Lord Blencathra

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.

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.

The Met Office reviews the naming of storms on an annual basis, in conjunction with its partners at the national meteorological services of Ireland and the Netherlands. The review takes into account feedback from partners and stakeholders in government, the resilience community, in media and from the general public.

The criteria for naming of storms can take into account potential impacts from rain and snow, as well as wind. Storms can be named at any time of year, not just in winter. There are no plans for weather conditions other than storms to be given names.

UNESCO World Heritage inscription is recognition that a cultural or natural site is of Outstanding Universal Value to humanity. As such, the process for achieving this status is highly rigorous. Each State Party to the World Heritage Convention is responsible for maintaining a tentative list of sites from which nominations may be developed.

The sites mentioned in this question are all on the UK’s current tentative list. As each country may only nominate a maximum of one site per year from this list, the UK government will only submit nominations which clearly demonstrate that a site meets the criteria, authenticity, integrity and management required. In January 2020, the Government nominated the Slate Landscape of Northwest Wales to UNESCO for potential inscription in 2021. The Great Spas of Europe, which includes Bath, was nominated in 2019 alongside 11 other spa towns throughout Europe and will be considered for inscription at the next World Heritage Committee meeting. Additionally, the Flow Country has passed a UK expert evaluation, and now may proceed to develop a nomination. Other sites on this list are at earlier stages in the process, or have determined that they do not intend to move forward with the development of a nomination at this stage.

The Government is working very closely with social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter and Google in response to Covid-19. This is helping us understand what is happening on their platforms and the steps they are taking so we can effectively tackle misinformation and disinformation together. It also allows social media platforms to be informed where harmful information is identified.

Social media companies have taken a range of steps to limit misinformation and disinformation on their platforms. This has included updating their policies in response to Covid-19, to enable them to take action on false and misleading content where it has the potential to cause harm.

Alongside the removal or downranking of misinformation and disinformation, platforms are also working with Government and the NHS to take action to promote accurate information. Measures have been introduced across almost all major platforms to ensure users see accurate information on Covid-19, including links to NHS and other authoritative sources.

Sport England collects data on transgender status through its Active Lives surveys, which measure the activity levels of people across England. However, the number of transgender responses received to the survey is so low that the figure is not statistically reliable.

Sport England also funded Pride Sports, a UK organisation which helps improve LGBT+ access to sport, to gather information on transgender participation in all sport and physical activity. Pride Sports reported in 2016 that there were very low rates of transgender participation and the report’s findings helped to inform Sport England’s current work on transgender inclusion.

The report ‘Sport, Physical Activity and LGBT: A Study by Pride Sports for Sport England’ can be found here: https://sportengland-production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/pride-sport-sport-physical-activity-and-lgbt-report-2016.pdf#page=1

The department does not have any plans to impose sanctions on individual teachers regarding their attendance or performance, as these are employment matters for employees and their relevant employers to resolve on an individual case by case basis.

The Prime Minister announced on 10 May that as a result of the huge efforts everyone has made to adhere to strict social distancing measures, the transmission rate of COVID-19 has decreased. We anticipate that with further progress we may be able to welcome back more children to early years, school and further education settings from the week commencing 1 June, provided that the 5 key tests set by government justify the changes at the time, including that the rate of infection is decreasing and the enabling programmes set out in the roadmap are operating effectively.

As a result, we are asking schools, colleges and childcare providers to plan on this basis, ahead of confirmation that these tests are met. Schools, colleges, and childcare providers should refer to our guidance on implementing protective measures in education and childcare settings, available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-implementing-protective-measures-in-education-and-childcare-settings/coronavirus-covid-19-implementing-protective-measures-in-education-and-childcare-settings.

Any settings operating between now and 1 June should read that guidance in conjunction with Actions for schools during the COVID-19 outbreak, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-school-closures/guidance-for-schools-about-temporarily-closing.

On its website, the National Education Union has highlighted the importance of any school which carries out online lessons having protocols in place to protect staff and safeguard pupils. They also advise teachers against live streaming lessons from home and say that any contact between pupils and teachers should only be through a platform provided by the school and not through personalised accounts open to public viewing.

We know that school leaders, teachers and pupils are all having to adjust to remote education strategies. While this is happening, it is more important than ever that schools continue to follow safeguarding procedures. The department has published guidance on safeguarding and remote education during COVID-19 at:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/safeguarding-and-remote-education-during-coronavirus-covid-19.

This recognises that teaching from home is different from teaching in the classroom and confirms that ‘there is no expectation that teachers should live stream or provide pre-recorded videos. Schools should consider the approaches that best suit the needs of their pupils and staff.’

All schools and colleges should be considering the safety of their children when they are asked to work online. The starting point for online teaching should be that the same principles as set out in the school’s or college’s staff behaviour policy (sometimes known as a code of conduct) should be followed. This policy should amongst other things include acceptable use of technologies. The policy should apply equally to any existing or new online and distance learning arrangements which are introduced.

Further guidance for schools and colleges to support them keeping children safe, including online, during the COVID-19 outbreak is also available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-safeguarding-in-schools-colleges-and-other-providers.

We currently have no plans to introduce legislation to convert some universities back to polytechnics.

The Office for Students (OfS) has made it clear that all higher education providers must continue to meet conditions related to the quality of their courses and the standard of qualifications they award. This means ensuring that courses are high quality, students are supported and achieve good outcomes, and standards are protected. If providers breach those conditions the OfS has powers to impose a range of sanctions, potentially culminating in deregistration and the loss of university status.

The department is committed to ensuring that children can continue to learn at home in these very difficult circumstances. It is up to each school to determine how best to deliver education to its pupils and we recognise that many schools have already shared resources for children who are at home.

The department has not required schools to teach online lessons and this is only one way in which they may opt to provide remote education to pupils. The department has, however, issued guidance for schools on delivering remote education, including case studies and an initial list of free resources identified by educational experts and teachers. Many other suppliers have also helpfully made their online and hard-copy resources available for free.

Schools can also make use of Oak National Academy, which was launched online on 20 April. This new initiative is led by 40 teachers who have assembled video lessons and resources for any teacher in the country to make use of if they wish to do so. 180 video lessons will be provided each week, across a broad range of subjects, for every year group from Reception through to Year 10. Additionally, the BBC has developed resources for families as part of a comprehensive new education package, which is now available on TV and online at BBC Bitesize.

The government has also committed over £100 million to boost remote education, by providing devices and internet access for those who need it most, ensuring every school that wants it has access to free, expert technical support to get set up on Google for Education or Microsoft’s Office 365 Education, and offering peer support from schools and colleges leading the way with the use of education technology.

When introducing virtual proceedings the Lord Speaker and his Deputies have consistently emphasised the importance of brevity when asking and answering supplementary questions, and the part that this can play in allowing a greater number of members to contribute within the time limits. These sentiments were echoed in an email that I sent to all members on 12 May, updating them on virtual proceedings. Revised guidance issued by the Procedure Committee on the same day also stated that ‘Members should avoid taking up time in Virtual Proceedings thanking other members for their contributions’. There are no plans to publish a record of the length of time taken by members of the House to ask supplementary questions; the Procedure Committee will continue to keep these matters under review.

The department anticipates that teachers who are no longer required to be physically present in schools would focus on developing educational resources or supporting home-education wherever possible. It is for schools to understand and decide how to deploy their teachers in the most effective way possible. We would encourage all teachers who are not attending school to consider and act in accordance with the latest guidance from Public Health England.

The government does not support no-platforming of individuals or organisations.

My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education has made it clear that he is concerned about the cases reported in the press where external speakers are alleged to have been no-platformed, students and their societies are reportedly having their voices restricted and academics are not able to pursue research projects. It is important that universities take robust action to prevent this happening.

This government has committed to strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities and ensure they are places where free speech and debate can thrive – this includes considering the underpinning legal framework. We have made it clear that if universities do not uphold free speech, the government will.

Anyone practising as a veterinary surgeon, regardless of the ownership of the practice, needs to be registered with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and has a duty to provide care ensuring that animal health and welfare is their first consideration. Any concerns about the ownership or commercial practices of businesses should be directed to the Competition and Markets Authority.

Anyone practising as a veterinary surgeon, regardless of the ownership of the practice, needs to be registered with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and has a duty to provide care ensuring that animal health and welfare is their first consideration. Any concerns about the ownership or commercial practices of businesses should be directed to the Competition and Markets Authority.

Wine imports to the EU have been subject to the requirement to provide a VI1 certificate for many years. The basis for their introduction was to provide a level of assurance that the wine being imported met the standards required to be marketed in the EU. Over time the VI1 requirement has been relaxed in some cases to allow simplified forms of the certificate to be used, where for instance the exporting country and the EU have reached trade agreements covering the production of wine.

The Withdrawal Act 2018 retained the requirement for third country wines to be accompanied by a VI1 certificate as a means of maintaining that level of assurance. As VI1 provisions already exist for wine imports from non-EU countries, and these wines remain extremely competitive in our marketplace, we believe the new requirement to be appropriate and affordable.

As I and colleagues in Government have said on many occasions, leaving the EU gives us the ability to look critically at the laws we have inherited from the EU to ensure they remain fit for purpose. We have maintained simplified VI1 arrangements, where these existed, in the new trade deals we have concluded, and we will consider in due course whether there is a case to revisit the requirement for VI1 certification overall.

Further to the answer I gave to PQ HL2142, the Government currently has no plans to issue any guidance on supporting veganism in the workplace. Any employer unsure about their obligations to accommodate staff who are vegan should either contact ACAS for advice or, if more appropriate on a specific case, obtain legal advice.

The Department estimates that 750,000 private e-scooters are owned across England based on survey results from the DfT Transport Technology Tracker. The Department is running trials of rental e-scooters to assess their safety and wider impacts. Trials are live in 31 areas. The evidence gathered during the trials will inform whether e-scooters should be legalised, and how we can ensure their use is as safe as possible. Until we have that evidence we cannot commit to a legislative timetable.

There were 484 casualties in reported road accidents involving at least one e-scooter vehicle in Great Britain in 2020. Information currently held by the Department provisionally indicates that there have been 530 casualties in reported road accidents involving at least one e-scooter vehicle in Great Britain in the first six months of 2021.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy leads on ensuring responsible business practices, but Ministers from this Department wrote to retailers of e-scooters in December 2018 reminding them of their obligations. In July of this year, Rachel Maclean MP wrote again to retailers sharing with them the Department’s concerns that retailers are not providing clear, visible and consistent information, to ensure that their customers understand the law. She asked them to work with their sales and marketing teams to ensure that they are familiar with our guidance on privately owned e-scooters, to ensure that their customers are not misinformed, inadvertently or otherwise, about the law which applies to the use of e-scooters.

Data currently held by the Department indicates that there were 22,644 e-scooters available to rent across all trial areas at the end of October.

The Department welcomes the contribution of PACTS to the evidence base we are gathering. We are currently undertaking an independent evaluation of the e-scooter trials to examine the progress and impact of the trials across England. A number of trial areas are running long term rental schemes, and the evidence collected through these rental trials will give transferrable insights into private use. We are planning to publish our interim report, containing preliminary findings from the evaluation of the trials, in winter 2021.

There was 1 fatality, and 473 injured casualties in reported road accidents involving at least one e-scooter vehicle in England in 2020.

The Department does not hold information which can be used to assign blame for the cause of the accident onto a specific road user or vehicle.

Lorry drivers play a vital role in keeping Britain moving, and the Government understands the need to ensure adequate facilities are available to them .

We have already amended planning guidelines to encourage futher development of facilities and are exploring options for what more could be done.

It is not correct that 50 per cent of civil servants at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) are refusing to come back into the workplace. In line with Welsh Government covid measures all staff who are carrying out a role that can be done from home, continue to do so. Staff who perform operational duties which cannot be done from home are working on site.

The DVLA continues to explore opportunities to improve the time taken to deal with paper applications and has been developing new online services and recruiting additional staff. The DVLA has temporarily utilised the private sector for some elements of work only where it has been appropriate to do so.

The DVLA is also looking to secure extra office space to accommodate more staff as surge capacity accommodation and resource to help reduce backlogs while providing future resilience and business continuity.

During September 2021, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) had 1,389 staff members, 28.5% working from home continually. The DVSA is satisfied that all members of staff currently working from home are able to provide a full service to its customers as they adapt to hybrid working. Other staff are already either working a hybrid approach and providing a full service or working continually back in their work locations.

In the financial year 2020/21 my Department provided £3.2bn to Transport for London and £4.2bn to other councils and local authorities for transport-related purposes. These figures will be confirmed when the Department’s annual report and accounts are published in September.

To provide further context, in the financial year 2020/21 over £13bn was spent on transport related purposes in response to Covid-19 or as part of wider recovery measures. TfL received £2.457bn funding and financing (included with the £3.2bn figure above) to ensure the continued operation of their transport services, at a time when passenger demand was significantly reduced.

Outside of London we allocated £8.5bn to rail services, £1.257bn for bus operators, and £142m for light rail. This ensured that key modes of public transport continued to operate. Details of the measures and costs associated have been published in the National Audit Office online tracker of the Government's interventions on Covid-19. This is available online on the NAO’s website.

Per Capita analysis of our expenditure will be available in the Country and Regional Analysis published later this year, which is available at online at Gov.uk.

We are running 32 trials where approved rental e-scooter vehicles can be legally ridden by users that meet a set of requirements, potential users include anyone with a full or provisional licence. Privately owned e-scooters being ridden on public roads are being done so illegally and a range of motoring offences apply and can be enforced by the police.

The safety of both staff and passengers remains of the utmost importance. We have issued comprehensive guidance to train operators on the steps they need to take to protect staff in line with Public Health England advice. Where social distancing can be achieved, on-train catering facilities may continue. The regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, has also issued guidance to operators regarding catering services on trains.

Her Majesty’s Government have no current plans to consult on raising the penalties for cyclists and delivery drivers using heavyweight electric bicycles who ride on the pavement, or leave their bikes blocking the pavement.

In 2018 we consulted on creating new cycling offences for people whose cycling behaviour caused serious harm. The responses have been analysed and the government response will be issued in due course.

No such assessment has been made. However, the Department’s consultation specifically asks respondents to describe the environmental impact of the new proposals.

There are no plans to pause national e-scooter trials, which are absolutely essential if we are to fully assess this new mode and inform longer term micromobility policy. Officials are in close and regular contact with local authorities and e-scooter operators in live e-scooter trial areas. We are encouraging rapid action be taken to respond to operational issues as soon as they arise and ensuring that any lessons from early implementation are applied in subsequent trials. For example, issues which arose during the first week of the Middlesbrough trial, caused by a small minority of users, were quickly resolved with licence verification software and improved geo-fencing technology.

Officials are in close and regular contact with local authorities and e-scooter operators in live e-scooter trial areas. We are encouraging rapid action be taken to respond to operational issues as soon as they arise and ensuring that any lessons from early implementation are applied in subsequent trials.

Trials of e-scooters must find the correct balance between maximising the benefits they offer and keeping pedestrians and road users safe. We are working with local authorities and e-scooter operators to ensure compliance with legal requirements, that the rules of operation are understood and that local Police officers are fully aware of their enforcement powers if they are needed. Operators are deploying staff to help instruct users in the safe operation of e-scooters as well as offering digital training to all new users, and we will expect them to act on feedback from the public about how scooters are used.

Transport operators across all modes are required to increase communication about latest public health advice to passengers travelling into the UK. This is required throughout their journey by providing links to the advice through websites, as part of the booking process, emails post-booking and with documentation issued immediately before travel.

International transport operators must provide on-board announcements to all passengers about public health guidance.

The General Aircraft Declaration (GAD) process is required for all flights coming to the UK requiring crew to identify symptomatic passengers before arrival, with a similar process being implemented for maritime and international rail.

As part of the borders package, Regulations came into force on 8 June that require people arriving in the UK from Pakistan to self-isolate for 14 days.

At present there are currently no Pakistan International Airway flights operating to the UK as the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has currently suspended its Third Country Operator?approval for PIA to fly into Europe.?The UK CAA has therefore withdrawn the permit for PIA flights to operate to the UK as legally required. There are no other airlines currently operating direct flights from Pakistan to the UK.

We do not comment on the commercial or financial matters of specific private firms, because this information is commercially sensitive. As has been reported in the media, a number of aviation companies have accessed the unprecedented package of economic measures Government has put in place during this time. These schemes include the Job Retention Scheme, the Covid Corporate Financing Facility, and Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Schemes.

It is for the Civil Aviation Authority as the independent regulator to determine whether to initiate proceedings against individual airlines who are in breach of their obligations.

Government recognises the challenges businesses and consumers are experiencing with processing large volumes of refunds. In particular, we appreciate the frustration consumers may be experiencing. The government’s position is clear - if a customer asks for a refund, that refund needs to be paid.

Officials are working closely with the rail and bus industry on what a resumption of services would mean both nationally and for different regions of the country. The Department is taking account of Public Health England guidance, and are considering regional differences in all modelling. We will ensure that the transport sector continues to keep the whole of Britain moving once restrictions are lifted.

Consumers whose travel plans are cancelled as a result of Covid-19 are entitled to a refund under existing legislation. Our support for the sector, including the furloughing of staff, should help to ensure that airline and travel operators are able to meet their legal obligations and that passengers will not lose out as a result of their cancelled flights and holidays.

Whether a company has refunded its customers is not part of the eligibility test for participation in the furlough scheme.

There are no plans to introduce such training at present. When introducing virtual proceedings the Lord Speaker and his Deputies have consistently emphasised the importance of brevity when asking and answering supplementary questions, and the part that this can play in allowing a greater number of members to contribute within the time limits.

The data on General Practitioners (GPs) working hours broken down by number of days worked per week is not collected.

Data on the full-time equivalent work commitments of GPs, broken down into working hours bands, are shown in the following table:

Headcount of qualified permanent GPs (excludes GPs in training grade and locums) by work commitment in England, September 2021 ^{1,2, 3}

Data on the average salaries of GPs broken down by days worked per week or weekly hours bands is not collected.

Notes

1 Headcount totals are unlikely to equal the sum of components, due in part to individuals working across multiple roles and areas. Further information on the headcount methodology is available in the Data Quality statement.

2 Figures shown do not include staff working in Prisons, Army Bases, Educational Establishments, Specialist Care Centres including Drug Rehabilitation Centres, Walk-In Centres and other alternative settings outside of traditional general practice such as urgent treatment centres and minor injury units.

3 This is the third release to be based on the monthly collection of general practice workforce information. Following stakeholder feedback and the move to monthly publications we are reviewing the implementation of methodological changes introduced in the June 2021 publication. See the Methodology Review publication page of this release for more information. Until this review is complete, all published figures remain provisional and we will not be presenting a time series. Therefore, only statistics relating to September 2021 are included in this release. The time series will be reinstated once the review has been concluded and a methodology agreed.

This table shows the headcount numbers of staff by their work commitment, where 37.5 hours a week = 1 FTE

Data as at the last day of the applicable month

Source: NHS Digital

The data requested is currently not collected centrally.

NHS England publishes the number of COVID-19 vaccinations administered to NHS Trust Health Care Workers in the NHS Electronic Staff Record (ESR). This covers all directly employed staff in NHS Trusts, but does not include data on agency staff and others that are not paid through ESR. This data is published weekly, with a percentage breakdown provided monthly. As of the latest data published data on 14 October, 92.4% of NHS Trust Health Care Workers in the NHS ESR had received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine, whilst 89% had received their second dose. All primary schedules of currently deployed vaccines comprise two doses.

The information requested is not collected centrally. Any patient, irrespective of their gender, who has a history of violence or sex offences and may pose a risk to others should be risk assessed and any relevant action taken to ensure the safety of others.

NHS England and NHS Improvement have not received any information relating to these reports. All patients should be treated with respect and dignity, in accordance with the values of the National Health Service.

The information requested is not collected centrally. Any patient, irrespective of their gender, who has a history of violence or sex offences and may pose a risk to others should be risk assessed and any relevant action taken to ensure the safety of others.

NHS England and NHS Improvement have not received any information relating to these reports. All patients should be treated with respect and dignity, in accordance with the values of the National Health Service.

There are currently no plans to remove funding from general practitioners (GPs) who do not offer face to face appointments. NHS England and NHS Improvement, have stated that GP contractors should continue to offer a blended approach of face-to-face and remote appointments, with digital triage where possible. Patients input into the choice of consultation mode should be sought and practices should respect preferences for face-to-face care unless there are good clinical reasons to the contrary, for example the presence of COVID-19 symptoms.

The global sum allocation formula which underpins capitation payments to general practices is designed to ensure that resources are directed to practices based on an estimate of their patient workload and unavoidable practice costs. Under this formula, practices whose registered patients have greater healthcare needs are paid more per patient than practices whose registered patients have fewer healthcare needs. There are currently no plans to change the formula.

Public Health England’s findings show up to one in six infections among hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in England during the first six months of the pandemic could be attributed to hospital-acquired infection. This represents less than 1% of the estimated three million COVID-19 cases during this period.

Of the patients with hospital-onset COVID-19 that was probably or definitely hospital-acquired, 41.3% died within 28-days of contracting COVID-19.

PHE does not collect data on the number of people who were infected with COVID-19 by non-vaccinated National Health Service staff and subsequently died, as this information is unavailable.

Where there was sufficient evidence to show that an individual had behaved in such a way as to deliberately infect a patient, or carelessly or recklessly infect a patient with COVID-19 or any other disease, the employing organisation would consider the specific facts of the case in accordance with their local disciplinary policy and procedures. This may result in dismissal as the ultimate sanction.

As the independent regulator, the General Medical Council (GMC) assesses all fitness to practise concerns therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Department to make a specific assessment of their decisions. In serious cases, doctors are referred to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service who make decisions on a doctor’s fitness to practice. If any restrictions are imposed on a doctor’s practise, the tribunal can only lift them if they are satisfied that there is no likely risk of repetition or danger to the public.

We expect National Health Service organisations to have robust recruitment procedures. For healthcare professionals, this includes confirmation with the relevant professional regulatory body to ensure the individual has a license to practise and does not have any ongoing fitness to practise concerns. Where the outcome of pre-employment checks or any subsequent risk assessment are unsatisfactory, organisations retain the right to withdraw the offer of employment.

The Department has made no overall assessment.

A transparent, independent and science-led investigation is an important part of the international effort to understand the origins of COVID-19. The World Health Organization convened a group of independent experts to begin a study and phase one reported on 30 March 2021. We will work with our international partners to ensure a timely, transparent, evidence-based and expert-led phase two of this study.

Information on the number of National Health Service staff who have refused a COVID-19 vaccination is not held centrally. We encourage all National Health Service staff to take up the offer of the vaccine, to help protect themselves and others.

For staff who decline the vaccine, employers should consider how best to ensure those staff members and patients are safe. This could include measures such as making sure the appropriate personal protective equipment is being used, that fit testing has been undertaken on the staff member’s FFP3 mask and that employees are aware of infection control standards and have undertaken appropriate training. Employers follow their own local policies and procedures on staff conduct issues on a case by case basis as they arise.

There are no plans to do so. Whilst COVID-19 vaccines are not currently mandated for any groups, the Government strongly encourages healthcare and social care workers to be vaccinated in order to protect those that they care for.

Each vaccine has specific contraindications which will outline those in whom the vaccine could potentially be considered unsafe. To date this has only been those with known hypersensitivity to the active substance or to any of the excipients listed in the individual vaccine information. Administration of a vaccine for anyone with any other underlying health condition should be on an individual basis and following discussion between the subject and their physician, with consideration for their individual risk-benefit.

There are no plans under consideration at present to allow for the dismissal of National Health Service staff who refuse to be vaccinated.

There are currently 23 issued judicial review claims relating to COVID-19 which name the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care as a defendant. At present, the majority of claims for judicial review seek public law remedies that are not damages. Only two claims seek damages, one for up to £20,000 and one for an unspecified sum for ‘just satisfaction’ under Section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

There is currently one private law claim that has been issued against the Secretary of State and is seeking damages. The value of the losses being disputed is estimated to be up to £29 million.

No specific assessment has been made.

The Government will continue to monitor and assess the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions of all types in curbing the spread of COVID-19 and consider what further actions are needed.

There are no plans to close the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust’s gender identity service for children and young people and we are not aware of any plans to instigate criminal proceedings.

NHS England has previously announced that Dr Hilary Cass will undertake an independent external review of the gender identity development service and make recommendations to NHS England on how the service should operate.

All trusts who work with the Gender Identity Development Service have been issued the amended service specification halting all future referrals to endocrinology services for under 16 year olds. A copy of Amendments to Service Specification for Gender Identity Development Service for Children and Adolescent (E13/S(HSS)/e) is attached.

A review of the service is being undertaken under the chairmanship of Dr Hillary Cass which will cover a number of different aspects of the service including treatment pathways.

From 24 September, it will be compulsory for workers in retail, leisure and hospitality settings to wear a face covering in areas which are open to the public and where they either come or are likely to come into contact with members of the public.

This is in addition to existing legal obligations that require businesses to provide a safe working environment, which may include providing face coverings where appropriate, alongside other mitigation measures such as perspex screens to separate workers from the public.

We will take enforcement action against people who endanger the safety of others in breaching the self-isolation requirement for those arriving into England from non-exempt countries. Those who fail to comply with the mandatory conditions could face enforcement action. A breach of self-isolation would be punishable with a £1,000 fixed penalty notice in England or potential prosecution and unlimited fine. Self-isolation is enforced in communities by local police. Border force will undertake spot checks at the border and may refuse entry where the individual is neither a British citizen nor a non-British citizen resident in the United Kingdom and refuses to comply with these regulations. Failure to complete the contact locator form is punishable by a £100 fixed penalty notice.

The Government has published its intention to restrict the promotion and advertising of foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS). The consultations on these policies set out proposals for the definitions of HFSS products. We have listened carefully to the feedback and will be setting out final definitions for the products these policies apply to when we publish the responses to the consultations. We will do this as soon as possible.

The Department does not hold information on the weight of National Health Service staff.

Through our new obesity strategy, Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives published on 27 July, we are doing more than ever to support people living with obesity, including those employed in the NHS, to lose weight including through the free NHS 12-week weight loss plan app for those who want more support. We will also expand weight management services to help more people get the support they need and through incentives with general practitioners will make conversations about weight in primary care the norm.

These measures add to the wide range of actions already in place including the soft drinks industry levy, sugar reduction and wider calorie reformulation programme which will improve our eating habits and reduce the amount of sugar and calories we consume.

A copy of Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives is attached.

Demonstrations in England are reported to have occurred in the first three weeks of June 2020. Some of these demonstrations appear to have been large, reportedly involving hundreds or thousands of people in different locations, including major cities. Public Health England has not performed a specific analysis to investigate the relationship between the demonstrations and the subsequent number of COVID-19 cases; such an analysis would not be possible, since there is no requirement for individuals to report attendance at a demonstration or protest and, therefore, the necessary data would not be available.

Since the start of June, the daily number of laboratory-confirmed cases in England has continued to decrease steadily and consistently, from 1,311 cases on 1 June to 386 cases on 28 June.

A specific analysis to investigate the relationship between the demonstrations and the subsequent number of COVID-19 cases would be difficult, since there is no requirement for individuals to report attendance at a demonstration or protest and, therefore, the necessary data would not be available.

Following a request by the Director of Public Health for Birmingham to investigate a spike in COVID-19 cases between the 14-16 June and whether this could be related to the Black Lives Matter protests in Birmingham on 4 June, analysis of pillar 1 and pillar 2 test counts in Birmingham by ethnicity throughout June 2020 is being undertaken. The number of confirmed cases in Birmingham continued to decline overall during this period.

NHS Resolution manages clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England.

NHS Resolution has provided the following information:

Since 28 February 2020 NHS Resolution has received:

- 1,528 clinical negligence claims against NHS bodies across all its clinical schemes; and

- 508 claims against NHS bodies across all non-clinical schemes, assuming this is what is meant by compensation claims.

The total number of claimants across both groups is 2,036.

NHS Resolution is unable to give an amount of damages sought in each case because these are recently reported claims and it is highly unlikely this information would be available so early in the life of the claim.

To provide a more comprehensive response to a number of outstanding Written Questions, this has been answered by an information factsheet Science of COVID-19 – note for House of Lords which is attached, due to the size of the data. A copy has also been placed in the Library.

The rising costs of clinical negligence are a major issue and something we are committed to tackling, given that National Health Service funds spent on clinical negligence are resources not available for front-line care. The Department is working intensively across Government, looking at a wide range of options to address the drivers of cost of clinical negligence claims. We will update Parliament in due course.

On 31 December 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) was informed of a cluster of cases of pneumonia of unknown cause detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China. On 12 January 2020 the WHO posted a Disease Outbreak News where it was announced that a novel coronavirus had been identified in samples obtained from cases. Initial analysis of virus genetic sequences suggested that this particular virus was the cause of the outbreak. This virus is referred to as SARS-CoV-2, and the associated disease as COVID-19.

Public Health England has been in regular contact with laboratories and public health organisations within Europe and South East Asia in order to understand the systems they have adopted in relation to contact tracing, risk assessments, guidance and laboratory processes. These knowledge exchanges led to the development of the antigen test used in the United Kingdom and shaped our approach to contact tracing and the risk assessments undertaken of aircraft and cruise ships.

The United Kingdom already has just under 25% of paracetamol finished product sites, producing supplies for the UK, based in this country, and just under 20% of the manufacturing sites producing the active pharmaceutical ingredient required to make paracetamol.

We are aware that there has been a significant increase in paracetamol demand over the recent weeks. We are working with all suppliers of paracetamol to monitor and assess available supplies and demand, and to make additional stock available and prioritise further deliveries.

The Government has no plans to create facilities in the United Kingdom to manufacture drugs currently only manufactured abroad. There are 16,000 medicines on the market in the UK. Whilst some of these are manufactured in the UK, most are manufactured abroad. Where medicines are manufactured here, the active ingredients and excipients for those medicines may be manufactured abroad. It is not realistic to manufacture all 16,000 medicines and the active ingredients and excipients needed for these medicines in the UK.

The production of medicines is complex and highly regulated, and materials and processes must meet rigorous safety and quality standards. Supply problems can affect a wide range of medicines and can arise for various reasons, such as manufacturing issues, problems with the raw ingredients and batch failures. These problems arise regardless of where in the world the manufacture takes place.

Death data in relation to COVID-19 is collected as part of current enhanced surveillance measures. Where information on underlying conditions is available, this will be analysed and presented in aggregate form in due course.

The Government is supporting the World Health Organization (WHO) in their response to the COVID-19 outbreak including a direct contribution of £10 million. The WHO would expect a full review of all elements of their response to COVID-19 to take place once they are out of response mode, as has occurred after previous Public Health Emergencies of International Concern.

A series of tribunal readings since 2010 mean that protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010 include not only ethical veganism but belief in Scottish independence, anti-fox hunting, democratic socialism and the higher purpose of public sector broadcasting. I therefore agree with my Noble Friend that the scope of philosophical belief will be included in any future decisions the government takes about possible changes to the act.

Public Health England reports separately on cases in mainland China and Taiwan and other places. This data can be found online on the COVID-19: epidemiology, virology and clinical features page on the Government website. As of 25 February 2020, there are 77,658 confirmed cases in mainland China and 31 confirmed cases in Taiwan.

The matter is subject to an ongoing legal process and therefore the Department is unable to comment pending judicial ruling.

The Department does not make grant awards to National Health Service trusts.

As a NHS trust, funding would be provided by local and national NHS commissioners for NHS services provided.

The Department grants team can confirm there is no record of a grant payment being made to Mermaids UK in the year 2019/20 to date or during 2018/19.

In England, there are 12 providers of homecare medicines services and approximately 400,000 patients in receipt of a homecare medicines service. Each homecare provider provides a variety of services to National Health Service patients under contracts which may be held at national, regional or local hospital trust level. Healthcare at Home is one of those suppliers, providing services to approximately 200,000 patients or 50% of the patient cohort.

Information is not collected centrally about the value of contracts held with a particular supplier.

As part of the quality assurance and governance processes, homecare providers are assessed on a monthly basis against their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and more formally on a regular basis through face to face meetings with the National Homecare Medicines Committee. Providers not meeting their KPIs are held to account and action will be taken to ensure that levels of service are brought back in line with relevant the relevant standards.

In England, there are 12 providers of homecare medicines services and approximately 400,000 patients in receipt of a homecare medicines service. Each homecare provider provides a variety of services to National Health Service patients under contracts which may be held at national, regional or local hospital trust level. Healthcare at Home is one of those suppliers, providing services to approximately 200,000 patients or 50% of the patient cohort.

Information is not collected centrally about the value of contracts held with a particular supplier.

As part of the quality assurance and governance processes, homecare providers are assessed on a monthly basis against their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and more formally on a regular basis through face to face meetings with the National Homecare Medicines Committee. Providers not meeting their KPIs are held to account and action will be taken to ensure that levels of service are brought back in line with relevant the relevant standards.

The UK has stood up for Israel when it faces bias and unreasonable criticism, and has been clear that the existence of a dedicated agenda item in the Human Rights Council ('Item 7') is damaging and does little to advance dialogue, stability or mutual understanding. The 46th session of the Human Rights Council is currently in session. This government will continue to vote against all Item 7 resolutions. At the same time, we will not stop raising valid concerns about Israel's actions. That's why we engaged constructively with negotiations on the Item 2 resolution on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, we ultimately abstained, as we judged that the final resolution text needed to address more fully the conduct of Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza, particularly Hamas' treatment of the Palestinian population of Gaza.

The UN and its member states have every right to address issues of concern in a measured, balanced and proportionate way. We will continue to support scrutiny of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the Human Rights Council, so long as it is justified, proportionate, and not proposed under Item 7.

The UK has stood up for Israel when it faces bias and unreasonable criticism, and has been clear that the existence of a dedicated agenda item in the Human Rights Council ('Item 7') is damaging and does little to advance dialogue, stability or mutual understanding. The 46th session of the Human Rights Council is currently in session. This government will continue to vote against all Item 7 resolutions. At the same time, we will not stop raising valid concerns about Israel's actions. That's why we engaged constructively with negotiations on the Item 2 resolution on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, we ultimately abstained, as we judged that the final resolution text needed to address more fully the conduct of Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza, particularly Hamas' treatment of the Palestinian population of Gaza.

The UN and its member states have every right to address issues of concern in a measured, balanced and proportionate way. We will continue to support scrutiny of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the Human Rights Council, so long as it is justified, proportionate, and not proposed under Item 7.

UK officials are in regular contact with US, Australian and Canadian authorities on a range of issues and are aware of their views on this matter. We respect the independence of the International Criminal Court, and we expect it to exercise due prosecutorial and judicial discipline.

As the Foreign Secretary has made clear, it is important the WHO-convened experts be given full access to the data they need to understand why the outbreak happened, why it was not stopped earlier and what can be done to manage any outbreak in the future. We will look closely at the field mission's report when it is published and continue to advocate for a robust, open and scientifically rigorous international investigation.

The Prime Minister announced on 19 February that the UK will share the majority of any surplus COVID-19 vaccine doses with the COVAX international vaccine procurement pool. As the multilateral mechanism for ensuring equitable global access to vaccines, COVAX is best able to distribute vaccines where they are needed most, and will be most effective, and any doses we contribute will be allocated in line with COVAX's agreed protocols and criteria.

All but two members of the Commonwealth are COVAX members, and I am pleased to note that 31 Commonwealth countries, across four regions, will be receiving COVID-19 vaccines as part of the first set of COVAX deliveries, the very first of which was received in Ghana on 24 February.

We respect the independence of the ICC, and we expect it to exercise due prosecutorial and judicial discipline.

We have serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang including the extra-judicial detention of Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in "political re-education camps". Credible open source reporting indicates that up to 380 suspected detention facilities in Xinjiang have been newly built or expanded since 2017, and that over one million Uyghurs and other minorities have been detained in the camps over a similar period. The data currently available does not allow us to ascertain the number of people detained at any one time.

Our approach to China remains clear-eyed and rooted in our values and our interests. As two global leaders with permanent seats on the UN Security Council, it is right for the UK and China to pursue a strong and constructive relationship in many areas. This does not mean that we hesitate to raise concerns and intervene where needed. This resolve was highlighted by the Foreign Secretary's announcement of new, targeted measures in respect of Xinjiang on 12 January. While we continue to engage, we will always protect our national interests and hold China to its international commitments and promises.

In December 2020, the Government published the UK's third National Risk Assessment of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing, which presents a comprehensive understanding of the risk of money laundering and the financing of terrorism through the UK. The assessment also covers the risks posed to the UK by activities in overseas jurisdictions. The UK has not conducted any assessment into Delaware specifically.

During its Presidency of the G7 this year, the UK will seek to promote action on corporate transparency, asset recovery, and the implementation of international anti-corruption standards, to build collective security, prosperity and trust in our institutions.

As a major economy and leading member of the international community, China has to be part of the solution to any major global problem we face; whether ensuring we do not face another devastating global health crisis, supporting vulnerable countries or addressing climate change. China is also the UK's fourth largest trading partner and total bilateral trade was worth over £76bn in the four quarters to the end of Q2 2020. There is considerable scope for constructive engagement and cooperation. But as we strive for a positive relationship, we will not sacrifice either our values or our security. We are clear-sighted about the challenges. As we continue to engage, we will always protect our national interests and hold China to its international commitments and promises.

Promoting Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) for all, and promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities is a longstanding priority for the UK Government. We believe that one of the most effective ways to tackle injustices and advocate for respect amongst different religious groups is to encourage countries to uphold their human rights obligations, particularly through international institutions such as the UN. While the UK supported the underlying theme of A/75/L.36/Rev.1 at the 75th Session of the UN General Assembly, Her Majesty's Government abstained in the voting on the resolution because there were elements of the text which the UK, along with others, were unable to support.

The UK's views on the Resolution are clear. While the UK and Pakistan do have differences in approach to FoRB and Freedom of Expression, the large bulk of operative paragraph 7 of the previous version of the Resolution is a verbatim copy of Article 20.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the UK ratified in 1976. In the ongoing academic and legal debate about whether this reference can be used domestically to justify blasphemy legislation, the longstanding UK position is that this provision does not require that. We remain deeply concerned by the misuse of blasphemy laws. These laws generally limit Freedom of Expression and are only compatible with international human rights law in narrow circumstances. We regularly raise at a senior level the issue of blasphemy laws with the authorities in Pakistan and elsewhere. We believe that people must be allowed to discuss and debate issues freely, including exercising their right to Freedom of Expression, to invoke, peacefully, discussions about thought, conscience and religion.

Respect for human rights and democratic freedoms underpins the UK's foreign policy. UK Ministers and officials have regular and frank discussions about the full range of human rights concerns, wherever they occur, and we use our bilateral relationships, our development programmes and our presence in multilateral institutions to drive progress. Our Annual Human Rights Report sets out in detail the UK's approach to human rights priority countries, and the work we have undertaken to promote and protect human rights around world.

In discussions with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ministers and officials raise the most pressing human rights issues of the day. We also set out concerns on a wide range of countries at every session of the Human Rights Council. For example, at the 45th session in October, we raised our concerns about human rights violations in China and Belarus, the case of Alexei Navalny in Russia, and led a resolution on the human rights situation in Syria. We also stand up for human rights at the UN Security Council; for example, in 2020 we spoke about the human rights situation in Libya and the Democratic Republic of Congo, including on issues related to conflict-related sexual violence, and the need for human rights to be at the core of peacekeeping.

The UK recognises that Jerusalem holds particular significance for many groups around the globe, especially the three Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The UK's position on the status of Jerusalem is clear and long-standing: it should be determined in a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It must ensure Jerusalem is a shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian states, with access and religious rights of both peoples respected.

There are no plans to provide training to members of the type described. The Procedure and Privileges Committee agreed last month that all supplementary questions should be limited to no more than 30 seconds and ministerial replies should be succinct. This has been incorporated into the guidance that sets out the procedures for hybrid proceedings.

While we note the concern that President Erdogan's decision to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque has caused internationally, the Government regards this as a sovereign matter for Turkey. We have therefore not discussed the matter with Turkey. However, we would expect that Hagia Sophia - part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site - remains accessible to all, as testament to its global cultural and religious significance and Turkey's rich and diverse historical and cultural legacy, and that its precious artefacts are preserved. We therefore welcome the public statements by Turkish leaders that this historic building will continue to be accessible to people of all faiths and nationalities, which would be consistent with the Turkish constitution's provisions for freedom of conscience and religion for all.

The coronavirus outbreak is the biggest public health emergency in a generation, with significant global implications. It is vital that we all learn the lessons of this pandemic and, as the Foreign Secretary has said, there will need to be a review in time. We will work with all our international partners, including Australia, on this. Right now we are focused on the immediate response and working alongside other countries to stop the spread of the virus.

The UK is at the forefront of international efforts to regulate global trade in wild animals and my officials regularly raise the issue of the illegal wildlife trade with other governments and with international authorities. The World Animal Health Organisation, of which the UK is a member, will be addressing wildlife trade at the next general session in May 2020. Pandemics arise as a combination of events and are a global concern. The origin of the Covid-19 virus is not yet clear, although it has been linked to viruses occurring in animals.

The virus is believed to have originated in a seafood and live animal market in Wuhan, China in December 2019, but it has since spread widely through human to human transmission. China has now announced a proposal prohibiting the trade and consumption of wildlife. We have been in regular contact with the Chinese authorities since the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak, including most recently on 5 March when the Minister for Asia met the Chinese Ambassador.

We have been in regular contact with the Chinese authorities since the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak. We have continued to stress the importance of full and open data sharing to advance the global response, both through our Ambassador in Beijing and in meetings with the Chinese Embassy in London, including most recently on March 5th when the joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office-Department for International Development Minister for Asia met the Chinese Ambassador.

UK and like-minded representatives have discussed this issue at the highest level of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and reiterated that sharing correct data through the WHO is vital in order to effectively counter the spread of Coronavirus. We have emphasised that politics should have no place in the process and the focus should be on the science and correct public health measures.

Alongside a number of like-minded countries, the UK has raised at the highest levels of the World Health Organisation the importance of having accurate data on Taiwan. It is crucial that there is an accurate picture of how the virus is spreading globally. Public Health England reports cases in mainland China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), Macau SAR and Taiwan separately.

Alongside a number of like-minded countries, the UK has raised, at the highest levels of the World Health Organisation (WHO), the importance of all states and territories having access to the most up to date information about COVID-19. This is consistent with the UK's longstanding position that Taiwan should be able to meaningfully participate in international organisations such as the WHO, where statehood is not a prerequisite and it can contribute to the global good.

The UK worked very closely with France, Germany and US counterparts to address President Trump's concerns that Iran was in breach of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), involving months of intense discussions. We have been consistently clear that the JCPoA remains the best way of preventing nuclear proliferation and we hope it will remain. We want to see Iran come back to full compliance, and remain in close contact with our European partners and the US on this issue.

The UK is in close contact with the US at a number of levels: the Prime Minister spoke to President Trump on 8 and 12 January and the Foreign Secretary met with Secretary of State Pompeo in Washington on 9 January. As the Prime Minister has said before, including in New York in September 2019, if in the future we could agree a better deal with Iran that has the support of the US, then that is something we would work towards.

We are committed to bringing Iran back into full compliance with its Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) commitments and preserving the nuclear deal. Iran's reduced compliance has non-proliferation consequences. The Dispute Resolution Mechanism (DRM) is a process to address this serious issue and we are committed to using it in good faith to find a viable resolution to Iran's compliance issues. The UK remains determined to work with Iran on a diplomatic way forward. As the joint statement from the Prime Minister, President Macron and Chancellor Merkel said on 14 January we need to define a long-term framework for Iran's nuclear programme. We need a deal which everyone respects the terms of, and which takes the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran off the table.

Parties to the deal control this process – it is designed to be flexible and extendable in order to find a solution to the problem. Our objective in triggering the DRM is to preserve the nuclear deal and bring Iran back into compliance.

We are committed to bringing Iran back into full compliance with its Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) commitments and preserving the nuclear deal. Iran's reduced compliance has non-proliferation consequences. The Dispute Resolution Mechanism (DRM) is a process to address this serious issue and we are committed to using it in good faith to find a viable resolution to Iran's compliance issues. The UK remains determined to work with Iran on a diplomatic way forward. As the joint statement from the Prime Minister, President Macron and Chancellor Merkel said on 14 January we need to define a long-term framework for Iran's nuclear programme. We need a deal which everyone respects the terms of, and which takes the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran off the table.

Parties to the deal control this process – it is designed to be flexible and extendable in order to find a solution to the problem. Our objective in triggering the DRM is to preserve the nuclear deal and bring Iran back into compliance.

The government is focused on responding to Covid-19 across the UK, both through UK-wide measures and funding to the devolved administrations through the Barnett formula.

We have so far announced almost £7 billion of additional funding to the devolved administrations to support people, business and public services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This means £3.5 billion for the Scottish Government, £2.1 billion for the Welsh Government and £1.2 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive.

This is in addition to the UK-wide measures that the people and businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will benefit from, including the Job Retention Scheme, Self-Employment Income Support Scheme and Business Interruption Loan Scheme.

We are working closely with the devolved administrations and will continue to do so as we take steps out of lockdown.

Enforcement of road traffic law is an operational matter for Chief Officers who will take account of local problems and demands. The police are operationally independent of Government. In September 2021, the Government published the factsheet ‘Reported road casualties Great Britain: e-scooter factsheet 2020’ that, using data collected in 2020, examines the main trends in collisions involving e-scooters and the casualties that were involved. The Government is working with the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) to explore options to reduce the illegal e-scooter use. We will continue to support the police to ensure they have the tools needed to enforce road traffic legislation including those relating to electric scooters.

The Home Office collects and publishes data on the number of motoring offences in the ‘Police Powers and Procedures, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin, which can be accessed at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-powers-and-procedures-england-and-wales. However, information on numbers and types of vehicle seized is not held centrally.

The Government does not have any plans to regulate the purchase of e-scooters. It is not illegal to sell an e-scooter, however under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 there is a general obligation for traders to give consumers sufficient information about goods and services at the point of sale, so consumers are not misled. The Government is currently considering the best approach to ensuring appropriate information about the use of e-scooters is given to consumers at the point of sale.

Legislation was amended in July 2020 to allow for rental e-scooter trials in 32 selected Local Authority areas, which will run until 31 March 2022. These trials will assess the safety of e-scooters for their users and other road user groups, whether their potential benefits can be realised, and identify other road impacts to be addressed through future legislation.

The police can deal with illegal e-scooter use by fixed penalty notices and penalty points for no insurance, ‘not in accordance’ or riding on pavement offences. Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides the power to seize privately owned e-scooters for driving without insurance or a driving licence. It is for the officer dealing with an incident to investigate and to decide upon the appropriate offence and enforcement action.

We will continue to support the police to ensure they have the tools needed to enforce road traffic legislation including those relating to electric scooters.

The articles of association for College of Policing will be published by Companies House shortly and made available on their website.

The board of the College of Policing consists of:

• the College chief executive officer (CEO)
• four independent directors from various sectors
• one chief constable
• one member of police staff
• one member from the superintendent ranks
• one member from the federated ranks
• one police and crime commissioner

The CEO is employed by the College. The remaining Directors are non-executive and are appointed by the Home Secretary.

All internal Home Office HR policies relating to various forms of parental leave have been updated to ensure that inclusive language is used.

In relation to the language used in wider Home Office operational and other paperwork, guidance, instructions and manuals, this question cannot be answered except at a disproportionate cost as the specific information requested is not held centrally.

As is established practice following events such as these the Home Office is conducting a review of the routine and lawful operation in Glasgow on 13 May 2021.This is being done in conjunction with Police Scotland who had responsibility for public order during this incident.

Home Office operations including visits, crime reduction and street operations play a critical role in detecting and deterring immigration abuse and reducing the harm caused by illegal immigration, such as modern slavery, people trafficking and smuggling. The Home Office will continue to conduct such operations throughout the UK.

Her Majesty’s Passport Office ceased issuing British passports with a burgundy cover in September 2020.

All new British passports are issued with a blue cover.

Throughout the pandemic, the Home Office has worked closely with operational partners to ensure they have the powers, resources and guidance they need to enforce the law. The enforcement of the restrictions is an operational matter for police forces, and officers will continue to use their common sense, discretion and experience in enforcing the law.

The vast majority of the public have followed the guidelines throughout the pandemic, and that remains the case. However, the police can take steps to enforce the rules where a minority of the public do not comply. As they have done throughout the pandemic, the police apply a four-step escalation method - engaging, explaining and encouraging compliance before taking enforcement action.

Latest data published by the NPCC on 8 January shows that a total of 28,744 fixed penalty notices have been recorded as having been issued in England under Coronavirus Regulations between Friday 27 March and Monday 21 December.

Throughout the pandemic, the Home Office has worked closely with operational partners including the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) to ensure that police forces across the country have the powers and guidance required to effectively enforce restrictions.

The police in the UK have always policed by consent. The four Es guidance was introduced in spring 2020 to help policing provide a measured and consistent approach during this unprecedented situation. The College of Policing has produced a range of resources to explain the new powers and to help forces across the country in their response to COVID-19.

The NPCC enables operationally independent and locally accountable Chief Constables to co-ordinate the work of the police in order to protect the public.

This can include providing guidance to forces on new and amended legislation. The NPCC’s governance structure agreement does not supersede or vary the legal requirements of the office of constable and it is recognised that a Chief Constables remains operationally independent.

Throughout the pandemic, the Home Office has worked closely with police forces to ensure they have the powers and guidance required to effectively enforce restrictions and maintain public order. In response to individuals or groups who repeatedly flout the rules or are responsible for the most blatant and egregious breaches, the police will continue to engage, explain and encourage. They will not hesitate to move to enforcement action where necessary.

The enforcement of restrictions remains an operational matter for individual forces, and we expect officers to continue to use their common sense, discretion and professional judgement in enforcing regulations.

The UK has a duty both to prevent loss of life and protect the integrity of our border. In doing so we have domestic and international laws to comply with. Search and Rescue (SAR) legal provisions derive from a number of international conventions, in particular the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 (SOLAS) and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue 1979 (the SAR Convention). Under these provisions both the UK and France both have a duty to save lives, and if a boat encounters difficulty and is in distress then there is a need to protect life.

French authorities and vessels do attempt to persuade migrants to abandon their journey and allow themselves to be rescued but are at times met with extreme hostility from migrants. French assets will generally remain with the migrant vessel to ensure they are on-hand in case a rescue is required. The French do not believe forcible interceptions would be safe or permitted under SOLAS or SAR operations.

We are doing everything we can to stop these dangerous Channel crossings and bring to justice the criminals behind this organised immigration crime.

We are also continuing to engage with our French counterparts both on an operational and political level, exploring all options to reduce the number of people attempting this dangerous crossing.

The UK and France maintain a longstanding relationship on tackling illegal migration at the shared border and the UK has committed several funding packages to supporting this work in recent years. These include:

o In September 2019 the Joint Action Plan on Combatting Illegal Migration Involving Small Boats (‘Small Boats Action Plan’) was signed. The UK committed €3.6m (£3.25m) to tackling the issue. These funds were utilised for the delivery of strategic communications campaigns and the provision of equipment to improve detection of small boats crossings. This was later supplemented with a further €2.5m (£2.25m) in the 19/20 Financial Year, which was dedicated to the deployment of Gendarme Reservists and further strengthening preventive security measures at the French coast.

o In January 2018 both countries signed the Sandhurst Treaty, under which the UK made a commitment of €50 million (£45.5m) for activity to prevent illegal migration.

The UK and France are committed to ensuring value for money in investment. The UK and France carried out a joint review of bilateral cooperation under the Sandhurst Treaty, which concluded that this programme of work has made a difference to illegal migration. France also continues to invest significant resource into tackling this issue as part of a joint response with the UK.

In addition to the above sums outlined, we have also invested the following:

o The September 2014 Joint Declaration committed £12m for security improvements at Calais, Dunkirk, and the Eurotunnel terminal at Coquelles. This was supplemented by £1 million for fencing and by £1.7 million to support an enhanced secure freight zone at Calais.

o In 2015, both countries signed a Joint Declaration which committed £45.96 million (majority to Eurotunnel) towards security enhancements of the juxtaposed controls and to moving migrants into reception centres across France.

o This was followed by payments in 2016 (£17 million) and a further (£36 million) to strengthen the border and maintain the operation of the juxtaposed controls.

The Home Office Homicide Index holds information recorded by the police in England and Wales on the ethnicity of victim and convicted suspects of homicide. The requested data are given in the table.

Due to the time it can take for the police to investigate homicide offences and for cases to be heard in court, the number of suspects who have been convicted of homicide is likely to increase as additional court outcome information is received by the Home Office.

We strongly support the right to protest peacefully, but this pandemic has led to many of our individual freedoms being curtailed because everyone has a role to play in helping to control the virus following the rules. This is how we can continue to save lives so we can recover.

Under the current regulations, gatherings of more than six people from different households are not permitted. We are in close contact with police to ensure they are prepared to respond to any public disorder and have appropriate policing plans in place. How they use these powers is an operational matter for the police, who are independent of Government.

In London, the Metropolitan Police continues to monitor the situation and is aware of a number of protests over the next week. The management of public order is an operational matter for the police, who routinely have plans in place to ensure they are prepared to respond to any public disorder.

The Police have adopted an effective approach of the 4Es; engaging, explaining and encouraging compliance before moving to enforcement options.?The National Police Chiefs Council and the College of Policing have issued guidance on how they will enforce the regulation. This can be found at https://www.college.police.uk/News/College-news/Pages/Health-Protection-Guidelines.aspx.

Our police forces face unprecedented challenges as they play the critical role of maintaining public order during this public health emergency.?The police response has and will follow the four-step escalation principles – engaging, explaining, encouraging, and then enforcing as a last resort.

I welcome the conclusions of the Home Affairs Select Committee report on police preparedness, which was published on 17 April. The report concluded that the overall police response to the current crisis has been proportionate and effective.

We have and will continue to work closely with our policing partners to ensure there is clear guidance to officers on any changes to the Health Protection Regulations and the powers available to them.

These were truly shocking cases of the most vulnerable in our society being preyed upon and abused by ruthless predators, and failed by those whose job it was to protect them. It is important that lessons are learnt, and we work tirelessly to safeguard victims of these horrific crimes and bring the evil criminals who abuse our children to justice.

The government engages routinely with law enforcement agencies, including the National Crime Agency, to tackle child sexual offending and ensure the police respond appropriately to vulnerable victims. The National Crime Agency considers reports such as these in drawing up its annual National Strategic Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime, which can be found online. https://nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/who-we-are/publications/296-national-strategic-assessment-of-serious-organised-crime-2019/

The Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service policy framework 'The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender' was published in 2019. A routine review of the implementation of this framework is underway. The review will involve consultation with a range of internal and external stakeholders.

We will always ensure that transgender individuals are managed safely with their rights properly respected and in accordance with the law. We continue to consider all known risk factors when managing transgender offenders, including any risk to the person, risk to others and risk of self-harm.

The Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service policy framework 'The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender' was published in 2019. A routine review of the implementation of this framework is underway. The review will involve consultation with a range of internal and external stakeholders.

We will always ensure that transgender individuals are managed safely with their rights properly respected and in accordance with the law. We continue to consider all known risk factors when managing transgender offenders, including any risk to the person, risk to others and risk of self-harm.

As laid out in Hansard, 8 March 2007, Col. 146ws, in 2007, the then Government resolved to shift to gender-neutral drafting of legislation to avoid stereotypes that only men could hold positions of authority.

Notwithstanding, Ministers believe it is entirely appropriate to continue to refer to sex in legislation where helpful for clarity or pertinent (for example, legislation relating to the health needs of women).

In that light, we have not, nor do we intend to, replace the word ‘mother’ with the phrase ‘parent who has given birth' in Departmental paperwork, guidance, instructions, manuals or other documents.

There are no courses on intersectionality but Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) had a package on intersectionality as part of its ‘Let’s Talk’ series.

Involvement in the ‘Let’s Talk’ series was not mandatory. As a result, HMPPS does not collect or hold data on the number of staff who have participated. All HMPPS diversity and inclusion training is developed internally as part of wider learning and development activity, and so no additional cost was incurred for any of the ‘Let’s Talk’ toolkit.

The national policy on the searching of prisoners, staff and visitors (PSI 07/2016 – Searching of the Person) is currently under review and a revised version is intended to be published later this year.

In reviewing the policy, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has consulted with the Government’s Legal Department and HMPPS Equalities Team. Further consultation will be made with contributing groups including HMPPS women’s group. The new policy will be compliant with the Equality Act 2010, Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the European Convention of Human Rights.

The national policy on the searching of prisoners (PSI 07/2016 – Searching of the Person) is currently under review and a revised version is intended to be published later this year.

The updated policy will include direction on transgender staff conducting searches. This will consider the position of staff with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

In reviewing the policy, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has consulted with the Government’s Legal Department and HMPPS Equalities Team. The new policy will be compliant with the Equality Act 2010, Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the European Convention of Human Rights.

This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Following the case of R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin), the High Court affirmed that it has the power to oversee the conduct of lawyers in immigration cases. The disciplinary process, known as the Hamid jurisdiction, is part of the court and tribunal’s powers to govern its own procedure and to ensure that legal practitioners abide by their duties to the court or tribunal and otherwise conduct themselves according to the proper standards of behaviour. This jurisdiction is engaged when a case is advanced in a professionally improper manner and is not confined to circumstances when the underlying claim is totally without merit, nor restricted to immigration cases.

As the Hamid jurisdiction comes within the court and tribunal’s inherent powers, the MoJ does not keep records of referrals made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. If the Hamid jurisdiction is activated, any court or tribunal orders made in relation to the referral may be published and placed in the public domain and any such publication will include the explanation provided by the legal representative. The judiciary is independent of Government, and the Government has made no such assessment of the use of the jurisdiction.

Following the case of R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin), the High Court affirmed that it has the power to oversee the conduct of lawyers in immigration cases. The disciplinary process, known as the Hamid jurisdiction, is part of the court and tribunal’s powers to govern its own procedure and to ensure that legal practitioners abide by their duties to the court or tribunal and otherwise conduct themselves according to the proper standards of behaviour. This jurisdiction is engaged when a case is advanced in a professionally improper manner and is not confined to circumstances when the underlying claim is totally without merit, nor restricted to immigration cases.

As the Hamid jurisdiction comes within the court and tribunal’s inherent powers, the MoJ does not keep records of referrals made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. If the Hamid jurisdiction is activated, any court or tribunal orders made in relation to the referral may be published and placed in the public domain and any such publication will include the explanation provided by the legal representative. The judiciary is independent of Government, and the Government has made no such assessment of the use of the jurisdiction.

Under the framework established by the Legal Services Act 2007 the legal services sector in England and Wales is independent of Government, and solicitors are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The Government has not made any such assessment.

Malik & Malik were last issued with a civil legal aid contract in 2007 and did not receive public funding in connection with any of the cases being enquired about. There was accordingly no basis for the Legal Aid Agency to make any referral to the SRA in connection with those matters. As at the time of writing, the firm no longer hold a legal aid contract of any kind.

Under the framework established by the Legal Services Act 2007 the legal services sector in England and Wales is independent of Government, and solicitors are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The SRA investigates alleged misconduct and can prosecute serious cases before the independent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The Government has no role in reporting solicitors to the tribunal.

Malik & Malik were last issued with a civil legal aid contract in 2007 and did not receive public funding in connection with any of the cases being enquired about. There was accordingly no basis for the Legal Aid Agency to make any referral to the SRA in connection with those matters. As at the time of writing, the firm no longer hold a legal aid contract of any kind.

Following the case of R (Hamid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin), the High Court affirmed that it has the power to oversee the conduct of lawyers in immigration cases. The disciplinary process, known as the Hamid jurisdiction, is part of the court and tribunal’s powers to govern its own procedure and to ensure that legal practitioners abide by their duties to the court or tribunal and otherwise conduct themselves according to the proper standards of behaviour. This jurisdiction is engaged when a case is advanced in a professionally improper manner and is not confined to circumstances when the underlying claim is totally without merit, nor restricted to immigration cases.

As the Hamid jurisdiction comes within the court and tribunal’s inherent powers, the MoJ does not keep records of referrals made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. If the Hamid jurisdiction is activated, any court or tribunal orders made in relation to the referral may be published and placed in the public domain and any such publication will include the explanation provided by the legal representative. The judiciary is independent of Government, and the Government has made no such assessment of the use of the jurisdiction.

We are committed to ensuring that transgender individuals are treated fairly, lawfully and decently, with their rights and safety properly respected. Regardless of where a transgender individual is being held, we expect that they will be respected and addressed in the gender with which they identify.

Data is not held on the number of prisoners with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) within the prison estate. There is no legal obligation for an individual with a GRC to disclose this as, under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, once an individual obtains a GRC, their acquired gender becomes legally recognised and they are entitled to the rights appropriate to anyone else of that gender.

Where it is known that an individual is transgender, a Local Case Board is held, as per our ‘Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender’ policy framework, to consider what support should be provided and to consider any risks posed to, or from, the individual. Cases can then be referred to a centrally managed Complex Case Board (CCB), chaired by a senior prison manager, where the referral criteria are met. However, thorough and appropriate assessment of risk is of paramount importance for all those in our care, regardless of an individual’s gender or any protected characteristic they may or may not have.

Further information on the policy framework, the CCB referral criteria and the risk factors considered by CCBs can be found on the following link:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-care-and-management-of-individuals-who-are-transgender.

We are committed to ensuring that transgender offenders are treated fairly, lawfully and decently, with their rights and safety properly respected. Regardless of where a transgender individual is being held, we expect that they will be respected and addressed in the gender with which they identify.

In 2019 the Ministry of Justice conducted a review into the care and management of individuals who are transgender and this led to the publication of a revised Policy Framework which strengthened the risk and safeguarding process. The Framework was developed in consultation with a range of internal and external stakeholders, and comprehensive consideration was given to HMPPS’s responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 throughout the process. The Framework emphasises the requirement to protect both the welfare and rights of the individual, and the welfare and rights of others around them. This includes staff and other prisoners. All decisions made on the location of transgender individuals are made in line with this policy, and decisions to locate an individual in the opposite side of the estate to their legal gender can only be made by a Complex Case Board (CCB), chaired by a senior prison manager, following a full assessment of all known risks posed both to, and from, the individual

Under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, once an individual obtains a GRC, their acquired gender becomes legally recognised and they are entitled to the rights appropriate to anyone else of that gender. This means that a transgender female with a GRC entering the prison estate would be placed in a women’s prison, unless there were exceptional circumstances. Where such circumstances are identified, a referral is made to the CCB to consider all available evidence relating to an individual’s care and management, including risks posed both to and from the individual, before making a decision on an individual’s location.

Further information can be found on the following link:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-care-and-management-of-individuals-who-are-transgender

We are committed to ensuring that transgender offenders are treated fairly, lawfully and decently, with their rights and safety properly respected. Regardless of where a transgender individual is being held, we expect that they will be respected and addressed in the gender with which they identify.

In 2019 the Ministry of Justice conducted a review into the care and management of individuals who are transgender and this led to the publication of a revised Policy Framework which strengthened the risk and safeguarding process. The Framework was developed in consultation with a range of internal and external stakeholders, and comprehensive consideration was given to HMPPS’s responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 throughout the process. The Framework emphasises the requirement to protect both the welfare and rights of the individual, and the welfare and rights of others around them. This includes staff and other prisoners. All decisions made on the location of transgender individuals are made in line with this policy, and decisions to locate an individual in the opposite side of the estate to their legal gender can only be made by a Complex Case Board (CCB), chaired by a senior prison manager, following a full assessment of all known risks posed both to, and from, the individual

Under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, once an individual obtains a GRC, their acquired gender becomes legally recognised and they are entitled to the rights appropriate to anyone else of that gender. This means that a transgender female with a GRC entering the prison estate would be placed in a women’s prison, unless there were exceptional circumstances. Where such circumstances are identified, a referral is made to the CCB to consider all available evidence relating to an individual’s care and management, including risks posed both to and from the individual, before making a decision on an individual’s location.

Further information can be found on the following link:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-care-and-management-of-individuals-who-are-transgender

In response to the current unprecedented situation, the Government has announced that risk-assessed prisoners who are within two months of their release date will be temporarily released from jail.

Prisoner releases are being phased over time to ensure stringent risk assessments can be carried out and that the required support for offenders is in place. No prisoner will be released without housing and health support being in place.

If an individual does not have identified accommodation to be released to, then probation services will investigate options for securing temporary accommodation.

To facilitate this process, we are working with several public, private and voluntary sector providers to secure a range of accommodation options.

We are not able to release the requested information. This is because the number of prisoners, within our transgender data collection, who have reported they are declared male on their birth certificate who self-identify as female and are located on female prison wings, is five or fewer[1]. Low numbers are suppressed to prevent disclosure in accordance with the Data Protection Act, 1998. This applies to values of five or fewer or other values which would allow values of five or fewer to be derived by subtraction. This is to prevent the identification of individuals. For this reason, we are also not able to release information on the number of assaults that have been committed, as the number of perpetrators of such crimes would be low and could also lead to the identification of individuals.

The Ministry of Justice is fully mindful of the need to manage risk and to balance the rights of all prisoners in the women’s estate. We are committed to ensuring that transgender offenders are treated fairly, lawfully and decently, with their rights and safety properly respected. Regardless of where a transgender individual is being held, we expect that they will be respected and addressed in the gender with which they identify.

[1] Details of the number of transgender prisoners were provided by Equalities Representatives in public and private prisons in England and Wales, between 26 March 2019 and 24 April 2019. Transgender prisoners were defined as those individuals known within prison to be currently living in, or are presenting in, a gender different to their sex assigned at birth and who have had a case conference (as defined by PSI 17/2016 The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders). The prison population is dynamic and as such the number of transgender prisoners currently in prison may now differ from the number at the time data was collected

We are not able to release the requested information. This is because the number of prisoners, within our transgender data collection, who have reported they are declared male on their birth certificate who self-identify as female and are located on female prison wings, is five or fewer[1]. Low numbers are suppressed to prevent disclosure in accordance with the Data Protection Act, 1998. This applies to values of five or fewer or other values which would allow values of five or fewer to be derived by subtraction. This is to prevent the identification of individuals. For this reason, we are also not able to release information on the number of assaults that have been committed, as the number of perpetrators of such crimes would be low and could also lead to the identification of individuals.

The Ministry of Justice is fully mindful of the need to manage risk and to balance the rights of all prisoners in the women’s estate. We are committed to ensuring that transgender offenders are treated fairly, lawfully and decently, with their rights and safety properly respected. Regardless of where a transgender individual is being held, we expect that they will be respected and addressed in the gender with which they identify.

[1] Details of the number of transgender prisoners were provided by Equalities Representatives in public and private prisons in England and Wales, between 26 March 2019 and 24 April 2019. Transgender prisoners were defined as those individuals known within prison to be currently living in, or are presenting in, a gender different to their sex assigned at birth and who have had a case conference (as defined by PSI 17/2016 The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders). The prison population is dynamic and as such the number of transgender prisoners currently in prison may now differ from the number at the time data was collected