Blog

  • Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-04-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether it is legal for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to advertise and provide access to the Government’s referendum leaflet on its main website and whether any costs involved are additional to, or part of, the total spending on producing and distributing the leaflet.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    Gov.uk provides a range of Government information, including links to the eureferendum.gov.uk website which sets out information for the public in order to ensure they are able to make an informed decision on 23rd June.

    It is legal for Government to do so and there are no additional costs associated with this. These links will be removed at the start of the restricted 28 day period.

  • Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-04-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement will be subject to ratification by both Houses of Parliament and the US Congress.

    Lord Price

    We expect the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will be a “mixed” agreement, covering areas of both EU and Member State competence, to which the US, EU and all EU Member States will be parties.

    In that case, it will be subject to agreement by each EU Member State, the EU Council and the European Parliament. As part of this process in the UK, before the Government can ratify the agreement, the complete draft text of the agreement will initially be laid before Parliament for scrutiny for at least 21 sitting days. During this time MPs and Lords may debate the treaty in either or both Houses and vote on the proposed ratification.

    In the US, both Houses of Congress would have to ratify legislation to implement the agreement, but not the agreement itself.

  • Baroness Berridge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Baroness Berridge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Berridge on 2016-04-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the murder of Asad Shah in Glasgow, what action they are taking to restrict access to websites that espouse extremism in Pakistan.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    The tragic murder of Asad Shah demonstrated the powerful influence of extremist online content. In the UK, the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) is responsible for the referral of terrorist-related content to online communication service providers (CSPs) for removal. Upon receipt of a referral, CSPs remove material on a voluntary basis where it breaches their terms and conditions.

    Referrals made to CSPs by CTIRU have led to over 160,000 pieces of terrorist-related content being removed to date world-wide, including websites, user accounts and videos. Overall, removals at the request of CTIRU have increased from around 60 items a month in 2010, when CTIRU was first established, to over 4,000 a month in 2016.

  • Baroness Berridge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Baroness Berridge – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Berridge on 2016-04-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to respond to anti-Ahmadiyya hate literature in the UK in the light of recent reports that leaflets endorsing the execution of Ahmadi Muslims were found in Stockwell Green mosque on 10 April.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    Religiously motivated hate crime and hate speech has absolutely no place in British society. This Government is clear that everybody should be free to live their lives free from fear of attack simply because of what their beliefs are, and that tragic events such as the recent murder of Asad Shah in Glasgow will not be tolerated. We have a strong legal framework in place against discrimination on the basis of religion, and criminal penalties for offences such as racially or religiously aggravated assault and criminal damage. Those who perpetrate hate crimes of any kind will be punished with the full force of the law. This Government has done more than any other to tackle anti-Muslim hatred. As of 1 April 2016, police forces in England and Wales are disaggregating religious hate crime data to reveal the true scale and nature of the problem. The Government also plans to publish its new Hate Crime Action Plan in the summer, which will set out our approach to tacking all forms of hate crime, including Islamophobia. This will build on the success of ‘Challenge It, Report It, Stop It’, which was published in 2012 and updated subsequently in 2014.

  • – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by on 2016-04-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 21 April (HL Deb, col 762–4) on religiously motivated crime, whether they will provide details of which community groups the Home Secretary is engaging with in the community round tables”

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    In his speech on countering extremism in July 2015, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to hear directly from those in our society who are challenging extremism. The Community Engagement Forum is one of the ways we are doing this. The Forums provide a platform for a wide range of partners to share their experiences and learn from each other. Attendance at the Forums is fluid to ensure Ministers can hear from a wide range of partners from a variety of backgrounds.

    To date, the Community Engagement Forum has met on 13 October 2015, 19 November 2015 and 14 January 2016. A list of those that have attended is available in response to written parliamentary questions HL6419 and HC20784. Further community forums are planned for later this year. In addition, I myself have chaired round tables with different faith communities and leaders.

  • Lord Northbourne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Northbourne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Northbourne on 2016-04-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce legislation to require all schools, including academies, to provide high quality sex and relationship education as part of their syllabus.

    Lord Nash

    Maintained secondary schools must continue to meet their existing statutory duties. All maintained secondary schools are required to teach sex and relationship education and we expect academies to teach it as part of a broad and balanced curriculum.

    As announced in February, we will continue to keep the status of PSHE under review and work with a group of leading headteachers and practitioners to identify further action we can take to ensure that all pupils receive high quality, age appropriate PSHE and sex and relationship education.

    When any school, including academies, teaches sex and relationship education, they must have regard to the Secretary of State’s statutory Sex and Relationship Education Guidance (2000). The guidance makes clear that all such lessons should be age-appropriate and that schools should ensure young people develop positive values and a moral framework that will guide their decisions, judgments and behaviour.

  • Lord Northbourne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lord Northbourne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Northbourne on 2016-04-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether their proposal to change the status of all secondary schools in England to academies would mean that maintained schools no longer have an obligation to deliver sex and relationship education.

    Lord Nash

    Maintained secondary schools must continue to meet their existing statutory duties. All maintained secondary schools are required to teach sex and relationship education and we expect academies to teach it as part of a broad and balanced curriculum.

    As announced in February, we will continue to keep the status of PSHE under review and work with a group of leading headteachers and practitioners to identify further action we can take to ensure that all pupils receive high quality, age appropriate PSHE and sex and relationship education.

    When any school, including academies, teaches sex and relationship education, they must have regard to the Secretary of State’s statutory Sex and Relationship Education Guidance (2000). The guidance makes clear that all such lessons should be age-appropriate and that schools should ensure young people develop positive values and a moral framework that will guide their decisions, judgments and behaviour.

  • Lord Falconer of Thoroton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Falconer of Thoroton – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 2016-04-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to publish the findings of their review of employment tribunal fees; who conducted that review; what resources were afforded to that review; and when they were made aware of the findings of that review.

    Lord Faulks

    On 11 June we announced the start of the post-implementation review of the introduction of fees in the Employment Tribunals. The Review is being undertaken within the Ministry of Justice.

    The review is ongoing and will be published in due course.

  • Viscount Waverley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Viscount Waverley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Viscount Waverley on 2016-04-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether it is their intention that, in the event of the UK leaving the EU, citizens of EU member states who had previously settled in the UK would be entitled automatically to remain; and if not, what contingency plans they are making to defend any legal challenges or claims for compensation under the European Convention on Human Rights that might arise from individuals who are subject to removal.

    Lord Keen of Elie

    As set out in the Government’s White Paper: ‘The process for withdrawing from the European Union’, published on 29 February, the withdrawal process is unprecedented. No country has ever used Article 50 – it is untested. There is a great deal of uncertainty about how it would work.

    UK citizens get the right to live and work in the other 27 member states from our membership of the EU. If the UK voted to leave the EU, the Government would do all it could to secure a positive outcome for the country, but there would be no requirement under EU law for these rights to be maintained.

  • Viscount Waverley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Viscount Waverley – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Viscount Waverley on 2016-04-27.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with other EU member states about whether, in the event of the UK leaving the EU, British citizens settled in EU member states would have an automatic right to remain in the countries where they have settled.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    No such discussions have been held. As I said in my previous response of 25 April (HL7678), the Government’s view is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off in a reformed EU. Should the UK choose to stay in the EU, British citizens will be able to work, live and retire abroad as they do now. UK citizens get a range of rights from our membership of the EU. If the UK were to leave the EU, all of these rights would have to be covered in a successor arrangement. If we left the EU without agreeing what would happen to these rights, it would at the least bring them into serious question, creating difficulty for UK citizens who relied on them.