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

1718940

registered interest
date	16/05/2024
answering body	Department for Work and Pensions
answering dept id	29
answering dept short name	Work and Pensions
answering dept sort name	Work and Pensions
hansard heading	Silicosis: Composite Materials
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to protect workers from contracting silicosis, in particular from the installation of engineered stone countertops.
tabling member printed	Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
uin	HL4721
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/05/2024 answer text <p>The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) continues to inspect industries associated with exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) and to respond to concerns about risk management reported to HSE.</p><p> </p><p>Adequate control measures for protecting workers from the risks of exposure to RCS are legally required under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH), including water suppression, equipment enclosure, extraction and personal protective equipment, such as respirator masks. COSHH also requires workers to be trained to effectively implement such controls.</p><p> </p><p>HSE works proactively with key stakeholders and trade associations in the construction and manufacturing industries and is engaging with occupational clinicians, to understand any insights for enhancing future interventions aimed at RCS controls.</p> answering member printed Viscount Younger of Leckie question first answered 22/05/2024 12:08:47 answering member 4169 label Biography information for Viscount Younger of Leckie
tabling member	4719 label Biography information for Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle

1718941

registered interest
date	16/05/2024
answering body	Department for Transport
answering dept id	27
answering dept short name	Transport
answering dept sort name	Transport
hansard heading	East Coast Main Line: Timetables
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Davies of Gower on 13 May (HL4207), what impact the rigidity of the Network Code has had on the revision of train timetables on the East Coast Main Line; and what consideration they have given to instructing the parties, including the Office of Rail and Road, to revise the code to enable a satisfactory timetable to be delivered.
tabling member printed	Lord Bradshaw
uin	HL4722
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/05/2024 answer text <p>The industry steering group that oversees timetable introduction concluded that there were too many outstanding issues to have confidence that the new East Coast Main Line timetable can be delivered robustly in December 2024.</p><p> </p><p>Timetable production and access rights issues are governed by Network Rail’s Network Code, which is regulated by the ORR as the independent regulator to the rail industry. We expect the rail industry to work through these issues in order to deliver the upgraded timetable and realise the benefits of £4bn investment in track and train on the East Coast Main Line.</p> answering member printed Lord Davies of Gower question first answered 24/05/2024 08:29:11 answering member 4499 label Biography information for Lord Davies of Gower
tabling member	2483 label Biography information for Lord Bradshaw

1718942

registered interest
date	16/05/2024
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Asylum
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the appropriate length of time before an asylum claim can be deemed inadmissible, given that current Home Office caseworker guidance states that “the inadmissibility process must not create a lengthy ‘limbo’ position, where a pending decision or delays in removal after a decision mean that a claimant cannot advance their asylum claim either in the UK or in a safe third country".
tabling member printed	The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
uin	HL4723
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/05/2024 answer text <p>The safe third country inadmissibility process does not specify a specific timescale for an inadmissibility decision to be made. The process provides flexibility to ensure that the relevant information can be gathered by Home Office staff to make the appropriate decision. We consider it is right that officials have a reasonable opportunity to carefully examine the evidence in a case to determine whether inadmissibility action is appropriate. Where it is considered appropriate that they also have the opportunity to approach relevant third countries and enter into discussions about the person’s removal before a decision is made.</p><p>Where a claimant is under consideration of the inadmissibility policy, they are issued a Notice of Intent informing them their claim is being considered under this policy, and providing them with an opportunity to put forward any reasons why their claim should not be declared inadmissible. ––If they are detained, they have 7 days, if they are non-detained, they have 14 days, and additional time can be requested if necessary.</p><p>The inadmissibility policy sets out that the process must not create a lengthy ‘limbo’ position, where a pending decision or delays in removal after a decision mean that a claimant cannot advance their asylum claim either in the UK or in a safe third country. If, taking into account all the circumstances, it is not possible to make an inadmissibility decision or effect removal following an inadmissibility decision within a reasonable period, inadmissibility action must be discontinued, and the person’s claim must be admitted to the asylum process for substantive consideration.</p><p>As a general guideline, it is expected that in most cases, a safe third country will agree to admit a person within 6 months of the claim being recorded, enabling removal soon after, subject to concluding legal challenges or other removal barriers. Therefore, we consider that there are adequate safeguards build into the policy to ensure that a claimant is not left in limbo.</p> answering member printed Lord Sharpe of Epsom question first answered 23/05/2024 16:13:23 answering member 4888 label Biography information for Lord Sharpe of Epsom
tabling member	4922 label Biography information for The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford

1718943

registered interest
date	16/05/2024
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Multi-role Ocean Surveillance Ships
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to allow Multi Role Support Ships to be assembled outside the UK.
tabling member printed	Lord Empey
uin	HL4724
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/05/2024 answer text <p>The Multi-role Support Ships Programme has entered its concept phase. The Royal Navy and Defence Equipment and Support, will now conduct detailed work on the design and procurement strategy, informed by industry engagement. As announced by the Secretary of State, it is intended that these ships will be built in the UK.</p> answering member printed The Earl of Minto question first answered 23/05/2024 12:11:37 answering member 4952 label Biography information for The Earl of Minto
tabling member	4216 label Biography information for Lord Empey

1718944

registered interest
date	16/05/2024
answering body	Department for Business and Trade
answering dept id	214
answering dept short name	Business and Trade
answering dept sort name	Business and Trade
hansard heading	Harland and Wolff: Export Credit Guarantees
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government what recent discussions they have had with Harland and Wolff on their refinancing plans; and what is the current status of their Export Development Guarantee application.
tabling member printed	Lord Empey
uin	HL4725
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/05/2024 answer text <p>I am unable to comment on ongoing transactions for reasons of commercial sensitivity.</p> answering member printed Lord Offord of Garvel grouped question UIN HL4744 question first answered 24/05/2024 08:06:45 answering member 4931 label Biography information for Lord Offord of Garvel
tabling member	4216 label Biography information for Lord Empey

1718945

registered interest
date	16/05/2024
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Undocumented Migrants: Republic of Ireland
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 15 May (HL4217), under what arrangement 50 illegal migrants were returned from the Republic of Ireland to the UK in the past seven months.
tabling member printed	Baroness Hoey
uin	HL4726
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/05/2024 answer text <p>Individuals lawfully in Ireland who enter the United Kingdom unlawfully, and individuals lawfully in the United Kingdom who enter Ireland unlawfully, are liable to be refused entry and returned to the country from which they arrived.</p> answering member printed Lord Sharpe of Epsom question first answered 23/05/2024 16:11:05 answering member 4888 label Biography information for Lord Sharpe of Epsom
tabling member	210 label Biography information for Baroness Hoey

1718946

registered interest
date	16/05/2024
answering body	Department of Health and Social Care
answering dept id	17
answering dept short name	Health and Social Care
answering dept sort name	Health and Social Care
hansard heading	Abortion: Telemedicine
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Markham on 15 May (HL4224), how they reconcile the answer with that given by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 23 November 2023 (HC527), which precluded the ability of a medical practitioner to form a "good faith" opinion through a telemedicine consultation alone that the patient's gestation was below 10 weeks, and therefore to dispense early medical abortion pills for use by the patient at home.
tabling member printed	Lord Jackson of Peterborough
uin	HL4727
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/05/2024 answer text <p>The response of 23 November 2023 does not preclude the ability of a medical practitioner to form a good faith opinion, through a telemedicine consultation alone, that the patient's gestation was below 10 weeks. This opinion can be formed either during a teleconsultation, or an in-person appointment.</p><p>Pregnancy duration can be assessed from the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP). Advice from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is clear that most women can determine the duration of their pregnancy with reasonable accuracy by LMP alone.</p><p>However, if there is any uncertainty about the gestation of the pregnancy, the medical practitioner would ask the woman to attend an in-person appointment to enable them to form an opinion that the pregnancy will not have exceeded 10 weeks at the time the first abortion pill is taken. If she does not attend in-person when requested, the terminating practitioner would not be able to form an opinion in good faith that the pregnancy is below 10 weeks gestation, and therefore would not be able to prescribe abortion pills for home use.</p> answering member printed Lord Markham question first answered 23/05/2024 12:21:34 answering member 4948 label Biography information for Lord Markham
tabling member	1551 label Biography information for Lord Jackson of Peterborough

1718947

registered interest
date	16/05/2024
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Ministers: Pay
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government how many ministers in each House receive a government ministerial salary, and how many receive none; and what the total extra cost of paying all ministers the relevant current rate would be.
tabling member printed	Lord Jopling
uin	HL4728
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/05/2024 answer text <p>The payment of ministerial salaries is governed by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act (MOSA) 1975. To answer these questions, we have treated ministers who hold more than one office (“joint ministers”) but are paid only for one as paid ministers, and therefore have counted only those ministers who do not receive a salary under MOSA.</p><p>There are currently 108 ministers who receive a government salary. The current number of ministers in total is 125, meaning that 17 are unpaid, 3 in the House of Commons and 14 in the House of Lords.</p><p>If the 17 unpaid ministers were to claim a ministerial salary on the same basis as those who receive a salary the additional sum payable would be £1,146,358 per annum, excluding pension contributions. We have counted the Party Chair, the Rt Hon Richard Holden MP in these calculations, as he is unpaid by the government. He is, however, by convention paid by the party.</p><p>Primary legislation would be required to increase the number of ministers entitled to receive a salary to include the 17 ministers who are currently unpaid. Secondary legislation in the form of an Order in Council under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 may be used to increase the rate at which ministerial salaries are payable.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL4729 question first answered 23/05/2024 16:05:49 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
tabling member	883 label Biography information for Lord Jopling

1718948

registered interest
date	16/05/2024
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Ministers: Pay
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government whether secondary legislation could be used to increase the number of ministers that can be paid in order that all ministers receive the relevant current rate, and if not how might this be done.
tabling member printed	Lord Jopling
uin	HL4729
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/05/2024 answer text <p>The payment of ministerial salaries is governed by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act (MOSA) 1975. To answer these questions, we have treated ministers who hold more than one office (“joint ministers”) but are paid only for one as paid ministers, and therefore have counted only those ministers who do not receive a salary under MOSA.</p><p>There are currently 108 ministers who receive a government salary. The current number of ministers in total is 125, meaning that 17 are unpaid, 3 in the House of Commons and 14 in the House of Lords.</p><p>If the 17 unpaid ministers were to claim a ministerial salary on the same basis as those who receive a salary the additional sum payable would be £1,146,358 per annum, excluding pension contributions. We have counted the Party Chair, the Rt Hon Richard Holden MP in these calculations, as he is unpaid by the government. He is, however, by convention paid by the party.</p><p>Primary legislation would be required to increase the number of ministers entitled to receive a salary to include the 17 ministers who are currently unpaid. Secondary legislation in the form of an Order in Council under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 may be used to increase the rate at which ministerial salaries are payable.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL4728 question first answered 23/05/2024 16:05:49 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
tabling member	883 label Biography information for Lord Jopling

1718949

registered interest
date	16/05/2024
answering body	Home Office
answering dept id	1
answering dept short name	Home Office
answering dept sort name	Home Office
hansard heading	Identity Cards
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the case for introducing identity cards for the legal population of the United Kingdom, in particular to deal with illegal immigration.
tabling member printed	Lord Jopling
uin	HL4730
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/05/2024 answer text <p>My Lords, the Home Office has made no recent assessment on identity cards. In 2010 the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition decided to end the ID card scheme and the associated National Identity Register. The Home Office has held no further discussions on the reintroduction of identity cards.</p> answering member printed Lord Sharpe of Epsom grouped question UIN HL4731 question first answered 23/05/2024 16:10:19 answering member 4888 label Biography information for Lord Sharpe of Epsom
tabling member	883 label Biography information for Lord Jopling