Lord Balfe Portrait

Lord Balfe

Conservative - Life peer

Became Member: 19th September 2013



Division Voting information

During the current Parliament, Lord Balfe has voted in 439 divisions, and 27 times against the majority of their Party.

23 Feb 2021 - Trade Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 33 Conservative Aye votes vs 188 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 367 Noes - 214
2 Feb 2021 - Trade Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 40 Conservative Aye votes vs 165 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 359 Noes - 188
7 Dec 2020 - Conduct Committee Report - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Conservative No votes vs 147 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 408 Noes - 24
7 Dec 2020 - Trade Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 16 Conservative Aye votes vs 143 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 287 Noes - 161
1 Dec 2020 - Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 27 Conservative Aye votes vs 178 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 64 Noes - 246
9 Nov 2020 - United Kingdom Internal Market Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 44 Conservative No votes vs 147 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 165 Noes - 433
9 Nov 2020 - United Kingdom Internal Market Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 38 Conservative No votes vs 134 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 148 Noes - 407
20 Oct 2020 - United Kingdom Internal Market Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 39 Conservative Aye votes vs 158 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 395 Noes - 169
23 Jun 2020 - Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Conservative Aye votes vs 183 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 136 Noes - 220
2 Nov 2021 - Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 3 Conservative Aye votes vs 165 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 220 Noes - 178
22 Feb 2022 - Procedure and Privileges Committee - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 8 Conservative Aye votes vs 94 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 144 Noes - 133
16 Mar 2022 - Health and Care Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 26 Conservative Aye votes vs 102 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 145 Noes - 179
16 Mar 2022 - Health and Care Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 3 Conservative Aye votes vs 102 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 112 Noes - 107
4 Apr 2022 - Nationality and Borders Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 9 Conservative Aye votes vs 124 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 199 Noes - 132
5 Apr 2022 - Health and Care Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 6 Conservative Aye votes vs 146 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 187 Noes - 151
5 Apr 2022 - Health and Care Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 8 Conservative Aye votes vs 132 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 177 Noes - 135
6 Apr 2022 - Elections Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Conservative Aye votes vs 147 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 153 Noes - 160
18 Jul 2022 - Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022 - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Conservative Aye votes vs 95 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 80 Noes - 96
7 Mar 2023 - National Security Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Conservative Aye votes vs 163 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 132 Noes - 180
26 Apr 2023 - Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 1 Conservative Aye votes vs 190 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 232 Noes - 201
26 Apr 2023 - Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 1 Conservative Aye votes vs 184 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 220 Noes - 196
26 Apr 2023 - Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 1 Conservative Aye votes vs 179 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 213 Noes - 184
8 Jun 2023 - Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 1 Conservative Aye votes vs 145 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 180 Noes - 150
8 Jun 2023 - Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 1 Conservative Aye votes vs 142 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 179 Noes - 148
20 Jun 2023 - Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 4 Conservative Aye votes vs 170 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 218 Noes - 175
21 Jun 2023 - National Security Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 1 Conservative Aye votes vs 157 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 219 Noes - 172
4 Jul 2023 - Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill - View Vote Context
Lord Balfe voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 1 Conservative Aye votes vs 184 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 223 Noes - 204
View All Lord Balfe Division Votes

Debates during the 2019 Parliament

Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.

Sparring Partners
Lord Bethell (Conservative)
(64 debate interactions)
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)
Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
(38 debate interactions)
Lord Callanan (Conservative)
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
(32 debate interactions)
View All Sparring Partners
Department Debates
Department of Health and Social Care
(80 debate contributions)
Cabinet Office
(45 debate contributions)
View All Department Debates
Legislation Debates
Business and Planning Act 2020
(5,428 words contributed)
Pension Schemes Act 2021
(3,665 words contributed)
View All Legislation Debates
View all Lord Balfe's debates

Lords initiatives

These initiatives were driven by Lord Balfe, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.


3 Bills introduced by Lord Balfe


A Bill to amend the Pensions Act 2004 and the Companies Act 2006 to remove the cap on compensation payments under the Pension Protection Fund and to require the approval of pension scheme trustees and the Pensions Regulator for the distribution of dividends.

Lords - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading
Thursday 16th January 2020
(Read Debate)

A Bill to make provision about the holding of referenda in relation to voting systems in local government elections.

Lords - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading : House Of Lords
Monday 13th June 2016

A Bill to make provision to allow European Union citizens who are resident in the United Kingdom to vote in parliamentary elections and to become members of Parliament; and for connected purposes.

Lords - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading: House Of Lords
Thursday 4th June 2015

Lord Balfe has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting


Latest 50 Written Questions

(View all written questions)
Written Questions can be tabled by MPs and Lords to request specific information information on the work, policy and activities of a Government Department
6 Other Department Questions
6th Feb 2023
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker whether, in view of the disquiet over the cost and other aspects of the Peers' Entrance works, any way exists for the issue to be brought to the floor of the House for debate, with a possibility of cancelling or referring back for further consideration these proposals.

The strong advice to all members is that debating the drivers behind specific security projects, and the plans to address security weaknesses, should not be raised in any public forum as to do so may heighten the security threat.

Members are always welcome to contact the Director of Security to discuss any security-related concerns privately.

The Peers’ Portico project has been approved by the Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the House who, as Accounting Officers and Corporate Officers, are legally accountable for ensuring the safety of all members, staff and visitors on the Parliamentary Estate as a whole. Before coming to their decision, they considered professional security advice, the external professional security validation of that advice, and the views of members on the Commission, the Services Committee, the Finance Committee and members more widely. Ultimately it is not the House that makes the final decision because security is a bicameral issue, and legal responsibility for safety sits with the Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the House.

9th Nov 2021
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker, further to the Written Answer by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 9 November (HL3511), whether he will ask the appropriate committee of the House to make this facility for staff late-night travel home available on similar terms to Members of the House.

As set out in my previous reply there are no current plans to make the facility available more widely on similar terms to Members of the House. The Noble Lord is welcome to submit his proposal directly to the Commission, should he so wish.

28th Oct 2021
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker, further to the Written Answer by Lord Gardiner of Kimble on 17 October (HL3131), what plans he has to make this facility for staff late night travel home available on similar terms to Members of the House.

Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen on duty in the Chamber are able to take a taxi when they are on duty and the House sits past 10.40pm, with costs covered up to a linear distance of 25 miles. The same limit applies to staff late night travel. There are no current plans to make the facility available more widely on similar terms to Members of the House.

9th Jun 2021
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what assessment the Liaison Committee has made of the case for establishing a committee for the purposes of preparing a submission to the Conference on the Future of Europe.

In December 2020 the Liaison Committee published the final recommendations from its extensive review of investigative and scrutiny committee activity. These recommendations were agreed by the House on 13 January 2021 and a number of new sessional committees were subsequently appointed on 14 April. These include a Select Committee on European Affairs, with orders of reference which include consideration of matters relating to the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union and European Economic Area. There are no current plans to recommend the appointment of further committees to consider relations with the European Union.

13th May 2021
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker on how many occasions this year the office allocated to the House of Lords in the European Parliament building in Brussels has been visited by a member of House staff; and what plans there are for using that office in the near future.

On 31 January 2020, the date the United Kingdom ceased to be a Member State of the European Union, the UK Parliament ceased to be an EU ‘national Parliament’, except for certain limited purposes set out in Article 128(2) of the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement.

Up until this point designated staff of the House of Lords and House of Commons, as representatives of an EU ‘national Parliament’, were granted access to the European Parliament, along with office accommodation and other benefits. As the noble Lord points out, Norway has since 2012 been the only non-EU Member State to be granted comparable access thus far.

Despite the UK’s changed status after 31 January 2020, the European Parliament continued to afford access to House staff for the duration of the transition period, and on 22 December 2020 the Secretary General of the European Parliament offered “continued hosting” for the two Houses’ representatives after the end of the transition period, subject to “appropriate practical arrangements in the light of the evolving relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom”.

To date, no such practical arrangements have been required, given the guidance agreed by the House of Lords Commission in March 2020, which strongly discouraged overseas travel. Since that date there has been no committee or staff travel to Brussels, and the House’s representative has therefore undertaken the role remotely, using digital tools.

The House of Lords Commission continues to review the guidance on overseas travel, taking account of Government advice and the wider public health situation, and decisions on staff travel to Brussels will be taken as and when the guidance is updated.

11th Oct 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the merits of removing London weighting from civil service salaries in the event that employees do not work in their London offices for at least three days a week.

Since the pandemic began, Civil Servants have been delivering the Government’s priorities from home and in the workplace. The Civil Service continues to follow the latest Government guidance and departments have plans to move gradually to hybrid working.

Pay below the Senior Civil Service is delegated to departments. London pay levels reflect the need to recruit in the London market, not simply the costs incurred by staff for working in the capital. There are no plans to change terms and conditions around London based pay.

Lord True
Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
5th Jan 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the average age of people who have had COVID-19 cited as a contributory cause of death in the last four weeks; how many such people were (1) 0–18, (2) 19–30, (3) 31–40, (4) 41–50, (5) 51–60, (6) 61–70, (7) 71–80, (8) 81–90, and (9) over 90, years old at the time of death; and in each cohort how many such deaths occurred in people with underlying health conditions.

The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority. I have therefore asked the Authority to respond.

14 January 2021

Dear Lord Balfe,

As National Statistician and Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority, I am responding to your Parliamentary Question asking what is the average age of people who have had COVID-19 cited as a contributory cause of death in the last four weeks; how many such people were (1) 0-18, (2) 19-30, (3) 31-40, (4) 41-50, (5) 51-60, (6) 61-70, (7) 71-80, (8) 81-90, and (9) over 90, years old at the time of death; and in each cohort how many such deaths occurred in people with underlying health conditions (HL11720).

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is responsible for publishing numbers of deaths registered in England and Wales. Information on deaths involving COVID-19 and pre-existing health conditions was published in July[1]. As part of deaths registered weekly in England and Wales[2], the ONS produces the number of deaths involving COVID-19 by age group. Table 1 provides the number of deaths involving COVID-19 by age group in the last four weeks.

Table 2 is the mean and median age at death of those whose death involves COVID-19 and for all deaths in the last 4 weeks.

Table 3 shows deaths involving COVID-19 where there is no pre-existing condition against total COVID-19 deaths for that age cohort. Data is available from March 2020 to June 2020, however we will be resuming publication of this data within the next 6 weeks.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Sir Ian Diamond

Table 1: Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales involving COVID-19 by age group, Week ending 4 December to Week ending 25 December 2020[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]

Week number

49

50

51

52

Week ended

04-Dec-20

11-Dec-20

18-Dec-20

25-Dec-20

Deaths by age group

0

0

0

0

1-4

0

0

0

0

5-9

0

0

0

0

10-14

0

1

0

0

15-19

0

1

0

0

20-24

1

0

1

0

25-29

3

3

0

1

30-34

3

1

1

3

35-39

9

7

6

5

40-44

12

11

10

12

45-49

21

19

25

21

50-54

41

37

43

41

55-59

62

65

75

63

60-64

105

126

119

107

65-69

170

154

177

160

70-74

288

258

252

275

75-79

414

400

388

397

80-84

509

492

544

583

85-89

598

570

609

605

90+

599

611

736

639

Source: ONS

Table 2: Average age of deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, Week ending 4 December to Week ending 25 December 20203,4,5,6,7

Week number

49

50

51

52

Week ended

04-Dec-20

11-Dec-20

18-Dec-20

25-Dec-20

All deaths

Median age

81

81

82

82

Mean age

78

78

79

79

Deaths involving COVID-19

Median age

83

83

83

83

Mean age

81

81

81

81

Source: ONS

Table 3: Number of deaths involving COVID-19, by age group and whether a pre-existing condition was present, England and Wales, deaths occurring between March and June 2020[8],[9],[10],[11],[12]

Age

All deaths involving COVID-19

COVID-19 deaths with pre-existing condition

COVID-19 deaths with no pre-existing condition

0-44

542

441

101

45-49

457

366

91

50-54

847

724

123

55-59

1,453

1,226

227

60-64

2,065

1,835

230

65-69

2,791

2,498

293

70-74

4,627

4,220

407

75-79

6,693

6,174

519

80-84

9,588

8,889

699

85-89

10,327

9,525

802

90+

10,945

9,961

984

[1]https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19englandandwales/deathsoccurringinjune2020

[2]https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/latest

[3] Deaths where COVID-19 (ICD10 codes U07.1 and U07.2) are mentioned anywhere on the death certificate

[4] For deaths registered from 1st January 2020, cause of death is coded to the ICD-10 classification using MUSE 5.5 software. Previous years were coded to IRIS 4.2.3, further information about the change in software is available.

[5] Does not include deaths where age is either missing or not yet fully coded.

[6] Does not include deaths of those resident outside England and Wales or those records where the place of residence is either missing or not yet fully coded.

[7] These figures represent death registrations, there can be a delay between the date a death occurred and the date a death was registered. More information can be found in our impact of registration delays release.

[8] Figures include deaths of non-residents

[9] Figures are provisional

[10] Based on deaths involving COVID-19 (ICD-10 codes U07.1 and U07.2) rather than deaths where COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death

[11] Deaths occurring between March and June 2020 rather than deaths registered between March and June 2020

[12] Including deaths registered up until 4 July 2020.

Lord True
Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
2nd Sep 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to publish their plans and preparations for any peak in COVID-19 infections during the winter period, including for any reasonable worst-case scenario.

Our collective understanding of the virus, and how it spreads, has vastly improved since the initial wave of infections. As a responsible government, we have been planning and continue to prepare for a wide range of scenarios, including the reasonable worst case scenario. In the coming months, we will continue to assess what the UK can learn from other nations, and carry out a series of exercises, to test the Government’s winter plans, including for a reasonable worst case scenario and to ensure effective coordination between departments and with the devolved administrations.

In May, we published the UK Government’s COVID-19 recovery strategy. This was updated in July, including details on planning for the winter. Our planning assumptions and guidance are kept under review and amended as the scientific and medical advice develops.

Lord True
Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
15th May 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to return to a system of imperial measurement; and, if so, what assessment they have made of (1) levels of understanding among younger people, and (2) any impact upon the UK’s competitiveness in world trade.

The Government is reviewing the current law on units of measurement and has gathered information from the consultation ‘Choice on units of measurement: markings and sales’. A government response will be published in due course.

The Government recognises that metric units remain essential for international trade. Any legislative changes would require an impact assessment, including an equality impact assessment.

Earl of Minto
Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)
9th Jan 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to review the role and powers of the Official Solicitor to prevent the holder of that office from seeking to free persons imprisoned under industrial relations legislation as part of (1) their ongoing review of industrial relations legal framework, or (2) any forthcoming industrial relations legislation.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will ensure crucial public services such as rail, ambulances, and fire services maintain a minimum service during industrial action, reducing risk to life and ensuring the public can still get to work.

The Government is not planning to imminently introduce any further primary legislation in this area. The Government continually keeps the UK’s trade union legislation under review.

Lord Callanan
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
9th Jan 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to take into account the outcome of the Midland Cold Storage Ltd v Bernard Steer and others case of 1972 in their (1) ongoing review of the industrial relations legal framework, and (2) consideration of sanctions under any forthcoming legislation on industrial relations.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will ensure crucial public services such as rail, ambulances, and fire services maintain a minimum service during industrial action, reducing risk to life and ensuring the public can still get to work.

The Government is not planning to imminently introduce any further primary legislation in this area. The Government continually keeps the UK’s trade union legislation under review.

Lord Callanan
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
20th Dec 2022
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Lord Callanan on 19 December (HL Deb col 947) in which he said that "75 per cent of workers in this country are not in trade unions", what assessment they have made of whether there is a link between (1) levels of union membership, and (2) levels of workforce care and HR practices, in the private sector versus the public sector.

Statistics on trade union membership, including proportion of public and private sector employees who belong to a union are published on Gov.uk.

Trade unions can have a constructive role to play in representing their members’ interests. Strikes, however, should always be a last resort given the impact that they have on the public and we would always encourage unions to exhaust all other avenues to resolve disputes before taking this step.

Lord Callanan
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
5th Sep 2022
Pay
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the information regarding Harrods in the article “Amazon gets tough with workers over 35p pay rise”, published in The Sunday Times on 14 August; whether Harrods is classified as a “crucial public service”; whether supermarkets are classified as such; and what other services are included in that designation.

The legislation repealing regulation 7 applies to all employers in all sectors. It came into force on 21st July after debates in both houses of Parliament. It gives employers the choice to work with employment businesses to find suitably qualified staff when they are facing industrial action and offers agency workers the freedom to accept roles replacing staff on strike if they wish. It does not affect the ability of workers to go on strike and existing protections for striking workers are maintained. It does, however, balance the right to strike against the right of employers and third parties not to suffer disproportionate disruption. This is particularly important as we continue to recover from the pandemic and are faced with what are global economic challenges.

Lord Callanan
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
22nd Mar 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the risk that revoking the broadcasting licence of the Russian news channel RT may increase interest in its broadcasts.

We welcome Ofcom’s independent decision to revoke RT’s licence to broadcast in the UK so that President Putin can no longer spread his regime’s lies on UK television. The Russian authorities must not be allowed to spread their insidious propaganda in the UK.

We will not hesitate to take any necessary action against any key individuals and bodies responsible for disseminating these lies and are exploring all options further to choke off this material in the UK.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
12th Oct 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government, following the independent evaluation of the Union Learning Fund by Exeter University, Union Learning Survey 2018 Results, published in September 2018, whether the Department for Education undertook a further assessment of the Union Learning Fund; and if so, whether (1) that assessment demonstrated a decline in outcomes, and (2) they plan to publish the findings of the assessment.

The department did not undertake a further formal evaluation of the Union Learning Fund following the evaluation by Exeter University.

As part of the Spending Review process, the Department has assessed its priorities across all its objectives, including considering the evidence from the Unionlearn evaluation. The decision to discontinue funding for Unionlearn beyond this financial year reflects the consolidation of investment to support retraining in major new programmes, including the National Skills Fund, which support progression to higher levels of attainment.

12th Oct 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to allocate a proportion of the National Skills Fund to projects that aim to directly engage learners in the workplace, replacing the current work undertaken by Union Learn, following the decision to cease funding for the Union Learning Fund.

The government has taken the decision not to continue to provide grant funding to Unionlearn in the next financial year. This decision should not be seen in isolation but as part of the department’s overall plans for improving the skills offer.

This was a difficult decision. However, we need to prioritise how we use our resources in these challenging times and have decided to concentrate on a number of major investments in further education. The government has announced it will introduce a £2.5 billion National Skills Fund to help adults get the skills they need. My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, as part of his Lifetime Skills Guarantee, recently announced that for adults, who do not currently have a level 3 qualification, we will be fully funding their first full level 3, focusing on the valuable courses that will help them get ahead in the labour market. The offer will be funded from the National Skills Fund and offered from April 2021.

My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, also recently announced digital bootcamps to support local regions and employers to fill in-demand vacancies by providing valuable skills. Adults in the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, and Liverpool City Region can now register their interest to take part in the digital bootcamps. In early 2021, the digital bootcamps will also be available in Leeds City Region, Heart of the South West, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. We are planning to expand the bootcamps to more of the country from Spring 2021 and we want to extend this model to include other technical skills training.

Further plans for the National Skills Fund will be announced in due course.

Alongside the National Skills Fund, the department has been working to provide further support in response to the impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak. In his Summer Economic Update, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced investment of over £500 million to deliver a package of support for people to access the training and develop the skills they will need to go on to high-quality, secure and fulfilling employment. The Skills Recovery Package included:

  • Apprenticeships: A new payment of £2,000 to employers in England for each new apprentice they hire who is aged 24 or below and a £1,500 payment for each new apprentice they hire who is aged 25 and over, from 1 August 2020 to 31 January 2021.
  • Traineeships: £111 million to triple the scale and reform traineeships for those aged 16 - 24 (25 with an Education, Health and Care plan), with additional funding available to providers in 2020-21 to support 30,000 new places. We have also introduced, for the first time, payments of £1,000 per trainee for employers who offer new or additional work placements (up to 10 trainees).
  • Careers information, advice and guidance: £32 million over two years to help 269,000 more people of all ages receive advice from the National Careers Service.
  • Sector-based work academy programme (SWAP): £17 million to triple the number of SWAP placements in 2020/21, enough funding to support an extra 40,000 job seekers with additional training opportunities and the chance of a job.

In addition, the recently announced expansion of The Skills Toolkit means that people can now choose from over 70 courses, covering digital, adult numeracy, employability and work readiness skills, which have been identified as the skills employers need the most. These courses will help people stay in work or take up new jobs and opportunities.

The government appreciates the importance of adult education to improving people’s life chances. We will continue to explore options within adult education to aid the post COVID-19 recovery.

12th Oct 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consulted with (1) training providers, (2) Sector Skill Councils, and (3) further education organisations, prior to terminating the Union Learning Fund.

The government did not consult with any outside bodies prior to making the decision not to continue to provide funding for the Union Learning Fund after 31 March 2021.

We have made no commitment to funding beyond this date and have always been clear any future funding would depend on the Government’s Spending Review. The decision to cease funding after April 2021 has been communicated at this stage in the Spending Review process in order to give a greater period of notice.

12th Oct 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consulted with (1) employers, and (2) business and trade representative bodies, prior to terminating the Union Learning Fund.

The government did not consult with any outside bodies prior to making the decision not to continue to provide funding for the Union Learning Fund after 31 March 2021.

We have made no commitment to funding beyond this date and have always been clear any future funding would depend on the Government’s Spending Review. The decision to cease funding after April 2021 has been communicated at this stage in the Spending Review process in order to give a greater period of notice.

12th Oct 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consulted with (1) the Trades Union Congress, and (2) individual trade unions, prior to terminating the Union Learning Fund.

The government did not consult with any outside bodies prior to making the decision not to continue to provide funding for the Union Learning Fund after 31 March 2021.

We have made no commitment to funding beyond this date and have always been clear any future funding would depend on the Government’s Spending Review. The decision to cease funding after April 2021 has been communicated at this stage in the Spending Review process in order to give a greater period of notice.

13th Apr 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to appoint trade envoys for (1) Mongolia, (2) Uzbekistan, (3) Kazakhstan, (4) Kyrgyzstan, (5) Tajikistan, and (6) Afghanistan; if so, when those envoys will be appointed; and what is the process by which they (a) select, and (b) appoint, such envoys.

My noble Friend Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne was appointed Trade Envoy in July 2017 to Kazakhstan and in October 2020 the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, Daniel Kawczynski, was appointed Trade Envoy to Mongolia. There are no plans to appoint a Trade Envoy to Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan or Afghanistan.

My Rt Hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoys are drawn from both Houses and across the political spectrum. They are chosen based on relevant skills and experience required to undertake the role. This experience can be related to their assigned market or UK industry knowledge, or their Government-to-Government experience, as well as willingness and an ability to undertake some international travel. Trade Envoys are appointed by the Prime Minister, usually following a recommendation by my Rt Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade.

23rd Feb 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Grimstone of Boscobel on 23 February (HL13226), whether they will now answer the question put, namely, why they have appointed a Trade Envoy for Taiwan; and why they have not appointed a Trade Envoy for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Trade Envoys engage with emerging and developing markets where substantial trade and investment opportunities have been identified by the UK Government. The appointment by the Prime Minister in January 2016 of a Trade Envoy to Taiwan was based on feedback received from the British Trade Office there and underlined the growing importance of the UK-Taiwan trade and investment relationship.

Taiwan offers opportunities for UK businesses in a number of sectors, which was highlighted during last autumn’s UK-Taiwan trade talks, including education, science and innovation. Further proof of this is the number of UK firms that are present in Taiwan.

We are constantly reviewing suitable markets to identify where the appointment of a Trade Envoy can be of greatest benefit to the trade and investment aims of the UK, with the Prime Minister making the final decision. There are no plans to appoint a Trade Envoy to the northern part of Cyprus.

10th Feb 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Grimstone of Boscobel on 8 February (HL12500), what criteria they use to determine which countries have a Trade Envoy appointed to them.

Prime Minister’s Trade Envoys are drawn from both Houses and across the political spectrum. They are chosen based on relevant skills and experience required to undertake the role. This experience can be related to their assigned market or UK industry knowledge, or their Government-to-Government experience, as well as willingness and an ability to undertake some international travel.

With regard to the criteria used to determine which countries are added to the programme, I refer my noble Friend to the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Viscount Waverley, on 16 February 2021, UIN: HL13033.

10th Feb 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Grimstone of Boscobel on 8 February (HL12500), what consideration is given to the political affiliation of Trade Envoys before they are appointed.

Prime Minister’s Trade Envoys are drawn from both Houses and across the political spectrum. They are chosen based on relevant skills and experience required to undertake the role. This experience can be related to their assigned market or UK industry knowledge, or their Government-to-Government experience, as well as willingness and an ability to undertake some international travel.

With regard to the criteria used to determine which countries are added to the programme, I refer my noble Friend to the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Viscount Waverley, on 16 February 2021, UIN: HL13033.

10th Feb 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Grimstone of Boscobel on 8 February (HL12500), why they have appointed a Trade Envoy for Taiwan; and why they have not appointed a Trade Envoy for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Prime Minister’s Trade Envoys are drawn from both Houses and across the political spectrum. They are chosen based on relevant skills and experience required to undertake the role. This experience can be related to their assigned market or UK industry knowledge, or their Government-to-Government experience, as well as willingness and an ability to undertake some international travel.

With regard to the criteria used to determine which countries are added to the programme, I refer my noble Friend to the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Viscount Waverley, on 16 February 2021, UIN: HL13033.

10th Feb 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Grimstone of Boscobel on 8 February (HL12500), what (1) financial, (2) administrative, (3) Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and (4) other Government department or agency, support is given to Trade Envoys.

The Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy programme is financially supported and managed solely by the Department for International Trade (DIT). The Department meets all travel and subsistence costs associated with the role, as well as any other incidental costs incurred by Trade Envoys to fulfil their duties. All costs incurred are subject to the Department’s guidelines, which apply to the programme’s use of public funds.

Trade Envoys work closely with colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and HM Trade Commissioners, who provide market and business intelligence and logistical support when visits are made. Trade Envoys are deployed where they can add the most value, which includes supporting Her Majesty’s Government’s wider overseas objectives when appropriate.

8th Nov 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to use the provisions of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 to override a pilot's discretion to make the final decision as to whether the aircraft takes off as provided under international aviation regulations.

Any decisions by the pilot in command of an aircraft made in accordance with relevant aviation safety requirements, with regard to the safety of a particular flight, would not constitute industrial action. Such decisions are therefore outside of the scope of Part V of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the amendments being made to that Part by the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
10th Jul 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with Greater Anglia Railways about planned ticket office closures at Cambridge railway station; and what opportunities there are for (1) the public, and (2) parliamentarians, to express their views on the proposals.

To propose any changes to the opening hours, or the closure of ticket offices, train operating companies must follow the process set out in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.

Train operators must consult on any proposed changes, advertising them at the relevant stations and inviting members of the public who wish to comment on the proposal to write to the relevant passenger body (either Transport Focus or London TravelWatch) within a 21-day period. Greater Anglia Railways has set out its proposals on its website.

Parliamentarians are encouraged to raise any concerns with the relevant Passenger Bodies through the established consultation process. Further detail of how to do this can be found on station posters or on the Train Operating Company websites.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
26th Jun 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government how, if at all, they intend to improve the financial regulation of UK flight schools.

Responsibility for regulating flying training in the UK rests with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The CAA’s approval of a flying school or training establishment as an Approved Training Organisation (ATO) are designed to provide confidence that they are able to perform their operations safely. However, as the CAA does not regulate the ongoing financial viability of flying schools or clubs, approval to conduct flight training does not imply any certification of financial stability. I have asked my officials to engage with the CAA to consider this in more detail.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
26th Jun 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government, following the closure of three flight schools this year, what further financial protection they intend to give trainee pilots from UK flight school failures.

Responsibility for regulating flying training in the UK rests with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The CAA’s approval of a flying school or training establishment as an Approved Training Organisation (ATO) are designed to provide confidence that they are able to perform their operations safely. However, as the CAA does not regulate the ongoing financial viability of flying schools or clubs, approval to conduct flight training does not imply any certification of financial stability. I have asked my officials to engage with the CAA to consider this in more detail.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
9th Feb 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Lord Balfe and Lord Callanan on 6 February (HL Deb cols 1062–83), whether the Minister is now in a position to write in response the points raised regarding aviation.

As Lord Callanan stated, the Government are committed to maintaining comprehensive safety standards, including in aviation. Officials engage with industry regularly, including through the industry engagement forum, to ensure their views as to how best to use the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill to achieve this are taken into account. Moreover, officials will meet with BALPA to discuss the specific issues raised by Lord Balfe, in order to better understand concerns, and clarify the discussion had at that forum.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
25th Apr 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to including a representative from the British Airline Pilots Association to their Jet Zero Council membership.

When the Jet Zero Council was established in July 2020, we sought to ensure that all relevant parts of the industry were represented, from airlines, airports, and aerospace manufacturers, to NGOs, academics, and start-ups.

To ensure that the Council remains at the forefront of driving zero emission transatlantic flight within a generation, we are currently reviewing the Council’s membership to ensure it reflects the expertise required to deliver this challenge. Though there will always be practical limits to the size of the Council, and we are not able to accommodate all individual requests for membership.

To support the delivery of the Jet Zero Council and allow wider participation in its work, we have established Delivery Groups focussed on Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) and Zero Emission Flight (ZEF), which we encourage organisations with relevant interests to engage with.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
8th Jun 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the difference in the cost of COVID-19 tests for travellers (1) entering, and (2) leaving, the UK.

It is a matter for each country to decide on appropriate health measures and how Covid-19 tests are provided. We recognise that the cost of tests can be high. The Government is working with the travel industry and private testing providers to see how we can further reduce costs for the British public while ensuring travel is as safe as possible.

The price of tests has reduced significantly in recent weeks, bringing the UK in line with other countries, and some providers are offering testing packages for arrivals countries on the green list starting at £43. The Government is considering a range of options to lower the cost of testing, including cheaper tests being used when passengers return home.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
1st Feb 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a negative result to a COVID-19 lateral flow test undertaken by the NHS presented to Border Force is sufficient evidence that the bearer is (1) not infected, and (2) eligible to travel.

The Government has always been clear that NHS Test and Trace tests should not be used for the purposes of international travel. This is to safeguard testing capacity.

NHS Test and Trace tests may not be used for the Test to Release for International Travel scheme. Travellers must use a test from a private testing provider on the gov.uk private providers list. NHS Test and Trace is not on this list, and for this reason, does not meet the minimum standards required to legally release a traveller from self-isolation upon providing a negative result.

NHS Test and Trace does not provide a result notification in a format that would be acceptable to meet the new pre-departure testing requirements, and as such, will not be accepted for travel to England.

Lateral Flow Tests may meet the minimum standards of more than 80% sensitivity and more than 97% specificity for the pre-departure testing regime, depending on the individual test product. The test must be provided by a testing provider which can meets these minimum standards, as well as the standards regarding the result notification requirements.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
15th Nov 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government, with reference to the report Disagreements in the care of critically ill children published by the Department of Health and Social Care on 18 September, what changes they intend to make to the care of critically ill children and when they anticipate these will come into effect.

The Department is considering the recommendations made in the report and what actions can be taken to help avoid disagreements arising between the parents of critically ill children and clinicians treating them and, where this is not possible, resolve disagreements more quickly and compassionately.

Lord Markham
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
9th Feb 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Markham on 7 February (HL5154), what is the upper age limit for screening for bowel cancer; and whether those who have been screened in the past but have now passed the previous upper age limit for screening will be invited to re-apply under the new rules.

The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening programme is currently offered to people between the ages of 60 years old and 74 years old. The programme is expanding to make it available to everyone aged 50 years old to 59 years old, this is happening gradually over four years and started in April 2021.

If people over the age of 74 years old have concerns about bowel cancer, they should speak to their general practitioner who will determine the best course of actions to take.

Lord Markham
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
22nd Nov 2022
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Markham on 22 November (HL3405), what plans they have, if any, to give an indication of (1) a timetable for the commencement of the independent review into the causes of disputes between those with parental responsibility and those responsible for the care or medical treatment of critically ill children, (2) details of the membership of the review, and (3) terms of reference for the review, which is due to report by 1 October 2023.

We expect the commissioning process to be completed in the coming weeks. While the review will not have a fixed membership, it will engage with a range of interested or affected people and organisations. This will include health professionals and the families of critically ill children, to ensure it develops a balanced evidence base for identifying solutions. The organisation undertaking the review will be asked to publish its terms of reference shortly after it has been commissioned.

Lord Markham
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
15th Nov 2022
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Lord Kamall on 8 September (HL Deb, col 272), whether they will provide an update on the progress of commissioning an independent review into the causes of disputes between those with parental responsibility and those responsible for the care or medical treatment of critically ill children.

The Department is currently examining the commissioning process for the review and further information will be available in due course.

Lord Markham
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
13th Jun 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government when section 177 of the Health and Care Act 2022 came, or will come, into force.

Section 117 of the Health and Care Act 2022 will come into force on 1 October 2022.

2nd Feb 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Kamall (HL5606 and HL5607), whether, in the case of a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) notice being issued against the expressed wish of a patient or their family, (1) the patient, (2) their family, or (3) both, will be notified of the decision in good time for a second opinion and review to be sought and undertaken.

When a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision is being made, the clinician should consider the patient’s wishes and every effort should be taken to reach an agreement with the patient or, if they lack capacity, their family or representative. If the patient or their family or representative do not agree with the decision, they should be given time to ask for a second opinion or review. This is in line with the National Health Service guidance for DNACPR decisions.

When a DNACPR decision is made the patient should also be told when it will be reviewed, and this is usually recorded on the DNACPR form. It is recommended that a DNACPR decision is reviewed each time a patient’s situation changes, for example when they leave hospital. If a patient is concerned about a DNACPR decision, they can contact their local Healthwatch to find out about how to get help making a complaint.

13th Oct 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given advice and direction to GPs on their mandatory working hours; and what assessment they have made of whether GPs working their mandatory hours would lead to a reduction in the number of patients referred to Accident and Emergency departments without first being seen by their GP.

We have provided no such advice or direction as general practitioners are independent contractors with no mandatory working hours Therefore, no specific assessment has been made.

18th Aug 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the reported increase in the use of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation orders during the COVID-19 pandemic, what additional guidance they have provided to hospitals regarding consulting patients and their families prior to such orders being issued; and when this guidance was distributed.

Failure to consult people and their families on decisions around CPR causes significant distress and we have taken decisive action to prevent this from happening. NHS England and NHS Improvement clinical leaders issued a number of letters to the health and social care system throughout April and May 2020, and in March 2021, to clarify best practice around do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions.

Joint guidance for clinicians from the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council UK and Royal College of Nursing reflects that agreement to a DNACPR is an individual decision and should involve the person concerned or, where the person lacks capacity, their families, carers, guardians or other legally recognised advocates. The Department reiterated this message in the Adult Social Care Winter Plan in 2020.

The DNACPR Ministerial Oversight Group continues to review the resources available to ensure adherence to DNACPR guidance across the system. Sensitive and well communicated DNACPRs can and should be an important part of patient care and end of life experience. We are committed to taking continued action to ensure those decisions are managed and communicated well in all settings.

16th Jul 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bethell on 13 July 2021 (HL1668), what progress they have made on the misapplication of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders; and what is their timetable for publishing more details on the Ministerial Oversight Group's (1) membership, (2) workings, and (3) decisions.

The first meeting of the Ministerial Oversight Group has now taken place and the Group has set out their commitment to driving forward improvements. A summary of the meeting has been shared with interested stakeholders. The membership, workings and decisions of the Ministerial Oversight Group were published on 23 July.

5th Jul 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will report on (1) the membership, (2) the workings, and (3) the decisions, of the Ministerial Oversight Group tasked with overseeing the use of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders; and what assessment they have made of the circumstances in which these orders are now being issued.

The Ministerial Oversight Group was created in response to a key recommendation of the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) review of how Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were made during the early phases of the pandemic. Further details of the Group’s membership, workings and key decisions will be published in due course.

The Department does not record or assess the circumstances of DNACPRs orders in place. However, the Ministerial Oversight Group will be responsible for the delivery and required changes of the CQC’s recommendations, to ensure adherence to guidance across the system about how DNACPRs are used.

14th Jun 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many patients who were subject to Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) orders and died in NHS hospitals in England between 1 April 2020 and 31 March, had the option "unknown" marked next to the "name of the relevant other" on the DNAR form.

The information requested is not held centrally.

Due to the concerns raised at the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic around the application of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions, the Department asked the Care Quality Commission to review how these decisions were made. Their report was published in March. The Department has established a Ministerial Oversight Group that will be responsible for the delivery and required changes of the recommendations of this report, to ensure adherence to guidance across the system on how DNACPRs are used.

14th Jun 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many patients who died in NHS hospitals in England between 1 April 2020 and 31 March and whose death certificate gave COVID-19 as the cause of death were subject to Do Not Attempt Resuscitation orders.

The information requested is not held centrally.

Due to the concerns raised at the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic around the application of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions, the Department asked the Care Quality Commission to review how these decisions were made. Their report was published in March. The Department has established a Ministerial Oversight Group that will be responsible for the delivery and required changes of the recommendations of this report, to ensure adherence to guidance across the system on how DNACPRs are used.

14th Jun 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many patients who died in NHS hospitals in England between 1 April 2020 and 31 March were subject to Do Not Attempt Resuscitation orders.

The information requested is not held centrally.

Due to the concerns raised at the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic around the application of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions, the Department asked the Care Quality Commission to review how these decisions were made. Their report was published in March. The Department has established a Ministerial Oversight Group that will be responsible for the delivery and required changes of the recommendations of this report, to ensure adherence to guidance across the system on how DNACPRs are used.