parents are free to choose whether to follow this advice and we have no plans to legislate to introduce mandatory enforcement of cycle helmet wearing.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member printed Baroness Kramer question first answered 18/11/2014 12:44:45 answering member 1557 label Biography information for Baroness Kramer
	tabling member	2479 label Biography information for Lord Laird

106189

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Department for Transport
	answering dept id	27
	answering dept short name	Transport
	answering dept sort name	Transport
	hansard heading	Cycling
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to make cycling road rules more enforceable; and if not, why not.
	tabling member printed	Lord Laird
	uin	HL2660
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>The enforcement of cycling offences is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police. Depending on the offence officers can issue verbal warnings, fixed penalty notices or report the road user for formal prosecution. We support any action taken by the police to deter and reduce the number of cycling offences.</p> answering member printed Baroness Kramer question first answered 18/11/2014 12:43:48 answering member 1557 label Biography information for Baroness Kramer
	tabling member	2479 label Biography information for Lord Laird

106190

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Department for Transport
	answering dept id	27
	answering dept short name	Transport
	answering dept sort name	Transport
	hansard heading	Driving Licences: Northern Ireland
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, since the transfer of driver and vehicle licensing services for people in Northern Ireland from Coleraine to Swansea, how motorists in Northern Ireland obtain licenses; what is their assessment of the success of the new system; and what changes to that system they propose, if any.
	tabling member printed	Lord Laird
	uin	HL2661
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/11/2014 answer text <p>Driver licensing in Northern Ireland is a devolved issue. Responsibility for issuing driving licences in Northern Ireland remains with the Driver and Vehicle Agency, based in Coleraine, and there have been no changes in how motorists in Northern Ireland obtain driving licences.</p><p> </p><p>Vehicle registration and licensing in Northern Ireland is not devolved and is the responsibility of the UK Government. The operational responsibility for delivering vehicle registration and licensing services in Northern Ireland passed from the Driver and Vehicle Agency to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea on 21 July. For the first time, motorists in Northern Ireland now have access to the same range of services as those in Great Britain. This includes online vehicle licensing, a wider range of vehicle licensing services available at around 175 Post Offices in Northern Ireland and access to direct debit payments for vehicle excise duty.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Baroness Kramer question first answered 11/11/2014 11:55:32 answering member 1557 label Biography information for Baroness Kramer
	tabling member	2479 label Biography information for Lord Laird

106184

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept id	26
	answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
	hansard heading	Productivity
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Livingston of Parkhead on 13 October (HL1890), what they consider to be the reasons for the differences between the output per worker per hour in the United Kingdom and those of the other G7 countries, as reported by the Office for National Statistics in its statistical bulletin <i>International Comparisons of Productivity—Final Estimates 2012</i>; and what plans they have to improve the United Kingdom’s relative position.
	tabling member printed	Lord Birt
	uin	HL2655
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>The most up to date productivity data for 2012 are in the table.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Current Price Productivity, 2012, G7 countries, Index UK=100</strong></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong><em> </em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>Japan</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>Germany</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>Canada</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>Italy</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>France</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>US</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>UK</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>G7 excl. UK</em></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>GDP per worker</strong></p></td><td><p>90</p></td><td><p>108</p></td><td><p>104</p></td><td><p>116</p></td><td><p>115</p></td><td><p>140</p></td><td><p>100</p></td><td><p>120</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>GDP per hour worked</strong></p></td><td><p>85</p></td><td><p>129</p></td><td><p>100</p></td><td><p>109</p></td><td><p>128</p></td><td><p>130</p></td><td><p>100</p></td><td><p>117</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Source: International Comparisons of Productivity, First Estimates for 2013, ONS (Oct 2014)</p><p> </p><p>http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/icp/international-comparisons-of-productivity/2013---first-estimates/index.html</p><p> </p><p>Analysis undertaken by BIS (2012) to support Lord Heseltine’s Review of UK Competitiveness examined UK productivity in comparison to France, Germany and the USA. An analysis of productivity across all G7 countries has not yet been completed. The full analysis can be found <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34647/12-1207-benchmarking-uk-competitiveness-in-the-global-economy.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> but the main findings were:</p><p> </p><p>The analysis decomposed the productivity gap (measured by output per hour worked) into two components:</p><p> </p><ul><li>Sector productivity effect – the share of the gap arising due to productivity in a given sector being higher in another country than in the UK.</li><li>Sector mix effect – the share of the gap arising due to employment in another country being more concentrated in high productivity sectors than in the UK.</li></ul><p> </p><p>When UK productivity is compared to France, Germany and the USA, the sector productivity effect in each of the comparator countries fully explains the gap. As such, higher productivity across almost all sectors in each of these economies accounts for the entirety of their lead over the UK. In fact, the UK’s favourable sector mix went some way towards reducing the gap, particularly against France.</p><p> </p><p>Naturally, the factors driving the gap vary by country. However, at the aggregate level, the UK tends to have lower capital per head than France and Germany and a less efficient use of inputs in production (Total Factor Productivity) than the USA (<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32101/10-1213-economic-growth.pdf" target="_blank">BIS, 2010</a>). There is also a (smaller) gap between the UK and its major competitors in terms of skills. This is generally characterised as a gap in intermediate skills with France and Germany, and a gap in higher level skills relative to the USA.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Plans to Improve UK Productivity</strong></p><p> </p><p>Government policy focuses on delivering growth which in turn depends on productivity in the longer term. In this sense, the majority of longer run Government economic policy is ultimately about raising productivity.</p><p> </p><p>The Government’s industrial strategy and ‘The Plan for Growth’ are creating the right environment for businesses to invest and grow. This will continue to support UK long-term productivity growth.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Data Revisions</strong></p><p> </p><p>Recent changes to national accounts methodology have slightly reduced the productivity gap between the UK and other leading G7 economies. Data for 2012 were revised and are provided in the table above. In case it is of interest, the most recent data for 2013 is also included in the table below. A full decomposition of the productivity gap has not yet been undertaken using the revised data.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Current Price Productivity, 2013, G7 countries, Index UK=100</strong></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong><em> </em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>Japan</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>Germany</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>Canada</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>Italy</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>France</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>US</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>UK</em></strong></p></td><td><p><strong><em>G7 excl. UK</em></strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>GDP per worker</strong></p></td><td><p>88</p></td><td><p>107</p></td><td><p>103</p></td><td><p>115</p></td><td><p>114</p></td><td><p>139</p></td><td><p>100</p></td><td><p>119</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>GDP per hour worked</strong></p></td><td><p>85</p></td><td><p>129</p></td><td><p>101</p></td><td><p>109</p></td><td><p>128</p></td><td><p>130</p></td><td><p>100</p></td><td><p>117</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Source: International Comparisons of Productivity, First Estimates for 2013, ONS (Oct 2014)</p><p> </p><p>http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/icp/international-comparisons-of-productivity/2013---first-estimates/index.html</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>References</p><p> </p><p>BIS (2010) Economic Growth, BIS Economics Paper No. 9</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32101/10-1213-economic-growth.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32101/10-1213-economic-growth.pdf</a></p><p> </p><p>BIS (2012) Benchmarking UK Competitiveness in the Global Economy, BIS Economics Paper No. 19</p><p> </p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34647/12-1207-benchmarking-uk-competitiveness-in-the-global-economy.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34647/12-1207-benchmarking-uk-competitiveness-in-the-global-economy.pdf</a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Livingston of Parkhead question first answered 17/11/2014 12:31:53 answering member 4278 label Biography information for Lord Livingston of Parkhead
	tabling member	2533 label Biography information for Lord Birt

106168

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, Jane Ellison, on 12 September (HC Deb, col 750W), what evidence would be required to predict the cohort of patients that may develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; whether the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome would be part of any such evidence base; and, if not, why not.
	tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
	uin	HL2640
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 18/11/2014 answer text <p>The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that, with regard to the Human Fertility journal article, it has nothing to add to the answers given to the noble Lord on 22 October 2008 (Official Report WA110), 9 July 2012 (Official Report, cols. WA 202-3) and 8 January 2013 (WA23). Data regarding the cohort of patients described in Fertility and Sterility (volume 101, issue 4, pages 967–973) were not shared with the HFEA. However, the HFEA has access to the published article.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>It would be for clinicians and professional bodies to decide on the evidence required to predict the cohort of patients that may develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and to treat symptoms in accordance with guidelines.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>As outlined in the answer given on 23 Jan 2013 (Official Report WA217), the HFEA would refer to evidence based guidelines, produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, on these matters.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Earl Howe grouped question UIN HL2690 question first answered 18/11/2014 12:39:40 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
	tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

106169

	registered interest
	date	04/11/2014
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, Jane Ellison, on 11 September (HC Deb, cols 664–5W) and on 12 September (HC Deb, col 750W), how it is anticipated that proposed interventions for mitochondrial disease would not impact on the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.
	tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
	uin	HL2641
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/11/2014 answer text <p>Further to answers given on 12 September (HC Deb, col 750w) the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that if mitochondrial donation was permitted in treatment it is not anticipated that this would impact on the incidence of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome (OHSS). This is because any egg donation or collection processes necessary for mitochondrial donation would be carried out at HFEA licensed fertility clinics in line with the guidance outlined in the HFEA Code of Practice. Mitochondrial donation raises no new issues in respect of OHSS as the women who may donate eggs will be subject to the same protocols as those donating to fertility treatment.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Earl Howe question first answered 17/11/2014 12:08:24 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
	tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool