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 question first answered question first ministerially corrected answering member label attachment file name file name title title previous answer version answering member printed answering member label attachment file name file name title title
tabling member	label

Search

174084

	registered interest
	date	15/01/2015
	answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
	answering dept id	7
	answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
	answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
	hansard heading	Domestic Waste: Waste Disposal
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government which local authorities in England have taken part in the Weekly Collection Support Scheme; how many authorities took part in the expression of interest process; which have subsequently received financial support, and how much; and of those, which have reinstated weekly collections of general (“grey” or “residual”) waste, which have used the support to collect food waste separately, and which have used it in other ways.
	tabling member printed	Lord Greaves
	uin	HL4187
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/02/2015 answer text <p>In March 2012, my Department received initial expressions of interest from 151 lead local authorities, which resulted in bids from 113 local authorities. Some local authorities submitted multiple expressions of interest which were consolidated before final bid stage. The final bids were then assessed in line with the published criteria, and recipients then awarded funding.</p><p>A detailed table listing the schemes that are being supported is attached and on my Department’s website.</p><p> </p><p>It may be helpful to the noble Lord to outline what this Government has delivered since 2010:</p><p> </p><ul><li>Safeguarded weekly collections for 6 million households through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme as well as championing innovation and best practice; the answer of 14 May 2014, <em>Official Report</em>, House of Commons 646W, outlined how 14 million households in England have some form of weekly collection of smelly rubbish.</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Issued the first ever Whitehall guidance on weekly bin collections, demolishing the myths that fortnightly bin collections are needed to save money or increase recycling. This best practice was directly informed by the Weekly Collections Support Scheme;</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Supported over 40 innovative reward schemes to back recycling through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme (as pledged in the Coalition Agreement); the winning bids for a further Recycling Rewards Scheme for 2015-16 will be announced shortly;</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Stopped the Audit Commission inspections which marked down councils who do not adopt fortnightly rubbish collections, and rejected the Audit Commission guidance which advocated fortnightly collections (“Waste Management: The Strategic Challenge and Waste Management Quick Guide”);</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Abolished the Local Area Agreements and National Indicator 191 imposed by Whitehall which created perverse incentives to downgrade waste collection services;</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Scrapped the Whitehall requirement for municipal Annual Efficiency Statements, which allowed a reduction in the frequency of a household rubbish collection service to qualify as a “valid efficiency” and allowed revenue from bin fines to classed as a “cashable efficiency gain”;</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Scrapped the imposition of eco-towns which would have had fortnightly bin collections and/or bin taxes as part of the “eco-standards”;</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Through the Localism Act, revoked the 2008 legislation that allowed for the imposition of new bin taxes;</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Issued guidance to stop the imposition of illegal ‘backdoor bin charging’ on households bins;</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Stopped funding the ‘Waste Improvement Network’ which told councils to adopt fortnightly collections as best practice;</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Challenged the incorrect interpretation by some bodies that European Union directives require fortnightly collections, and resisted the imposition of bin taxes by the European Union;</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Removing powers of entry and snooping powers from bin inspectors and scrapped guidance telling councils to rifle through families’ bins;</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Changed building regulations and planning guidance to tackle ‘bin blight’, and worked with the NHBC Foundation to produce new best practice guidance for house builders;</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><ul><li>Changing the law through the Deregulation Bill to scrap unfair bin fines.</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Without our active support, Ministers are clear that weekly collections would have disappeared across England. This Government’s approach can be contrasted with the devolved Labour-led Administration in Wales, where fortnightly bin collections are official policy, and pilots of monthly bin collections are being actively encouraged.</p> answering member printed Lord Ahmed question first answered 12/02/2015 14:39:13 question first ministerially corrected 16/02/2015 17:33:13 answering member 3470 label Biography information for Lord Ahmed attachment 1 file name PQ HL4187 List of successful bidders to the Weekly Collection Support Scheme.xls title List of Supported Schemes previous answer version 45064 answering member printed Lord Ahmed answering member 3470 label Biography information for Lord Ahmed attachment 1 file name 150203 PQ677818 Lord Greaves - Attachment.pdf title List of Supported Schemes
	tabling member	2569 label Biography information for Lord Greaves

177981

	registered interest
	date	04/02/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Passive Smoking
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number of people who died as a result of passive smoking in each of the last five years.
	tabling member printed	Lord Laird
	uin	HL4692
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/02/2015 answer text <p>Exposure to secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard. More than 50 carcinogens have been identified in secondhand smoke.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The report of the United States Surgeon General titled “<em>The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke”</em> concluded that secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and adults who do not smoke. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in children. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer. Legislation to stop smoking in vehicles carrying children will come into force in England on 1 October 2015.</p><p> </p><p><br /> The report of the Royal College of <ins class="ministerial">Physicians </ins><del class="ministerial">Surgeons</del> titled “<em>Going smoke-free: The medical case for clean air in the home, at work and in public places”</em> included estimates that secondhand smoke exposure caused approximately 12<del class="ministerial">2</del>,200 deaths in the United Kingdom in 2003, and that the majority of these deaths occurred as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke in the home. These estimates were made prior to the introduction of smokefree legislation in England in 2007. Over the past decade, the proportion of smokers who say that they do not smoke in the home has increased.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The evidence is clear that smokefree legislation in England has had beneficial effects on health, as set out in the report “<em>The Impact of smokefree legislation in England: evidence review”</em> which was published alongside the Government’s <em>“Tobacco Control Plan for England”</em> in March 2011.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The reports referred to have been placed in the Library.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Earl Howe question first answered 17/02/2015 16:08:25 question first ministerially corrected 12/03/2015 12:34:25 answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe previous answer version 45462 answering member printed Earl Howe answering member 2000 label Biography information for Earl Howe
	tabling member	2479 label Biography information for Lord Laird

178691

	registered interest
	date	09/02/2015
	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	European Union
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.
	tabling member printed	Baroness Quin
	uin	HL4840
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/02/2015 answer text <p>As you will be aware, the Balance of Competences Review concluded in December. It was the most comprehensive analysis of the UK’s relationship with the EU ever undertaken. The review involved a large number of Departments across Whitehall to produce 32 reports. The Review was based on the evidence and views received through widespread consultation with interested parties from across society. Across the whole review, departments received close to 2,300 evidence submissions. Departments held over 250 events, attended by around 2,100 stakeholders.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>It was important that what is an unprecedented examination of EU membership was done with appropriate time and care. But the government is also very conscious of the need to ensure value for money in everything it does.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>(1) Staff time</p><p> </p><p><strong>Between 2012-2013, the Balance of Competences Review Team in the Department was staffed by the equivalent of one Grade 7 (salary range £47, 545 - £55,882), and one intern (salary range £23,869 – £27, 281) dedicating 100% of their time to the review to project manage 7 BIS led reports and 1 joint report. Between 2013 – 2014 this was reduced to one Grade 7. Between 2012 – 2014 one Deputy Director (salary range £62,000 - £117,800) dedicated 20% of their time as the senior reporting officer for the review. All other work on the review was allocated, according to need, to existing staff within the Department. Therefore, providing a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>(2) Printing costs</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Printing and publication for the 8 Departmental reports, was coordinated centrally but paid for by the Department, with the exception of the Single Market Report which was printed in-house. Printing and publication costs for all 8 reports totalled £32,821.94. The costs for all 32 reports was £133, 053 </strong><ins class="ministerial"> This figure was a partial figure, covering the printing of some, but not all, reports across the whole review.</ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>(3) Running of Engagement events</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Each policy team in the Department held a wide range of engagement events over the 2 years; the department did not incur any costs for the running of these events. The facilities for hosting these events were either provided by other Government Departments or by business partners or were held on department premises at no extra cost to the department. </strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>(4) Witness </strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>From centrally held figures, we understand that across the whole of the Balance of Competences Review witness expenses amounted to approximately £2,255.00.</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>(5) Publicity</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>The Department did not incur any publicity costs as we published the reports and the call for evidence via email, social media and the Government website.</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>(6) All other associated costs</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Between 2012 – 2014 the Department commissioned research and analysis to form part of the literature review to provide the reports with legal analysis to ensure the reports were neither too analytical or too speculative and political, but instead adhere to the agreed treaties. The cost for all 8 reports was £108, 738.28. </strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><br /> Department officials incurred some additional associated costs due to travel to meetings and stakeholder events in the UK. Some officials also incurred costs related to events in Brussels. We estimate that the additional travel costs incurred amounted to less than £300.</strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe question first answered 19/02/2015 16:48:27 question first ministerially corrected 10/03/2015 16:18:58 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe previous answer version 45530 answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	518 label Biography information for Baroness Quin

178697

	registered interest
	date	09/02/2015
	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	European Union
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to UK Export Finance and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.
	tabling member printed	Lord Tugendhat
	uin	HL4846
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/02/2015 answer text <p><del class="ministerial">I refer my Noble Lord to the answer as given for <strong>HL4840</strong></del></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial">I refer the noble Lord to HL4847 for the combined answer.</ins></p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe question first answered 19/02/2015 16:52:19 question first ministerially corrected 23/02/2015 15:09:02 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe previous answer version 45531 answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	1705 label Biography information for Lord Tugendhat

178698

	registered interest
	date	09/02/2015
	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	European Union
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to UK Trade and Investment and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.
	tabling member printed	Lord Tugendhat
	uin	HL4847
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/02/2015 answer text <p><del class="ministerial">I refer my Noble Lord to the answer as given for <strong>HL4840</strong></del></p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial">As you will be aware, the Balance of Competences Review concluded in December. It was the most comprehensive analysis of the UK’s relationship with the EU ever undertaken. The review involved a large number of Departments across Whitehall to produce 32 reports. The Review was based on the evidence and views received through widespread consultation with interested parties from across society. Across the whole review, departments received close to 2,300 evidence submissions. Departments held over 250 events, attended by around 2,100 stakeholders.</ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial">It was important that what is an unprecedented examination of EU membership was done with appropriate time and care. But the government is also very conscious of the need to ensure value for money in everything it does.</ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial">(1) Staff time</ins></p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>Between 2012-2013, the Balance of Competences Review Team in the Department was staffed by the equivalent of one Grade 7 (salary range £47, 545 - £55,882), and one intern (salary range £23,869 – £27, 281) dedicating 100% of their time to the review to project manage 7 BIS led reports and 1 joint report. Between 2013 – 2014 this was reduced to one Grade 7. Between 2012 – 2014 one Deputy Director (salary range £62,000 - £117,800) dedicated 20% of their time as the senior reporting officer for the review. All other work on the review was allocated, according to need, to existing staff within the Department. Therefore, providing a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.</strong></ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>(2) Printing costs</strong></ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>Printing and publication for the 8 Departmental reports, was coordinated centrally but paid for by the Department, with the exception of the Single Market Report which was printed in-house. Printing and publication costs for all 8 reports totalled £32,821.94. The costs for all 32 reports was £133, 053. This figure was a partial figure, covering the printing of some, but not all, reports across the whole review. </strong></ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>(3) Running of Engagement events</strong></ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>Each policy team in the Department held a wide range of engagement events over the 2 years; the department did not incur any costs for the running of these events. The facilities for hosting these events were either provided by other Government Departments or by business partners or were held on department premises at no extra cost to the department. </strong></ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>(4) Witness </strong></ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>From centrally held figures, we understand that across the whole of the Balance of Competences Review witness expenses amounted to approximately £2,255.00.</strong></ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>(5) Publicity</strong></ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>The Department did not incur any publicity costs as we published the reports and the call for evidence via email, social media and the Government website.</strong></ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>(6) All other associated costs</strong></ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong>Between 2012 – 2014 the Department commissioned research and analysis to form part of the literature review to provide the reports with legal analysis to ensure the reports were neither too analytical or too speculative and political, but instead adhere to the agreed treaties. The cost for all 8 reports was £108, 738.28. </strong></ins></p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"><strong><br /> Department officials incurred some additional associated costs due to travel to meetings and stakeholder events in the UK. Some officials also incurred costs related to events in Brussels. We estimate that the additional travel costs incurred amounted to less than £300.</strong></ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe question first answered 19/02/2015 16:52:27 question first ministerially corrected 23/02/2015 15:08:40 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe previous answer version 45532 answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
	tabling member	1705 label Biography information for Lord Tugendhat

178680

	registered interest
	date	09/02/2015
	answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept id	13
	answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
	hansard heading	European Union
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.
	tabling member printed	Baroness Scott of Needham Market
	uin	HL4830
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/02/2015 answer text <p>Defra was responsible for the following reports as part of the Balance of Competences Review:</p><ul><li>Animal Health and Welfare and Food Safety (which was produced jointly with the Food Standards Agency);</li><li>Environment and Climate Change (which was produced jointly with DECC);</li><li>Agriculture; and</li><li>Fisheries.</li></ul><p> </p><p>1) Staff costs</p><p>The cost of the Defra team which led on producing the four reports between 2012 and 2014 was approximately £500,000. The team drew on expert advice from staff across the Department. Providing a full breakdown of all staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.</p><p> </p><p>2) Printing costs</p><p>Defra paid approximately £13<del class="ministerial">0</del>,000 to print and publish the four reports.</p><p> </p><p>3) Running engagement events</p><p>Engagement events were held in Brussels, various locations in all parts of the UK, and at Defra’s London and York offices. The total cost of events, including refreshments and Defra staff travel, was approximately £4,000. To provide a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.</p><p> </p><p>4) Witness expenses</p><p>Defra did not incur any expenses for witnesses.</p><p>5) Publicity</p><p>Defra did not incur expenses for publicity of the reports.</p><p> </p><p>6) All other associated costs</p><p>There were no other associated costs.</p> answering member printed Lord De Mauley question first answered 23/02/2015 13:02:07 question first ministerially corrected 11/03/2015 13:09:46 answering member 2202 label Biography information for Lord De Mauley previous answer version 45712 answering member printed Lord De Mauley answering member 2202 label Biography information for Lord De Mauley
	tabling member	2542 label Biography information for Baroness Scott of Needham Market

347943

	registered interest
	date	02/06/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Human Papillomavirus: Vaccination
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, to date, how many adverse reactions to (1) Cervarix, (2) Gardasil and (3) generic human papilloma virus vaccines have been reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; for each category, how many of those reports are of serious adverse reactions; and what age-specific rate those figures represent.
	tabling member printed	The Countess of Mar
	uin	HL229
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/06/2015 answer text <p>A total of 8,243 suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports with human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines have been reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), via the Yellow Card Scheme, up to 3 June 2015.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>To date, more than 8 million doses of HPV vaccine have been given across the United Kingdom as part of the routine immunisation programme. The MHRA does not hold data on age-specific vaccine usage, and therefore age-specific reporting rates cannot be calculated.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>It is important to note that a Yellow Card report is not proof of a side effect occurring, but a suspicion by the reporter that the vaccine may have been the cause. Yellow Card data cannot be used as a reliable indicator of the frequency of suspected ADRs to vaccines or medicines. The level of ADR reporting may fluctuate between given years due to a variety of reasons such as a medicine being new (reporting rates are generally higher when a product is first introduced), stimulated interest/publicity and variations in exposure to the medicine.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The possible known side effects, and the frequency, are listed in the product information which is provided with the vaccines. The vast majority of the 8,243 ADRs relate to the known risks of vaccination that are well-described in the available product information. The proportion of suspected ADRs for HPV vaccines that were reported as serious (32%) is less than the proportion reported as serious for other routinely used vaccines (68% overall) during the same time period. The expected benefits in protecting against HPV-related mortality and disease outweigh the known side effects of HPV vaccine.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The following table provides a breakdown of UK suspected spontaneous ADRs received via the Yellow Card Scheme in association with the HPV vaccine. The MHRA does not hold data on age-specific vaccine usage, and therefore age-specific reporting rates cannot be calculated.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Vaccine Brand</p></td><td><p>Total number of reports</p></td><td><p>Number of serious reports (% of total)</p></td><td><p>Reporting rate per 1000 doses (serious reporting rates per 1000)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cervarix</p></td><td><p>6,266</p></td><td><p>1,768 (28%)</p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">n/a **</ins><del class="ministerial">0.78 (0.22)</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gardasil</p></td><td><p>1,471</p></td><td><p>504 (34%)</p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">n/a **</ins><del class="ministerial">0.18 (0.06)</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>HPV Brand unspecified</p></td><td><p>507</p></td><td><p>326 (64%)</p></td><td><p><ins class="ministerial">n/a ** </ins><del class="ministerial">0.06 (0.04)</del></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total for Human Papilloma virus vaccines</p></td><td><p>*8,244</p></td><td><p>2,598 (32%)</p></td><td><p>1.03 (0.32)</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em>Source:</em> MHRA sentinel database for adverse reactions.</p><p> </p><p>* It should be noted that the total number of reports received will not be equal to the totals in the table above as some reports of suspected adverse reactions may have included more than one vaccine.</p><p><ins class="ministerial">**Updated UK-wide brand-specific usage data are not available to MHRA at the time of writing based on a minimum of 8 million combined doses of Cervarix and Gardasil administered across the UK to date.</ins></p><p> </p><p><ins class="ministerial"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p></ins></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The seriousness criteria for ADR reporting were determined by a working group of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) and are defined as 6 possible categories which are explained on the Yellow Card. The MHRA asks reporters to select one of the following criteria by ticking the appropriate box on the Yellow Card: (1) patient died due to reaction; (2) life threatening; (3) resulted in hospitalisation or prolonged inpatient hospitalisation; (4) congenital abnormality; and (5) involved persistent or significant disability or incapacity; or (6) if the reaction was deemed medically significant. In addition to this, seriousness of reaction terms has also been defined by the MHRA in its medical dictionary. Therefore an ADR report can be serious because the reporter considers the reaction to be serious or because the reaction term itself is considered serious in the MHRA medical dictionary.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Prior of Brampton question first answered 16/06/2015 14:35:02 question first ministerially corrected 03/07/2015 14:01:13 answering member 127 label Biography information for Lord Prior of Brampton previous answer version 5462 answering member printed Lord Prior of Brampton answering member 127 label Biography information for Lord Prior of Brampton
	tabling member	1861 label Biography information for The Countess of Mar

348423

	registered interest
	date	03/06/2015
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	General Practitioners
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the results of a survey on behalf of Monitor, which found that one in ten people are dissatisfied with their general practitioner surgery.
	tabling member printed	Lord Taylor of Warwick
	uin	HL235
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/06/2015 answer text <p>On 1 June 2015, Monitor published <em>Improving GP Services: Commissioners and Patient Choice</em>, which included the findings of a nationally representative survey conducted by Ipsos Mori.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The report noted a high level of satisfaction with general practice overall. It found that 81% of patients were satisfied with their general practitioner (GP) practice, while only 10% were dissatisfied.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Monitor’s report found that, after location, patients most value the ease of getting an appointment when choosing a GP practice. In order to improve access for patients, the Government has invested £175 million over two years through the Prime Minister’s GP Access Fund. This is testing improved and innovative access to GP services through longer opening hours, such as at evenings and weekends, but also different ways of accessing services, for example the use of Skype consultations. Altogether, there are now 57 schemes covering over 2,500 practices, meaning that over 18 million patients are expected to benefit from improved access and transformational change at local level by March 2016.</p><p>Additionally, the Primary Care Infrastructure Fund is investing £1 billion<ins class="ministerial">, including</ins> <del class="ministerial">and</del> £25 million as part of the Prime Minister’s GP Access Fund, over four years to improve premises and information technology, which will also improve access.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Prior of Brampton question first answered 17/06/2015 13:19:17 question first ministerially corrected 19/06/2015 11:00:07 answering member 127 label Biography information for Lord Prior of Brampton previous answer version 5697 answering member printed Lord Prior of Brampton answering member 127 label Biography information for Lord Prior of Brampton
	tabling member	1796 label Biography information for Lord Taylor of Warwick

348825

	registered interest
	date	08/06/2015
	answering body	Cabinet Office
	answering dept id	53
	answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
	answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
	hansard heading	Iraq Committee of Inquiry
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they expect the report of the Chilcot Inquiry to be published before the summer recess; and, if not, why not.
	tabling member printed	Lord Stoddart of Swindon
	uin	HL304
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/06/2015 answer text <p>Sir John Chilcot and the Prime Minister exchanged letters on 15 and 17 <ins class="ministerial">January</ins> <del class="ministerial">June</del>. In his letters, Sir John said that once the essential Maxwellisation process was complete, it was his intention to provide the Prime Minister with a timetable for the completion of the Inquiry’s report.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Bridges of Headley attachment 1 file name 2015-01-20_Chilcot_to_Cameron.pdf title Sir John Chilcot to David Cameron Letter 2 file name 2015-01-20_Cameron_to_Chilcot.pdf title David Cameron to Sir John Chilcot Letter question first answered 23/06/2015 11:16:54 question first ministerially corrected 24/06/2015 11:40:17 answering member 4535 label Biography information for Lord Bridges of Headley previous answer version 7535 answering member printed Lord Bridges of Headley attachment 1 file name 2015-01-20_Chilcot_to_Cameron.pdf title Sir John Chilcot to David Cameron Letter 2 file name 2015-01-20_Cameron_to_Chilcot.pdf title David Cameron to Sir John Chilcot Letter answering member 4535 label Biography information for Lord Bridges of Headley
	tabling member	950 label Biography information for Lord Stoddart of Swindon

383716

	registered interest
	date	18/06/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Secure Colleges: Leicestershire
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the costs that will have been incurred in the event that the planned provision of a secure college on the Glen Parva site does not go ahead.
	tabling member printed	Lord Beecham
	uin	HL624
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/07/2015 answer text <p><ins class="ministerial">The Coalition government legislated for secure colleges and we are now considering the next steps.</ins></p><br /><p><ins class="ministerial">Estimated s</ins><del class="ministerial">S</del>pend up to and including 30 April 2015 on the Secure College pathfinder was £1.56m resource (mainly expenditure on staff pay and procurement) and £4.04m capital (mainly design fees and site preparation costs).<ins class="ministerial"> These figures are subject to review by the National Audit Office in January 2016.</ins></p><br /><p>No additional costs would be incurred in the event that the pathfinder did not go ahead. The design work produced for the pathfinder could be used or adapted for various other forms of adult or youth custody. The prepared site at Glen Parva could be used for a range of developments.</p> answering member printed Lord Faulks question first answered 02/07/2015 15:59:41 question first ministerially corrected 07/12/2015 16:13:38 answering member 4183 label Biography information for Lord Faulks previous answer version 10857 answering member printed Lord Faulks answering member 4183 label Biography information for Lord Faulks
	tabling member	4181 label Biography information for Lord Beecham