Lord Rooker

The UK notified the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in February that we intended to lay a Statutory Instrument that will amend the Bread and Flour Regulations.

My Ministerial colleagues are considering next steps on this issue. Changes to rules could include clarifying definitions; providing for the fortification of wheat flour with folic acid; exemptions to avoid disproportionate impacts for businesses; and a change to the enforcement approach.

When a Defined Benefit pension scheme transfers responsibility for paying some or all of its members’ benefits to an insurer, the scheme pays a premium to the insurance company, which then takes on responsibility for paying the promised benefits. This is a well-established approach used by pension scheme trustees to secure the promised pensions for members with an insurance company.

Arrangements to provide pension benefits to some or all scheme members with an insurer are secure and offer long term protection for member benefits. Insurance companies are regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority and their policy holders are protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

Pension Protection Fund protection is retained until the whole scheme is transferred to an insurer, and both the sponsor and the trustees are discharged. At that point the members are no longer protected by the Pension Protection Fund. This is because all benefits are now secured with an insurance company.

No assessments of individual schemes are made by Government.

The Government has no current plans to revise the arrangements for the Christmas Bonus.

The Christmas Bonus is an annual, tax-free, lump sum payment to pensioners and to working age people who are in receipt of certain qualifying benefits during the relevant week which is usually the first full week in December.

The Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) National Food Crime Unit works to prevent, detect and investigate fraud within our food system. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has the power under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to grant food crime officers access to specific investigative powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

The drafting of secondary legislation to grant these powers and to bring food crime officers under the necessary remit of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) for complaint handling purposes is at an advanced stage and is currently undergoing final review by both IOPC and the FSA.

It is intended that a regime of scrutiny by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) will also be placed on a legislative footing. A recent FSA bid for primary legislation included a Private Member’s Bill within the handout list for the first session, though this was not taken forward. However, in October 2024, HMICFRS agreed to a voluntary inspection regime for the FSA’s use of investigatory powers whilst work progresses to secure primary legislation. The FSA is working with HMICFRS to put appropriate arrangements in place for the voluntary inspection regime and Home Office officials are updating their minister of this arrangement.

The Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) National Food Crime Unit works to prevent, detect and investigate fraud within our food system. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has the power under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to grant food crime officers access to specific investigative powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

The drafting of secondary legislation to grant these powers and to bring food crime officers under the necessary remit of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) for complaint handling purposes is at an advanced stage and is currently undergoing final review by both IOPC and the FSA.

It is intended that a regime of scrutiny by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) will also be placed on a legislative footing. A recent FSA bid for primary legislation included a Private Member’s Bill within the handout list for the first session, though this was not taken forward. However, in October 2024, HMICFRS agreed to a voluntary inspection regime for the FSA’s use of investigatory powers whilst work progresses to secure primary legislation. The FSA is working with HMICFRS to put appropriate arrangements in place for the voluntary inspection regime and Home Office officials are updating their minister of this arrangement.

Mandatory display of ratings at premises in England would not impose additional burdens on businesses other than requiring them to display the rating stickers which are provided to them free of charge following food hygiene inspections. In its most recent assessment in 2022, the Food Standards Agency estimated a one-off cost of £3.5 million for the approximately 490,000 food businesses within scope of the scheme for familiarisation with the new requirements. This would equate to a one-off cost of £7 per business. There are no expected recurring costs.

Section 47 of the Health and Social Care Act 2022 mandated my Rt Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to conduct a review of the risks associated with slavery and human trafficking in National Health Service supply chains, with an emphasis on cotton-based products. The report was laid in parliament on 14 December 2023.

The report revealed that while many NHS tier one suppliers are United Kingdom-based, their supply chains often connect through multiple tiers to higher-risk countries, where many of the suppliers of cotton are based. Approximately 34% of high-risk suppliers were registered as based in China, where there is significant concern of forced labour, especially in Xinjiang's cotton production. Concern has also been raised about Pakistan's Sialkot region, a major source of surgical instruments where production is often subcontracted to the largely unregulated informal sector. Concerns also extend to cotton-producing nations like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and to Malaysia and China for personal protective equipment manufacturing.

The supply chain mapping undertaken for the purpose of the review was identified as inappropriate for the size and range of products supplied to the NHS, requiring extensive effort by the buyer and suppliers to collect information that was still insufficient to affect change. Many of the suppliers identified as having high risk supply chains are UK based, however their supply chains are global.

In response to the findings the review makes a series of recommendations, outlined in detail in the publication. It advises a joint-department strategy for better risk assessment and mapping in NHS supply chains, urging ongoing emphasis on managing modern slavery risks, including updating procurement practices and standardising assessments integrated with e-commerce systems.

It recommends bolstering NHS staff's ability to tackle modern slavery, and improving supply chain mapping capability. Upcoming regulations under Section 12ZC of the NHS Act 2006 will further aid the NHS in assessing and mitigating modern slavery risks in individual procurements, alongside the introduction of a consistent risk assessment embedded into the health family’s e-commerce system.

Section 47 of the Health and Social Care Act 2022 mandated my Rt Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to conduct a review of the risks associated with slavery and human trafficking in National Health Service supply chains, with an emphasis on cotton-based products. The report was laid in parliament on 14 December 2023.

The report revealed that while many NHS tier one suppliers are United Kingdom-based, their supply chains often connect through multiple tiers to higher-risk countries, where many of the suppliers of cotton are based. Approximately 34% of high-risk suppliers were registered as based in China, where there is significant concern of forced labour, especially in Xinjiang's cotton production. Concern has also been raised about Pakistan's Sialkot region, a major source of surgical instruments where production is often subcontracted to the largely unregulated informal sector. Concerns also extend to cotton-producing nations like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and to Malaysia and China for personal protective equipment manufacturing.

The supply chain mapping undertaken for the purpose of the review was identified as inappropriate for the size and range of products supplied to the NHS, requiring extensive effort by the buyer and suppliers to collect information that was still insufficient to affect change. Many of the suppliers identified as having high risk supply chains are UK based, however their supply chains are global.

In response to the findings the review makes a series of recommendations, outlined in detail in the publication. It advises a joint-department strategy for better risk assessment and mapping in NHS supply chains, urging ongoing emphasis on managing modern slavery risks, including updating procurement practices and standardising assessments integrated with e-commerce systems.

It recommends bolstering NHS staff's ability to tackle modern slavery, and improving supply chain mapping capability. Upcoming regulations under Section 12ZC of the NHS Act 2006 will further aid the NHS in assessing and mitigating modern slavery risks in individual procurements, alongside the introduction of a consistent risk assessment embedded into the health family’s e-commerce system.

HMG Ministers and officials at the British Embassy in Cairo continue to raise Mr Alaa Abd El-Fattah's case with the Egyptian government at the highest levels. They have been consistently clear in calling for his release and continue to press for urgent consular access. The Egyptian Government does not recognise Mr El-Fattah's British nationality and is refusing consular access. The Foreign Secretary has raised Mr El-Fattah's case on several occasions, most recently with Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty on 7 October. The Prime Minister raised Mr El-Fattah's case with President Sisi on 8 August and I raised Mr El-Fattah's case with the Egyptian Ambassador on 11 September.

HMG Ministers and officials at the British Embassy in Cairo continue to raise Mr Alaa Abd El-Fattah's case with the Egyptian government at the highest levels. They have been consistently clear in calling for his release and continue to press for urgent consular access. The Egyptian Government does not recognise Mr El-Fattah's British nationality and is refusing consular access. The Foreign Secretary has raised Mr El-Fattah's case on several occasions, most recently with Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty on 7 October. The Prime Minister raised Mr El-Fattah's case with President Sisi on 8 August and I raised Mr El-Fattah's case with the Egyptian Ambassador on 11 September.

Estimated figures of the cost of the National Insurance Contributions (NICs) exemption for those aged over 65 are published by HM Revenue and Customs in their Structural Tax Reliefs publication.

A condensed version of the table of interest has been copied below, showing estimated costs annually from 2018-19 until 2023-24.

Table: HMRC NICs Structural Cost Estimates by Financial Year

Financial Year NICs structural cost estimates (£ million)

2018-19 1,300

2019-20 1,200

2020-21 840

2021-22 1,200*

2022-23 1,200*

2023-24 1,100*

*Projected estimates based upon the 2019-20 Survey of Personal Incomes, projected in line with economic assumptions consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s March 2023 Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

The estimated cost of this exemption does not represent the yield if this exemption were to be abolished as other behavioural responses, including a possible increase in State Pension expenditure, would be expected to substantially reduce the yield.

The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) in HM Treasury is responsible for financial sanctions implementation and enforcement.

OFSI can only issue specific licences where relevant licensing grounds exist as set out in the legislation. One such licensing ground is professional legal fees and reasonable expenses associated with the provision of legal services. This ground exists because it is important that designated persons can still access legal representation. A ‘reasonableness’ test is applied to each legal fees application which requires applicants to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate to OFSI that the legal fees and expenses are reasonable.

OFSI releases an Annual Review each year which provides information about the number of licences issued under each regime. However, for confidentiality purposes and in order to comply with UK data protection law, OFSI does not publish details about the parties involved in individual licences granted.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and an increase in the scale and impact of financial sanctions, OFSI has processed a larger number licence applications than previous years. Many licence applications under the legal services licensing ground involve very complex legal cases, some with very high values, across multiple jurisdictions. The amounts agreed in respect of fees for legal services on behalf of Russian designated persons are not readily available and would involve disproportionate costs to gather at this time.

Even where a licensing ground exists and the reasonableness test is met, OFSI will only issue licences where doing so does not undermine the intent or purpose of the Russia sanctions regime.

The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) in HM Treasury is responsible for financial sanctions implementation and enforcement.

OFSI can only issue specific licences where relevant licensing grounds exist as set out in the legislation. One such licensing ground is professional legal fees and reasonable expenses associated with the provision of legal services. This ground exists because it is important that designated persons can still access legal representation. A ‘reasonableness’ test is applied to each legal fees application which requires applicants to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate to OFSI that the legal fees and expenses are reasonable.

OFSI releases an Annual Review each year which provides information about the number of licences issued under each regime. However, for confidentiality purposes and in order to comply with UK data protection law, OFSI does not publish details about the parties involved in individual licences granted.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and an increase in the scale and impact of financial sanctions, OFSI has processed a larger number licence applications than previous years. Many licence applications under the legal services licensing ground involve very complex legal cases, some with very high values, across multiple jurisdictions. The amounts agreed in respect of fees for legal services on behalf of Russian designated persons are not readily available and would involve disproportionate costs to gather at this time.

Even where a licensing ground exists and the reasonableness test is met, OFSI will only issue licences where doing so does not undermine the intent or purpose of the Russia sanctions regime.

The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) in HM Treasury is responsible for financial sanctions implementation and enforcement.

OFSI can only issue specific licences where relevant licensing grounds exist as set out in the legislation. One such licensing ground is professional legal fees and reasonable expenses associated with the provision of legal services. This ground exists because it is important that designated persons can still access legal representation. A ‘reasonableness’ test is applied to each legal fees application which requires applicants to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate to OFSI that the legal fees and expenses are reasonable.

OFSI releases an Annual Review each year which provides information about the number of licences issued under each regime. However, for confidentiality purposes and in order to comply with UK data protection law, OFSI does not publish details about the parties involved in individual licences granted.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and an increase in the scale and impact of financial sanctions, OFSI has processed a larger number licence applications than previous years. Many licence applications under the legal services licensing ground involve very complex legal cases, some with very high values, across multiple jurisdictions. The amounts agreed in respect of fees for legal services on behalf of Russian designated persons are not readily available and would involve disproportionate costs to gather at this time.

Even where a licensing ground exists and the reasonableness test is met, OFSI will only issue licences where doing so does not undermine the intent or purpose of the Russia sanctions regime.

The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) in HM Treasury is responsible for financial sanctions implementation and enforcement.

OFSI can only issue specific licences where relevant licensing grounds exist as set out in the legislation. One such licensing ground is professional legal fees and reasonable expenses associated with the provision of legal services. This ground exists because it is important that designated persons can still access legal representation. A ‘reasonableness’ test is applied to each legal fees application which requires applicants to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate to OFSI that the legal fees and expenses are reasonable.

OFSI releases an Annual Review each year which provides information about the number of licences issued under each regime. However, for confidentiality purposes and in order to comply with UK data protection law, OFSI does not publish details about the parties involved in individual licences granted.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and an increase in the scale and impact of financial sanctions, OFSI has processed a larger number licence applications than previous years. Many licence applications under the legal services licensing ground involve very complex legal cases, some with very high values, across multiple jurisdictions. The amounts agreed in respect of fees for legal services on behalf of Russian designated persons are not readily available and would involve disproportionate costs to gather at this time.

Even where a licensing ground exists and the reasonableness test is met, OFSI will only issue licences where doing so does not undermine the intent or purpose of the Russia sanctions regime.

The Home Office is working closely with departments across Government, including the Department for Education, Department for Health and Social Care, and the Ministry of Justice, to identify how best to deliver against the recommendations made in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.

Tackling child sexual abuse is a cross-Government priority. We are committed to confronting this horrific crime whenever and wherever it occurs and using all levers available to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. The lessons learned from the Independent Inquiry, based on the input of over 6000 victims and survivors, will provide a fundamental basis for this work.

This government understands the frustration with the delays, and we hope to reset this and get started on this soon.

I would like to thank my Noble Lord for following up on the response I gave on the 31^st July. My office has written to the Health and Safety Executive and I am awaiting a response.

I am aware of my Noble Friend's long-standing interest in electrical safety in tower blocks and sensitive buildings. The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) keeps evidence that emerges from the electrical incidents database and its engagement with stakeholders, under review. My secretary will write to HSE officials and ask whether they might meet with you, so that you can explain the issue.

The question of whether courts in England and Wales have jurisdiction to hear claims brought by parties from other countries are determined by the courts in accordance with common law principles and international conventions.

In English and Welsh law, the determination of the appropriate forum (where no international convention applies) to hear a dispute is the one in which the case may most suitably be tried in the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice. Matters which a court will take into account in deciding this would include whether there are any factors connecting the dispute to a particular jurisdiction.

It is open to the opposing party to challenge a claim on the basis that it should have been brought in another jurisdiction.

The question of whether courts in England and Wales have jurisdiction to hear claims brought by parties from other countries are determined by the courts in accordance with common law principles and international conventions.

In English and Welsh law, the determination of the appropriate forum (where no international convention applies) to hear a dispute is the one in which the case may most suitably be tried in the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice. Matters which a court will take into account in deciding this would include whether there are any factors connecting the dispute to a particular jurisdiction.

It is open to the opposing party to challenge a claim on the basis that it should have been brought in another jurisdiction.