Asked by: Emily Thornberry (Labour - Islington South and Finsbury)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to his Department's data entitled Cabinet Office ministerial overseas travel, July to September 2023, published on 21 March 2024, how much of the £28,700 costs incurred by the Deputy Prime Minister for his visit to New York from 19 to 23 September 2023 were attributable to his share of the £192,198 costs of the RAF flight used for that visit.
Answered by Alex Burghart - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
The total cost of the RAF flight used for the journey to New York on 19 September 2023 includes the costs arising from the movement of military personnel.
Costs for the full trip were outlined in the ministerial travel data entitled Cabinet Office ministerial overseas travel, July to September 2023, published on 21 March 2024.
Asked by: Emily Thornberry (Labour - Islington South and Finsbury)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to his Department's data entitled Cabinet Office ministerial overseas travel, July to September 2023, published on 21 March 2024, whether the £192,198 cost of the RAF flight used for the journey to New York on 19 September 2023 includes the costs arising from the movement of military personnel between the UK and the USA on that flight.
Answered by Alex Burghart - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
The total cost of the RAF flight used for the journey to New York on 19 September 2023 includes the costs arising from the movement of military personnel.
Costs for the full trip were outlined in the ministerial travel data entitled Cabinet Office ministerial overseas travel, July to September 2023, published on 21 March 2024.
Asked by: Kevan Jones (Labour - North Durham)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will take steps to expedite compensation for those affected by the infected blood scandal.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
The Government will respond in full to Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations on compensation following the publication of the Inquiry’s final report. Additionally, we will bring forward amendments at Report Stage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the Other Place with the intention of speeding up the implementation of the Government’s response to the Infected Blood Inquiry.
Asked by: Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour - Torfaen)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will hold discussions with Boris Johnson on the requirements upon him under the business appointment rules to make applications to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, in the context of his role with Merlyn Advisors.
Answered by Alex Burghart - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
The Government expects all former Ministers to abide by their obligations with regard to the Business Appointment Rules, as set out in the Ministerial Code. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments writes to the Government if they consider there to have been a breach of the Rules.
Asked by: Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government when the Office for National Statistics plans to begin publishing data classifying jobs in the labour market based on the new six-digit Extended Standard Occupational Classification 2020 framework rather than the current four-digit Standard Occupational Classification 2020 framework.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority.
Please see the letter attached from the National Statistician and Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell
House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW
04 April 2024
Dear Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell,
As National Statistician and Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority, I am responding to your Parliamentary Question asking when the Office for National Statistics (ONS) plans to begin publishing data classifying jobs in the labour market based on the new six-digit Extended Standard Occupational Classification 2020 framework rather than the current four-digit Standard Occupational Classification 2020 framework (HL3670).
The ONS collects information on the labour market status of individuals through the Labour Force Survey (LFS), which is a survey of people resident in households in the UK. In addition to their labour market status, working respondents provide a description of their job allowing us to classify their occupation to the appropriate Standard Occupational Classification 2020 (SOC2020) code.
Similarly, the 2021 Census collected information allowing us to identify the labour market status of individuals and classify their occupation in line with SOC2020.
Much of the job information from these sources, collected from respondents, do not contain sufficient detail to give an accurate coding at the six-digit lower-level classification. Consequently, the ONS currently has no plans to publish data at the six-digit SOC2020 level.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Sir Ian Diamond
Asked by: Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the risk that higher education institutions succumb to pressure from student unions to undertake boycott divestment and sanction actions in relation to their investment and procurement decisions.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The Government is aware that the BDS Movement has taken credit for divestments from Israeli companies carried out by universities following pressure from student campaigns. For example, the BDS Movement took credit for divestments from Israeli military suppliers by the University of Manchester in 2020 and procurement decisions by King’s College London and Southampton University. The Government is also aware of recent examples of student unions passing motions to lobby their universities to boycott and divest from Israeli companies, including for example Manchester University Student Union in 2022 and Warwick University Student Union in 2023. There are concerns that these campaigns can damage community cohesion and legitimise antisemitism. There are also examples overseas of the BDS Movement pressing universities to boycott or divest from Israeli companies for example in Norway or the United States of America. The Bill rightly applies to universities and higher education providers to prevent them succumbing to student union pressure in the future and to tackle this type of divisive activity on campuses.
Asked by: Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware of any examples in the past five years of higher education institutions succumbing to pressure from student unions to undertake boycott divestment and sanction actions in relation to their investment and procurement decisions.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The Government is aware that the BDS Movement has taken credit for divestments from Israeli companies carried out by universities following pressure from student campaigns. For example, the BDS Movement took credit for divestments from Israeli military suppliers by the University of Manchester in 2020 and procurement decisions by King’s College London and Southampton University. The Government is also aware of recent examples of student unions passing motions to lobby their universities to boycott and divest from Israeli companies, including for example Manchester University Student Union in 2022 and Warwick University Student Union in 2023. There are concerns that these campaigns can damage community cohesion and legitimise antisemitism. There are also examples overseas of the BDS Movement pressing universities to boycott or divest from Israeli companies for example in Norway or the United States of America. The Bill rightly applies to universities and higher education providers to prevent them succumbing to student union pressure in the future and to tackle this type of divisive activity on campuses.
Asked by: Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have received any representations from allies at ministerial or ambassadorial level about specific boycotts undertaken by UK local authorities or other public bodies.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The Government is concerned by instances of local authorities and other public bodies pursuing boycotts and divestment activity. These campaigns can undermine community cohesion and are often inconsistent with UK Government foreign policy. Complete details of representations are not held centrally, but we are not aware of representations about specific boycotts from such sources.
Asked by: Lord Bishop of St Albans (Bishops - Bishops)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to ban Chinese-made electric cars from sensitive national infrastructure sites.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The UK takes the security and resilience of critical infrastructure seriously. Each Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) sector has a Lead Government Department responsible for working with owners and operators to identify and mitigate risks to their sites. They are also supported by the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Protective Security Authority who provide expert advice and guidance to both public and private organisations to identify risks and vulnerabilities to the UK’s national infrastructure.
As set out in the Integrated Review Refresh, China under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) poses an epoch-defining challenge and an economic threat to a range of government policy areas, including CNI. The Government actively monitors threats to UK critical national infrastructure, and will not hesitate to take further action if necessary to protect sensitive assets where appropriate to protect national security.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the total cost to date of the removal of Hikvision cameras from Whitehall departments; and what estimate they have made of the cost to local authorities of removing Hikvision cameras from local council buildings.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
It is a long-standing policy that the Government does not comment on security arrangements including the details of security systems. However, the UK takes national security extremely seriously and has taken robust action to secure and protect its national security infrastructure.
Following Royal Assent of the Procurement Act on 26 October 2023 the Government committed to publishing a timeline for the removal of surveillance equipment supplied by companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of China from sensitive sites within six months. This timeline is due to be published by 26 April.
Sensitive sites were defined “as any building or complex that routinely holds secret material or above; any location that hosts a significant proportion of officials holding developed vetting clearance; any location which is routinely used by Ministers; and any government location covered under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.”
While local authorities may choose to follow the lead of central government in removing surveillance equipment they are under no obligation to do so. We encourage all organisations to follow NCSC supply chain security guidance when selecting a technology supplier. This guidance clearly sets the security standards that suppliers should meet and the considerations that organisations should be making during the procurement process.