Asked by: Lord Young of Acton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question
To ask His Majesty's Government whether clause 20 of the Employment Rights Bill will mean the House of Commons and the House of Lords will be liable in their capacity as employers for the harassment of their employees by members of both Houses, and will therefore have to take all reasonable steps to prevent it.
Answered by Lord Collins of Highbury - Lord in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Clause 20 in the Employment Rights Bill will amend the Equality Act 2010 to introduce an obligation on employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties. Employers will be in breach of this obligation if they fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment of their staff, in the course of their employment, by third parties.
‘Employment’ as defined by the Equality Act 2010 includes relevant staff employed by the UK Parliament, including the administrations of both houses, and the obligation would also include those employed by individual MPs or by any political party.
A “third party” is a person other than the employer or a fellow employee. Therefore, as MPs and Peers are not considered employees for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, if they are not the employer of the member of staff, they would be a third party.
If they are the employer of the member of staff, they are prohibited from harassing their staff by existing provisions in the Equality Act.
Asked by: Lord Young of Acton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will require social media platforms to remove content which is currently unlawful in Scotland under the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, but is not deemed unlawful in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The Online Safety Act 2023 requires providers to tackle illegal content. The Act defines relevant offences for the purposes of these duties. Unless designated as a priority offence, an offence created by an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not a relevant offence and the Online Safety Act does not require providers to take any action. Currently, no offences under the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 are priority offences. However, the list of priority offences includes hate crime and public order offences and providers must take action regardless of where a user is based in the UK.
Asked by: Lord Young of Acton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government how much they have spent to date on defending the imposition of VAT on private school fees against legal challenge.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on any aspect of ongoing litigation, in part to avoid any risk of prejudicing those proceedings.
Ending the VAT exemption for private schools will raise £1.7bn per annum by 2029/30.
Asked by: Lord Young of Acton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many members of staff are employed by Ofcom.
Answered by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
I refer the noble Lord to the answer I gave on 25 February 2025 to Question HL4944.
Asked by: Lord Young of Acton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, following Non-Crime Hate Incidents: Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data, published in June 2023, whether police forces in (1) England, and (2) Wales, have deleted historic non-crime hate incidents recorded in relation to the behaviour of under18-year-olds before the new Code of Practice was introduced in June 2023, given the higher standards for collection and retention with respect to children in the new guidance.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office does not currently collate data on the number of non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). This data should be held at a force level.
The Non-Crime Hate Incidents Code of Practice already makes clear that where incidents are reported in schools or between school-aged children, an NCHI record “should not be made on policing systems, and the personal data of the subject should not be recorded”.
The Home Office has agreed that the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), supported by the College of Policing, will conduct a review on the use and effectiveness of NCHIs, including looking at the relevant force-level data.
Asked by: Lord Young of Acton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many non-crime hate incidents have been recorded by police forces in (1) England, and (2) Wales, in relation to the behaviour of under 18-year-olds since the publication of Non-Crime Hate Incidents: Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data and the updated Authorised Professional Practice Guidance by the College of Policing, both published in June 2023.
Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Home Office does not currently collate data on the number of non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). This data should be held at a force level.
The Non-Crime Hate Incidents Code of Practice already makes clear that where incidents are reported in schools or between school-aged children, an NCHI record “should not be made on policing systems, and the personal data of the subject should not be recorded”.
The Home Office has agreed that the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), supported by the College of Policing, will conduct a review on the use and effectiveness of NCHIs, including looking at the relevant force-level data.