Author: admin

  • Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the reports that Joseph Kony and senior members of the Lords Resistance Army are hiding in a Sudanese-controlled area of a disputed enclave bordering the Central African Republic.

    Baroness Warsi

    We have not been able to assess the veracity of reports that Joseph Kony and senior members of the Lords Resistance Army are hiding in a Sudanese-controlled area of a disputed enclave bordering the Central African Republic. However, we are aware of reports that local authorities in south-eastern Central African Republic (CAR) have been in contact with a contingent of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) who have expressed an interest in surrendering.

    The British Government condemns in the strongest possible terms the atrocities carried out by the LRA. Although much reduced in numbers, the LRA remains an unprincipled, violent threat to civilians in the heart of Africa. The UK has consistently promoted a co-ordinated regional and international approach to defeating the LRA. We continue to encourage the UN and African Union to implement their counter-LRA strategies in full and bring Kony to justice.

  • (4) in local authority schools – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    (4) in local authority schools – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by (4) in local authority schools on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Nash on 14 May (WA 532) stating that the Ofsted Report for 2013 found there were 700,000 pupils in schools where behaviour is just not good enough”

    Lord Nash

    Ofsted’s annual report (2012/13) indicates that around 700,000 pupils are in schools where behaviour needs to improve.

    This figure is based on Ofsted’s behaviour inspection judgement for 2013, which shows that nationally 8 per cent of schools in England are rated less than ‘good’, and the number of pupils on roll in schools taken from the rounded January 2013 School Census Data. Information in the form requested is not held by the Department.

  • Lord Quirk – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Quirk – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Quirk on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Nash on 14 May (WA 533), if school exclusion data for the years 1980 and 1990 are not held by the Department for Education, from where they can be obtained.

    Lord Nash

    Permanent exclusions data was first collected in 1994/95. Information on fixed period exclusions was only collected from 2003/04.

    Information on exclusion rates prior to 2005/06 was collected via the Termly Exclusions Survey rather than the School Census.

  • Lord Quirk – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Quirk – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Quirk on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether it has been their policy for fixed-period exclusions from school to remain broadly constant over the past decade and for permanent exclusions to fall sharply year by year; if so, how they assess the outcome; and if not, how they account for the difference.

    Lord Nash

    Exclusion is a decision for headteachers alone to take. The Government does not set targets or expected levels for exclusion. Rather, the Government’s policy is that headteachers need to ensure good discipline in schools, in the interest of all their pupils, and should feel confident in using exclusion where they believe this is warranted by a pupil’s behaviour.

  • Lord Quirk – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Quirk – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Quirk on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have observed any correlation between bad behaviour in schools and the absence of a specified dress code for (1) pupils, and (2) teachers.

    Lord Nash

    The Government does not have any evidence of any correlation between bad behaviour in schools and the absence of a specified dress code for pupils and teachers.

    The Department for Education has issued advice that strongly encourages schools to have a uniform, as it can play a valuable role in contributing to the ethos of a school and setting an appropriate tone. However, it is for the governing body of a school (or the academy trust in the case of academies and free schools) to decide whether there should be a uniform policy and other rules on appearance. This flows from the duties placed upon all governing bodies by statute to ensure that school policies promote good behaviour and discipline among the pupil body.

    Dress codes for teachers are a matter for employers to determine, whether that is the governing body, academy trust or local authority. As part of the general terms and conditions of employment agreed with employees we would expect schools to consider an appropriate dress code, relevant to the individual setting, taking into account the requirements of the post.

  • Lord Quirk – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Quirk – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Quirk on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in respect of the latest two years for which figures are available, how many of the pupils excluded from academies were admitted to local authority schools.

    Lord Nash

    Information on the number of exclusions from academies in England in the 2010/11[1] and 2011/12[2] academic years is available in table 16 of the “Permanent and fixed period exclusions from schools in England” statistical first releases for each year.

    Information on the number of excluded pupils that were admitted to local authority schools is not held by the Department.

    Academies are bound by their funding agreements to comply with the statutory requirements on admissions and the Admissions Code as if they were a maintained school. Schools, including academies, cannot refuse to admit pupils on the grounds of past behaviour unless they have received two or more permanent exclusions.

    [1]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/permanent-and-fixed-period-exclusions-from-schools-in-england-academic-year-2010-to-2011

    [2]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/permanent-and-fixed-period-exclusions-from-schools-in-england-2011-to-2012-academic-year

    “

  • Lord Patten – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Patten – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 14 May (WA 511), and in the light of the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 8 April (WA 267) stating that they do not support eugenic practices in the United Kingdom, why they have no definitions of what these practices might be.

    Earl Howe

    The Government does not support eugenic practices. It is not considered helpful to interpret the term ‘eugenic practices’ other than by reference to its ordinarily understood meaning. Any attempt at a working definition would risk the unintentional exclusion of practices whose unacceptability is no less great than that of practices captured by such a definition.

    As previously stated, in the United Kingdom, the complex nature of devolved responsibilities in this range of policy areas has delayed consideration of full ratification. In the meantime, the UK continues to take an active role in Council of Europe negotiations and development of relevant protocols.

  • Lord Patten – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Patten – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 14 May (WA 511), why they have no set date for the full ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.

    Earl Howe

    The Government does not support eugenic practices. It is not considered helpful to interpret the term ‘eugenic practices’ other than by reference to its ordinarily understood meaning. Any attempt at a working definition would risk the unintentional exclusion of practices whose unacceptability is no less great than that of practices captured by such a definition.

    As previously stated, in the United Kingdom, the complex nature of devolved responsibilities in this range of policy areas has delayed consideration of full ratification. In the meantime, the UK continues to take an active role in Council of Europe negotiations and development of relevant protocols.

  • Lord Patten – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Patten – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Patten on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 14 May (WA 499), what is their assessment of whether issuing guidance by amending the wording of form HSA1 would represent an act of secondary legislation or a change in the Abortion Act 1967.

    Earl Howe

    Any changes to the wording of the HSA1 form, if needed, would require changes to secondary legislation. Such changes could not be introduced through guidance, which makes no changes to abortion legislation.

  • FALSE – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    FALSE – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by FALSE on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the evidence cited in the article An Increase in the Sex Ratio of Births to India-born Mothers in England and Wales: Evidence for Sex-Selective Abortion” by Sylvie Dubuc and David Coleman published in Population and Development Review

    Earl Howe

    This article is a useful addition to the evidence base around sex selective abortions.

    On 23 May 2014 the Department published updated analysis of birth ratios for England and Wales 2008-2012. The analyses by country of birth and ethnicity did not offer evidence of sex selection taking place within England and Wales. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library. It is also available at:

    www.gov.uk/government/publications/analysis-of-male-to-female-birth-ratios-in-the-uk-2008-to-2012.

    The Department will repeat this analysis on an annual basis following publication of birth data and remain vigilant and receptive to reports of such practice.