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

449135

registered interest
date	01/02/2016
answering body	HM Treasury
answering dept id	14
answering dept short name	Treasury
answering dept sort name	CaTreasury
hansard heading	Assets: North Korea
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 O’Neill of Gatley on 26 January (HL4928), whether any assets linked to North Korean individuals or organisations that are not associated with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) nuclear programmes are held in the UK; and what steps they are taking to freeze assets held by individuals or organisations that are not associated with the DPRK nuclear programme that they suspect to be linked to weapons proliferation, smuggling, money laundering, or human rights abuses in North Korea.
tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
uin	HL5645
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/02/2016 answer text <p>Existing UN and EU sanctions against North Korea, which include measures such as asset freezes, are based upon UN Security Council Resolutions prohibiting the further development of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Therefore, the current requirement to freeze funds or economic resources only occurs in circumstances where the funds and economic resources are controlled by the persons and entities designated by the Sanctions committee, the Security Council or the EU council as being engaged in North Korea’s nuclear-related, ballistic missile related, or other weapons of mass destruction-related programmes.</p><p> </p><p>The UK is currently discussing a response to the nuclear test of 6 January with key allies and partners. We want the response to be robust and send North Korea a clear signal that it must change its approach to international peace and security, We are also using our position as a member of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) to discuss ways in which the international community can increase the pressure on North Korea to improve its appalling human rights record. North Korea will be discussed during the forthcoming March session of the HRC.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord O'Neill of Gatley question first answered 09/02/2016 16:02:36 answering member 4536 label Biography information for Lord O'Neill of Gatley
tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

449136

registered interest
date	01/02/2016
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Human Embryo Experiments
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 for Health, Melanie Johnson, on 11 May 2004 (HC Deb, col 315W), by Lord Darzi of Denham on 21 April 2008 (WA 235) and by Lord Prior of Brampton on 27 January (HL5039), whether it remains the case that lay summaries of research proposals submitted to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) are placed on its website with an invitation to the public to submit comments; if so, when the last licence applications and lay summaries were placed on its website; where and when the title of the licence application to use CRISPR-Cas9 and the lay summary submitted by the applicant were published on the HFEA website; and why the section of the HFEA website that describes human embryo research awaiting approval (http://www.hfea.gov.uk/167.html) has continued to state that there "are currently no research projects awaiting approval".
tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
uin	HL5646
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/02/2016 answer text <p>The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that lay summaries of research proposals submitted to the Authority are no longer placed on its website prior to consideration by a HFEA Licence Committee. Lay summaries are, however, available on the website in the inspection report for each research project, linked to a list of all licensed research projects.</p><p> </p><p>The noble Lord is correct that the HFEA website still mistakenly refers to past practice. We are advised that this will be rectified shortly.</p> answering member printed Lord Prior of Brampton question first answered 11/02/2016 14:59:37 answering member 127 label Biography information for Lord Prior of Brampton
tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

449137

registered interest
date	01/02/2016
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Stem Cells
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what evidence the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has received that bona fide trophectoderm stem cells have already been successfully derived and propagated from human embryos; whether any such stem cell lines have been deposited in the UK Stem Cell Bank; and if so, when.
tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
uin	HL5647
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/02/2016 answer text <p>The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that it holds information on the number of stem cell lines derived in each licensed research project and checks for compliance (on inspection) with the requirement for stem cell lines to be deposited in the UK Stem Cell Bank. However, this information does not differentiate between stem cells derived from the inner cell mass and those from trophectoderm.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Prior of Brampton question first answered 11/02/2016 14:59:22 answering member 127 label Biography information for Lord Prior of Brampton
tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

449138

registered interest
date	01/02/2016
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Human Embryo Experiments
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 Prior of Brampton on 24 July 2015 (HL1524), how many modifications can be made to an existing research licence previously approved by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority before it can no longer be legitimately considered as essentially the same research project as that for which a licence was originally sought; and what sort of modifications can be made to an existing research licence before it is no longer considered to have exactly the same aims as those in the initial licence application that were originally deemed to fulfil the purposes specified in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 as amended.
tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
uin	HL5648
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/02/2016 answer text <p>The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that there are no fixed number of modifications that can be made to an existing research licence project. Such questions are considered on a case by case basis with reference to the statutory tests.</p> answering member printed Lord Prior of Brampton question first answered 11/02/2016 14:47:19 answering member 127 label Biography information for Lord Prior of Brampton
tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

449139

registered interest
date	01/02/2016
answering body	Department of Health
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health
answering dept sort name	Health
hansard heading	Human Embryo Experiments
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 Prior of Brampton on 27 January (HL5039), whether they are now able to say whether a stated aim of the recently approved application by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to perform genome editing in human embryos by means of CRISPR-Cas9 was, and remains, to better understand why miscarriages occur in some pregnancies; and if not, whether the description of that research that will be made public will disclose the specific assay the researchers concerned had proposed using to determine whether embryos subjected to gene editing might be either able or unable to implant in a womb.
tabling member printed	Lord Alton of Liverpool
uin	HL5649
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 11/02/2016 answer text <p>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.</p><p> </p><p>The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended) permits the genetic modification of embryos in research, subject to an HFEA licence. As the regulator, the HFEA’s responsibility is to apply the test in the legislation, namely that the research is necessary or desirable for any of the purposes specified in the Act and that the use of embryos is necessary. The Licence Committee has added a condition to the licence that no research using genome editing may take place until it has received approval from an NHS Research Ethics Committee.</p> answering member printed Lord Prior of Brampton grouped question UIN HL5773 HL5959 HL5960 question first answered 11/02/2016 17:51:31 answering member 127 label Biography information for Lord Prior of Brampton
tabling member	738 label Biography information for Lord Alton of Liverpool

449140

registered interest
date	01/02/2016
answering body	Department for Transport
answering dept id	27
answering dept short name	Transport
answering dept sort name	Transport
hansard heading	Unmanned Air Vehicles
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to minimise the risk to aircraft from the use of drones, and whether those steps include a system of registration of ownership.
tabling member printed	Lord Beecham
uin	HL5650
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/02/2016 answer text <p>Drones are becoming increasingly popular and have the potential to bring significant economic benefits, but it is vital that they are operated safely, in a way that does not put members of the public and other aircraft at risk. There are existing regulations in place that require users of drones to maintain direct, unaided visual contact with their vehicle and to not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property. Work is underway to better understand the level of risk posed by flying drones close to commercial planes. We are talking to both the Civil Aviation Authority and airports to find technical solutions to the problems around airport, these include mandated geo-fencing or frequency jammers.</p><p> </p><p>The department is leading efforts with international bodies to develop a stringent regulatory framework focusing on safety. We are currently undertaking public dialogues ahead of a public consultation which will help to inform a government strategy to be published this year. The consultation will look at a range of options including regulation, registration and licensing options and a database to increase transparency on the use of drones for the general public.</p><p> </p><p>The Civil Aviation Authority is undertaking activities to raise awareness of the basic safety requirements, including an ongoing ‘Dronecode’ safety awareness campaign, issuing safety leaflets at the point of sale, publishing an animated video on their website, and running ‘small UAS’ Risk and Hazard workshops with industry as part of the Mid Air Collision Programme.</p><p> </p> answering member printed Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon question first answered 10/02/2016 11:54:41 answering member 4210 label Biography information for Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
tabling member	4181 label Biography information for Lord Beecham

449141

registered interest
date	01/02/2016
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	Thames Tideway Tunnel
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what (1) proportion, and (2) volume, of excavated spoil from each of the Thames Tideway Tunnel construction sites will be transported from them by river.
tabling member printed	Lord Berkeley
uin	HL5651
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/02/2016 answer text <p>The Development Consent Order for the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) requires 100% of the specified materials to be transported by river for construction sites on the Thames foreshore, unless an approved derogation is in place. Derogations could include periods when it is not possible to use river transport due to factors such as river closures, incidents, weather and supply chain failures, and for material not suitable for river transport such as contaminated material that needs specialist disposal or material that is too wet for safe transit without specialist vessels.</p><p>The commitment to transportation by river from the construction sites was secured through the River Transport Strategy, which was included in Thames Water’s application for Development Consent for the Tunnel, although it only applies to specific material listed in the Strategy (including excavated material from the main tunnel at main tunnel drive sites and material excavated from the shafts at foreshore sites).</p><p>Bazalgette Tunnel Limited (operating as Tideway), the company appointed to design, finance, build and operate the TTT, has estimated the proportion and volume of excavated spoil that will be transported by river from each of the TTT construction foreshore sites (see Table 1 below). The percentages shown for each site demonstrate the anticipated effect of derogations on the amounts of excavated spoil they will be able to transport by river.</p><p>However, Tideway and appointed mains works contractors have made commitments to maximise their use of river transport and are therefore working on opportunities to increase the extent of river transport further in liaison with the Local Authorities, Greater London Authority, Port of London Authority and Transport for London.</p><p>Table 1 - Excavated specified material percentage and volume by river transport</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>SITE</p></td><td><p>% of all excavated specified material transported by river</p></td><td><p>Volume to be transported by river (m3)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Putney Bridge Foreshore</p></td><td><p>90%</p></td><td><p>14,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Carnwath Road Riverside</p></td><td><p>90%</p></td><td><p>353,400</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cremorne Wharf Depot</p></td><td><p>90%</p></td><td><p>9,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Chelsea Embankment</p></td><td><p>90%</p></td><td><p>44,400</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Kirtling Street</p></td><td><p>81%</p></td><td><p>693,600 *</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Heathwall Pumping Station</p></td><td><p>82%</p></td><td><p>16,300**</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Albert Embankment</p></td><td><p>90%</p></td><td><p>56,300</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Victoria Embankment</p></td><td><p>90%</p></td><td><p>27,900</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Blackfriars Bridge</p></td><td><p>90%</p></td><td><p>72,100</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Chambers Wharf</p></td><td><p>90%</p></td><td><p>416,100</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>King Edward Memorial Park</p></td><td><p>90%</p></td><td><p>57,500</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>*excludes shaft and excavated material from ‘other' minor structures, due to restricted river frontage</p><p> </p><p>**excludes 'excavated material from ‘other' minor structures', due to site constraints</p> answering member printed Lord Gardiner of Kimble question first answered 15/02/2016 14:53:05 answering member 4161 label Biography information for Lord Gardiner of Kimble
tabling member	3526 label Biography information for Lord Berkeley

449142

registered interest
date	01/02/2016
answering body	Department for Transport
answering dept id	27
answering dept short name	Transport
answering dept sort name	Transport
hansard heading	Railways: Devon
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 28 January (HL Deb, col 1405), what is the estimated cost of the next two years’ work by Network Rail that has now been cancelled on (1) the stabilisation of the cliff between Parsons and Teignmouth, and (2) breakwaters, groynes and revetments in the Dawlish area; and what are the new estimated completion dates for those works.
tabling member printed	Lord Berkeley
uin	HL5652
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/02/2016 answer text <p>No work on this study has been cancelled. Network Rail is currently progressing the Exeter to Newton Abbot geo-environmental study on the existing route via Dawlish to explore options which will reduce the chances of future route failure. The work will produce a short-list of options for further strengthening of the existing railway from Control Period 6 (CP6) (2019 to 2024) and beyond. It is due to be fully complete in May 2016 and will feed into the funding deliberations for CP6 and beyond.</p><p> </p><p>Plans for Control Period 6 will be defined through the standard industry planning processes. These will take into account the recommendations of the Bowe and Shaw reviews and the re-profiling carried out by Sir Peter Hendy, along with the views of both PRTF and Network Rail .This process is led by Network Rail, with input from a wide range of stakeholders and funders, and covers the needs of each 5-year Rail Investment Strategy (RIS) with consideration of longer term requirements up to 2043.</p> answering member printed Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon question first answered 10/02/2016 11:50:27 answering member 4210 label Biography information for Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
tabling member	3526 label Biography information for Lord Berkeley

449143

registered interest
date	01/02/2016
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	Thames Tideway Tunnel
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what economic benefits are attributed in the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs document of October 2015 <i>Creating a River Thames fit for our future: An updated strategic and economic case for the Thames Tideway Tunnel</i> to (1) the Lee Tunnel, and (2) the Thames Tideway Tunnel.
tabling member printed	Lord Berkeley
uin	HL5653
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/02/2016 answer text <p>The Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) are key aspects of a wider improvement scheme for the Thames Tideway designed to meet the environmental standards set for the Tideway and achieve the environmental requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.</p><p>The updated assessment of October 2015 provided a cost-benefit analysis focused on the TTT in isolation, to inform Government’s decision on whether to proceed with that project as the last major phase of the wider Tideway environmental improvement works. Research set out in this assessment showed that the Lee Tunnel, while having significant local benefit, would not in itself deliver the wider environmental outcomes sought from the overall Tideway improvement scheme. The 2015 assessment therefore assumed no benefits are secured by the Lee Tunnel on its own. It demonstrated the benefits of the TTT, based on an assessment of people’s willingness to pay, to be in the region of £7.4 billion to £12.7 billion (at 2014 prices).</p><p>Defra carried out two sensitivity tests on this assumption (published alongside the main results in the cost-benefit annex to the Strategic and Economic case), to ensure the robustness of that decision. One test factored in the cost of the Lee Tunnel to the cost-benefit analysis for the TTT, and the second assumed that the Lee Tunnel reduced the benefit attributed to the TTT by 40%. In neither test did the economic case for the TTT become unfavourable.</p> answering member printed Lord Gardiner of Kimble question first answered 15/02/2016 14:42:39 answering member 4161 label Biography information for Lord Gardiner of Kimble
tabling member	3526 label Biography information for Lord Berkeley

449144

registered interest
date	01/02/2016
answering body	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept id	16
answering dept short name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
answering dept sort name	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
hansard heading	EU Action: Parliamentary Scrutiny
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, for each government department, from July to December 2015, on how many occasions the scrutiny reserve resolution in (1) the House of Lords, and (2) the House of Commons, was overridden, and in respect of how many documents an override occurred in (1) both Houses, or (2) either House.
tabling member printed	Lord Boswell of Aynho
uin	HL5654
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/02/2016 answer text <p>Between July and December 2015, 434 Explanatory Memoranda on EU documents were submitted for scrutiny. There were 54 occasions when the Government supported decisions in the EU Council of Ministers before the scrutiny procedures had been completed by either one or both Scrutiny Committees. In each case the Government wrote to the Scrutiny Committees to explain the reasons why it was important for the Government to support the proposal before the scrutiny process could be completed or where the Committees were unable to provide a waiver for the Government to support the proposal whilst retaining the issue under scrutiny. As with previous six-monthly periods, the largest category of instrument were fast-moving EU restrictive measures where there were overrides on 40 such measures (74 per cent of the total number) of which 12 measures addressed the situation in Iran.</p><p>The figures requested are set out below:</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Department</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>(1). House of Lords Override</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>(2). House of Commons override</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>(1). No. of overrides in both Houses</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>(2). Total no. of overrides</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Foreign and Commonwealth Office</p></td><td><p>42</p></td><td><p>44</p></td><td><p>41</p></td><td><p>45</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>HM Treasury</p></td><td><p>7</p></td><td><p>7</p></td><td><p>7</p></td><td><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Culture, Media and Sport</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Food Standards Agency</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Totals</p></td><td><p>50</p></td><td><p>53</p></td><td><p>49</p></td><td><p>54</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>I refer the noble Lord to my answer of 29 July 2015 (HL1633) which presented the figures for overrides for the period January-June 2015. That answer contained two errors. In a letter dated 16 September 2015 to the Chairs of the two Scrutiny Committees, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), undertook to correct the errors when providing figures for the period July-December 2015. One Foreign and Commonwealth Office override on the Council decision extending the mandate of the EU Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina had been counted twice. This brings the overall total down from 90 to 89. The total in the House of Lords (54) is unchanged since the Committee cleared that proposal before adoption, but it does reduce the number declared for the House of Commons from 86 to 85. The answer also stated that the 39 measures (the largest category of the total) were the Common Foreign and Security Policy restrictive measures. A recalculation has shown the figure to be 38. The earlier answer also highlighted an unresolved issue of whether an override needed to be recorded against a Commission Communication on the Paris Protocol (‘A Blueprint for tackling Global Climate Change beyond 2020’) because discussion with the European Scrutiny Committee had at that stage not been concluded. It was subsequently agreed that agreement of the document did not need to be recorded as a scrutiny override.</p> answering member printed Baroness Anelay of St Johns question first answered 15/02/2016 14:51:37 answering member 3474 label Biography information for Baroness Anelay of St Johns
tabling member	352 label Biography information for Lord Boswell of Aynho