Lord Jopling

We have debated 18 Select Committee reports so far this session, including most recently on 24 January. We have seen an increase in the number of committees, with the number of Sessional Committees doubling over the last decade and six new ones set up since 2020.

The Government Whips Office will continue to work closely with the Usual Channels and the Committee Office to schedule time for debate on reports as regularly as possible. This includes an additional Friday sitting on 25 February to debate committee reports.

As Leader of the House I take very seriously the responsibility incumbent on all Ministers to provide full, timely and comprehensible answers to Questions for Written Answer (QWAs).

I have raised the outstanding answers with the Minister of State for Counter Extremism and understand that members concerned have been contacted by the Home Office to apologise for the delay and to provide an explanation as to why these answers have not yet been provided. I know that the Minister will answer the questions as soon as is possible.

My office will continue to work with all departments to ensure prompt and satisfactory answers to all QWAs.

As Leader of the House I take very seriously the responsibility incumbent on all Ministers to provide full, timely and comprehensible answers to Questions for Written Answer (QWAs).

In this instance I am informed that the Home Office is working towards an appropriate response, noting that this is subject to ongoing legal proceedings. I have been assured by the Department that an answer will be provided as soon as possible. In the meantime, I know that the Home Office has been in touch with the relevant members of the House to apologise and to provide an explanation for the delay.

My office will continue to work with all departments to ensure prompt and satisfactory answers to all QWAs.

Further to my Written Answers on 5 February (HL5378) and on 6 March (HL5733) and the Written Answer from Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 5 February (HL5379), the percentage of the total cost in each case represented by members of the House of Lords is dependent on the overall number of Peers on the delegations concerned, and other factors, notably the amount of time spent on their work as members of the delegations. Allocation of places on the delegations is a matter for the political parties and it would be up to them to decide what account to take of these costs in allocating places on the delegations.

The percentage for the total cost for the UK delegation represented by Members of the House of Lords in the last financial year was (1) 50.58% for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, (2) 35.01% for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and (3) 14.41% for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly.

The percentage of the total cost across the three delegations represented by Peers in the last financial year was 41.13%.

The secretariat support for all three delegations is supplied by the House of Commons on a cost sharing basis. The House of Lords provides 30% of the total cost, and the House of Commons 70%.

There are 25 full members of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly from the UK Parliament; of these, eight are members of the House of Lords, representing 32 per cent of the UK Parliament delegates and 11.8 per cent of all full members of the Assembly (which comprise 68 in total); and 30 per cent of the total cost of the UK Parliament’s contribution to the Assembly is charged to the House of Lords Administration. Information is not held on costs of the Assembly incurred by its other constituent bodies (that is, the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the National Assembly for Wales, the Isle of Man Tynwald, the States of Guernsey and the States of Jersey).

As Leader of the House I take very seriously the responsibility incumbent on all Ministers to provide full, timely and comprehensible answers to Questions for Written Answer (QWAs).

In this instance I am informed by the Department that delays to five of these late responses were as a result of administrative errors. I have been advised that these issues have now been identified and resolved. I have been reassured that the Secretary of State takes this seriously and that he has made clear to officials that it is essential it does not happen again. The members concerned were contacted by the Department to apologise for the delay and these questions have now been answered.

With regard to question number HL1066 from Lord Pearson of Rannoch, this remained unanswered by 6 September due to an error with IT systems maintained by the House which meant that it was not allocated to the correct department. The technical issue which was causing problems with transfers and amendments has now been resolved and the question has now been answered.

My office will continue to work with all departments to ensure prompt and satisfactory answers to QWAs.

The Senior Deputy Speaker has asked me, as Chairman of the Services Committee, to respond on his behalf.

The price of the English still wine offered in the Peers’ Dining Room and available on request in the Barry Room is £54.00 a bottle. The price of the equivalent standard House of Lords own label wine is £18.00 a bottle. The variance in price arises because the English wine (a pinot noir) has a higher wholesale price, while the House pinot noir is purchased in larger volumes using a long-term contract. The house wine is also sold by the glass at £6.35 for 250ml and £4.80 for 175ml.

The price of the English sparkling wine offered in the Peers’ Dining Room and available on request in the Barry Room is £55.00 a bottle. The price of the equivalent House of Lords own label champagne is £47.50 a bottle. Neither is sold by the glass in the dining rooms.

As detailed in my previous answer (HL4521), I have recently written to Lord Keen of Elie QC and the Secretary of State for Justice to make clear the House’s expectations with regards to Questions for Written Answer. I am informed that the Ministry of Justice has taken steps to rectify the issue, including making further process improvements, for example reducing the internal deadlines to allow more time for clearance. Lord Keen of Elie QC has also had discussions with senior officials within the Department about its recent performance. The Ministry of Justice has now cleared all overdue Questions for Written Answer, including HL3278, which was answered on 30 January 2017.

My office will continue to work with all departments to ensure prompt and satisfactory answers to Questions for Written Answer.

As Leader of the House I take very seriously the responsibility incumbent on all Ministers to provide full, timely and comprehensible answers to Questions for Written Answer (QWAs). My office immediately approaches departments who have not responded to questions after 10 working days, and remains in contact with them until the questions are answered.

I am informed that due to ongoing technical problems with software used by the Home Office for processing answers to QWAs, the usual clearance process has experienced delays since October which have caused a backlog. I have been assured that steps have now been taken to safeguard against the problem reoccurring.

The Ministry of Justice recognise recent reductions in performance with regard to QWA responses, which I am informed is due to a reduction in resources​ ​as ​a result of process and system changes. The Department has assured me that they have taken steps to rectify this, including making further process improvements.

I have written to the Secretaries of State for both Departments to stress the importance of providing full and timely responses to QWAs and have written to my front bench team to reiterate the House’s expectations in the light of recent performance.

The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park):

I regularly stress to departments the importance of giving timely answers to Questions for Written Answer. My office immediately approach departments who have not responded to questions after 10 working days, and remain in contact with them until the questions are answered. This process has been followed in both of the cases to which the noble Lord refers.

In the case of the Ministry of Justice question, I am informed that the delay related the process of transferring it to the right department for response. After discussion it was transferred to the Cabinet Office, who will provide a substantive answer by close of play this week. As regards the Department for Education questions, I am informed that the delay related to gathering complex data spanning a long period and the need to obtain clearance from across government. Both of the questions concerned have now been answered.

Regarding timely replies more generally, I have recently written to the three departments with the greatest proportion of late responses in the last session and I regularly set out the House’s expectations as they apply to QWAs to my frontbench team. Notwithstanding the cases referenced above, I am pleased to say that the proportion of on-time responses from the Ministry of Justice rose from 74% of questions in 2014-15 to 87% in 2015-16; while the Department for Education answered well over 90% of questions on time in both sessions.

The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park):

I regularly stress to departments the importance of giving timely answers to Questions for Written Answer. My office immediately approach departments who have not responded to questions after 10 working days, and remain in contact with them until the questions are answered. This process has been followed in both of the cases to which the noble Lord refers.

In the case of the Ministry of Justice question, I am informed that the delay related the process of transferring it to the right department for response. After discussion it was transferred to the Cabinet Office, who will provide a substantive answer by close of play this week. As regards the Department for Education questions, I am informed that the delay related to gathering complex data spanning a long period and the need to obtain clearance from across government. Both of the questions concerned have now been answered.

Regarding timely replies more generally, I have recently written to the three departments with the greatest proportion of late responses in the last session and I regularly set out the House’s expectations as they apply to QWAs to my frontbench team. Notwithstanding the cases referenced above, I am pleased to say that the proportion of on-time responses from the Ministry of Justice rose from 74% of questions in 2014-15 to 87% in 2015-16; while the Department for Education answered well over 90% of questions on time in both sessions.

I take very seriously my responsibility as Leader of the House to encourage Ministers to be punctual in answering written questions. I recently published data on departmental performance in answering Questions for Written Answer for the 2015/16 session, where I was pleased to see that 93% of questions were answered within 10 working days. Nevertheless, we must always strive to do better. I have written to the three departments with the greatest proportion of late responses in the last session to make clear the House’s expectations and to stress the importance of timely responses.

Though the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (formerly the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) received 475 Questions for Written Answer in 2015/16 - more than double the number received in the previous session - Ministers were nevertheless disappointed by the department’s performance. In response the department has put in place a range of actions to improve performance, including strengthening internal deadlines and procedures. Baroness Neville-Rolfe, as the Lords Minister, has stressed to me how seriously the department takes its responsibilities to Parliament and is confident that performance will improve in this session.

My office continues to work with all departments to ensure prompt and comprehensive responses to all Questions for Written Answer. I will continue to publish data on an annual basis to allow analysis of performance over time. This practice is important in highlighting where improvements in timeliness could and should be made.

As set out in the Standing Orders of the House of Lords Relating to Public Business: “When Her Majesty comes publicly to the House, the Lords shall be attired in their robes or in such other dress as may be approved by Her Majesty”. A proposal for robes other than those presently used would be considered by the appropriate authority.

In line with the practice established in the last session, following the commitment made by my predecessor (HL Deb 8 May 2014, col 1575), I will continue to publish annually the performance of departments on their promptness in dealing with Questions for Written Answer. My office will also continue to work with all departments to ensure prompt and comprehensive responses to all Questions for Written Answer.

The statistics for the 2014-15 session are available as a Written Statement (HLWS39). I will shortly publish data on departmental performance for the 2015-16 session.

My responsibility as Leader of the House, to encourage Ministers to be punctual in answering written questions, is one I take seriously. My office immediately approach departments who have not responded to questions after 10 working days, and remain in contact with them until the questions are answered. This process was followed with the Cabinet Office for the seven questions that remained unanswered after 10 working days on 18 March. All of those questions have now been answered. At the end of this Session I will publish data on each department’s promptness in dealing with Questions for Written Answer to allow for proper scrutiny of their performance.

My office makes regular contact with all Government departments that are unable to meet the 10 working day target within which to answer Questions for Written Answer. Every effort is made to address delays and to remind departments of their responsibilities to Parliament.

I have recently taken the opportunity to discuss the need for timely answers with all members of the Government front bench in this House, and written to the five departments with the greatest proportion of late responses in the 2014/15 session to make clear the House’s expectations and to stress the importance of timely responses. My office will continue to work with all departments to ensure prompt and satisfactory answers to Questions for Written Answer.

The delay in the particular case to which the noble Lord refers related to delays in gathering the required data. The question tabled by Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 21 July has now been answered.

Certain exemptions to qualification to the National Minimum Wage apply through Part 6 (Exclusions) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015[1]. The noble Lord will find a list of those exempted from the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 on the Gov.uk webpage https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage/who-gets-the-minimum-wage.

Ministers are generally classified as ‘office holders’ who are neither workers nor employees, except where the individual also holds an employment contract with the same company or organisation that meets the criteria for employees. Where a Minister meets this criteria and is classed as a worker under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker), they will be entitled to the National Minimum Wage and the new National Living Wage once implemented in April 2016.

[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111127964/pdfs/ukdsi_9780111127964_en.pdf

I take very seriously my responsibility as Leader of the House to encourage Ministers to be punctual in answering written questions. My office immediately approach departments who have not responded to questions after 10 working days, and remain in contact with them until the questions are answered. This process was followed with HM Treasury for the 12 questions that remained unanswered after 10 working days on 11 March. All of those questions have now been answered. At the end of this Session I will publish data on each department’s promptness in dealing with Questions for Written Answer to allow for proper scrutiny of their performance.

Many interns are already entitled to the National Minimum Wage. The term “intern” is not defined in any legislation: entitlement to the minimum wage depends on whether or not an individual is a worker for minimum wage purposes.

The National Minimum Wage applies to all workers unless a specific exemption applies. If an intern is a worker they will be entitled to the minimum wage. An applicable exemption would be students in further or higher education performing work-experience for a period not exceeding 12 months which is part of their studies. It can be legitimate for employers to offer unpaid or ‘expenses-only’ opportunities in some circumstances – in particular where the individual is acting as a volunteer.

Given this dependency on employment status, it is vital that employers and workers understand how this is determined. This is why last month, the Business Secretary announced a review of employment status, looking at how the system could be clarified, providing transparency for both individuals and employers. This is an internal review and findings will be presented to ministers early next year.

There are currently no plans to specifically consider individuals covered by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975.

All Privy Counsellors who were not eligible to attend the Accession Council on an ex officio basis were invited to apply by ballot for a summons to attend the Accession Council. The ballot was conducted on an annual basis and took place in April 2022. A total of 236 Privy Counsellors chose to apply this year; all of those who applied were entered into the ballot. Thirty summonses were available in this year’s ballot.

A total of 158 Privy Counsellors were eligible on an ex-officio basis to be summonsed to attend the Accession Council on 10th September 2022.

The criteria for ex-officio eligibility was based primarily on whether individuals were serving in a senior parliamentary, judicial or Church post at the time of Demise. Privy Counsellors selected using this criteria included the Great Offices and Great Officers of State; Cabinet ministers; the Leader of the Opposition; shadow Cabinet Ministers who are Privy Counsellors; the Archbishops of Canterbury and York; leaders of the political parties in the House of Commons; the First Ministers of the Devolved Governments; the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker; and representatives of the senior judiciary.

Former Prime Ministers, former Lord Presidents, former Archbishops, and Privy Counsellors who were formerly leaders of political parties in the House of Commons were also summonsed to attend on an ex-officio basis.

Information about special advisers is published on GOV.UK.

To assist the noble Lord:

• the 2021 data is available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1002880/Annual_Report_on_Special_Advisers_2021_-_Online_Publication.pdf,

• the 2015 data is available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486829/List_of_Special_Advisers_in_post_at_17_December_2015.pdf,

• the 2005 data is available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo050721/wmstext/50721m12.htm,

• and the 1995 data is available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/336889/9th_report.pdf.

Special advisers only represented 0.06 per cent of the Civil Service pay bill in 2021. They protect the integrity and impartiality of the civil service by clearly separating out the provision of political advice to Ministers.

All Ministers are subject to the Ministerial Code, which provides guidance to Ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold the standards set out in the Code.

Under the terms of the Code, Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.

Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.

The Ministerial and other Salaries Act (1975) sets limits on the numbers of salaries that can be paid and for individual offices. Within those statutory limits the organisation of the Executive is a matter for the Prime Minister and at his discretion.

There are currently fourteen unsalaried Ministers, of which eleven are Members of the House of Lords, and three are members of the House of Commons.

The information requested is not centrally held or collated, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

10 Downing Street is a constituent part of the Cabinet Office; information on its staffing is provided within the Cabinet Office Annual Report and Accounts.

To assist the noble peer:

• the 2020-21 accounts are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-office-annual-report-and-accounts-2020-2021,

• The 2015-16 accounts are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-office-annual-report-and-accounts-2015-to-2016 and

• the 2005 accounts are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-office-annual-report-and-resource-accounts-2005-to-2006.

The Cabinet Office accounts for 1995 were presented to Parliament; the House of Lords Library can assist members in retrieving reference copies from 1995.

The recommendation of Ministerial appointments to the Sovereign is a matter for the Prime Minister, taking into account such factors as the Prime Minister sees fit. The main determinant will be whether or not there are salaries available within the limits set out in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975.

The Prime Minister has overall responsibility for the organisation of the Executive. It is for the Prime Minister alone to advise the Sovereign on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative powers in relation to government, such as the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignation of other Ministers.

The Ministerial and other Salaries Act (1975) sets limits on the numbers of salaries that can be paid, and for individual offices. As per the act, there are:

• Up to 21 salaries payable to the Cabinet, excluding the Lord Chancellor, available under Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the act

• 1 salary payable to the Lord Chancellor as per Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the act,

• Up to 29 salaries payable under Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the act (non-Cabinet) at Minister of State level, assuming all 21 salaries in the Cabinet are used,

• 3 salaries payable under Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the act for the Law Officers,

• Up to 33 salaries payable to Parliamentary Secretaries (other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury) under Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the act, assuming all 50 Cabinet and Minister of State salaries are used,

• and 22 salaries payable to office holders other than Parliamentary Secretaries under Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the act

Parliamentary Private Secretaries are not members of the Government and, therefore, are not paid as such.

There are currently thirteen Ministers who do not receive a ministerial salary. Of these, three sit in the House of Commons and ten sit in the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister has overall responsibility for the organisation of the Executive. It is for the Prime Minister alone to advise the Sovereign on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative powers in relation to government, such as the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignation of other Ministers.

The Ministerial and other Salaries Act (1975) sets limits on the numbers of salaries that can be paid, and for individual offices. As per the act, there are:

• Up to 21 salaries payable to the Cabinet, excluding the Lord Chancellor, available under Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the act

• 1 salary payable to the Lord Chancellor as per Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the act,

• Up to 29 salaries payable under Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the act (non-Cabinet) at Minister of State level, assuming all 21 salaries in the Cabinet are used,

• 3 salaries payable under Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the act for the Law Officers,

• Up to 33 salaries payable to Parliamentary Secretaries (other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury) under Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the act, assuming all 50 Cabinet and Minister of State salaries are used,

• and 22 salaries payable to office holders other than Parliamentary Secretaries under Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the act

Parliamentary Private Secretaries are not members of the Government and, therefore, are not paid as such.

There are currently thirteen Ministers who do not receive a ministerial salary. Of these, three sit in the House of Commons and ten sit in the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister has overall responsibility for the organisation of the Executive. It is for the Prime Minister alone to advise the Sovereign on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative powers in relation to government, such as the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignation of other Ministers.

The Ministerial and other Salaries Act (1975) sets limits on the numbers of salaries that can be paid, and for individual offices. As per the act, there are:

• Up to 21 salaries payable to the Cabinet, excluding the Lord Chancellor, available under Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the act

• 1 salary payable to the Lord Chancellor as per Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the act,

• Up to 29 salaries payable under Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the act (non-Cabinet) at Minister of State level, assuming all 21 salaries in the Cabinet are used,

• 3 salaries payable under Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the act for the Law Officers,

• Up to 33 salaries payable to Parliamentary Secretaries (other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury) under Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the act, assuming all 50 Cabinet and Minister of State salaries are used,

• and 22 salaries payable to office holders other than Parliamentary Secretaries under Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the act

Parliamentary Private Secretaries are not members of the Government and, therefore, are not paid as such.

There are currently thirteen Ministers who do not receive a ministerial salary. Of these, three sit in the House of Commons and ten sit in the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister has overall responsibility for the organisation of the Executive. It is for the Prime Minister alone to advise the Sovereign on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative powers in relation to government, such as the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignation of other Ministers.

The Ministerial and other Salaries Act (1975) sets limits on the numbers of salaries that can be paid, and for individual offices. As per the act, there are:

• Up to 21 salaries payable to the Cabinet, excluding the Lord Chancellor, available under Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the act

• 1 salary payable to the Lord Chancellor as per Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the act,

• Up to 29 salaries payable under Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the act (non-Cabinet) at Minister of State level, assuming all 21 salaries in the Cabinet are used,

• 3 salaries payable under Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the act for the Law Officers,

• Up to 33 salaries payable to Parliamentary Secretaries (other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury) under Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the act, assuming all 50 Cabinet and Minister of State salaries are used,

• and 22 salaries payable to office holders other than Parliamentary Secretaries under Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the act

Parliamentary Private Secretaries are not members of the Government and, therefore, are not paid as such.

There are currently thirteen Ministers who do not receive a ministerial salary. Of these, three sit in the House of Commons and ten sit in the House of Lords.

In the Birthday Honours List 2018, the following recipients were styled professor: eight Knight Bachelor recipients (38% of recipients at that level), four DBE recipients (36%), no KBE recipients (0%) and 23 CBE recipients (26%). All nominees are assessed against the same criteria. The Cabinet Office always strives to encourage a greater diversity of nominations from the public and carries out outreach work to attract nominations from groups identified as under-represented in the honours system.

​The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

Letter from John Pullinger CB, National Statistician, to Lord Jopling, dated 10 April 2018

As National Statistician and Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority, I am replying to your Parliamentary Question asking what is the estimate of the proportion of the average family budget taken up by food in (1) 1988, (2) 1998, (3) 2008, and (4) 2018 (HL6808).

Table 1 shows household expenditure on food and non-alcoholic drinks as a percentage of total household expenditure in the UK from 1987 to financial year ending 2017. The estimates are based on data from the Living Costs and Food Survey (LCF) and its predecessor the Family Expenditure Survey.

In Table 1 below, ‘expenditure on food’ includes food brought home, food eaten away from the home in restaurants or cafés, and take-away food. Data is collected at a household level but is a reasonable indication of family expenditure. We have provided this data in ten-year intervals in line with the latest available data for financial year ending 2017. The period of data collection has changed over time, therefore the time series presented in the table is made up of financial and calendar year time points.

Table 1: Household expenditure on food and non-alcoholic drink[1] as a proportion of total expenditure at 2016/17 Prices[2], 1987 to financial year ending 2017

Source: Office for National Statistics, Living Costs and Food Survey

Yours sincerely,

John Pullinger

[1] Based on the Family Expenditure Survey classification (FES); food includes food brought home, food eaten away from the home in restaurants or cafes, as well as take-away food.

[2] Figures have been deflated to 2016/17 prices using the RPI all items index.

[3] From 2001/02 onwards, commodities and services are based on the Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose (COICOP) codes broadly mapped to FES.

The process for nominating representatives to serve on the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Delegation is a matter for individual political parties. It is well precedented and not unusual for three Peers to be appointed as full members to the OSCE Parliamentary delegation. During the 2015-17 Parliament, three Peers were appointed as full members to the delegation and one Peer as a substitute member. In the current Parliament, three Peers have been appointed as full members and two as substitute members.

Government takes seriously its responsibilities for providing timely replies to correspondence from MPs and Peers. The Departments in question are committed to improving their performance on replying to correspondence from MPs and Peers and have plans in place to do so.

Between January 2007 and June 2017 a total of twelve (12) representatives of Kensington and Chelsea Council attended courses at, or run by the Cabinet Office Emergency Planning College.

Of those twelve, ten attended courses relating to the specifics of crowd and public safety management, one attended a course on crisis management in schools and colleges, and one attended a wide-ranging professional development seminar titled ‘reflections on resilience’.

The table below disaggregates overall course attendance by course name and date:

The table below provides a brief summary of the content of each course that representatives of Kensington and Chelsea Council attended between 2007-2017.

Between January 2012 and June 2017 a total of 350 local authorities from across the UK received training from the Cabinet Office Emergency Planning College.

Of those 350 local authorities whose staff or members attended any EPC course, representatives from 298 local authorities undertook training in the specific area of crisis and emergency management.

The table below disaggregated the headline figures by devolved nation:

There are currently three House of Commons Ministers and eight House of Lords Ministers who are unpaid.

Ministerial appointments are at the discretion of the Prime Minister within the legislative limits set out in The Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 and The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.