Written Answers
Tuesday 22 May 2012
Armed Forces: Aircraft
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, when chartering aircraft, the Ministry of Defence are able to select the lowest tender, or whether they have to give preference to United Kingdom carriers. [HL7]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): The Ministry of Defence is bound by European Union public procurement directives which demand fair and open competition across the European Union (EU) for all contracts involving the expenditure of public funds.
Aircraft charter contracts are awarded to carriers that provide the best value for money for the MoD. Commercial tenders are evaluated against a number of factors, including cost.
Any competent company can compete for aircraft charter contracts. However, before operating to, from, or within the United Kingdom, any non-EU carriers not established in the UK must be in possession of an operating permit issued by the Department for Transport under the 2009 Air Navigation Order. An application for an operating permit must be made for each contract.
Under the provisions of the 2009 Air Navigation Order, UK and EU carriers established in the UK have the right to object to the granting of an operating permit to a foreign carrier if they are able to demonstrate that they themselves have a suitable aircraft available.
Armed Forces: Medals
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans for the Meritorious Service Medal to be designated as a post-nominal award.[HL172]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): No. The Meritorious Service Medal is available to recognise good, faithful, valuable and meritorious service of those who are of irreproachable character and conduct. However, it is not a state award and as such does not entitle the holder to adopt a post nominal. We have no plans to change this important principle.
Children: Parenting
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what factors were taken into account in contracting with Boots plc for the delivery of parenting advice vouchers; what are the conditions of the agreement; and whether consideration has been given to extending the scheme across the whole of community pharmacy. [HL160]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The CANparent trial will test whether offering the vouchers through a high street store helps to normalise take-up of parenting classes. Boots was identified as a good candidate for involvement in the trial as it has customers of all ages, including parents, and is a trusted and well known family brand. It is an outlet for a range of advice and information on health and well-being needs for all ages. In addition, Boots has a strong presence in all three CANparent trial areas and can offer insights from its Parenting Club and Advantage Card customer loyalty programme.
When we were considering potential partners, we looked at two key areas—their geographical presence and their relationship with parents. This analysis showed that no competitor combined a similar presence in all three areas with an existing targeted relationship with parents and supported the selection of Boots as the preferred partner.
Boots stores will be distributing the parenting class vouchers, at no cost to the taxpayer, alongside other healthcare leaflets that parents can pick up in store. As well as being able to amplify and extend the awareness of the trial through their communication channels, they will also be supporting the trial by participating in the evaluation and providing expert advice on issues like parental engagement, as required.
Alongside Boots, the vouchers will also be distributed through a range of professionals working with families with young children in the trial area—including children’s centre staff, GPs and health visitors. There is only one high street retailer involved because of the small geographic scale of the trial.
The independent evaluation of the trial will compare the different distribution routes for vouchers to see which are most successful in encouraging take-up of the classes. Decisions on the involvement of future retail partners in any national rollout will be informed by this evaluation.
Dangerous Dogs
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action can be taken against (1) dogs, and (2) their owners or controllers, in cases of dog attacks on cats and other domestic animals.[HL163]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 enables action to be taken in cases where a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place or a place it has no right to be, whether or not it injures anyone. This can include instances where the dog attacks another animal. For dogs, this could result in them being put down. For their owners or controllers this could mean a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. On 23 April 2012, the Government launched a consultation on their proposals to tackle irresponsible
dog ownership and these included extending the law to all places, including where the dog has a right to be. The consultation closes on 15 June 2012.
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 provides for action that can be taken by farmers against dogs that attack their livestock. In addition, under the Animals Act 1971, a dog owner may be liable if it injures or kills livestock.
It may also be possible to take action under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 against an owner whose animal has attacked and injured another animal.
Democratic Republic of Congo
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the comments made by Willy Vangu, an opposition leader in the Democratic Republic of Congo, on his recent visit to London that “we are asking the British Government and International Monetary Fund to stop spending public money on aid packages and loans to the Congo...We say the money would be better spent preventing deals that strip ordinary citizens of their rightful assets”, as reported in the Sunday Times on 29 April. [HL65]
Baroness Northover: We strongly believe that the UK should not suspend its aid programme in the DRC. Doing so would only serve to harm those that most need assistance. UK taxpayers’ money is achieving tangible results for the poorest in DRC. In 2011-12 alone 2.5 million Congolese received life-saving humanitarian assistance, 927,593 bed-nets were distributed and 748 kilometres of roads were upgraded. With corruption endemic in DRC, to protect our investments and ensure UK development assistance reaches the poor and vulnerable, none of our funding passes directly through government systems.
We agree that the Democratic Republic of Congo’s (DRC) mining industries must be run transparently for the benefit of all its people. That is why the DfID co-funds with the World Bank a minerals sector reform programme (ProMines). The programme aims to improve the governance of the mining sector in the DRC, increasing its contribution to growth, sustainable development and poverty reduction. The programme will improve: laws and information on how to access mineral resources to encourage investment; government capacity to manage the sector including how to conduct mining transactions in an open and competitive manner; and, government capacity and accountability in mining tax collection. We are also supporting the DRC to achieve compliance status under the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. This involves independent audit of taxes paid and revenues received, thus enabling public scrutiny of any discrepancies.
The UK Government are fully committed to and comply with international anti-money laundering standards and exert pressure to help ensure that the Overseas Territories comply with these, and that they play an active part in global bodies such as Financial
Action Task Force. Responsibility for the regulation of financial services has been devolved to the Government of the British Virgin Islands. Therefore, the local authorities in British Virgin Islands are responsible for the regulation, supervision and inspection of financial services business carried out in or from within the territory.
Education: English
Questions
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action is being taken to secure pupils’ early reading skills by the end of key stage 1 in response to the Ofsted Report Moving English Forward.[HL156]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): Securing pupils’ early reading skills is a top priority for the Government. In particular, we are committed to promoting the use of systematic synthetic phonics in the teaching of early reading. To do this we are providing up to £3,000 of match-funding for phonics products and training to schools with key stage 1 pupils. The products include materials that will help children who need additional support in reading to catch up, and the training will enable teachers to embed and refine their teaching practice.
From June this year, all pupils in year 1 will sit a phonics screening check to assess their ability to decode and read words using phonics. The check will be carried out by teachers, and will help them to identify those children in need of additional support.
The Government have also published core criteria that define the key features of effective systematic synthetic phonics programmes to assist schools in selecting resources.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action is being taken to ensure that the English curriculum at key stage 3 has a clear and distinct purpose with a view to engaging pupils with the world of work beyond the classroom in response to the Ofsted Report Moving English Forward.[HL158]
Lord Hill of Oareford: We are currently reviewing the national curriculum in England. The review will ensure that the new curriculum demonstrates a clear and distinct purpose which should engage pupils and prepare them for the world of work.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to improve children’s communication skills in respect of fluent and clearly enunciated spoken English in the Early Years Foundation Stage, in the light of the Ofsted Report Moving English Forward.[HL165]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to link reading and listening with the extension and enrichment of pupils’ vocabulary, in the light of the Ofsted Report Moving English Forward.[HL166]
Lord Hill of Oareford: Securing pupils’ early language skills is an important priority for the Government. The Government published a reformed Early Years Foundations Stage (EYFS) framework on 27 March 2012, which will come into force this September. This is an integral part of the Government’s wider vision for families in the foundation years and demonstrates our commitment to freeing professionals from bureaucracy to focus on supporting children.
The new EYFS will be simpler and clearer and places a much stronger emphasis on communication and language development as one of three prime areas of learning. It will include new early learning goals that will help improve communication and language, and reading and writing skills. The reformed framework will also require teachers to assess communication, language and literacy in English when children are five. We are also funding a new Early Language Development Programme over the next two years, aimed at supporting professionals to work with children who have early language needs. These measures should help ensure children are better placed to be ready for later stages of school life.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to close the gap between the standards of achievement attained by boys and girls in English both in speech and in writing, in the light of the Ofsted Report Moving English Forward.[HL167]
Lord Hill of Oareford: The Government are committed to ensuring that all groups of pupils have the opportunity to make good progress and reach their potential, whatever their gender. To achieve this we have given heads more freedom to drive improvement in their school to meet the needs of their pupils.
Schools with little or no gender gap tend to demonstrate a positive educational ethos, high expectations of all pupils, high quality teaching and classroom management and close tracking of individual pupils’ achievement.
Elections: Registration
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to ensure that electoral registration forms will in future, in the case of Commonwealth citizens, include a related question on immigration status and the individual's leave or right to be in the United Kingdom, and available associated proof, to enable assessment of the requirement to be a qualifying Commonwealth citizen when registering. [HL27]
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: British, resident Republic of Ireland and qualifying Commonwealth citizens are entitled to register to vote in UK parliamentary elections, local elections, and European elections assuming that all of the other registration criteria are also met. For the purposes of registering to vote, a qualifying
Commonwealth citizen is an individual who has leave to enter or remain in the UK or does not require such leave.
The annual canvass form and the provisions for rolling registration effectively capture a person’s nationality. The electoral registration officer (ERO) uses this information to determine a person’s eligibility to register. When there is doubt about eligibility the ERO may investigate and request further information from the elector.
In future under individual electoral registration, individual application forms will clearly set out the eligibility requirements for registration. In addition, all electors declaring a Commonwealth nationality will be asked to declare their immigration status.
Government Departments: Bonuses
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the Department of Energy and Climate Change defines bonus payments in the context of civil service pay; what proportion of civil servants are eligible to receive non-consolidated performance payments; and how they are selected for those payments. [HL331]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): The Department of Energy and Climate Change does not define bonus payments in the context of Civil Service pay. However, the department currently awards both non-consolidated end of year performance awards and in year special awards, which may be referred to as bonus payments.
The department uses non-consolidated performance related payments to help drive high performance as they:
encourage continuous high attainment because the payments are dependent upon strong performance;prevent a permanent rise in salary and an increase in pension on the basis of one off performance while still allowing good performance to be rewarded;have no long-term costs, in particular they do not increase future pension payments;focus the work of employees more directly on the priority goals of the organisation;motivate employees by linking an element of compensation to the achievement of objectives rather than offering payment for time served; andtarget money at those who make the biggest contribution.
End of year non-consolidated performance awards are used to reward the department’s highest performers as assessed in their end of year appraisal reports. In 2011, 40% of DECC staff below the senior Civil Service, and 25% of senior civil servants were eligible to receive a non-consolidated end of year performance award.
Non-consolidated in year special awards are used to recognise performance or behaviours which might not be fully reflected in an end of year performance appraisal. All staff are eligible to be considered for such awards and are selected for such an award to reward staff for exceptional pieces of work or taking on additional responsibilities.
Gulf War Illnesses
Question
Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have made any reassessment of the safety of vaccines administered to service personnel deployed in the First Gulf War in the light of the report on The effect of co-administration of the pertussis vaccine on specific antibody titre development to the anthrax vaccine in man prepared in February 1992 at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; and what action they will take in response to the report.[HL123]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): No. In 1998, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) sponsored a vaccines interactions research programme into the possible health effects of the combination of vaccines and tablets given to service personnel to protect them against the threat of biological and chemical warfare during the 1990-91 Gulf conflict. The overwhelming evidence from the programme is that the combination of vaccines and tablets that were offered to UK forces at the time of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict would not have had adverse health effects.
The paper referred to in the Question was published by MoD in 1997 and was therefore available to the independent panel of experts and veterans’ representatives overseeing the work of the vaccines interactions research programme.
Health: Addiction to Prescribed Drugs
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what services are offered to those suffering from addiction to, and withdrawal from, prescribed medication (1) in the Roehampton Addiction Centre, and (2) in the Borough of Wandsworth as a whole.[HL103]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): NHS Wandsworth commissions treatment services for addiction to all drugs, including alcohol and prescription drugs, from an integrated drug treatment system (IDAS). The service at Roehampton is called IDAS Queen Mary's.
I am sure Wandsworth primary care trust will be happy to provide further details of their services.
Health: Clinical Commissioning Groups
Questions
Asked by Lord Patel of Bradford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether clinical commissioning groups will be added to the list of Schedule 19 bodies to which the public sector equality duty applies under the Equality Act 2010; and, if so, when.[HL231]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): Yes. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 amends Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010, concerning bodies subject to the public sector equality duty, to include clinical commissioning groups. This will have effect from their establishment as statutory bodies by the NHS Commissioning Board which will commence in October.
Asked by Lord Patel of Bradford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether clinical commissioning groups will be subject to specific duties under the Equality Act 2010.[HL232]
Earl Howe: Clinical commissioning groups, as public sector organisations, will be subject to the specific duties of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010.
Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria will govern the allocation of budgets to clinical commissioning groups by the NHS Commissioning Board.[HL254]
Earl Howe: From 2013-14, the NHS Commissioning Board will allocate resources to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in a way that is consistent with the board’s duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in access to healthcare services and the outcomes achieved for patients by healthcare services. We would expect this to support the principle of securing equivalent access to NHS services relative to the prospective burden of disease and disability.
The Secretary of State has asked the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA), an independent expert committee, to support the development of the formula for allocations to CCGs. ACRA’s interim recommendations on the formula will be published.
Health: Controlled Trials
Questions
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether a publicly-funded trial has to be registered in the ISRCTN (International Randomised Controlled Trial Number) Register; whether this is a condition for publication in reputable journals; and, if so, whether they consider that the PACE (Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised
Evaluation) trial registration ISRCTN54285094 is complete and includes records of all changes in procedure from the point of registration onwards. [HL43]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): There is a requirement for publicly funded clinical trials to be registered and there are a number of different registers.
The PACE study was funded by a Medical Research Council (MRC) grant to Queen Mary, University of London. The Department of Health for England, the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions co-funded the trial; their contributions were paid via the MRC grant.
The MRC has been a strong supporter of trials registration for many years and provided financial support to help set up the ISRCTN scheme. The MRC was also involved in helping to refine the scheme and in promoting its widespread adoption in the UK.
The MRC requires that all MRC-funded clinical trials comply with the CONSORT Statement, which is an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomised controlled trials. CONSORT, which stands for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, offers a standard way for authors to prepare reports of trial findings, facilitating their complete and transparent reporting, and aiding their critical appraisal and interpretation. CONSORT includes guidance on ISRCTN registration.
The results of the trial were reported in The Lancet, which also follows the CONSORT guidelines. The PACE trial report would have had to meet this standard as a prerequisite for publication.
The MRC is not responsible for assuring the quality of data in the ISRCTN. The Government cannot comment on the completeness of the data.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when and why the PACE (Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised Evaluation) trial sponsor was changed from the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit to the Medical Research Council and then to the Queen Mary University of London; and why these changes are not recorded in the ISRCTN (International Randomised Controlled Trial Number) Register.[HL44]
Baroness Wilcox: The PACE study was funded by a Medical Research Council (MRC) grant to Queen Mary, University of London, the principal investigator was Professor P White at QMUL, co-investigators were Professor T Chalder, King's College London, and Professor M Sharpe, University of Edinburgh. The Department of Health for England, the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions co-funded the trial; their contributions were paid via the MRC grant.
Queen Mary, University of London, has been identified as the formal sponsor of the PACE trial throughout the duration of the study. The MRC would normally
only be identified as the formal sponsor of a clinical trial where the principal investigator was an MRC employee or where an MRC unit designed and managed the trial.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the recovery statistics and other outcomes as defined in the published Protocol of the PACE (Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised Evaluation) trial have not been published. [HL45]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the “normal range” for both PACE (Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised Evaluation) trial primary outcome measures (fatigue and physical function) were re-defined so that it was possible for a participant to deteriorate on both measures during the course of the trial yet still fall within the chief principal investigator's “normal range”; and what impact they consider this re-definition to have had on the validity of the trial.[HL46]
Baroness Wilcox: The PACE study was funded by a Medical Research Council (MRC) grant to Queen Mary, University of London. The Department of Health for England, the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions co-funded the trial; their contributions were paid via the MRC grant.
As for all MRC-funded studies, it is the responsibility of the investigators and the relevant journals, guided by peer reviewers, to determine how findings are published and when.
The investigators’ first paper on the outcomes of the PACE study was published in The Lancet in March 2011. This includes descriptions of normal ranges and how they calculated. The MRC understands that further publications are planned, one of which will address the issue of recovery.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the position of the Medical Research Council as co-funder of the PACE (Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised Evaluation) trial regarding the subsequent reliance by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the Department for Work and Pensions on the outcome as reported in The Lancet.[HL47]
Baroness Wilcox: The Medical Research Council (MRC) is an independent research funding body which receives its grant in aid from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The selection of projects for funding is determined through peer review.
The decision to fund the PACE trial, a randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), graded exercise, adaptive pacing and usual medical care for the chronic fatigue syndrome, was based on MRC’s usual rigorous peer review process for clinical trials. The study aimed to evaluate treatments that were already in use, and for which there was insufficiently
strong evidence to support their effectiveness. The MRC strongly supported this research and the publication of the findings.
The MRC strongly supports the publication of the findings of all MRC funded research to advance medical research worldwide and to inform new therapies and treatments. The investigators’ first paper on the finding of the PACE study, was published in The Lancet: “Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial”, P White et al, The Lancet, Volume 377, Issue 9768, Pages 823 - 836, 5 March 2011.
The MRC does not have a position on how the outcome of MRC-funded studies are interpreted and used by regulators or policy makers although, as above, it supports prompt publication of its research findings so they are widely available to all potential users and to support evidence-based treatment of patients.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government which disease or condition was being studied in the PACE (Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised Evaluation) trial that was co-funded by the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Scottish Chief Scientist’s Office, in the light of the statement made by the Chief Principal Investigator, Professor Peter White, that the PACE trial did not purport to be studying myalgic encephalomyelitis.[HL69]
Baroness Wilcox: The PACE study was funded by a Medical Research Council (MRC) grant to Queen Mary, University of London, the principal investigator was Professor P White at QMUL, co-investigators were Professor T Chalder, King's College London, and Professor M Sharpe, University of Edinburgh. The Department of Health for England. the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions co-funded the trial; their contributions were paid via the MRC grant.
The criteria for the PACE study were published in the trial protocol and are also addressed in the main findings published in The Lancet.
Health: Human Papilloma Virus
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many adverse reaction reports to human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccinations have been reported for each year since the introduction of the vaccination for girls in schools; how many of those reactions have involved hospitalisation; and what precautions are in place to ensure that the parents whose daughters may have immune system dysfunctions are not pressured into giving their consent.[HL180]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has responsibility for vaccine and medicine safety in the United Kingdom and collects information on suspected adverse reactions
(ADRs) via the yellow card scheme. Two human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines, Cervarix and Gardasil, are licensed for use in the UK, with Cervarix currently used routinely within the HPV vaccine immunisation programme.
Since the HPV vaccine immunisation programme began in September 2008 up to 16 May 2012, the MHRA has received a total of 6,216 suspected ADR reports associated with HPV vaccine (Cervarix, Gardasil and HPV vaccine brand unspecified) and of these 182 reports involved hospitalisation. This follows administration of more than six million doses of Cervarix across the UK to date.
It is important to note that a yellow card report is not proof of a side effect occurring, but merely a suspicion by the reporter that the vaccine may have been the cause. While some reports may relate to side effects, others may be due to coincidental, underlying medical conditions that would have occurred anyway in the absence of vaccination. These data are continuously reviewed by the MHRA. The independent advisory committee, the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM), has advised that no serious new risks have been identified despite substantial use of the vaccine in the UK and abroad.
The following table provides a breakdown of the total number of ADR reports received for each year since the introduction of the programme.
| Year of Programme | Total Number of ADR Reports associated with HPV Vaccine |
HMS “Gloucester”
Question
Asked by Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the future conservation of the wreck of the first HMS “Gloucester” (sunk in 1682); whether they have any plans to “gift” the wreck to any charitable or other foundation; and, if so, whether they will first seek to ascertain that such a foundation has the financial resources to survey, excavate and conserve the wreck without resorting to the commercial sale of artefacts recovered it.[HL107]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): Officials are in discussion with the finders of a wreck which may be that of HMS “Gloucester”, lost in 1682; however the identity of the wreck has not yet been formally determined. Specialist archaeological advice is being provided by the National Museum of the Royal Navy and English Heritage.
No decisions have yet been taken regarding future governance arrangements for the management of the wreck site.
HMS “Victory”
Questions
Asked by Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the National Museum of the Royal Navy has paid for two cannons recovered from the wreck of HMS “Victory” (sunk in 1744); if so, what was the price paid; from whom they were acquired; and whether due diligence was exercised to verify that they were not already legally the property of Her Majesty's Government.[HL105]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): Following initial notification of the location of the wreck thought to be that of HMS “Victory” (1744), authorisation was given to the finder of the wreck, Odyssey Marine Exploration, for the limited recovery of two cannons to facilitate the process of identification. Following their recovery, the cannons, which were Crown property, were given to the National Museum of the Royal Navy and are currently undergoing conservation. A payment of £50,000 was made to the company for its work in recovering the cannons; the amount was considerably less than the assessed value of the two artefacts.
Asked by Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what archaeological advice they have received on the proposed excavation of HMS “Victory” (sunk in 1744); what assessment they have made of the published assertion of Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc to be “salvor-in-possession” of the wreck; under what conditions they have gifted the wreck to the Maritime Heritage Foundation; whether they will take steps to prevent the sale on the commercial market of artefacts recovered from the wreck in contravention of the Annex to the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.[HL106]
Lord Astor of Hever: Under the deed of gift which transferred the remains of HMS “Victory” (1744) to the Maritime Heritage Foundation, the foundation requires the prior agreement of the Secretary of State for Defence should it wish to take actions in respect of the wreck. The deed also identifies the responsibilities of an advisory group, consisting of representatives of the National Museum of the Royal Navy and English Heritage, in providing advice to both the Secretary of State and the foundation on the extent to which any actions proposed by the foundation are consistent with the archaeological principles set out in Annex A to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. The text of the deed of gift and the terms of reference of the advisory group are available to view on the MoD website: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/MaritimePublications/HmsVictory1744AdvisoryGroup.htm.
This arrangement provides HMG with effective control of activities on the site. We believe that the safeguards in place are sufficient to ensure that any
actions taken by the foundation or those with whom it contracts in respect of the wreck will be consistent with the principles in Annex A to the UNESCO Convention.
The advisory group is currently considering the project design for the site submitted by the Maritime Heritage Foundation and will provide advice to both HMG and the foundation in due course.
Odyssey Marine Exploration has been contracted by the Maritime Heritage Foundation, to which the remains of HMS “Victory” (1744) have been gifted, to provide it with archaeological services. Any assertions made by Odyssey are a matter for the company and the foundation.
Schools: Catholic Schools
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are required by legislation to approve any proposal for a voluntary-aided Catholic secondary school by the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames; and whether they are considering or have approved any such proposal.[HL110]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The Diocese of Westminster applied to the Secretary of State in September 2011 to publish proposals for two new schools, a voluntary aided Catholic secondary school and a voluntary aided Catholic primary school outside a competition, as permitted under Section 10 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Ministerial agreement was given in December 2011 to the diocese under the legal provisions in force at that time.
Amendments since made by the Government to Sections 10 and 11 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (through the Education Act 2011), which came into force on 1 February 2012, now allow for proposals to be published for voluntary aided schools outside a competition without the need to seek the Secretary of State’s agreement.
Schools: Free Meals
Question
Asked by The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the Children’s Society Fair and Square campaign to give all children in poverty a free school meal.[HL144]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): Our priority is to make sure that the most disadvantaged children are able to get a nutritious meal at school. The Children’s Society proposal—that all children whose families are in receipt of universal credit from 2013 be entitled to free school meals—would mean that over half of school age children would be entitled to free school meals. We estimate that this would cost up to an extra
£1 billion per year, which in the current economic climate is unaffordable. The department is currently developing new proposals for eligibility for free school meals once universal credit is introduced, on which we will be consulting later this year.
South Sudan
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assistance they are giving to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian agencies to support refugees arriving in the Unity state of South Sudan.[HL193]
Baroness Northover: The UK is the largest donor to the Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) for South Sudan (£15 million this year). Our funding is helping to provide crucial non-food items for refugee camps, run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its NGO partners, in Unity and Upper Nile states. In addition CHF funding is supporting agencies providing health, water and sanitation and protection programmes for refugees. Last month my honourable friend Stephen O’Brien, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, announced an additional £10 million allocation to the World Food Programme in South Sudan to help feed 100,000 people over five months. This support will be available to assist refugees as well as other food insecure populations.
UK National Screening Committee
Question
Asked by Baroness Masham of Ilton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements are in place to ensure the work and findings of the National Screening Committee are scrutinised by the Department of Health.[HL225]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) advises Ministers and the National Health Service in all four countries about all aspects of screening policy and supports implementation. Using research evidence, pilot programmes and economic evaluation, it assesses the evidence for programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria. As an advisory group it exercises its functions on behalf of the department.
The department works closely with the UK NSC and scrutinises the work and findings of the committee in a number of ways. It provides the secretariat on behalf of the devolved Administrations. In this role it is responsible for ensuring that the UK NSC acts within its remit and terms of reference and that it acts independently and impartially. The department is also represented on the committee and regularly sends observers to meetings. It is also responsible for holding the UK NSC to account for proper use of public funds and for the setting and delivery of its objectives.
UK Trade and Investment
Questions
Asked by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint on 5 March (WA 398), when they expect to agree a budget and programme plan for the UK ASEAN Business Council; and whether they have any plans to establish other business councils.[HL118]
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint): The UK-ASEAN Business Council is working actively with partner organisations in the UK and ASEAN to develop its profile and a programme of targeted events of direct benefit to UK business. The UKTI budget contribution for 2012-13 has been agreed at £150,000.
An events programme is underway with, for example, a briefing to business on Burma on 8 May, a networking event with an Indonesian official delegation on 25 May, and a further briefing planned for 28 May on regional opportunities for engagement in the professional training sector. Longer term, the council is working, inter alia, with British diplomatic missions and with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce in SE Asia to identify decision-makers to invite to the UK, and on a possible large-scale event in the autumn, to be run in conjunction with the Asia Task Force.
UKABC was one of the initiatives announced in the 2011 UKTI strategy. New business councils may be established where there is demonstrable need and as resources permit.
Asked by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint on 8 March (WA 448), who are the members and chairs of UK Trade and Investment's sector group task forces and sector advisory groups.[HL119]
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint: I am placing the latest list of members and chairs of UKTI sector advisory groups in the Libraries of the House.
Water Management
Question
Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to increase capacity for the storage of water.[HL129]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): The water White Paper Water for Life, published in December 2011, sets out the vision for a resilient water industry across all sectors. It outlines plans for the introduction of a reformed abstraction
regime that will provide clear signals and regulatory certainty on the availability of water to drive efficient investment to meet water needs.
It is the responsibility of water companies to manage the storage of water for public supply.
Water companies plan through their water resources management plans to ensure they are able to balance supply and demand for water over the long term. Some water companies’ plans included proposals to build or enlarge reservoirs—for example, the enlargement of the reservoir at Abberton in the Essex and Suffolk Water region—while other companies have identified alternative solutions to balancing supply and demand.
World Heritage Sites: Liverpool
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Rawlings on 1 May (WA 473–4), whether the Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government has decided to call in the Liverpool Waters planning application; and, if a decision has not yet been reached, when it will be made and what process will follow.[HL195]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): The Liverpool Waters application will be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in due course by Liverpool City Council. The application falls within the scope of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 by virtue of English Heritage’s outstanding objection, related to the impact of the proposal on the outstanding universal value of Liverpool’s World Heritage Site. Once referred, the Secretary of State will consider whether or not he wishes to call in the application for his own decision against the call-in policy set out in the Caborn Statement. The Secretary of State is very selective about calling in applications and will do so only if they raise issues of national importance.