| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Anelay of St Johns asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, in the event of the sale of the Millennium Dome site to Legacy plc not proceeding, they are sure that nothing has been done in the interim to prejudice the success of a bid from another source which would seek to retain the attractions within the Dome structure.[HL327]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Government are in negotiation with Legacy plc as preferred bidder and under the competition rules are unable to treat with third parties. Work is currently under way to return those assets owned by third parties, including the Talk and Journey zones, which are wholly owned by BT and Ford respectively. Assets owned by NMEC will be subject to private treaty sale or public auction which is scheduled to take place at the Dome site from 27 February to 2 March 2001. The Government intend to ensure that nothing is sold at this auction or otherwise which would prejudice the Dome's future as a leisure attraction.
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's statement in its strategic plan that it is "completely independent from any outside influence be it Government, a political party, a large company, a non-governmental human rights organisation or a group of activists", is compatible with a majority of its commissioners being members of the Committee for the Administration of Justice.[HL530]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The Chief Commissioner has been asked to write to the noble Lord. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What equality criteria were used in the formation of committees by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to advise on a Bill of Rights; and whether the members of each committee were requested to declare their background and community involvement before their appointment.[HL549]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is bound by the requirements of s.75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity and good community relations. The composition of any working group set up by the commission is a matter for the commission itself. The Chief Commissioner has been asked to write to the noble Lord. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 29 January (WA 30-31) referring to the letter from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission of 19 January which indicated that the Ulster Scots Agency had been consulted about appointments to the Bill of Rights Language Committee, in what form was the consultation; when it took place; and what was the response, from whom and in what form.[HL550]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The Chief Commissioner has been asked to write to the noble Lord. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.
BSE Inquiry Report
Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What steps they are taking to implement the recommendations of the BSE inquiry report.[HL707]
Baroness Hayman: The BSE inquiry report was published on 26 October 2000. In welcoming it, we said that the Government's substantive response would be announced in the coming months. The Government announced on 21 December 2000 that they would be making an interim response as a basis for public discussion before finalising their full response.
The Government's interim response was published on Friday, 9 February. There will be a parliamentary debate on 15 February. The response has been prepared with contributions from across Whitehall and the devolved administrations and seeks to present the actions being taken in all the legislatures.
This response is intended to focus on the future. It sets out what has happened since March 1996--which was the point to which we asked the inquiry to take its examination. It gives full attention to the 167 specific findings and conclusions in the inquiry report, and to the major themes that emerge from it: management of scientific advisory committees and how scientific advice is used in developing policy; openness; risk and uncertainty; the structure of government and the legislative framework; and the need for rigour in the development and implementation of policy.
The response takes the opportunity to set out how the Government are taking the lessons and comments in the report as a spur to developing the action already under way as a result of the Modernising Government agenda, the Office of Science and Technology's work on the use of science in government and work on developing a government statement on risk.
The Government intend that this interim response should be the subject of positive action to seek the views of interested parties. Public debate on how the lessons in the report can be most effectively applied and embedded across departments will help to ensure a comprehensive final government response to the BSE inquiry report.
Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What was the outcome of the review of the civil servants who were criticised in the BSE inquiry report.[HL708]
Baroness Hayman: Sheila Forbes, as an independent Civil Service Commissioner, has now completed her urgent review of the criticisms in the report of serving civil servants. She has recommended to the Permanent Secretaries of the departments involved that there
should be no disciplinary action taken against any serving civil servant. They have accepted this recommendation and the civil servants concerned have been informed.Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
- On what grounds licences for human embryo research were granted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to:
(a) Kings College Hospital, London (1992);
(b) the University of Oxford (1992); and
(c) the Centre for Genome Research, Edinburgh (1996);
and in what ways were studies into cell lives derived from human embryo relevant to the development of fertility treatments.[HL599]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Licences for human embryo research were granted by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to:
(a) Kings College Hospital, London in 1992 under paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to "promote advances in the treatment of infertility" and paragraph 3(2)(e) of that schedule to "develop methods for detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation". We are not aware of cell lines being developed in the course of this research;
(b) the University of Oxford in 1992 under paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to "promote advances in the treatment of infertility". This research was originally licensed by the HFEA's predecessor, the Interim Licensing Authority, and involved the development of cell lines. However, the research licensed by the HFEA in 1994 did not involve the generation of any cell lines;
(c) the Centre for Genome Research, Edinburgh in 1996 under paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to "promote advances in the treatment of infertility" and paragraph 3(2)(b) to "increase knowledge about the causes of congenital disease". The authority licensed the project, so far as it related to paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act to "promote advances in the treatment of infertility", as it aimed, among other things, to provide new information in identifying the quality of embryos before implantation. This was in respect of establishing culture conditions suitable for selecting the "best" embryos, which could aid the aim of many infertility units to improve live birth rates obtained with assisted reproduction techniques.
12 Feb 2001 : Column WA8
Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
- (a) when they next intend to review the membership of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority;
(b) whether they intend to reform the peer review procedures for licence applications to the HFEA to exclude peer reviewers who have submitted or intend to submit their own application;
(c) what qualifications or experience are required in order to be appointed as a peer reviewer, and who makes these appointments; and
(d) what is their policy concerning the appointment of members to the HFEA who may have a conflict of interest.[HL597]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Under the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, members are appointed to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) for a maximum term of three years. At the end of three years a further term may be offered subject to guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Appointments are staggered to ensure continuity of membership, with terms ending on 6 November each year.
The HFEA has a panel of peer reviewers who are recognised national and international experts in the field of reproductive biology and infertility. Names and details of peer reviewers are included in the HFEA's Annual Report, copies of which are available in the Library. The panel includes persons who hold or who have held HFEA research licences, although peer reviewers and members are required to declare any conflict of interest in relation to an application that is being considered. Each research application is considered by two or three peer reviewers prior to a decision being made by a HFEA Licence Committee consisting of five members of the authority.
Additional peer reviewers are recruited when there is a need for specialist expertise not currently available on the panel--for example in cryobiology or cytogenetics. The Licensing and Fees Committee of the HFEA ratifies the appointment of peer reviewers.
All appointments of members of the HFEA are conducted in accordance with guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Members are chosen for the skills and experience they bring to the authority's work. The information pack provided to applicants for membership emphasises the importance of public service values in the running of the authority, and states that all members on appointment are required to subscribe to the authority's code of best practice. This code contains a requirement to declare at an early stage any potential conflict of interest that might arise in the course of authority business. Any
relevant business interests, positions of authority or other connections with commercial, public or voluntary bodies must be declared.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |