Chris Williamson

A voluntary aided English school designated with a religious character is permitted to take faith into account when appointing employing teachers - see section 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

This provision does potentially apply to the appointment of all teachers at such a school but it does not provide blanket protection or an unlimited exception from the terms of the Equality Act 2010 and is not a licence to discriminate on the basis of religion or belief. If challenged as to the use of section 60 in a particular case, a school would be expected to justify the use of the power in the relevant context, the justification being that it was legitimate to take faith into account in the particular case or context. For example, a school might rely on factors such as the pastoral responsibilities of all teachers, regardless of subject or seniority, and the importance that such pastoral responsibilities are discharged consistently by the teachers in the school.

Also, it is our expectation that schools with a religious character will balance the need to maintain the religious character of their school with that of securing the best staff for their school.

Paragraph 4 (education appointments, etc. : religious belief) of Schedule 22 to the Equality Act 2010 does not provide English schools designated with a religious character with an exemption from Schedule 9 to that Act. Rather, it provides some exceptions from the provisions of the Act as a whole in certain situations – this is to prevent such schools from discriminating contrary to the Act on the basis of religion or belief.

Schedule 9 (work: exceptions) provides exceptions from provisions in Part 5 of the Act which covers employment. Therefore, Schedule 9 is focussed on work and employment in the widest sense rather than in the sphere of education. It does provide one exception in paragraph 3 of that Schedule which does have an impact on schools namely that it enables employers (including schools) to make religion or belief an occupational requirement for work in certain circumstances without breaching provisions of Part 5 of the Act.

Paragraph 4 of Schedule 22 set out a few exceptions from the provisions of the Equality Act for foundation schools, voluntary schools, academies and free schools, and independent schools that are not academies, where they have been designated as having a religious character.

The exceptions cover a range of situations relating to the appointment, promotion and remuneration of teachers by cross-referring to various sections in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 which cover these situations in the context of schools designated as having a religious character. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 22 states that such schools do not contravene the provisions of the Equality Act simply because they are acting in line with the relevant sections of the 1998 Act.

If a school with a religious character is acting in compliance with the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act this gives it protection from claims that it is discriminating on grounds of religion or belief and is in breach of the Equality Act. Such schools may take faith into account when employing teachers, for example. Our expectation is that schools with a religious character will balance the need to maintain the religious character of their school with that of securing the best staff for their school. Alongside this, school leaders are very aware, for example, that they must comply with employment law and their responsibilities under the Equality Act that are not covered by the exceptions when making appointments.

Free school meals are only provided to eligible pupils attending school during term time and schools are not required to provide food for children during the holidays. Some local councils may, however, decide to allocate some of their funding to programmes that help families who find it difficult to provide their children with healthy meals during the holidays.

We are currently considering the School Holidays (Meals and Activities) Bill, which considers this issue, and will be responding in due course.

One of the key principles of the legislation which underpins the UK’s child protection system is that children are best looked after within their families. However, as a last resort, after other steps have failed, local authorities may apply to the independent courts for a decision to be made about removing a child from his or her family for the child’s safety. Children’s welfare must be the paramount factor when decisions are taken in any case involving children.

Where a local authority believes that a child is suffering, or at risk of suffering, significant harm, they can apply to the independent courts for a care (or supervision) order. The courts may only make a care order to remove a child from his or her family’s care if they are satisfied that the child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and that a care order is deemed better for the child than not taking any action; or the child is beyond parental control. This assessment must be based on evidence and the courts must be satisfied that any factual circumstances that are alleged are more likely than not to have arisen in order to rely on them. However, local authorities need not have and indeed may not be able to access medical evidence prior to taking action to seek to take a child into their care.

We do not yet hold this data for the time periods requested as the monitoring reporting of cattle TB incidence and prevalence in cull areas occurs at least one year in arrears to allow for a full year of monitoring after a cull starts. The corresponding data from 2013 to 2017 has been published on Gov.uk:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-incidence-of-tb-in-cattle-in-licenced-badger-control-areas-in-2013-to-2017

We do not yet hold this data for the time periods requested as the monitoring reporting of cattle TB incidence and prevalence in cull areas occurs at least one year in arrears to allow for a full year of monitoring after a cull starts. The corresponding data from 2013 to 2017 has been published on Gov.uk:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-incidence-of-tb-in-cattle-in-licenced-badger-control-areas-in-2013-to-2017

We do not yet hold this data for the time periods requested as the monitoring reporting of cattle TB incidence and prevalence in cull areas occurs at least one year in arrears to allow for a full year of monitoring after a cull starts. The corresponding data from 2013 to 2017 has been published on Gov.uk:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bovine-tb-incidence-of-tb-in-cattle-in-licenced-badger-control-areas-in-2013-to-2017

The Government has always been clear that it would prefer animals to be slaughtered close to the point of production. Our manifesto made it clear that we would take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter, once we leave the European Union (EU).

We recently launched a call for evidence on the control of live animal exports for slaughter and on improving animal welfare during transport for all purposes including fattening after the UK leaves the EU. The call for evidence closed on the 22 May 2018 and we are currently analysing the responses. The Government has also asked the Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC) to look at what improvements could be made to the transport regulatory regime for all animals and for all purposes, we hope to receive the recommendations from the FAWC later in the year.

The UK Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) discussed welfare of domestic animals in trade at the recent EU Chief Veterinary Officer’s Working Group meeting attended by all Member States on 25 October 2017. The UK CVO supported a proposal to review the existing compliance and enforcement measures of Pet Travel Scheme rules. He advised that there are many issues that drive misuse of scheme rules and enforcement is hindered by the difficulty of verifying the age of puppies at 15 weeks, opening the door to fraud.

A further discussion is planned for the EU Chief Veterinary Officer’s Working Group meeting in December 2017. The UK Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer will present findings of our targeted monitoring at ports and invite an exchange of experiences from other Member States.

Additionally, the UK CVO and Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer have had informal discussions with a number of the EU Member States on abuse of the Pet Travel Scheme. In 2016, the CVO wrote to authorities in Hungary and Poland advising that puppies from those countries, not compliant with the EU travel legislation, had been discovered in the UK. He requested an update on investigations taken in the light of the information provided.

The UK carries out more checks of pets at the border than most other EU Member States and penalties are in place where people are found to be breaking the rules.

The purpose of the Pet Travel Scheme (PETS) is to facilitate the travel into the EU and between Member States of owners with their pets, whilst protecting the country from risks to animal and public health.

Some commercial operators have abused the PETS to traffic underage puppies into Great Britain, using falsified pet passports to conceal the animals’ true ages and appropriate action is taken.

The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) is working in partnership with Dogs Trust, enforcement bodies and transport carriers to identify non-compliant animals destined for Dover and Folkestone ports. This partnership began in December 2015 resulting in 720 puppies being seized and placed into quarantine.

Puppy buyers are sometimes misled into purchasing an illegally imported puppy they believe to be domestically bred. Defra has published guidance for owners on buying a pet. This contains guidelines such as buying from a reputable supplier and viewing the animal and its documentation, and also highlights the trade in illegal imports. Defra also works closely with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group to drive up standards for online advertisements and make potential pet owners and website operators more aware of rogue dealers.

Public Health England (PHE) has been assessing and monitoring air quality in the area surrounding Grenfell Tower (Lancaster West Estate) since the start of the fire on 14 June. Results to date have not detected elevated levels of pollutants of concern, therefore, current evidence suggests the risk to public health from air pollution remains low.

The results of the monitoring are published weekly on the PHE website (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-monitoring-following-the-grenfell-tower-fire) and publication is announced on Twitter when the latest report goes live. Details of these reports are included on a regular basis in the residents’ newsletter which is published by the Grenfell Response Team. Representatives from PHE have also attended a number of community meetings to explain the air quality monitoring and answer any queries from local people.

Our key criterion for humaneness remains the accuracy of shooting. The Independent Expert Panel suggested that the threshold for humaneness of controlled shooting is a time to death of less than five minutes from time of shooting. Field observations in both 2013 and 2014 indicated a very high likelihood of a time to death of less than 5 minutes in retrieved badgers. The likelihood of suffering in badgers is comparable with the range of outcomes reported when other culling activities currently accepted by society have been assessed.

The Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) reviewed all of the effectiveness and humaneness data available from the second year of the badger culls, which were published on 18 December 2014. The level of badger removal in Somerset was assessed against the minimum number to be removed, which was published along with the methodology on 26 August 2014. The CVO also reviewed the level of effort deployed by the cull company and concluded that the cull had been implemented thoroughly across the full area of accessible land.

This data is not held by Government. Statistical data on numbers of horse fatalities is held by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA). However, statistics for fatalities for 2014 are not yet available.

Defra does not hold information on the numbers of cats shot by firearms. However, this information may be held by each police force.

The Government considers that animal cruelty is abhorrent. In addition to strict firearms legislation governing the possession carrying and use of guns, it is already an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. All such incidents should be reported to the police who have the necessary powers to investigate.

Defra does not record this information centrally, but mortality data is recorded at individual farm level. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 requires that all farmed animals must be inspected at least once a day. The number of mortalities found at each inspection has to be recorded and must be made available to an inspector on request.

All livestock farms need to have an on-farm health and welfare plan drawn up in conjunction with their veterinary surgeon which include contingency plans to deal with emergency situations, such as fire, floods or disruption of supplies. Defra’s species specific Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, which all stock keepers have to have access to and knowledge of, sets out advice on making emergency precautions.

The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) carries out welfare inspections on farms to check that the UK legislation and Defra’s welfare codes are being followed.

All livestock farms need to have an on-farm health and welfare plan drawn up in conjunction with their veterinary surgeon which include contingency plans to deal with emergency situations, such as fire, floods or disruption of supplies. Defra’s species specific Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, which all stock keepers have to have access to and knowledge of, sets out advice on making emergency precautions.

The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) carries out welfare inspections on farms to check that the UK legislation and Defra’s welfare codes are being followed.

All livestock farms need to have an on-farm health and welfare plan drawn up in conjunction with their veterinary surgeon which include contingency plans to deal with emergency situations, such as fire, floods or disruption of supplies. Defra’s species specific Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, which all stock keepers have to have access to and knowledge of, sets out advice on making emergency precautions.

The Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) carries out welfare inspections on farms to check that the UK legislation and Defra’s welfare codes are being followed.

The Welfare of Greyhound Regulations 2010 are set for review five years after they were made in April 2010. Defra is beginning the review now by gathering evidence on the operation of the regulations with a view to completing the review after the General Election in May 2015.

The Independent Expert Panel concluded that they were confident that controlled shooting can be carried out safely, even in the context of protester activity. As with the first year of the culls, Best Practice Guidance for the controlled shooting of badgers is in place and compliance with this will be monitored by Natural England.