Blog

  • Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how often between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2016 requests for diplomatic status or immunity were refused, and on what grounds.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    A small number of requests for diplomatic status or immunity from members of the public have been received by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and subsequently refused. However, statistics and details are not recorded centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. It is incumbent on the sending State to inform the FCO of the appointment of staff, including diplomats, to any of its missions in the UK. The FCO is not required to give explicit consent to such appointments, except in the case of heads of mission and military, naval and air attaches.

  • Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what procedures are followed when a citizen of a foreign state claims diplomatic immunity as the representative of a third state.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Article 8(3) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 permits third country diplomats to be appointed to a diplomatic mission with the consent of the receiving State. Such appointments are rare, but the UK does accept them. If a third country national resident in the UK claimed to be a diplomat, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) would first check that the person’s name was on its database of foreign diplomats and their families. As necessary, the FCO would also confirm with the relevant diplomatic mission that the individual was a member of the mission’s staff.

  • Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many claims of diplomatic immunity were advanced in UK courts, or other legal procedures, between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2016; how many of those were successful; and of which states those successful and unsuccessful claimants were citizens.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    A number of claims of diplomatic immunity have been advanced through the UK courts. However, statistics and details are not recorded centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  • Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what procedures are followed when a foreign national resident in the UK not previously understood to be a diplomat claims diplomatic immunity.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 the sending State must make certain that the agrément of the receiving State has been given for the person it proposes to accredit as its head of mission (Article 4). The UK also requires sending States to submit the names of military, naval and air attaches for approval (Article 7). Diplomatic missions are further required to notify the receiving State of the arrival of all members of the mission (Article 10). If a foreign national resident in the UK claimed to be a diplomat, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) would check whether the person’s name was on its database of foreign diplomats and their families as notified to the FCO by the sending State. As necessary, the FCO would also confirm with the relevant diplomatic mission that the individual was a member of the mission’s staff.

  • Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    Lord Wallace of Saltaire – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many accredited diplomats from (1) Saudi Arabia, (2) the United Arab Emirates, (3) Kuwait, (4) Bahrain, (5) Qatar, (6) France, (7) Germany, (8) the Netherlands, and (9) the US, were resident in the UK on 1 January.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    According to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s records, the number of individuals resident in the UK on 1 January 2016 who were notified, with some form of diplomatic or consular status, to represent the following countries are:

    Saudi Arabia

    209

    The United Arab Emirates

    46

    Kuwait

    54

    Bahrain

    8

    Qatar

    15

    France

    196

    Germany

    138

    The Netherlands

    32

    The USA

    478

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

    Lord Storey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Storey on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the legal requirements to have a governing body for (1) a maintained school, and (2) an academy school, and whether a school of either kind can abolish its governing body.

    Lord Nash

    Section 19 of the Education Act 2002 requires every maintained school to have a governing body, constituted in accordance with regulations.

    Under the Academies Act 2010, an academy is a charitable company limited by guarantee and is therefore required under the Companies Act 2006 to have members and a board of trustees or directors.

    It is not possible for a maintained school to abolish its governing body or an academy trust to abolish its board of trustees, however, it is possible for a group of schools to be governed by one governing body or academy trust.

    When two or more maintained schools federate they operate under a single governing body, but each school remains a separate legal identity. In a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT), individual academies do not have a separate legal identity and are all under the control of the trust board. Whether the board establishes local governing boards for each academy, and the range of functions delegated to any such boards, are both a matter for the board to determine – but in all cases the board remains accountable for the academies in the MAT.

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

    Lord Storey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Storey on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what powers local authorities have to intervene regarding safeguarding concerns at an academy school.

    Lord Nash

    Under the Children Act 1989, local authorities are under a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people within their area by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs. This is regardless of the type of educational provision.

    Section 47 of the same act requires the local authority to investigate whether action should be taken by them to safeguard or promote the welfare of children suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.

    The statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (2015) and Keeping children safe in education (2014) clarifies the core legal requirements for individuals and organisations to keep children safe. The guidance applies in its entirety to all schools. Schools have responsibilities to notify the local authority if there are safeguarding concerns about individual children or recruitment issues linked to individual staff. Statutory guidance also sets out how all schools are expected to cooperate with the local safeguarding children board to ensure that safeguarding practice across the area is joined up and robust.

    If a local authority has concerns about the general adequacy of statutory safeguarding arrangements in place in a particular academy, they may notify the academies regulator, i.e. the Education Funding Agency (EFA), which can seek compliance, or Ofsted, which has powers to inspect safeguarding arrangements. In such circumstances, the EFA will take appropriate action to check that the academy’s arrangements are compliant with its statutory responsibilities. The EFA may also notify Ofsted of any concerns or evidence it has about an academy’s apparent failure to operate adequate safeguarding arrangements.

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

    Lord Storey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Storey on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what responsibilities local authorities have to ensure that home tuition is carried out within legal requirements.

    Lord Nash

    Parents of a child of compulsory school age must comply with the duty in section 7 of the Education Act 1996 to cause the child to receive efficient full-time education suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and to any special educational needs the child may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. They can meet this duty by electing to educate at home, which is referred to in the Act as education ‘otherwise than at school’.

    Local authorities do not have a general responsibility to monitor the education provided by parents, for the purposes of ensuring that parents are meeting their responsibilities. An authority has a duty under s.436A of the Education Act 1996 to make arrangements to establish the identities of children who are not receiving a suitable education. However, the fact that a child is educated at home does not necessarily mean that the child is not receiving a suitable education.

    Should it appear that the child is not receiving suitable education, the local authority has a duty under s.437(1) of the Education Act 1996 to serve a notice requiring the parent to satisfy the authority that the child is indeed receiving a suitable education. If the parent is unable to satisfy the authority, and the authority considers it expedient for the child to attend school, then the local authority must issue a school attendance order.

    These matters are set out in guidance issued by the Department for Education to local authorities.

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

    Lord Storey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Storey on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the legal responsibilities of those parents who choose to teach their children at home.

    Lord Nash

    Parents of a child of compulsory school age must comply with the duty in section 7 of the Education Act 1996 to cause the child to receive efficient full-time education suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and to any special educational needs the child may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise. They can meet this duty by electing to educate at home, which is referred to in the Act as education ‘otherwise than at school’.

    Local authorities do not have a general responsibility to monitor the education provided by parents, for the purposes of ensuring that parents are meeting their responsibilities. An authority has a duty under s.436A of the Education Act 1996 to make arrangements to establish the identities of children who are not receiving a suitable education. However, the fact that a child is educated at home does not necessarily mean that the child is not receiving a suitable education.

    Should it appear that the child is not receiving suitable education, the local authority has a duty under s.437(1) of the Education Act 1996 to serve a notice requiring the parent to satisfy the authority that the child is indeed receiving a suitable education. If the parent is unable to satisfy the authority, and the authority considers it expedient for the child to attend school, then the local authority must issue a school attendance order.

    These matters are set out in guidance issued by the Department for Education to local authorities.

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

    Lord Storey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Storey on 2016-01-19.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many pupils have gone missing from school registers in the last 10 years in total, and in each year.

    Lord Nash

    The Government does not collect data on children who are not registered pupils at a school. Local authorities have a duty under s.436A of the Education Act 1996 to make arrangements to establish the identities of children who are not receiving a suitable education. This would include collecting as much information as necessary to establish the whereabouts of children who are potentially missing education and whether they are receiving suitable education.