Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, following the publication of the report of the Review of Data, Statistics and Research on Sex and Gender, published on 19 March, what progress they have made in implementing the Review’s ten recommendations, both generally and specifically regarding The Collection of Client Level Adult Social Care Data (No 3) Directions 2023.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Sullivan Review sets out a number of recommendations in relation to the collection of data on sex and gender identity. We are considering these in light of ongoing related work around data harmonisation standards. As all public bodies, and therefore all public data and statistics, were in scope for the review, it’s important we consider the findings in collaborative way across government.
The Government Statistical Service (GSS) Harmonisation Programme, a cross-government work programme looking to improve the comparability and coherence of data and statistics, is developing harmonised standards for sex and gender identity.
NHS England is leading work to develop the United Information Standard of Protected Characteristics, which focusses on the Equality Act 2010’s nine protected characteristics, including both sex and gender reassignment.
Through the Health and Care Statistics Leadership Forum, a group convening statistical leaders across health organisations at the national level to ensure statistical collaboration and coherence, there is work ongoing to catalogue, and improve descriptions of how sex and gender data is collected within our statistical publications, and ensure labelling accurately describes the data being collected.
Sex and gender identity are not always the same thing, and it is important for patients that we record both accurately. We are committed to delivering safe and holistic care for both adults and children when it comes to gender, and that also means accurately recording biological sex, not just for research and insight, but also for patient safety.
On 20 March, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care instructed the health service to immediately suspend applications for National Health Service number changes for under 18s, to safeguard children. It was completely wrong that children's NHS numbers can be changed if they change gender. Children's safety must come first.
We remain committed to recording, recognising and respecting people’s gender identity where these differ from their biological sex. General practitioners are currently able to rename a patient and manually input preferred pronouns and expressed gender in free text without affecting the formal marker.
Our guidance to local authorities on the collection of Client Level Data is under review to ensure it adheres to the advice in the Review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender. We are also awaiting guidance from the Government Statistical Service on harmonisations of sex and gender identity data.
The 2023 Directions set out national data requirements and do not necessarily cover all the information that local authorities collect to effectively discharge their statutory obligations.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question
To ask His Majesty's Government following the publication of the report of the Review of Data, Statistics and Research on Sex and Gender, published on 19 March, what progress they have made on adjusting guidance to employers for reporting on their gender pay gap to reflect the Review’s recommendations.
Answered by Baroness Smith of Malvern - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The current gender pay gap reporting guidance was drafted in order to reduce the burden on business, and be mindful of variations in their data collection processes.
We are aware of the recommendations relating to gender pay gap reporting in the Review of Data, Statistics and Research on Sex and Gender. We recognise that the recent Supreme Court judgment has also changed the landscape in this area. We are currently reviewing the guidance in light of this judgment to ensure it is accurate.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre disclosed in court which reportedly stated that Palestine Action does not advocate for violence against persons.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Government does not routinely comment on intelligence and security matters and it would be inappropriate for the Government to provide a running commentary on documentation before the High Court in the Palestine Action judicial review proceedings
Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign involving not just sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure, but also intimidation and, more recently, alleged violence, including the use of weapons resulting in serious injuries to individuals. That kind of activity puts the safety and security of the public at risk.
Palestine Action has claimed responsibility for attacks which have seen those allegedly involved charged with criminal damage, violent disorder, aggravated burglary, grievous bodily harm with intent, and actual bodily harm. The gravity of these incidents is demonstrated by the Crown Prosecution Service’s independent decision to submit to the court that the offences allegedly committed by individuals in certain attacks had a terrorism connection.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what cases have been completed in court relating to alleged offences by Palestine Action activists; and for each case, when the court made its decision, what was the location of the alleged offence, what type of court heard the case, and what verdict and sentences were handed down.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on completed court cases for a wide range of offences in England and Wales within the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.
However, data centrally held does not identify whether offences were committed by Palestine Action activists. Whilst this information may be held in court records, examining individual records would be of disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many applications for asylum are currently awaiting a decision; what is the average time taken to process an application; and what steps are being taken to reduce the time taken to process applications.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
We are restoring order to the asylum system so that every part – border security, case processing, appeals and returns – operate swiftly.
We are using a range of technologies, including Artificial Intelligence, to improve staff productivity.
We doubled the rate of decision-making. The first half of this year saw the second and third highest quarters for decision-making since records began.
Statistics on the full asylum WIP is published in table ASY_03 on GOV.UK in the ‘Immigration and Protection data’, as part of the ‘Migration Transparency data’. The total number of cases in the asylum system relates to both those awaiting an initial decision and those who have appealed and are waiting a further outcome. The latest published data relates to the year ending June 2024.
As at 30 June 2025, there were 70,532 cases awaiting an initial decision.
The average time taken to process claims is not currently available from published statistics. Statistics regarding the age of asylum claims awaiting an initial decision is published in table Asy_D03 of the ‘Asylum claims awaiting a decision detailed datasets’. The latest data relates to the year ending June 2025.We have increased the speed at which cases are processed, with 42% of claims received in 2024 Q4 being processed within 6 months, by comparison, 7% of claims received in 2023 Q4 were processed within 6 months.
By transforming the asylum system, we will clear the backlog of claims and appeals.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government who recommended Inivos Ltd to the personal protective equipment priority lane, and why that company was not included in PPE procurement in the early pandemic, published on 17 November 2021.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Inivos Ltd were not recommended to the Government through the priority personal protective equipment lane, also known as the high priority lane. Inivos Ltd are included in the publication PPE procurement in the early pandemic on the GOV.UK website, under the New Buy section, although the company name has been misspelled as Invios. The Department will seek to correct this error at the earliest opportunity.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many criminal cases have been designated as being aggravated by a terrorism connection under section 1 of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 where the alleged offence was not one of those listed in Schedule 2 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not hold central data on how many criminal cases are designated as being aggravated by a terrorism connection.
When deciding what sentence to impose, the courts take into account the circumstances of the offence and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant guidelines from the independent Sentencing Council. This will include consideration of cases aggravated by a terrorism connection and whether an increase in the sentence length is required.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what are the benefits to HMRC and to affected taxpayers of requiring sole traders and landlords to quadruple the frequency and associated costs of their submissions to HMRC from annually to quarterly, starting in April 2026.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
Making Tax Digital (MTD) for Income Tax quarterly updates are not the same as full tax returns. They are simple summaries of income and expenses. Software will automatically draw data from a taxpayer’s digital records, and, where these are up to date, the updates will be quick and easy to submit.
Quarterly updates will reduce errors by moving record-keeping closer to real time underpinning the £1.95bn of Additional Tax Revenue that MTD for Income Tax is expected to generate by 2029/30.
They also enable estimates of tax liability as well as nudges and prompts to support users to get their tax right. With records captured digitally in software, preparing the end-of-year return should be more straightforward, as the information needed is already available.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what proportion of the social media content referred to social media platforms by the National Security Online Information Team for potential terms of service violations is removed by the platforms.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
The content referred by DSIT's National Security Online Information Team (NSOIT) to social media platforms serve as examples of narratives which are assessed as likely to violate terms of service and sit within NSOIT’s ministerially agreed national security and public safety remit. It is up to platforms to decide whether the referred content violates their policies and what action, if any, to take with those referred examples: government cannot compel platforms to remove legal content. The proportion of content removed from platforms depends on independent decisions made by platforms or users as to whether they wish to remove the content.
Asked by: Lord Strasburger (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government what topics the National Security Online Information Team is tasked to monitor.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
The National Security Online Information Team’s (NSOIT) agreed remit is to analyse narratives and trends from publicly available information online relating to national security and public safety, where ministers agree there is a high risk to UK audiences from mis and disinformation. This remit and the work of NSOIT is kept under review by ministers. NSOIT looks at threats posed by foreign states, risks to elections and risks arising from the use of AI and deepfakes.