Written Answers
Tuesday 19 June 2012
Animal Welfare Act 2006
Question
Asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many prosecutions have been brought under Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006; and how many of those have resulted in a conviction.[HL295]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach): I have placed the requested information in the Library of the House.
Asylum Seekers
Question
Asked by Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many individuals, including dependants, were in receipt of Section 95 asylum support in each of the past five years, broken down by age.[HL698]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): The following table shows the number of asylum seekers in receipt of Section 95 support. Information broken down by age is not available.
| Asylum seekers in receipt of Section 95 support, as at end of year | |
Section 95 support: Support may be provided under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to destitute asylum seekers until their asylum claim is finally determined.
Section 95 support can be provided as both accommodation and subsistence, or accommodation or subsistence only. Data from 2010 onwards are provisional figures.
The data include dependants in receipt of support.
The data exclude unaccompanied asylum seeking children supported by local authorities.
The number of asylum seekers granted Section 95 support is published on a quarterly basis and can be found in Table as.17q, available in Asylum Excel Tables Volume five. The latest publication covering the first quarter of 2012 is available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/immigration-q1-2012.
Aviation: British Airways
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to British Airways regarding maintaining the direct air link between Belfast City Airport and Heathrow Airport.[HL739]
Earl Attlee: In recent weeks the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has regularly discussed this issue with the chief executive of International Airlines Group (IAG) and stressed the importance of maintaining links from Northern Ireland into Heathrow. Her Majesty's Government therefore welcome the commitment given by Mr Walsh in May that British Airways is “committed to the route and will continue to operate it beyond the end of the current summer schedule with the same number of daily flights”.
Banks: Iceland
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 28 May (WA 96), whether they will extrapolate and accumulate (1) the amounts that have been repaid to 31 March 2011 by the administrators of each of the failed Icelandic banks, (2) the amount outstanding from each bank, and (3) the amount of any related impairments recognised to date and the reasons therefore; and when HM Treasury annual reports and accounts for 2011-12 will be available.[HL791]
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): HM Treasury's annual report and accounts will provide a full update on the financial position of the loans relating to the failed Icelandic banks. In particular, for each loan, the accounts will show any additions and repayments during 2011-12, amortisation and any adjustments to the level of impairment. A narrative will be included in the accounts on each loan and this will detail significant movements and the amount outstanding on a cash basis, before impairment and amortisation. This will be similar to notes 33 to 36 in the 2010-11 annual report and accounts.
HM Treasury's annual report and accounts 2011-12 are currently being audited by the National Audit Office. We intend to publish the accounts before the Summer Recess.
Energy: Petrol Retailers
Questions
Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the percentage share of fuel sold to motorists by supermarkets on the petrol retail industry as a whole.[HL808]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the number of independent petrol retailers currently operating and the estimated number in (1) five, (2) 10, and (3) 20 years' time.[HL811]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): In May 2012 the petroleum retail market comprised 8,677 sites across the UK, according to Experian Catalist data. The 1,268 supermarket sites represented 38.7% market share by volume of product sold. Independent petrol retailers owned 5,194 sites representing 32.4% of the market by volume of product sold.
The petrol retail industry is characterised by low retail margins and intense levels of competition. Estimates have not been made of the number of independent petrol retailers likely to be operating in the future market.
Finance: Gilts
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the impact of the purchase by the Bank of England of gilt-edged securities as part of its quantitative easing programme on the size of the national debt.[HL828]
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.
Letter from Stephen Penneck, Director General for ONS, to Lord Higgins, dated June 2012.
As the Director General of ONS, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what has been the impact of the purchase by the Bank of England of gilt-edged securities as part of its quantitative easing programme on the size of the national debt. [HL828]
Quantitative Easing is the term commonly used to describe the purchase of gilts from the market by the Bank of England’s Asset Purchase Facility Fund (BEAPFF), financed by the creation of central bank reserves (see http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/apf/index.htm for more information).
The national debt is a term commonly used to refer to any measure of public debt, although it has a precise meaning as the total gross liabilities of the National Loans Fund. The BEAPFF has no impact on the liabilities of the National Loans Fund, so it is assumed your question relates to the more widely used measures of public debt.
The most common UK measures of public debt are those published monthly in the “Public Sector Finances” statistical bulletin, produced jointly by ONS and HMT (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Public+Sector+Finance). These measures are known as the Public Sector Net Debt (PSND) and the Public Sector Net Debt excluding the temporary effects of the government financial interventions (PSND ex), the latter is the measure used by HM Treasury and
the Office for Budgetary Responsibility. A third measure of public debt is that used by the European Union; commonly known as the Maastricht debt, it is defined as the gross liabilities of general government, that is it excludes public controlled corporations (http://www. ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=General+ Government+Debt+and+Deficit). All three debt measures are based upon National Accounts principles set out in the European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA95).
In National Accounts, the Bank of England is classified as a public financial corporation, and is in the public sector but it is not part of general government. Therefore, the BEAPFF does not contribute to the Maastricht debt but does contribute to the PSND. The BEAPFF is excluded from the PSND ex, as it is considered a temporary effect of the financial interventions, and therefore there is no impact on PSND ex. It will impact on PSND ex at the point when the scheme closes and any gains or losses from the scheme are known.
The gilts purchased by the BEAPFF are treated as assets of the Bank of England, and the central bank reserves that are created to pay for them as its liabilities. The gilts purchased remain as government liabilities. The BEAPFF gilt purchases do have a small (in the context of the overall total) impact on PSND even though the value of assets purchased are matched by the liabilities created to pay for them. One reason for this impact is that the gilts are purchased by the Bank of England at the prevailing market price, but by convention are recorded in the PSND at their nominal price. The second reason is that interest payments flow from government to the BEAPFF and are therefore transfers within the public sector (whereas previously they left the public sector altogether).
As reported by the Bank of England, the BEAPFF scheme by May 2012 had bought gilts of a nominal value of £284,945 million and in doing so created reserve liabilities of £324,753 million (http://www. bankofengland.co.uk/markets/Pages/apf/gilts/results. aspx). The difference in market and nominal prices of £39,808 million increases PSND by this amount when compared to what the PSND would have been if the BEAPFF had not existed. However, by purchasing the gilts, interest payments of approximately £22,200 million, which would have previously left the public sector, are retained, driving down PSND. Therefore, the net impact from the BEAPFF on the PSND, as at May 2012 stands at a debt increase of approximately £17,600 million.
The recording in Public Sector Finances of the BEAPFF is explained in greater detail in Chapter 27 of the ONS report “Public Sector Interventions in the Financial Crisis” (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/psa/financial-crisis-and-statistical-classification/public -sector-interventions-in-the-financial-crisis/public-sector-interventions-in-the-financial-crisis-.pdf) and in the ONS article “Public Sector Finances excluding Financial Interventions” (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/psa/public-sector-finances/including-finance-lease-liabilities-in-public-sector-net-debt--pfi-and-other/public-sector-finances-excluding-financial-interventions.pdf).
Gulf War Illnesses
Question
Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have made any recent reassessment of the safety of vaccines administered to service personnel deployed in the first Gulf War; and whether they are taking action to review the use of the Official Secrets Acts in relation to the treatment of veterans of the conflict.[HL664]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): No. In 1998 the Ministry of Defence 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 was offered to UK forces at the time of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict would not have had adverse health effects.
We do not believe that there is any need to review the Official Secrets Act—our policy with all Gulf War illness-related questions is one of openness, and much information has been released to veterans of the war and other interested parties.
Health: In-vitro Diagnostic Tests
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government which regulatory authority in the United Kingdom has the authority and responsibility for pre-market evaluation and approval of Lyme borreliosis test kits; and, if there is not one, how they ensure that the manufacturers’ performance claims are met or exceeded and that test accuracy is clearly communicated to clinicians. [HL686]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): In vitro diagnostic test kits such as this have to be CE marked by the manufacturer according to the requirements of the European Commission in vitro diagnostic devices directive 98/79/EC before they can be placed on the market. This requires the manufacturer to demonstrate that the device is safe and fit for its intended purpose, including that the performance claims made can be met and that the instructions for use which have to be provided detail the test accuracy.
Manufacturers of these devices are able to self-declare conformity to the requirements laid in the directive in order to CE mark their products and place them on the market. Member states’ competent authorities, such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the United Kingdom, have a mainly post-market surveillance role which, if there is evidence that the test does not perform as intended by the manufacturer or that the instructions for use provided
are inadequate, would include taking action to bring the test into compliance or, if necessary, to remove the test from the market.
House of Lords: Media
Question
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether there are proposals to place restrictions on members of the media who ask the House of Lords for information on more than 12 occasions a week; whether questions by members of the media are monitored and counted; and, if so, by whom. [HL677]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel): There are no such proposals.
General media inquiries are dealt with and monitored by the Press Office. Written requests for information are dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and all non-routine requests are formally monitored by the Freedom of Information Officer. Requests for information received from members of the media, as opposed to the general public, are not separately identified.
Immigration
Question
Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to give effect to the Court of Appeal’s recommendation, in its judgment in Lamichhane v Secretary of State for the Home Department on 7 March, on the need for a clear codification of statute law on immigration rights, restrictions, administrative procedures and appeals.[HL636]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): The Government’s priorities for immigration are to limit the number of non-EEA economic migrants entering the UK and to strengthen border control. We recognise the benefits of making the immigration system simpler and we are pursuing this through the simplification of our Immigration Rules and processes and by moving to a rules-based approach wherever possible, such as in our new family migration policy.
Immigration: Detention
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will revise the UK Border Agency’s Enforcement Instructions and Guidance to ensure that decisions to initiate and maintain detention include an assessment of the likelihood of deportation being carried out within a period of detention that is lawful and reasonable.[HL631]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): Chapter 55 of the UK Border Agency’s Enforcement Instructions and Guidance already makes clear that detention may only continue for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances for the specific purpose for which it was authorised. The guidance also makes clear that, if before the expiry of the reasonable period it becomes apparent that the purpose of the power, for example removal or deportation, cannot be effected within that reasonable period, the power to detain should not be exercised. Furthermore, the guidance confirms that detention can only lawfully be exercised where there is a realistic prospect of removal or deportation within a reasonable period.
In cases involving foreign national offenders, due to the need to protect the public, where the deportation criteria are met, the normal presumption in favour of temporary admission or temporary release, rather than detention, should be weighed against the risk of the individual reoffending or absconding. If detention is considered appropriate, this is subject to the proviso that there is the prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale.
Nuclear Security
Questions
Asked by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the adequacy of the current regime for insuring nuclear risk in the United Kingdom in maintaining a fair market, especially for new entrants.[HL660]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of capacity in the United Kingdom nuclear risk insurance market and the possible impact on the nuclear new build programme.[HL661]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 imposes liability on the operators of nuclear installations to pay compensation to third parties who suffer injury or damage in the event of a nuclear incident. The 1965 Act also requires licensed operators to cover their third-party liabilities “by insurance or by some other means” so that sufficient funds are available at all times to meet duly established claims. The Government do not prescribe how operators fulfil this requirement for cover but it is necessary for the solutions to be approved by the Secretary of State for DECC with the consent of HM Treasury to ensure the adequacy of the cover. Operators, both current and those in the future, therefore have a discretion as to how they cover their liabilities (whether by insurance or some other form of financial security) and from whom they purchase such cover (this could include existing providers of cover and any new entrants).
At present operators are able to cover the full extent of their liabilities under the 1965 Act and this requirement for cover is largely met by purchasing such commercial insurance.
The 1965 Act is being amended to implement the changes made to the Paris Convention on nuclear
third-party liability and the Brussels Supplementary Convention. The revised conventions upgrade the third-party liability regime and provide, in the event of a nuclear incident, an increased amount of compensation for a larger number of claimants in respect of a broader range of damage than is currently the case. There is a possibility that the existing nuclear insurance providers may not be able to provide cover for all the new liabilities at the start of the new regime.
These issues were considered in the Government’s consultation on the implementation of the Paris and Brussels changes and their subsequent response—see especially chapter 9: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/ cms/consultations/paris_brussels/paris_brussels.aspx.
The Government commissioned a report on the availability of nuclear insurance as part of their response to the consultation (http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/ Consultations/paris-brussels-convention-changes/4877-indecs-report--decc-nuclear-liabilities--report.pdf). The report concluded that:
most of the liabilities under the new regime will be able to be covered through insurance or other financial security options by the market as soon as the revised legislation comes into force;however, given the nature of the insurance industry it is likely that some elements of the liabilities may not be covered from the outset of the new regime and that it may be desirable for government to provide cover for a short period (between two and three years after the regime comes into force); andthere is an opportunity for new entrants to provide nuclear insurance and that the wider insurance market is at various stages of developing products to cover the liabilities.
Olympic Games 2012: Torch
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the cost of the Metropolitan Police’s involvement in the journey of the Olympic torch around the United Kingdom in 2012; and from what budget provision the cost was met.[HL774]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): The final cost of policing the torch relay will not be known until after the event is concluded, but the Home Office is providing funding from its Olympic safety and security budget to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for its role in the journey of the Olympic torch around the UK. This includes funding for those staff in the MPS’s full-time planning and command roles and the additional costs for the policing team while on the road with the relay. The wider policing costs associated with the torch relay are being picked up through normal local policing budgets by the local forces concerned.
Ports: Liverpool Cruise Terminal
Question
To ask Her Majesty’s Government to which budgets the £8.8 million grant repayment by Liverpool City Council in assuaging competition concerns to turnaround cruise operations at the City of Liverpool Cruise Terminal will be allocated.[HL765]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): The funds to be repaid by Liverpool City Council originated from the North West Development Agency and the single regeneration budget. It is expected that when those funds are returned they will be allocated to the national economic regeneration budget managed by BIS and also to DCLG’s regeneration programme budget.
Prisoners: Voting
Question
Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Russia and the United Kingdom automatically deprive all convicted prisoners serving prison sentences of the right to vote.[HL575]
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The countries cited by the noble Lord are those listed by the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Scoppola v Italy (No. 3) as those which automatically deprive all convicted prisoners serving prison sentences of the right to vote.
Questions for Written Answer
Questions
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether the Procedure Committee’s recommendation to the House that Questions for Written Answer be restricted to 12 per Member each week took into account the issue of whether the Government’s Answers to Questions for Written Answer are acceptable and do not cause the same Questions to be tabled again; if it did, who monitors the Answers; and if such a process is not in place, whether the committee will give it consideration.[HL676]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel): The Procedure Committee did not consider this issue, and has no plans to do so.
The Ministerial Code states that “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”. It also states that “Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when
disclosure would not be in the public interest”. These general principles are developed in the Cabinet Office guidance to officials on drafting Answers to Parliamentary Questions, which is published online at http://www. cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/guidance-drafting-answers-parliamentary-questions.
Responsibility for monitoring adherence to the Ministerial Code rests with the Government, subject to the general principle of accountability to Parliament. The timeliness of Written Answers is already routinely monitored by the Leader of the House’s office; if the noble Lord has concerns regarding the quality of a specific Answer or set of Answers, he may wish to raise them either with the Minister concerned or with the Leader of the House.
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether, at the request of a Member, a Question asked of a government department in letter form by a Member, together with its Answer, can be printed in the Official Report.[HL678]
The Chairman of Committees: No.
Roads: Traffic Signs
Question
Asked by Baroness Thomas of Winchester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will change the guidance on signage about parking for blue badge holders in red route parking bays to make such signs more easily understood from a moving vehicle.[HL683]
Earl Attlee: Upright signs for red route parking bays follow established design rules and are intended to be understood by drivers of moving vehicles. Our guidance on these signs (which are authorised by the Secretary of State) is contained in Section 10 of Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual. I am not aware of any concerns about comprehension of these signs.
Transport: Fuel
Question
Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the safety procedures for the transportation of petrol around the United Kingdom. [HL810]
Earl Attlee: The carriage of all dangerous goods classified as dangerous in transport, including hydrocarbon fuels, is regulated at the international level and is then transposed according to the transport mode into UK law. Her Majesty’s Government are satisfied that this legislation, which is subject to review and revision every two years, facilitates the safe carriage of all dangerous goods in a way that prevents leakage and protects the public, environment and economy.