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 Scriven, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
A Bill to disestablish the Church of England; to make provision for the protection of freedom of religion or belief; and for connected purposes.
Lord Scriven has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting
Further to my answer to Lord Jopling on 11 October (HL2274), the FCDO experienced technical difficulties in uploading their answer to this question to the Parliamentary website, but a response was issued by email, at the time. My office has since been in touch with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and received assurances that a response has now been uploaded to the website. The Department has also written directly to apologise for the delay in responding with an explanation for the delay.
I regret the error and will be reminding all Departments of their duty to offer prompt responses to questions in the House.
This letter relates to the Conservative Party.
The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority.
A response to the Noble Peer’s Parliamentary Question of 14 March is attached in the answer.
I refer the noble Lord to my previous answers to questions HL736 and HL840 of 7 June, and HL1111 of 23 June.
It is never appropriate to either confirm or deny whether the Cabinet Office has had any communications with specific individuals in the course of an investigation in order to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of investigation processes.
The specific investigation process being referred to is that set out in both the Update of 31 January 2022 and the 25 May 2022 final report outlining the findings of the Second Permanent Secretary’s investigation into alleged gatherings on Government premises. The methodology of the investigation is outlined within the report. The Second Permanent Secretary’s Update made clear what investigation work had been carried out. It is never appropriate in investigations to either confirm or deny whether the Cabinet Office has had any communications with specific individuals in order to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of investigation processes.
It would not be appropriate to either confirm or deny whether the Cabinet Office has had any communications with, or in relation to, any individuals in order to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of investigation processes.
I refer the noble Lord to my previous answers to questions HL6920 and HL7071 of 24 March and HL7366 of 6 April.
In referring to the 'confidentiality and integrity of investigation processes' my response referred not only to the Metropolitan Police processes but the internal investigation carried out by the Cabinet Office.
Ministers will have informal conversations from time to time in person or remotely. Significant content relating to government business from such discussions is passed back to officials. Government does not hold information on how many messages are transferred to official systems, and it should be noted that it is the substance of any business that has to be transferred to official systems, not necessarily the messages themselves.
I refer the noble Lord to my previous answers to Questions HL6920 and HL7071 on 24 March 2022.
It would not be appropriate to either confirm or deny whether the Cabinet Office has had any communications with any individuals in order to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of investigation processes.
It is standard for Government Departments to draw on the advice of external specialists for a range of services. Consultancy includes staff who provide objective advice relating to strategy, structure, management or operations of an organisation and may include the identification of options with recommendations.
The noble Lord may also be aware that the Consultancy Playbook was published in May 2021 alongside the Sourcing Playbook, to provide additional guidance when sourcing consultancy services. This supports our agenda to commission and engage with consultants more effectively, achieving better outcomes, better value for money, and improved civil service capability through the transferral of knowledge and skills.
Consultancy spend, including ALB spend, is published in departmental annual reports and accounts and is reproduced below.
Department | 2016/17 | 2017/18 | 2018/19 | 2019/20 | 2020/21 |
BEIS | £62,600,000 | £63,000,000 | £61,900,000 | £55,700,000 | £137,300,000 |
CO | £10,191,000 | £23,992,000 | £36,893,000 | £38,841,000 | £79,779,000 |
DCMS | £22,900,000 | £18,300,000 | £22,500,000 | £32,900,000 | £46,100,000 |
DFE | £12,100,000 | £14,600,000 | £13,100,000 | £12,700,000 | £8,700,000 |
DEFRA | £22,897,000 | £37,553,000 | £54,542,000 | £33,299,000 | £36,337,000 |
DFT | £78,260,000 | £92,490,000 | £145,562,000 | £168,390,654 | £175,720,840 |
DHSC | £389,301,000 | £370,970,000 | £342,051,000 | £290,206,000 | £485,997,000 |
DIT | Nil | £644,000 | £2,761,000 | £897,000 | £5,782,000 |
DWP | £9,700,000 | £45,300,000 | £28,500,000 | £28,500,000 | £29,000,000 |
FCDO | £800,000 | £1,261,979 | £1,927,753 | £2,936,902 | £2,742,044 |
HMRC | £1,212,806 | £2,957,366 | £3,168,518 | £1,700,000 | £8,600,000 |
HMT | £18,000,000 | £18,000,000 | £15,000,000 | £18,000,000 | £17,000,000 |
HO | £13,348,000 | £12,728,000 | £23,400,000 | £33,700,000 | £32,402,000 |
DLUCH | £156,000 | £405,000 | £3,308,000 | £5,229,000 | £20,148,000 |
MOD | £60,500,000 | £49,955,000 | £65,150,000 | £134,627,000 | £109,668,000 |
MOJ | £15,156,000 | £36,337,000 | £30,572,000 | £14,962,000 | £15,742,000 |
Total | £717,121,806 | £788,493,345 | £850,335,271 | £872,588,556 | £1,211,017,884 |
I refer the Hon. Member to the Cabinet Office update from the Second Permanent Secretary which has been published on GOV.UK and placed in the Library of the House.
It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment further while the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation is ongoing. At the end of the process, the Prime Minister will ask the Second Permanent Secretary to update her findings, which will be published in line with the Terms of Reference.
I refer the Hon. Member to the Cabinet Office update from the Second Permanent Secretary which has been published on GOV.UK and placed in the Library of the House.
It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment further while the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation is ongoing. At the end of the process, the Prime Minister will ask the Second Permanent Secretary to update her findings, which will be published in line with the Terms of Reference.
The Cabinet Office published in Procurement Policy Note 05/19 comprehensive commercial policy and guidance to identify and tackle modern slavery and labour abuse risks throughout the commercial life cycle. This advocates a risk based approach and applies to central government, executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. Other public sector contracting authorities may wish to apply the approach set out in this PPN.
This is being updated to strengthen the guidance on using the existing grounds in the Public Contracts Regulations for excluding suppliers, and will set out enhanced means of proof and due diligence activities. This will be published in due course.
The Terms of Reference for the Cabinet Office’s investigation have been published on GOV.UK and deposited in the libraries of both Houses. The work will be concluded by the Second Permanent Secretary.
The Government does not comment on the specifics of an ongoing process.
The Terms of Reference for the Cabinet Office’s investigation have been published on GOV.UK and deposited in the libraries of both Houses. The work will be concluded by the Second Permanent Secretary.
The Government does not comment on the specifics of an ongoing process.
The Terms of Reference for the Cabinet Office’s investigation have been published on GOV.UK and deposited in the libraries of both Houses. The work will be concluded by the Second Permanent Secretary.
The Government does not comment on the specifics of an ongoing process.
The Terms of Reference for the Cabinet Office’s investigation have been published on GOV.UK and deposited in the libraries of both Houses. The work will be concluded by the Second Permanent Secretary.
The Government does not comment on the specifics of an ongoing process.
The Government’s position on the operation of Freedom of Information legislation in respect of private email accounts is set out in the ‘Guidance to departments on use of private emails,’ published in 2013 as outlined below:
‘The Freedom of Information Act and searches for information
9. The FoI Act allows people to request information; it does not give the requestor any power to dictate where the department should search for that information. It is for the department to consider where the information might be and to take reasonable steps to find it. As set out above, it is expected that Government business should be recorded on government record systems. It will generally be reasonable to search only within those systems when a request has been received.
10. Departmental searches in response to requests for information are the responsibility of individual departments. The FOI Act itself provides no express legal authority for departments to search another person’s private emails or other records for the purpose of responding to a request made under that Act. In exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to ascertain whether there is Government information in an individual’s possession that is not accessible to Government. This should be done by approaching the individual in question and the department should be entitled to rely on that person’s answer. There would be no requirement on the department to inform the requestor that the question had been asked, or (if Government information had been privately stored) where any information was found though, as now, if the Information Commissioner’s office is involved, departments may be asked to explain the nature and extent of the searches conducted in order to reply to a request.’
The Clearing House function does not have full time members of staff, and its work is done by a small team of people in the FOI team, including the Deputy Director of Freedom of Information and Transparency, alongside their other day to day responsibilities. There is no separate budget for the Clearing House.
The Cabinet Office does not routinely capture data on the number of requests which are referred to the Clearing House. However, in 2020, Clearing House gave advice on 516 aggregated ‘round robins’ (requests made to more than one department and that have repeat characteristics); a small proportion of over 30,000 requests received by government departments in the same time period.
The Cabinet Office has referred requests to the Clearing House where appropriate and in line with the published criteria, which is available on gov.uk here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-office-and-freedom-of-information.
Information on Freedom of Information statistics is also published on gov.uk here - https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/government-foi-statistics.
The Clearing House function does not have full time members of staff, and its work is done by a small team of people in the FOI team, including the Deputy Director of Freedom of Information and Transparency, alongside their other day to day responsibilities. There is no separate budget for the Clearing House.
The Cabinet Office does not routinely capture data on the number of requests which are referred to the Clearing House. However, in 2020, Clearing House gave advice on 516 aggregated ‘round robins’ (requests made to more than one department and that have repeat characteristics); a small proportion of over 30,000 requests received by government departments in the same time period.
The Cabinet Office has referred requests to the Clearing House where appropriate and in line with the published criteria, which is available on gov.uk here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-office-and-freedom-of-information.
Information on Freedom of Information statistics is also published on gov.uk here - https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/government-foi-statistics.
The Clearing House function does not have full time members of staff, and its work is done by a small team of people in the FOI team, including the Deputy Director of Freedom of Information and Transparency, alongside their other day to day responsibilities. There is no separate budget for the Clearing House.
The Cabinet Office does not routinely capture data on the number of requests which are referred to the Clearing House. However, in 2020, Clearing House gave advice on 516 aggregated ‘round robins’ (requests made to more than one department and that have repeat characteristics); a small proportion of over 30,000 requests received by government departments in the same time period.
The Cabinet Office has referred requests to the Clearing House where appropriate and in line with the published criteria, which is available on gov.uk here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-office-and-freedom-of-information.
Information on Freedom of Information statistics is also published on gov.uk here - https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/government-foi-statistics.
The Clearing House function does not have full time members of staff, and its work is done by a small team of people in the FOI team, including the Deputy Director of Freedom of Information and Transparency, alongside their other day to day responsibilities. There is no separate budget for the Clearing House.
The Cabinet Office does not routinely capture data on the number of requests which are referred to the Clearing House. However, in 2020, Clearing House gave advice on 516 aggregated ‘round robins’ (requests made to more than one department and that have repeat characteristics); a small proportion of over 30,000 requests received by government departments in the same time period.
The Cabinet Office has referred requests to the Clearing House where appropriate and in line with the published criteria, which is available on gov.uk here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-office-and-freedom-of-information.
Information on Freedom of Information statistics is also published on gov.uk here - https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/government-foi-statistics.
The Clearing House function does not have full time members of staff, and its work is done by a small team of people in the FOI team, including the Deputy Director of Freedom of Information and Transparency, alongside their other day to day responsibilities. There is no separate budget for the Clearing House.
The Cabinet Office does not routinely capture data on the number of requests which are referred to the Clearing House. However, in 2020, Clearing House gave advice on 516 aggregated ‘round robins’ (requests made to more than one department and that have repeat characteristics); a small proportion of over 30,000 requests received by government departments in the same time period.
The Cabinet Office has referred requests to the Clearing House where appropriate and in line with the published criteria, which is available on gov.uk here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-office-and-freedom-of-information.
Information on Freedom of Information statistics is also published on gov.uk here - https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/government-foi-statistics.
As set out in the ‘COVID-19 Response - Spring 2021,’ the Government will set out its conclusions on the COVID-status Certification Review in advance of Step 4 of the Roadmap, in order to inform the safe reopening of society and the economy.
An update on the Roadmap Reviews was published on 5 March and can be found here:
We will present interim findings from the COVID-status Certification Review to Parliament today.
The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority. I have, therefore, asked the Authority to respond.
Professor Sir Ian Diamond | National Statistician
The Lord Scriven
House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW
26 February 2021
Dear Lord Scriven,
As National Statistician and Chief Executive of the UK Statistics Authority, I am responding to your Parliamentary Question asking how many jobs have been lost in each parliamentary constituency in South Yorkshire in the current financial year to date (HL13503).
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) produces labour market statistics for small areas from the Annual Population Survey (APS), which is a survey of people resident in households in the UK.
The APS cannot be used to measure the number of people who have lost their jobs, but instead can provide estimates of how the size of the workforce has changed over time. The survey provides level estimates for 12-month periods, based on interviews taking place throughout that time. Comparisons should only be made between non-overlapping survey periods.
Table 1 below shows the employment levels for the 12-month period ending September 2020, the latest available period, and the previous non-overlapping period for the 12-months ending September 2019, along with the net change between the two periods, for each parliamentary constituency in South Yorkshire.
Estimates from the APS are from a sample survey and as such are subject to a certain level of uncertainty.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Sir Ian Diamond
Table 1: Number of people in employment for the 12 month periods ending September 2019 and September 2020, and net change between the 2 periods, in Parliamentary Constituencies in South Yorkshire
|
| Thousands | ||
Parliamentary Constituency | Geocode | Oct 2018-Sep 2019 | Oct 2019-Sep 2020 | Net change |
Barnsley Central | E14000541 | 45 | 41 | -4 |
Barnsley East | E14000542 | 44 | 42 | -2 |
Don Valley | E14000667 | 46 | 47 | 1 |
Doncaster Central | E14000668 | 48 | 48 | 0 |
Doncaster North | E14000669 | 44 | 45 | 1 |
Penistone and Stocksbridge | E14000876 | 50 | 51 | 2 |
Rother Valley | E14000903 | 41 | 47 | 6 |
Rotherham | E14000904 | 41 | 40 | -1 |
Sheffield Central | E14000919 | 63 | 64 | 0 |
Sheffield South East | E14000920 | 41 | 45 | 4 |
Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough | E14000921 | 44 | 42 | -2 |
Sheffield, Hallam | E14000922 | 59 | 63 | 4 |
Sheffield, Heeley | E14000923 | 52 | 49 | -3 |
Wentworth and Dearne | E14001028 | 44 | 41 | -3 |
South Yorkshire | E11000003 | 662 | 665 | 4 |
Source: ONS
It is vital that key information is accessible to all. Since the daily press briefings began, British Sign Language (BSL) interpretation has been available on the national broadcaster. The BBC provides BSL interpretation at the daily No10 press conference via its News channel, Youtube channel and iPlayer. This is available free to air.
Lord-Lieutenants (LLs) are HM The Queen’s representatives in each county and metropolitan area of the UK. Their primary role is to uphold the dignity of the Crown. They are Crown appointments, appointed by The Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
There is an expectation that Lord-Lieutenants will always act to protect the dignity and integrity of the Office.
The usual practice is for a Lord-Lieutenant to step down from office.
This is an operational matter for Post Office Limited. Post Office however continues to make improvements to the system and will be moving away from Horizon to a new cloud-based IT system. Government recently announced that it is providing £103 million to help with the development of the replacement for the Horizon IT system and to ensure Horizon is maintained while that replacement is rolled out.
There have been several versions of Horizon since its introduction in 1999 and the current version of the system, introduced from 2017, was found in the Group Litigation to be robust, relative to comparable systems. Post Office continue to make improvements to the system and will be moving away from Horizon to a new IT system. The Government is providing funding to support this programme.
The legal framework underpinning rights to install and maintain digital communications infrastructure on land is contained in the Electronic Communications Code (“the Code”), which was substantially reformed in 2017.
In addition to complying with any requirements imposed by planning law, telecommunications operators installing electronic communications apparatus must also act in accordance with the Code.
One of the Code rights that can be included in any agreement between Code operators and landowners regulated by the Code is the right to lop or cut back trees or other vegetation where that interferes with electronic communications apparatus. The inclusion of such a code right will depend on all of the circumstances of any particular case and the agreement can include specific terms as to how such a right is to be exercised.
In addition, Part 13 of the Code sets out the circumstances in which a telecommunications operator may be permitted to lop trees and cut back vegetation that overhangs a street in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, or a road in Scotland, without this being included within the terms of a code agreement. This includes a process through which notice must be given to the occupier of the land on which the tree or vegetation is growing. Absent an objection from the occupier, the operator may cause the tree to be lopped or the vegetation to be cut back, albeit this must be done in such a way as to cause the minimum damage to the tree or vegetation.
These provisions enable operators to effectively roll out networks, as interference caused by trees and vegetation can cause delays and damage to apparatus, while ensuring that any damage to the tree or vegetation is limited.
Separately to Code rights, the Forestry Commission produces guidelines on the felling of trees: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tree-felling-getting-permission.
As access to digital services is becoming increasingly important to businesses and consumers throughout the UK, we are working to make sure that everyone has world-class connectivity. The legal framework in place under the Code not only provides operators with statutory rights to install and maintain their networks; but also imposes specific duties and obligations on them which must be adhered to.
We believe that communities benefit enormously from the deployment of high quality digital infrastructure, with all the economic and social benefits it brings. We want to make sure that deployment happens efficiently, but at the same time, in ways that make sure the impact on communities and the environment is taken into account and broad support is maintained for the rollout of this critical infrastructure.
It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. I will correspond directly with the noble Lord.
The Insolvency Service publishes National Statistics on insolvency cases for England and Wales combined. It is not possible to identify accurately companies that trade in South Yorkshire specifically, or companies that operated within specific parliamentary constituencies before entering insolvency. The data used for insolvency statistics is compiled from information at Companies House. The registered office address for a company may not be representative of its trading location, and often it is changed upon insolvency to the address of the appointed Insolvency Practitioner dealing with the case.
Subject to these caveats, the table below sets out the data on all registered company insolvencies from April 2020 to January 2021 (inclusive):
Estimated number of registered company insolvencies in South Yorkshire by parliamentary constituency of company registered office
1 April 2020 to 31 January 2021
Constituency | Registered Company Insolvencies |
Barnsley Central | 5 |
Barnsley East | 0 |
Don Valley | 5 |
Doncaster Central | 54 |
Doncaster North | 1 |
Penistone and Stocksbridge | 1 |
Rother Valley | 3 |
Rotherham | 1 |
Sheffield Central | 97 |
Sheffield South East | 14 |
Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough | 10 |
Sheffield, Hallam | 182 |
Sheffield, Heeley | 0 |
Wentworth and Dearne | 4 |
Total | 377 |
Sources: Insolvency Service (compulsory liquidations); Companies House (all other company insolvencies)
The Insolvency Service also holds data on personal bankruptcies in South Yorkshire during 2020 where the individual concerned ran a business as a sole trader or partnership. This information will be available later this year following the summer release of the official statistics covering the location, age and gender of individuals that entered insolvency in 2020 (provisionally due to be released in August 2021). The latest published statistics covering the period 2000 to 2019 can be found on the GOV.UK website.
The UK COVID-19 Vaccines Delivery Plan sets out how the Government will work with the NHS, devolved administrations, local councils, and the Armed Forces to deliver the largest vaccination programme in British history.
As of 3 February, over ten million people across the UK have been vaccinated with the first dose of the vaccine. We continue to work to meet our target of vaccinating all four priority groups, as advised by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, by 15 February 2021.
Vaccines are a precious resource in very high demand across the world; therefore, for security reasons it is not possible to provide detail about the size of our supplies and exact detail about deliveries.
Specialist communications support was brought onboard as contingent labour using the Public Sector Resourcing (PSR) framework rather than a contract being signed with Admiral as a company. This was approved by the Senior Responsible Owner for the Vaccines Taskforce, who is a Director-General in the civil service.
Specialist communications support was brought onboard as contingent labour using the Public Sector Resourcing (PSR) framework rather than a contract being signed with Admiral as a company. The support was obtained in line with existing public sector recruitment practices and frameworks.
We know that vaccines are of huge interest to the public and ensuring clear, accurate and timely communication is an important part of our public health response. Specialist communications support was therefore brought on board by the Vaccine Taskforce for a time-limited period, in line with existing public sector recruitment practices and frameworks.
Specialist communications support was brought onboard as contingent labour using the Public Sector Resourcing (PSR) framework rather than a contract being signed with Admiral as a company. The support was obtained in line with existing public sector recruitment practices and frameworks.
Officials in the Vaccine Taskforce ensure the standard civil service procedures in relation to conflicts of interest are followed for all Taskforce members. Actions are agreed to mitigate any actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and these are signed off by both the Department’s HR function and by the Permanent Secretary.
Owing to commercial sensitivities the Government is not able to reveal such information concerning vaccine developers at this time. The Vaccines Taskforce has taken action to scale up UK vaccine manufacturing capabilities, so that if and when a vaccine is found it can be produced at pace. This includes funding to accelerate and expand the new Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre, bring online a Rapid Deployment Facility, and a new state-of-the-art centre to scale up COVID-19 vaccine and gene therapy manufacturing. Government has also partnered with Wockhardt to provide fill and finish services.
Sheffield City Council has identified 9,334 businesses properties as in scope of the Small Business Grants Fund (SBGF) and the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grants Fund (RHLGF). As of 7 June, Sheffield City Council have issued grants to 7,329 businesses in scope of both schemes, totalling £87,270,000. Government is working closely with all local authorities to help them make remaining grant payments to businesses as quickly and effectively as possible, whilst safeguarding public funds.
The Government has confirmed to Local Authorities that the additional costs of the Discretionary Grants Fund will firstly be met in whole, or in part, from unused monies allocated to them for the Small Business and Retail Hospitality and Leisure Grants Funds. Only where Local Authorities have disbursed more than 95% of their original funding allocation will their funding will be topped up to ensure that they can provide the full value of the Discretionary Grants Fund.
We recognise that some Local Authorities may still have residual initial funding available even accounting for the Discretionary Grants Fund expenditure. Officials continue to stay in close contact with Local Authorities?to understand how the schemes are performing and advising ministers on any additional support?which could be offered to help businesses and support local economies. No decisions have yet been taken, but the level of demand will continue to be monitored.
The Government is working closely with all local authorities to help them make payments to businesses in scope of the Small Business Grants Fund (SBGF) and the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grants Fund (RHLGF) as quickly and effectively as possible. As of 7 June £10.22 billion has been paid out to over 832,000 eligible business properties. On 1 May, my Rt. Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced a further up to £617 million available to Local Authorities in England to support businesses that are out of scope of the existing schemes.
Where a local authority has funding remaining after having paid grants to all eligible businesses, they will need to undertake a reconciliation exercise with government. We will be providing further details of this, and timing for the delivery of remaining funding to eligible businesses, in due course.
Her Majesty's Government has not provided any such advice. Invitations to this annual event are issued by the Royal Household, and attendees join in a private capacity.
The UK and Bahrain have a close and long-standing relationship. No aspect of our relationship with Bahrain prevents us from speaking frankly about important issues. Long-standing connections and frank engagement underpin our bilateral relationship.
Interoperability will be one of the three strands of the strategy that the Government is developing to help diversify the supply chain. This will entail the deployment of all the tools at the Government’s disposal. The strategy has three main strands:
Attracting established vendors who are not currently present in the UK;
Supporting the emergence of new, disruptive entrants to the supply chain; and
Promoting the adoption of open, interoperable standards that will reduce barriers to entry.
In addition, the Government’s 5G Testbeds and Trials Programme provides an opportunity to support architectural models that open-up the radio access network, allowing operators to use different vendors for different components of the radio access network.
We understand that the EU have been considering a proposal for a moratorium, but no final decisions have been taken. There are no plans to impose a moratorium in the UK, but we will continue to keep the legal framework under review.
Education is a devolved matter, and this response outlines the information for England only.
The decision to use biometric technology rests entirely with individual schools and colleges, who must ensure that the use of biometric data complies with all relevant legislation. The department does provide guidance, which makes it clear that schools must comply with the law when implementing biometric technologies, including the Data Protection Act 2018, UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
In July 2022, the department published a revised version of the guidance, ‘Protection of biometric data of children in schools and colleges’, to provide support on the use of automated biometric recognition systems.
Whilst the department has not held discussions with the Information Commissioner’s Office on the schools in North Ayrshire Council, the department has engaged with the Information Commissioner’s Office on the department’s updated guidance.
Education is a devolved matter, and this response outlines the information for England only.
The decision to use biometric technology rests entirely with individual schools and colleges, who must ensure that the use of biometric data complies with all relevant legislation. The department does provide guidance, which makes it clear that schools must comply with the law when implementing biometric technologies, including the Data Protection Act 2018, UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
In July 2022, the department published a revised version of the guidance, ‘Protection of biometric data of children in schools and colleges’, to provide support on the use of automated biometric recognition systems.
Whilst the department has not held discussions with the Information Commissioner’s Office on the schools in North Ayrshire Council, the department has engaged with the Information Commissioner’s Office on the department’s updated guidance.
The decision to use biometric technology rests entirely with individual schools and colleges. Schools and colleges are legally responsible, as per the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Protection of Freedoms Act and Data Protection Act for any data they gather and use.
However, in the department there is a team of three officials who work on a range of policy areas relating to health and safety in schools. They also have, as part of their work, responsibility for the provision of guidance for schools and colleges linked to these areas. This includes, amongst others, the non-statutory ‘protection of biometric information of children in schools and colleges’ guidance, which is available here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/692116/Protection_of_Biometric_Information.pdf.
The department published the current version of this guidance to support schools and colleges in 2018. It replaced the ‘protection of children’s biometric information in schools’ guidance from 2012. The department has also publicly committed to updating the 2018 version of the guidance to reflect changes in legislation, replacing the Data Protection Act 1998 with the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR.
The department has not had any meetings with private companies to discuss the use of biometric technologies in schools in the last five years. This is because schools and colleges have the autonomy to choose whether to use biometric technology and, if so, to select the most appropriate provider. However, the department does work closely with others from across government, including the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office and the Information Commissioner’s Office on this issue.
Whilst the office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner has no statutory regulatory function in the oversight of automated biometric technology used in schools, the department has met with the Commissioner’s Office officials recently to explain the purpose of the department’s guidance and will continue to engage with them as appropriate going forward.