Lord Blencathra

From 1st April 2021, the Equality Hub received a budget settlement covering all units - the Government Equalities Office, the Disability Unit, the Race Disparity Unit and the Social Mobility Commission. This settlement for the 2021/22 financial year was £18.6m. Within this, the Government Equalities Office budget for 2021/22 as of January 2022 is £9.5m and the Disability Unit budget is £3.6m.

With regards to staffing, the latest staffing allocation - on a full-time equivalent basis - is shown in the table below.

Budgets and staffing allocations for future years are currently being determined and we will provide the usual update to the Women and Equalities Committee in due course.

The Civil Service uses employees' gender identification from information they have already provided for HR/payroll purposes. This can be updated by individuals, giving them the option to make proactive declarations regarding their gender.

The gender pay gap reporting guidance for employers does not distinguish between sex and gender, as most employers do not hold this level of information about their workforce and requiring them to do so would undoubtedly increase the burden on business associated with gender pay gap reporting. Asking employees to provide information which makes this differentiation could result in them being questioned about their gender, and require them to provide personal information without a clear purpose. It is for this reason that we stress the importance of sensitivity when employers are collecting information.

The overall effect of not differentiating between sex and gender in gender pay gap reporting is likely to be small, and will not have a significant impact on data accuracy.

There is currently no harmonised standard on collecting data on sex across Government. However, the Office for Statistics Regulation has published draft guidance on what to consider when collecting and reporting data on sex in official statistics. The Government Statistical Service is also looking at developing guidance for public bodies on the collection of data on sex and gender using harmonised standards.

While there is currently no robust estimate on the size of the transgender population in the UK, existing evidence suggests that this population is small. It has been tentatively suggested that approximately 200,000-500,000 transgender people live in this country. On this basis, our assessment is that the different approaches considered by government departments for the collection of sex and/or gender data are unlikely to have a large effect on national data sets.

The Government believes that transgender people should be free to live and prosper in modern Britain. We are also absolutely committed to championing the rights of women and girls and are proud of our world-leading legislative framework of rights. Data does not directly impact on individuals’ rights, rather policy development is rightly informed by a strong understanding and engagement with data and evidence. The Government believes that all people should have an equal opportunity to succeed in life, regardless of their sex, gender or background.

The consultation on banning conversion therapy opened on 29 October and will run until 10 December. The consultation follows the Cabinet Office consultation principles, which were updated in 2018 and can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance.

In the summer the clerks at the Table were consulted about the wearing of uniform. A range of views were expressed and discussed with the Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk Assistant. Future Table clerks were not consulted as they are not a clearly defined group.

The number of clerks actively on the Table duty rota each parliamentary term varies due to a number of factors and it is important to have some flexibility as required to meet the needs of the House. This term there are 12 clerks undertaking duties at the Table. Of these 9 have wigs and 3 do not. It is not possible to predict how many additional clerks may begin or resume duties in the next 12 months but one new Table clerk will join the team in January and they have no wig. Four other Table clerks are not currently active on the rota but may resume duties next year, one of those colleagues has a wig and three do not.

The Vatican City State does not make financial contributions to the $100 billion goal as the Holy See is an observer state and so is not a member of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The Clerk of the Parliaments is by law the employer of the staff of the House and responsible for all terms and conditions of employment. During the pandemic, the then Clerk of the Parliaments decided that Clerks at the Table during regular business of the House should wear a gown over business attire, and that this would be worn by all the Clerks at the Table. The then Lord Speaker was consulted and acknowledged the change to Table Clerk attire, on a temporary basis, though he expressed a preference for the wearing of traditional table dress and gown, but without wigs.

Having some element of uniform allowed the Clerk in the Chamber to be identified by Members in the House wishing to seek advice. The decision was taken for a number of reasons, including cost grounds, the potentially temporary duration of the new Table Clerks’ appointments, and the impracticality of acquiring new uniforms during the pandemic. Throughout the ongoing pandemic, the full uniform previously worn has continued to be worn in full at high ceremonial occasions, such as the State Opening of Parliament, and in modified form on other ceremonial occasions including Prorogation; for the Introduction Ceremonies of new Lords Spiritual and Temporal (when ceremonial dress is worn by others) and for Tributes in the Chamber.

The Clerk of the Parliaments is considering the position now that the House is no longer operating under the hybrid House guidance. The Clerk of the Parliaments has received representations on this matter from a number of Members of the House and would be very willing to hear the views of others. In deciding what the position will be in future, the Clerk of the Parliaments will need to reflect upon a number of factors including cost, efficiency, the views expressed by Members, and the public perception of the House. The Clerk of the Parliaments will also consider the need to ensure both that all Clerks at the Table are identifiable and all similarly attired; as well as the appropriate uniform given the range of other duties performed by Clerks during the working day.

The Clerk of the Parliaments is by law the employer of the staff of the House and responsible for all terms and conditions of employment. During the pandemic, the then Clerk of the Parliaments decided that Clerks at the Table during regular business of the House should wear a gown over business attire, and that this would be worn by all the Clerks at the Table. The then Lord Speaker was consulted and acknowledged the change to Table Clerk attire, on a temporary basis, though he expressed a preference for the wearing of traditional table dress and gown, but without wigs.

Having some element of uniform allowed the Clerk in the Chamber to be identified by Members in the House wishing to seek advice. The decision was taken for a number of reasons, including cost grounds, the potentially temporary duration of the new Table Clerks’ appointments, and the impracticality of acquiring new uniforms during the pandemic. Throughout the ongoing pandemic, the full uniform previously worn has continued to be worn in full at high ceremonial occasions, such as the State Opening of Parliament, and in modified form on other ceremonial occasions including Prorogation; for the Introduction Ceremonies of new Lords Spiritual and Temporal (when ceremonial dress is worn by others) and for Tributes in the Chamber.

The Clerk of the Parliaments is considering the position now that the House is no longer operating under the hybrid House guidance. The Clerk of the Parliaments has received representations on this matter from a number of Members of the House and would be very willing to hear the views of others. In deciding what the position will be in future, the Clerk of the Parliaments will need to reflect upon a number of factors including cost, efficiency, the views expressed by Members, and the public perception of the House. The Clerk of the Parliaments will also consider the need to ensure both that all Clerks at the Table are identifiable and all similarly attired; as well as the appropriate uniform given the range of other duties performed by Clerks during the working day.

The Clerk of the Parliaments is by law the employer of the staff of the House and responsible for all terms and conditions of employment. During the pandemic, the then Clerk of the Parliaments decided that Clerks at the Table during regular business of the House should wear a gown over business attire, and that this would be worn by all the Clerks at the Table. The then Lord Speaker was consulted and acknowledged the change to Table Clerk attire, on a temporary basis, though he expressed a preference for the wearing of traditional table dress and gown, but without wigs.

Having some element of uniform allowed the Clerk in the Chamber to be identified by Members in the House wishing to seek advice. The decision was taken for a number of reasons, including cost grounds, the potentially temporary duration of the new Table Clerks’ appointments, and the impracticality of acquiring new uniforms during the pandemic. Throughout the ongoing pandemic, the full uniform previously worn has continued to be worn in full at high ceremonial occasions, such as the State Opening of Parliament, and in modified form on other ceremonial occasions including Prorogation; for the Introduction Ceremonies of new Lords Spiritual and Temporal (when ceremonial dress is worn by others) and for Tributes in the Chamber.

The Clerk of the Parliaments is considering the position now that the House is no longer operating under the hybrid House guidance. The Clerk of the Parliaments has received representations on this matter from a number of Members of the House and would be very willing to hear the views of others. In deciding what the position will be in future, the Clerk of the Parliaments will need to reflect upon a number of factors including cost, efficiency, the views expressed by Members, and the public perception of the House. The Clerk of the Parliaments will also consider the need to ensure both that all Clerks at the Table are identifiable and all similarly attired; as well as the appropriate uniform given the range of other duties performed by Clerks during the working day.

There are no plans to replace the word ‘women’ with other nouns in House of Lords official documents, guides or souvenirs, or in the House of Lords parts of the Parliamentary Estate.

The Clerk of the Parliaments is by law the employer of the staff of the House and responsible for all terms and conditions of employment. During the pandemic, the then Clerk of the Parliaments decided that Clerks at the Table during regular business of the House should wear a gown over business attire, and that this would be worn by all the Clerks at the Table. The then Lord Speaker was consulted and acknowledged the change to Table Clerk attire, on a temporary basis, though he expressed a preference for the wearing of traditional table dress and gown, but without wigs.

Having some element of uniform allowed the Clerk in the Chamber to be identified by Members in the House wishing to seek advice. The decision was taken for a number of reasons, including cost grounds, the potentially temporary duration of the new Table Clerks’ appointments, and the impracticality of acquiring new uniforms during the pandemic. Throughout the ongoing pandemic, the full uniform previously worn has continued to be worn in full at high ceremonial occasions, such as the State Opening of Parliament, and in modified form on other ceremonial occasions including Prorogation; for the Introduction Ceremonies of new Lords Spiritual and Temporal (when ceremonial dress is worn by others) and for Tributes in the Chamber.

The Clerk of the Parliaments is considering the position now that the House is no longer operating under the hybrid House guidance. The Clerk of the Parliaments has received representations on this matter from a number of Members of the House and would be very willing to hear the views of others. In deciding what the position will be in future, the Clerk of the Parliaments will need to reflect upon a number of factors including cost, efficiency, the views expressed by Members, and the public perception of the House. The Clerk of the Parliaments will also consider the need to ensure both that all Clerks at the Table are identifiable and all similarly attired; as well as the appropriate uniform given the range of other duties performed by Clerks during the working day.

The uniform for Table Clerks is not a matter covered by the Standing Orders agreed by the House, or the Companion to the Standing Orders, which the Procedure and Privileges Committee oversees on behalf of the House.

Having reviewed Procedure and Privileges Committee papers dating back to the 1970s, there is no record of decisions about uniform for Table Clerks being taken by that Committee.

The Clerk of the Parliaments, as the statutory employer, is responsible for these decisions, though the Clerk of the Parliaments is of course aware that these matters are of wider concern to members of the House and has emphasised this in recent discussions we have had on this matter. The Clerk of the Parliaments is of course open to conversation with any member about any of his responsibilities.

In 2020 six gowns were purchased for new Table Clerks joining the rota. The total cost of these six gowns was £1,213.99, but due to an outstanding credit with the supplier the House actually paid £536 in total for the six gowns.

Table Clerks who joined the rota before 2020 were provided with a fuller uniform. There is no standard cost for this as it depends on a number of variables, including the supplier used and the items required. Purchases of full new uniforms for Table Clerks in recent years were however in the range of approximately £4,700 - £5,700 per person. Incidental repairs and additional items may also be required over the years as uniforms are worn.

The cost to the Parliamentary Digital Service of producing the PeerHub remote voting system as set out in the approved business case was £78,683. This was primarily resource cost.

The capital cost of converting Committee Rooms 2A and 3A for Hybrid Grand Committee as set out in the approved business case for the project was £150,000, including VAT.

Last year, as part of our necessary response to ensure business resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, six additional members of staff were added to the Table Clerk rota. Full uniform was not worn by these new appointees, due to the significant procurement cost and uncertainties as to the duration of the expanded rota. In light of this the then Clerk of the Parliaments decided that uniform for all Table Clerks should be a formal gown over business attire.

An expanded rota of Table Clerks will remain in place, as it supports the resilience of the Chamber and allows a greater number of staff members to develop knowledge and understanding that is essential to the operation of the House. The costs of procuring and maintaining full uniform for a larger pool of Table Clerks would be significant. The Clerk of the Parliaments has therefore reviewed the situation and has explained to me that the current wearing of a uniform of formal gown over business attire allows Table Clerks to be identified, and respected, in the Chamber while also being appropriate for Clerks as officials performing their duties in supporting a professional, working House conducting regular business. Full uniform will continue to be worn by those Clerks participating in ceremonial occasions such as Introductions and Prorogation; and for State Opening, at which wigs will also be worn.

The Senior Deputy Speaker has asked me, as Chair of the Services Committee, to respond on his behalf. The policy of the House Administration, endorsed by the House of Lords Commission, is to ensure that facilities on the Lords part of the Parliamentary Estate are provided in accordance with the advice of and guidance from Public Health England to ensure a safe and secure environment for members and staff. The Services Committee and the Commission will keep under review the potential for reopening and reconfiguring facilities in line with that guidance, and will be issuing further information in due course.

A:gender is one of the cross-government networks which operates across the Civil Service. All of these networks are expected to operate within the Civil Service Code and its values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.

This government is committed to preventing modern slavery occurring in public sector supply chains.

The Cabinet Office has published commercial policy and guidance setting out the steps that all Government departments must take to identify and mitigate modern slavery and labour abuse risks throughout the commercial life cycle focussing on the areas of highest risk. This policy is mandatory for all Central Government Departments, their Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies. The policy can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-policy-note-0519-tackling-modern-slavery-in-government-supply-chains.

The Government Consultation Principles provide departments with guidance on conducting consultations. Individual departments are accountable for their own consultation practice.

The Consultation Principles replaced the Code of Practice on Consultations in 2012 and were updated in 2018. The Principles do not prescribe a minimum length of a consultation but are clear that consultations should last for a proportionate amount of time. The length of a consultation should be judged on a case by case basis and in certain cases consulting for too long will unnecessarily delay policy development.

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

Professor Sir Ian Diamond | National Statistician

The Rt Hon. the Lord Blencathra

House of Lords

London

SW1A 0PW

16 November 2021

Dear Lord Blencathra,

As National Statistician and Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority, I am responding to your Parliamentary Question asking what estimate they have made, if any, of the amount by which the gender pay gap has been narrowed by the inclusion of biological men who identify as women in the same statistical category as biological women (HL3757).

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes the annual Gender Pay Gap statistics; the latest data for 2021 was published on 26 October (1). These data are formed from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), for which employers are asked to supply pay levels for a 1% sample of employees taken from the Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) system. ASHE does not collect information on either sex or gender directly. This information is taken from the PAYE data supplied by HMRC for the sample, provided to them by employers in respect of their employees (2).

This means that we do not currently have data on the earnings of transgender people (those whose gender identity is different from their sex registered at birth). In October 2020, I commissioned an independent Inclusive Data Taskforce to recommend how best to make a step-change in the inclusivity of UK data and evidence. Its report identified transgender people as among those about whom the absence of data reflecting their lives and experiences was especially critical (3).

Following the inclusion of a gender identity question for the first time in Census 2021, we will have more data about this population than ever before. The first results from Census 2021 will be available in late spring 2022, followed by further statistical and analytical publications, including on gender identity. When census data processing is complete, the ONS will explore what insights about the experiences of transgender people can be gained based on the census and other data.

(1) https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/genderpaygapintheuk/2021

(2) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/basic-paye-tools-user-guide/basic-paye-tools-user-guide#Employee_details

(3) Inclusive Data Taskforce recommendations report: Leaving no one behind – How can we be more inclusive in our data? – UK Statistics Authority

Yours sincerely,

Professor Sir Ian Diamond

The data requested is not held centrally.

Guidance on Gender Pay Gap reporting from the Government Equalities Office states that reporting should not result in employees being questioned about their gender. The Civil Service uses employee’s gender identification from information employees have already provided for HR/payroll purposes, which is updated by individuals to reduce the risk of singling out employees. Aligned to the GEO guidance, the Civil Service has therefore not made any assessment of the consequences of self-identification on pay gap reporting.

Members of advisory bodies are appointed as private individuals to advise the Government, not as representatives of the Government. The principle of Cabinet Collective Responsibility, that the Cabinet system of Government is based on, does not extend beyond Government Ministers.

A Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees, published by the Government Office for Science, provides guidance for all aspects of their governance, such as those scientific advisory bodies engaged on the COVID-19 response. It provides guidance on the establishment, management and conduct of committees and sets out their relationship with the bodies they advise. Members rights and responsibilities, and procedures for arriving at conclusions and consensus are also covered in the guidance. The Code is available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-committees-code-of-practice

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

Professor Sir Ian Diamond | National Statistician

The Rt Hon the Lord Blencathra

House of Lords

London

SW1A 0PW

25 May 2021

Dear Lord Blencathra,

As National Statistician and Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority, I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions asking what plans there are to publish statistics on the number of people who died from COVID-19, as opposed to the number who died from other causes but had a positive COVID-19 test within 28 days of their death (HL258); and the number of excess deaths recorded in the COVID-19 deaths statistics of people who did not die from COVID-19, but who are listed in the statistics because they had a positive COVID-19 test within 28 days of their death (HL259).

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is responsible for statistics on deaths registered in England and Wales and publishes a weekly bulletin[1] based on provisional mortality data. Cause of death is defined using the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th edition (ICD-10). The ICD-10 codes used are: U07.1 (COVID-19, virus identified), U07.2 (COVID-19, virus not identified), U10.9 (Multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19), U09.9 (Post-COVID condition, where the acute COVID had ended before the condition immediately causing death occurred).

Mortality statistics are compiled from information supplied when deaths are certified and registered as part of civil registration. The death certificate is completed by a doctor (or coroner), who can certify the involvement of COVID-19 based on symptoms and clinical findings – a positive test result is not required. Diseases and health conditions are recorded on the death certificate only if the certifying doctor or coroner believed they made some contribution to the death, direct or indirect; the death certificate does not include all health conditions the deceased might have suffered from if they were not considered relevant. Therefore, ONS statistics on deaths involving COVID-19 do not include deaths from causes other than COVID-19 but where the deceased had a positive COVID-19 test result. A death is not counted as involving COVID-19 on the basis of a test result only.

ONS data are different from the figures on COVID-19 deaths published on the GOV.UK Coronavirus in the UK dashboard[2] which shows ‘deaths within 28 days of a positive test’. Section 7 of the ONS weekly deaths bulletin[3] compares these numbers. You can read a blog by Professor John Newton of Public Health England[4] which explains the different methods for counting COVID-19 deaths.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Sir Ian Diamond

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

[2]https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

[3]https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending7may2021#comparison-of-weekly-deaths-occurrences-in-england-and-wales

[4]https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2020/08/12/behind-the-headlines-counting-covid-19-deaths/

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

Professor Sir Ian Diamond | National Statistician

The Rt Hon the Lord Blencathra

House of Lords

London

SW1A 0PW

25 May 2021

Dear Lord Blencathra,

As National Statistician and Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority, I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions asking what plans there are to publish statistics on the number of people who died from COVID-19, as opposed to the number who died from other causes but had a positive COVID-19 test within 28 days of their death (HL258); and the number of excess deaths recorded in the COVID-19 deaths statistics of people who did not die from COVID-19, but who are listed in the statistics because they had a positive COVID-19 test within 28 days of their death (HL259).

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is responsible for statistics on deaths registered in England and Wales and publishes a weekly bulletin[1] based on provisional mortality data. Cause of death is defined using the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th edition (ICD-10). The ICD-10 codes used are: U07.1 (COVID-19, virus identified), U07.2 (COVID-19, virus not identified), U10.9 (Multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with COVID-19), U09.9 (Post-COVID condition, where the acute COVID had ended before the condition immediately causing death occurred).

Mortality statistics are compiled from information supplied when deaths are certified and registered as part of civil registration. The death certificate is completed by a doctor (or coroner), who can certify the involvement of COVID-19 based on symptoms and clinical findings – a positive test result is not required. Diseases and health conditions are recorded on the death certificate only if the certifying doctor or coroner believed they made some contribution to the death, direct or indirect; the death certificate does not include all health conditions the deceased might have suffered from if they were not considered relevant. Therefore, ONS statistics on deaths involving COVID-19 do not include deaths from causes other than COVID-19 but where the deceased had a positive COVID-19 test result. A death is not counted as involving COVID-19 on the basis of a test result only.

ONS data are different from the figures on COVID-19 deaths published on the GOV.UK Coronavirus in the UK dashboard[2] which shows ‘deaths within 28 days of a positive test’. Section 7 of the ONS weekly deaths bulletin[3] compares these numbers. You can read a blog by Professor John Newton of Public Health England[4] which explains the different methods for counting COVID-19 deaths.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Sir Ian Diamond

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

[2]https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

[3]https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending7may2021#comparison-of-weekly-deaths-occurrences-in-england-and-wales

[4]https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2020/08/12/behind-the-headlines-counting-covid-19-deaths/

The UK works closely with partners across the world and through a range of formal and informal multilateral fora, including the UN, the G7 and G20, NATO, Five Eyes and the E3. We strongly value our long-standing relationship with our Five Eyes partners and will continue to work closely with them in pursuit of shared policy interests.

The UK is clear that it will not tolerate malicious cyber activity and will react robustly and proportionately to the threat. The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and the Centre for the Protection of Critical National Infrastructure (CPNI) provide advice and guidance for members of both Houses of Parliament. This guidance sets out protective measures Members, Peers and their offices can take to protect themselves from a range of threats and threat actors, including espionage and cyber attacks. All of us in public life have a responsibility to remain vigilant and report intimidating or suspicious behaviour wherever it occurs.

The Government notes the recent conclusion of the Metropolitan Police to end its investigation into BeLeave and Vote Leave. Organisations on both sides of the 2016 referendum were investigated. A line should now be drawn under these cases.

The Government’s clear view is that democratic decisions and referendum results should be respected. The UK has left the European Union and is regaining its independence.

The Government is committed to strengthening electoral integrity.

The transition period will end on 31 December 2020. This is enshrined in UK law. The UK will therefore fully recover its economic and political independence at the end of the year, which the British people voted for.

The Chancellor has announced various measures to provide support to businesses and workers to protect against the economic emergency caused by the coronavirus. This includes unlimited loans and guarantees to support firms and help them manage cash flows through this period. The Chancellor will make available an initial £330 billion of guarantees - equivalent to 15% of UK GDP.

Government departments are already taking many steps to ease regulations to support businesses and critical service provision doing this epidemic.