Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.
These initiatives were driven by Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
A Bill to make provision about mechanisms for promoting and protecting standards of integrity and ethics in the public service; and for connected purposes.
A Bill to make provision about mechanisms for promoting and protecting standards of integrity and ethics in the public service; and for connected purposes
Lord Anderson of Ipswich has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting
The terms of reference for the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities were set by the Government and published on 16 July 2020. They are available online on GOV.UK. The Commission submitted its independent report to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Equalities on 31 March 2021.
The report is the work of the independent Commissioners. Ministers and political advisers to the Government did not contribute to the report.
The terms of reference for the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities were set by the Government and published on 16 July 2020. They are available online on GOV.UK. The Commission submitted its independent report to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Equalities on 31 March 2021.
The report is the work of the independent Commissioners. Ministers and political advisers to the Government did not contribute to the report.
The terms of reference for the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities were set by the Government and published on 16 July 2020. They are available online on GOV.UK. The Commission submitted its independent report to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Equalities on 31 March 2021.
The report is the work of the independent Commissioners. Ministers and political advisers to the Government did not contribute to the report.
Following publication of the Government’s approach to negotiations with the EU on 27th February, the Government will not be seeking continued participation in the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court. Participating in a court that applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU is inconsistent with our aims of becoming an independent self-governing nation.
All businesses, including SMEs, will be able to maintain patents in the UK and challenge or enforce them before UK courts as they do currently.
Good progress continues to be made in agreeing the Framework Document between Defra and the OEP. We aim for it to be published in Spring 2023.
We are committed to working collaboratively with the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) to finalise the Defra-OEP framework agreement. We are currently in the final stages of negotiations. The purpose of the Framework Document is to set out the broad governance framework within which the OEP and Defra operate. It will reflect the parties' core responsibilities and will describe the governance and accountability framework that applies between the parties, including how the day-to-day relationship works in practice. This will include detail on governance and financial matters, whilst also respecting the provisions in the Environment Act for OEP independence.
The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) has been provided with safeguards to ensure its operational independence from the Government, including a specific duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to protect the OEP’s independence.
The indicative five-year budget for the OEP has been protected by Defra within this spending review period. This ensures the OEP has sufficient funds to carry out its statutory functions and gives the OEP greater certainty of its finances with which to plan its future activities.
The OEP board has set out its strategy and continue to operate independently of Government.
Suppliers appointed to the NHS Supply Chain framework contracts, which supply the majority of medical goods and services into the National Health Service, must comply with the Labour Standards Assurance System or they can be removed from consideration for future opportunities. If there is an allegation of modern slavery practices against a company supplying medical goods or services into the United Kingdom, these are investigated. The Department does not have a record of any breaches of the requirements of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 since January 2020. Information on procurement by NHS trusts and foundation trusts is not held centrally.
The UK, alongside the G7, has underscored that Russia must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The Government is fully committed to working alongside partners to pursue all lawful routes through which immobilised Russian sovereign assets can be used to support Ukraine. In their 24 February statement, G7 Leaders tasked relevant ministries to continue their work to that end and report back ahead of the G7 Summit in June. The Government will keep the House updated on significant developments as appropriate.
Our overseas business risk guidance on Xinjiang was last updated on 16 August 2021 and is kept under constant review. The guidance makes clear the extensive evidence of human rights violations occurring in Xinjiang, and urges UK companies to conduct appropriate due diligence and consider their corporate responsibilities when making investment decisions. We expect them to take appropriate action in response.
We have serious concerns about gross violations of human rights occurring in Xinjiang and welcome any work that is rigorous, balanced and raises awareness of the situation faced by Uyghurs and other minorities in China. We are aware of this initiative by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, and will study any resulting report carefully.
We are aware of the Bar Human Rights Committee report published on 22 July. We are carefully considering its findings. As the Foreign Secretary said during a Statement to the House on 20 July, we have particularly grave concerns about the gross human rights violations being perpetrated against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We regularly raise our serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including at the UN Human Rights Council in a joint statement with 27 other countries on 30 June.
We are aware of the Bar Human Rights Committee report published on 22 July. We are carefully considering its findings. As the Foreign Secretary said during a Statement to the House on 20 July, we have particularly grave concerns about the gross human rights violations being perpetrated against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We regularly raise our serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including at the UN Human Rights Council in a joint statement with 27 other countries on 30 June.
We are aware of the Bar Human Rights Committee report published on 22 July. We are carefully considering its findings. As the Foreign Secretary said during a Statement to the House on 20 July, we have particularly grave concerns about the gross human rights violations being perpetrated against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We regularly raise our serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including at the UN Human Rights Council in a joint statement with 27 other countries on 30 June.
We are aware of the Bar Human Rights Committee report published on 22 July. We are carefully considering its findings. As the Foreign Secretary said during a Statement to the House on 20 July, we have particularly grave concerns about the gross human rights violations being perpetrated against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We regularly raise our serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including at the UN Human Rights Council in a joint statement with 27 other countries on 30 June.
We are aware of the Bar Human Rights Committee report published on 22 July. We are carefully considering its findings. As the Foreign Secretary said during a Statement to the House on 20 July, we have particularly grave concerns about the gross human rights violations being perpetrated against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We regularly raise our serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including at the UN Human Rights Council in a joint statement with 27 other countries on 30 June.
The power to deprive an individual of British citizenship under section 40(4A) of the British Nationality Act 1981 has not been used since its introduction in July 2014. Following the first statutory review of the power, which was published in April 2016, a further review will be undertaken within 12 months of the power first being used.
At the summit in Paris on 10 March 2023 the UK committed to ease the travel of school groups to the UK by making changes to documentary requirements for schoolchildren on organised trips from France.
We are currently working through the details of implementation and more information, including timescales, will be provided in due course.
This agreement with France will help to strengthen and maintain educational and cultural links with our closest continental neighbour. We will keep the position under review and ensure that we continue to operate our border in the UK's best interests.
At present there are no plans to introduce a Modern Slavery Risk Register. However, on 24 March 2021, the Government announced a review of the 2014 Modern Slavery Strategy. The review will consider all aspects of the 2014 strategy and the Government’s response, including our approach to supply chains.
In the meantime, to further enhance transparency, the Government launched an online GOV.UK registry for modern slavery statements. This service enables investors, consumers, NGOs and others to scrutinise the effectiveness of the actions being taken and monitor progress across sectors over time. Since launch, over 6,900 statements have been submitted covering over 23,000 organisations on a voluntary basis. In future, it will be mandatory for in scope organisations to submit their statement to the registry, as part of the planned changes to strengthen section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act.
Prior to the recent High Court decision in the case of D4, the relevant regulations governing service of notice in deprivation cases, provided adequately for a variety of situations, meaning that there had been no cases where the notification requirement had prevented deprivation action from taking place.
Figures for numbers of conducive deprivation orders, which are made under Section 40(2) of the 1981 British Nationality Act, have been published as part of the HM Government Transparency Report: Disruptive and Investigatory Powers. Four reports have been published to date in 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2020 which provide the number of deprivation of citizenship orders made up until the end of 2018.
Year | Number of Individuals |
2010 | 5 |
2011 | 6 |
2012 | 5 |
2013 | 8 |
2014 | 4 |
2015 | 5 |
2016 | 14 |
2017 | 104 |
2018 | 21 |
Figures are provided on an annual basis and we do not break those figures down further into sub-categories.
Figures for numbers of conducive deprivation orders, which are made under Section 40(2) of the 1981 British Nationality Act, have been published as part of the HM Government Transparency Report: Disruptive and Investigatory Powers. Four reports have been published to date in 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2020 which provide the number of deprivation of citizenship orders made up until the end of 2018.
A further publication which includes the more recent data is due to be published shortly.
In order for deprivation on ‘conducive to the public good’ grounds to be a consideration, the starting point is an individual’s conduct, that the individual is a terrorist or an extremist, or involved in espionage, war crimes, serious organised crime or similarly dangerous activities, in order to meet the ‘conducive to the public good’ test.
Figures for numbers of conducive deprivation orders, which are made under Section 40(2) of the 1981 British Nationality Act, have been published as part of the HM Government Transparency Report: Disruptive and Investigatory Powers. Four reports have been published to date in 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2020.
Figures are provided on an annual basis and we do not break those figures down further into sub-categories.
Figures for numbers of conducive deprivation orders, which are made under Section 40(2) of the 1981 British Nationality Act (BNA 1981), have been published as part of the HM Government Transparency Report: Disruptive and Investigatory Powers. Four reports have been published to date in 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2020 which provide the number of deprivation of citizenship orders made up until the end of 2018.
Figures are provided on an annual basis and we do not break those figures down further into sub-categories. However, data on the number of people who appealed against a deprivation of British citizenship decision under both Section 40(2) and 40(3) of the BNA 1981 has been published. The table shows a breakdown by year of appeals lodged between 05/03/2011 and 31/12/2018 against deprivation decisions and orders.
Year | No of people who lodged an appeal |
2011 | 5 |
2012 | 5 |
2013 | 10 |
2014 | 29 |
2015 | 37 |
2016 | 41 |
2017 | 37 |
2018 | 88 |
Total | 252 |
The following notes should be considered when viewing this data:
A number of the appeals in relation to deprivations under Section 40(2) of the BNA 1981 are ongoing. Therefore, we are unable to provide a partial figure of upheld appeals whilst litigation is ongoing.
The report required by Section 40B of the British Nationality Act 1981 relates to the Secretary of State’s use of the power to deprive an individual of British citizenship under section 40A(4A), which to date has not been used.
The next review of the power will be commissioned once a suitable person has been identified to undertake the review.
The HM Government transparency report on disruptive powers 2018-19 was published 19 March this year and confirms that 21 individuals were deprived of British citizenship under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 in 2018. Figures for 2019 will be available in the following transparency report on disruptive powers which will be published in due course.
The Government’s number one priority remains the safety and security of its citizens. All of those who have returned have been investigated and the majority have been assessed to pose no, or a low security risk. There have been around 40 convictions of individuals following their return from Syria, for a range of offences connected to their activities overseas or subsequent counter-terrorism investigations.
There are a number of tools available to law enforcement and security agencies to manage the threat posed by returning UK citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity abroad including Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs) and Temporary Exclusion Orders (TEOs).
The total number of TEOs imposed in 2017, the first year the power was used, was nine. As at 31 May 2018, there were eight TPIM notices in force, seven of which related to British Citizens. These figures were published in the 2018 Disruptive and Investigatory Powers Transparency Report. Due to national security considerations, it would not be appropriate to provide a further breakdown of these figures.
There is a longstanding convention that prohibits former holders of salaried judicial office from returning to private legal practice. This is reflected in the terms and conditions of service which apply on appointment to judicial office, which state that candidates accept appointment on the understanding that it is “intended for the remainder of a person’s professional life” and that “following termination of their appointment they will not return to private practice as a barrister or a solicitor".
The Government has noted the report, “Work in Judicial Retirement”, which relates to judges in the High Court and above and the longstanding convention prohibiting salaried judges from returning to legal practice. The Government has also noted the evidence of Lord Burnett, the then Lord Chief Justice, to the Justice Select Committee in 2018, that the convention “is part and parcel of ensuring, and always has been, that the standing of our judiciary is very high indeed.”
There is a longstanding convention that prohibits former holders of salaried judicial office from returning to private legal practice. This is reflected in the terms and conditions of service which apply on appointment to judicial office, which state that candidates accept appointment on the understanding that it is “intended for the remainder of a person’s professional life” and that “following termination of their appointment they will not return to private practice as a barrister or a solicitor".
The Government has noted the report, “Work in Judicial Retirement”, which relates to judges in the High Court and above and the longstanding convention prohibiting salaried judges from returning to legal practice. The Government has also noted the evidence of Lord Burnett, the then Lord Chief Justice, to the Justice Select Committee in 2018, that the convention “is part and parcel of ensuring, and always has been, that the standing of our judiciary is very high indeed.”
The Government is carefully considering the recommendations made by Sir Duncan Ouseley in his Independent Report on the Operation of Closed Material Procedures under the Justice and Security Act 2013 and is working to establish how any recommendations that we take forward could be sustainably and effectively implemented. Subject to this detailed ongoing work, the Government aims to publish its response to Sir Duncan’s report by early 2024.
A draft of the Government’s report on the implementation of Law Commission recommendations is currently being prepared and is expected to be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable this year. It will provide an update on the implementation status of all relevant Law Commission recommendations since the report was last published in 2018.
A Reviewer has not yet been appointed. I can however advise that discussions are taking place on the appointment of a Reviewer and the establishment of the five-year Review. Both the appointment of the Reviewer and the Review itself will be brought forward as soon as possible.