Asked by: Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 14 March (HL2919), whether the inflationary impact model will be updated on the basis of (1) the announced Common User Charge, and (2) the application of the Common User Charge to the additional fruit and vegetables that have been classified as medium rather than low risk.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The approach and plans set out within the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM) remain unchanged. We will continue to support business readiness throughout the implementation of checks and take a sensible pragmatic approach to enforcement.
The government’s consumer food price inflation model for the BTOM included an assessment of policy measures likely to affect the cost and/or quantity of traded products, including the Government-run BCP operating costs that will be recovered via a Common User Charge. Estimates of the cost and impact of the Charge were included in the modelling of the inflationary impact of the BTOM and we stand by these estimates.
This data includes a mix of published and unpublished commercially sensitive data sources. To publish only a partial picture of that data would not be in keeping with statistical propriety.
Asked by: Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 14 March (HL2915), why they do not plan to publish further information on business readiness of the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM) now the details of BTOM have changed since the original readiness assessment was undertaken.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The approach and plans set out within the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM) remain unchanged. We will continue to support business readiness throughout the implementation of checks and take a sensible pragmatic approach to enforcement.
The government’s consumer food price inflation model for the BTOM included an assessment of policy measures likely to affect the cost and/or quantity of traded products, including the Government-run BCP operating costs that will be recovered via a Common User Charge. Estimates of the cost and impact of the Charge were included in the modelling of the inflationary impact of the BTOM and we stand by these estimates.
This data includes a mix of published and unpublished commercially sensitive data sources. To publish only a partial picture of that data would not be in keeping with statistical propriety.
Asked by: Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, for the purposes of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, there is a lower limit to (1) the amount or proportion of public funding received by a public body, and (2) the size of such a body using any other metric.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill applies to public authorities, as defined in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is no universal test to determine whether an authority is bound by section 6 of the Human Rights Act and therefore in scope of the Bill. However, indicative factors that have been identified by judges as relevant include: the authority receiving a significant amount of public funding; the authority carrying out acts in exercise of statutory powers; and the authority exercising a task which is in the public interest. Although there is no lower limit to the size of a public authority, nor the amount of public funding that a public authority can receive, judges have already clarified that receiving public funding does not, on its own, mean a body is a public authority under section 6, nor exercising public functions. Ultimately, the courts would decide on individual cases depending on the particular circumstances.
Asked by: Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, for the purposes of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, the definition of a "public body" may apply to a single individual person.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The Bill applies to public authorities as defined in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
This means that the Bill will only apply to public authorities and not to individuals in their private capacities. When an individual is acting on behalf of a public authority, they will not be held personally liable for a breach of the ban. Only public authorities can breach the ban.
Cases where this definition may apply to a single individual will be limited to where that individual is themselves a public authority. An example of such a case would be a Secretary of State. In this example, the Secretary of State would only be in scope of the Bill when acting as Secretary of State – and not when acting in their personal capacity.
Asked by: Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is their definition of "public body" for the purposes of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill; and whether this definition includes arts organisations.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The Bill applies to a broad range of public bodies to protect community cohesion and ensure a consistent approach to foreign policy. Specifically, the Bill applies to public authorities, as defined in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Bodies should already be aware if they are bound by section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as this legislation has been on the statute book for 25 years and places wide-ranging obligations on them.
The definition may include some arts organisations such as some museums and galleries in receipt of significant public funding when they are undertaking certain public functions. As with any general definition in legislation, there are instances where the application of a definition depends on the specific facts of a case and it is ultimately for the courts to decide.
Asked by: Rachael Maskell (Labour (Co-op) - York Central)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many (a) men and (b) women died from synthetic drug use in the last year for which data is available.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority.
A response to the Hon Member’s Parliamentary Question of 25/04 is attached.
Asked by: Lord Marlesford (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what arrangements are in place to ensure that individuals convicted of abuse of public office and given custodial sentences are not re-employed in central government departments or agencies of central government.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
All Civil Service recruitment is subject to the Baseline Personnel Security Standard. The Government Baseline Personnel Security Standard check is not a formal security clearance but is a recognised standard for pre-employment screening. These checks ensure departments comply with current legislation (e.g. Right to Work in the UK) and are essential to assure the integrity of our organisation and the safety of staff and individuals.
Once a job offer is made a Basic Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS) check is undertaken. The certificate will contain details of convictions and conditional cautions that are considered to be unspent under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
If the DBS check is returned with a positive marker (an unspent convention in a basic check, any conviction in a standard check), the vacancy holder/department undertakes a risk assessment to decide whether to make a final offer.
Asked by: Baroness Goldie (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it remains their position that foreign and defence policy are aligned, as stated in the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, published in March 2021, and the Integrated Review Refresh 2023, published in March 2023.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
Global Britain in a Competitive Age, The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy (IR 2021), set the UK’s overarching national security, foreign, defence and other relevant policy. It was supported by a series of published sub-strategies, including the 2021 Defence Command Paper and the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy.
The IR 2021 foreshadowed the global turbulence of the last two years. With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - to whom the UK continues to provide a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance - to imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus and conflict in the Middle East, the reality is that the world has become more dangerous, with far-reaching consequences for the security and prosperity of the British people.
Integrated Review Refresh 2023 Responding to a More Contested and Volatile World (IRR 2023) set out how the UK will meet that challenge head-on.
IRR 2023 concluded that the broad direction set by IR2021 - which includes the integration of foreign and defence policy - was right and that HMG has made significant progress in delivering against that direction. The Defence Command Paper 2023 provided details on how the UK would respond to the changing context and deliver on the Integrated Review Refresh within its resource envelope, increasing its productivity and focusing on areas that will achieve impact.
Asked by: Baroness Goldie (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to reassess the factors which informed the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, published in March 2021, and the Integrated Review Refresh 2023, published in March 2023.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The Cabinet Office continually assesses the factors that informed the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy 2021 and its Refresh in 2023. Through the National Security Secretariat and COBR structures, the government monitors and analyses the changing global security context, and reviews its strategic direction accordingly through the National Security Council. The government does not have any plans to publish a further Integrated Review at this stage.
Asked by: Marquess of Lothian (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what are their priorities for the G7 Summit which will be held in Borgo Egnazia from 13 to 15 June.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The G7 is a critical forum for the UK to engage like-minded partners on complex global challenges and for delivering on the interests of the British people on the global stage.
At the 2024 G7 Leaders Summit, The Prime Minister will be focused on strengthening our collective security, including by maintaining unwavering G7 resolve to support Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal invasion, and aligning responses to ongoing geopolitical challenges, including in the Middle East. We will also look to work closely with the G7 to strengthen our economic security.
The UK will also ensure that the G7 can play its part in ensuring an effective response to the defining global challenges, including migration, climate change, development and the risks posed by emerging critical technologies such as frontier Artificial Intelligence.