Baroness Deech Portrait

Baroness Deech

Crossbench - Life peer

Became Member: 5th October 2005


2 APPG memberships (as of 24 Jan 2024)
Get Refusal, Women and Work
1 Former APPG membership
Holocaust Memorial
Services Committee
28th Jan 2021 - 31st Jan 2024
EU Justice Sub-Committee
2nd Jul 2019 - 23rd Apr 2020
Equality Act 2010 and Disability Committee
11th Jun 2015 - 15th Mar 2016
Communications and Digital Committee
22nd Jun 2010 - 30th Mar 2015
Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee
23rd Nov 2006 - 8th Apr 2010
Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
23rd Nov 2006 - 8th Apr 2010
Draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill (Joint Committee)
9th May 2007 - 8th Aug 2007


Division Voting information

During the current Parliament, Baroness Deech has voted in 235 divisions, and never against the majority of their Party.
View All Baroness Deech Division Votes

Debates during the 2019 Parliament

Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.

Sparring Partners
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative)
Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
(27 debate interactions)
Lord True (Conservative)
Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
(15 debate interactions)
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Conservative)
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
(14 debate interactions)
View All Sparring Partners
Department Debates
Home Office
(18 debate contributions)
Cabinet Office
(17 debate contributions)
Department for Transport
(11 debate contributions)
View All Department Debates
Legislation Debates
Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022
(3,444 words contributed)
Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21
(3,097 words contributed)
Trade Bill 2019-21
(1,910 words contributed)
View All Legislation Debates
View all Baroness Deech's debates

Lords initiatives

These initiatives were driven by Baroness Deech, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.


6 Bills introduced by Baroness Deech


A bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and make provision in connection with financial settlements following divorce.

Lords Completed

Last Event - 3rd Reading: House Of Lords
Wednesday 18th March 2015

A Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; and make provision in connection with financial settlements following divorce.

Lords - 40%

Last Event - 2nd Reading : House Of Lords
Friday 27th January 2017
(Read Debate)

A Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and make provision in connection with financial settlements following divorce

Lords - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading
Monday 19th July 2021
(Read Debate)

A bill to provide for a review by the Secretary of State of the regulations governing gamete storage periods

Lords - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading
Wednesday 22nd January 2020
(Read Debate)

A Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and make provision in connection with financial settlements following divorce.

Lords - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading: House Of Lords
Thursday 4th June 2015

First reading took place on 25 February. This stage is a formality that signals the start of the Bill's journey through the Lords.Second reading - the general debate on all aspects of the Bill - is yet to be scheduled.The 2013-14 session of parliament has prorogued and this Bill will make no further progress. A Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and to make provision in connection with financial settlements following divorce.

Lords - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading: House Of Lords
Tuesday 25th February 2014

Baroness Deech has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting


Latest 50 Written Questions

(View all written questions)
Written Questions can be tabled by MPs and Lords to request specific information information on the work, policy and activities of a Government Department
5 Other Department Questions
4th Jul 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Stedman-Scott on 21 June (HL Deb col 52GC), when they will conclude their analysis of the responses to their consultation on section 36 of the Equality Act 2010 relating to reasonable adjustments to common parts of leasehold homes; and when that section will be commenced.

This consultation will end on 18 August, after which analysis of the responses will take a number of weeks, and then regulations needed prior to commencement will be prepared. I would expect commencement of the legislation on or after October 2023, given the time required for the regulations and issue of guidance for landlords, tenants and other involved parties.

13th Jun 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made regarding a public consultation on the implementation of section 36 of the Equality Act 2010 (reasonable adjustments to the common parts of leasehold properties).

On 9 June 2022, the Government launched the consultation on the implementation and commencement of the remaining parts of Section 36 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) and its associated schedules. When commenced, these will place a duty on landlords to make or facilitate reasonable adjustments to the common parts of residential property, where a disabled resident requests this, in England and Wales. The consultation lasts until 18 August.

The consultation is available in a range of accessible formats at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/improving-disabled-peoples-access-to-let-residential-premises-reasonable-adjustments-to-common-parts-a-new-duty

2nd Nov 2021
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what assessment has been made of the risk from flooding to Victoria Tower.

The Senior Deputy Speaker has asked me, as Chair of the Services Committee, to respond on his behalf. The first floor of the Victoria Tower is 65 feet above ground level - emphasising its stature as the Royal Entrance - which means any flooding would only happen due to leaking pipe work at a higher level, or through the cast iron roof.

It is known that the cast iron roof is in a poor state of repair. There is water ingress from roof level, but it is not yet critical. However, if the roof is left unrepaired its condition will only deteriorate further. In addition, much of the roof drainage system is concealed within stonework, which makes precise assessment of its condition difficult without carrying out thorough intrusive surveys. These surveys would be technically difficult to carry out due to the height, location and design of building.

Water ingress is monitored and options are currently being explored to address the repair of the roof as part of the safety critical repairs to the Victoria Tower stonework.

11th Oct 2021
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker to explain the justification for the exemption from registration of EU pensions to which are attached conditions that a reasonable member of the public might regard as likely to influence their conduct as parliamentarians, as set out in paragraph 68 of the 10th edition of the Guide to the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords (September 2021).

Members are not required to register their pension arrangements. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct (as it then was) has considered several times over a number of years whether EU pensions should be singled out for registration, most recently after the 2016 referendum on European Union membership. The Committee did not recommend such a change to the rules, noting that (a) declaration of EU pensions would be required if the House debated liability for those pensions during exit negotiations, and (b) the perception that support of the EU is a condition of receipt of a pension from an EU institution results from a selective reading of Article 245 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

10th Feb 2021
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what steps can be taken against members of the House of Lords who express anti-Semitic opinions falling within the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism in the course of their parliamentary duties and activities (1) during, and (2) outside, Parliamentary proceedings.

The Code of Conduct requires members to treat those with whom they come into contact in the course of their parliamentary duties and activities (including parliamentary proceedings) with respect and courtesy. Behaviour that amounts to bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct is a breach of the Code. Under the definitions appended to the Code, harassment is unwanted physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct that has the purpose or effect of either violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them and is related to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010, including religion or belief. Anti-Semitic behaviour that amounts to harassment would thus be liable to sanction under the Code.


In relation to parliamentary proceedings, however, the Code of Conduct recognises the constitutional principle of freedom of speech and excludes members’ views and opinions from the Commissioner for Standards’ remit. It is open to all members to address offensive behaviour or language used in the course of proceedings.

15th May 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 11 May (HL7431), what assessment they have made of the impact of the cost limit for responding to freedom of information requests remaining at £600 since 2004 on (1) any curtailment of the time that may be spent in dealing with freedom of information requests, and (2) any increase in the number of refusals of requests as a result of that curtailment.

There has been no curtailment, so no assessment has been made of any increase in the number of refusals as a result of the "curtailment"'. The cost limit is a calculation based on officials’ time and has remained at a flat rate of £25 per hour since 2004.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
25th Apr 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government how the costs of responding to freedom of information requests involving the disclosure of emails are calculated; and when the limit of £600, beyond which cost the request can be refused, was last uprated.

Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows public authorities to refuse to deal with any requests where they estimate that responding to the request would exceed the “appropriate limit”, known as the “cost limit”.

If a public authority calculates that responding to a request will take it over the appropriate limit it is not obliged to provide a substantive response. The cost limit is calculated at a flat rate of £25 per hour and since 2004 has been set at £600 for central government departments and £450 for other public authorities. Public authorities can only include certain activities when estimating whether responding to a request would breach the cost limit. These are: establishing whether information is held; locating and retrieving information; and extracting relevant information from the document containing it.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
11th May 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many members will be appointed to (1) the Partnership Council, (2) each of the 19 Specialised Committees, and (3) each of the four Working Groups established by the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement; and what plans they have to disseminate information about (a) the membership, and (b) the proceedings of those bodies.

Each of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement’s committees is co-chaired by a representative of the UK and the EU. I am the UK co-chair of the Partnership Council. Senior officials in the relevant government departments will be the co-chairs of the Specialised Committees and Working Groups.

The UK delegation for each meeting will be decided to ensure appropriate expertise based on the agenda.

We are committed to facilitating appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny of our actions in these committees, and discussions are ongoing with the relevant Parliamentary committees. We will share draft agendas with Parliament before each Partnership Council and meetings of the Specialised Committees, and issue a statement on the proceedings before Parliament before and after each meeting of the Partnership Council.

4th Jul 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Stedman-Scott on 21 June (HL Deb col 54GC), when they will respond to the September 2021 consultation conducted by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on making flexible working the default.

The Government will publish its response to the consultation on flexible working in due course.

Lord Callanan
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
5th Jan 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to encourage investment in (1) so-called 'Wave 2', and (2) other future generations of, vaccines for COVID-19.

The current overall UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) portfolio of COVID-19-related grants, including awards supported by Innovate UK, includes vaccine projects that provide greater diversity of approaches than for the first generation of vaccines developed. Details can be found on the UKRI website.

UKRI will continue to review ongoing needs in this area with the Vaccine Taskforce.

Lord Callanan
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
5th Jan 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the reasons given by (1) UK Research and Innovation, and (2) the Medical Research Council, for (a) rejecting, and (b) accepting, applications for grant assistance from researchers developing COVID-19 vaccinations.

UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), including the Medical Research Council, invited applications for research related to COVID-19, including for research into vaccines, through funding routes such as the joint UKRI-Department of Health and Social Care rapid response call, as well as the UKRI rapid response rolling call. The requirements and guidelines for these were published on the respective application pages and decisions were made under a peer review process and in coordination with the Vaccine Taskforce.

Lord Callanan
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
5th Jan 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to encourage grant funders to support so-called 'Wave 2' vaccines in development.

The current overall UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) portfolio of COVID-19-related grants, including awards supported by Innovate UK, includes vaccine projects that provide greater diversity of approaches than for the first generation of vaccines developed. Details can be found on the UKRI website.

UKRI will continue to review ongoing needs in this area with the Vaccine Taskforce.

Lord Callanan
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
5th Jan 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government to whom (1) the Medical Research Council, and (2) UK Research and Innovation, are accountable for decisions taken to support research into COVID-19 vaccines.

UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) was established under the Higher Education Research Act 2017. The Medical Research Council is a council of UKRI.

The UKRI Board is accountable to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for the delivery of its functions.

Lord Callanan
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
7th Mar 2024
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with the Mayor of London concerning the location of the memorial for victims of the transatlantic slave trade.

His Majesty’s Government has had no discussions with the Mayor of London concerning this matter. At the recent Budget, HM Government provided £10 million to National Museums Liverpool, to help in part with its planned expansion of the International Slavery Museum.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
18th Dec 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government for what reasons the planned construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens has not resulted in the gardens and the Buxton Memorial being placed on Historic England's Heritage at Risk Register; and whether they will request that they be so placed.

Heritage assets may be added to Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register for a variety of reasons, such as poor condition, disuse, and, in some cases, the quantifiable risks of development. Historic England has not made an assessment of the potential risks to Victoria Tower Gardens since the Holocaust Memorial Bill is still under consideration. It will continue to monitor the situation and keep its position under regular review.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
12th Dec 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government what changes they are planning in the future funding of Royal Parks to reflect the use of part of Victoria Tower Gardens for a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre.

The proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre will be managed and funded by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, which will also take responsibility for the management of the relevant parts of Victoria Tower Gardens needed for the duration of the construction period. It is not therefore proposed to make any changes to the funding provided by HM Government to The Royal Parks.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
12th Dec 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government which department or other organisation will have responsibility for the maintenance of the Buxton Memorial following the planned construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre.

The Royal Parks will continue to have responsibility for the maintenance of the Buxton Memorial Fountain in Victoria Tower Gardens, which commemorates the Parliamentary campaign to abolish the slave trade, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will continue to have Departmental responsibility for it.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
24th Jul 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking in response to the draft recommendation of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee Report Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, published on 4 July, which recommends reconsideration of their proposal to build a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.

We take our responsibilities under the UNESCO World Heritage Convention seriously and look forward to discussing the report at the World Heritage Committee meeting in September.

My Department will continue to work with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities and The Royal Parks to ensure that the open space and heritage of Victoria Tower Gardens are preserved for future generations, and that the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre maintains the Outstanding Universal Value of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
16th Dec 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with OFCOM regarding guidance for (1) the BBC, and (2) other media organisations, concerning the (a) accuracy, and (b) sensitivity, of reporting of issues relating to hate crime.

Ofcom has long-standing broadcasting rules through its Broadcasting Code, protecting against hate speech and prohibiting material likely to incite crime or lead to disorder, which apply to all broadcasters, including the BBC. Ofcom rules ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. Ofcom rules allow broadcasters to include hate speech in their output as long as it is justified by the context. Ofcom guidance also requires that broadcasters take into account sensitivity across the public and/or within communities.

Separate rules for video-on-demand services prohibit incitement to hatred. In November 2021 Ofcom updated its guidance further to protect users from harmful material. In August 2021, the Government launched a consultation to level the playing field between traditional broadcasters and video-on-demand streaming services, in order to provide a fair competitive framework and ensure that viewers in the UK receive equivalent standards. We are now considering our response to that consultation and will publish next steps in due course.

Ofcom’s Video Sharing Platform rules require providers to take appropriate measures to protect against harmful material, including incitement to violence or hatred against particular groups of people.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
2nd Nov 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their commitment (1) to protecting, and (2) to accessing, green spaces includes the preservation of Victoria Tower Gardens as a fully open park.

The Government’s commitment to protecting access to all green spaces includes Victoria Tower Gardens. There will occasionally be work or programmed maintenance that will require the temporary closure or the limiting of access to these green spaces, but the Government is committed to ensuring this is kept to a minimum.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
10th Feb 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy concerning permission for new buildings, not connected with open spaces' or leisure purposes, to be built in Royal Parks.

Any decisions concerning permission for new buildings, not connected with open spaces or leisure purposes to be built in the Royal Parks will be made in line with relevant planning legislation and will be the subject of the usual consent procedures.

The Royal Parks are Hyde Park, Green Park, St James’s Park, Greenwich Park, Richmond Park, Bushy Park, Regent’s Park and Kensington Gardens.

Baroness Barran
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
18th Dec 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that children are not absent from school to take part in protests.

The government is clear that missing school for events such as political protests is unacceptable and should not be condoned.

The department monitors events closely and has recently written to all schools and local authorities supporting leaders and teachers in taking firm action when necessary. The department encourages schools and local authorities to set clear expectations to parents on attendance and has confirmed that absence for this kind of activity should be treated as unauthorised. The department is clear that school leaders and local authorities should be enforcing attendance policies, and they should take immediate action where these policies have been breached. In the most egregious cases this can mean fines or prosecution. The department has shared this communication with Ofsted to ensure all inspectors are clear on the position.

Baroness Barran
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
18th Dec 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of the responses by the University and College Union and relevant university authorities to complaints by students of anti-Semitism and violence perpetrated by fellow students and staff.

The department is deeply concerned about the growth in antisemitic incidents on campus since the 7 October terrorist attacks against Israel and this government takes antisemitism extremely seriously. Departmental officials have assessed evidence of antisemitism and racial hatred linked to incidents at English universities. There is an online "Reporting Extremism" page from where members of the public can raise concerns to the department directly. Where concerns have arisen, officials have reached out to relevant universities to understand what actions they have taken, including reporting issues to the police where appropriate.

The department is also concerned to see antisemitic motions being passed at some universities. The department urges universities to crack down on inflammatory, politically motivated displays of support for a proscribed terrorist organisation, and on demonstrations which make Jewish staff and students feel unsafe.

My right hon. Friend, The Secretary of State for Education and my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (HE), wrote to all schools, colleges and universities on 11 October, urging them to respond swiftly to hate-related incidents and actively reassure Jewish students that they can study without fear of harassment or intimidation. Minister Halfon wrote again to Vice Chancellors on 16 November, further emphasising the use of disciplinary measures and the importance of police engagement, as well as the suspension of student visas where the student is a foreign national and requested that the universities review its policies and procedures to ensure that they remain fit for purpose at this challenging time. This was one of the key actions set out in the five-point plan for tackling antisemitism in HE, which was published on 5 November. A link to more information can be found here: https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2023/11/05/how-were-protecting-jewish-students-on-university-campuses/.

Baroness Barran
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
16th Jan 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the report by Rebecca Tuck KC Independent Investigation into Allegations of Antisemitism within NUS, published on 12 January; and what discussions they have had with the National Union of Students about the implementation of those recommendations.

This is a shocking and sobering report showing that the National Union of Students (NUS) has in effect been a hostile place for Jewish students. This is not acceptable. NUS should be a place that is not just safe for Jewish students, but welcoming as well. The department expects the recommendations will be implemented in full and will be monitoring this process. Once that has occurred, the Minister will re-engage with NUS.

Baroness Barran
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
28th Feb 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the speech by the Minister for Higher and Further Education on 24 February regarding their response to Dr Philip Augar's Review of Post-18 Education and Funding, published in May 2019, what assessment they have made of the impact on their (1) social mobility policy, and (2) Levelling Up policy, of (a) the decision not to restore maintenance grants for university students, and (b) the extension of the tuition fee loan repayment period.

This government is committed to levelling up and true social mobility. Our higher education (HE) reforms will help ensure that students are doing courses that give them the skills and knowledge to move into high-value employment that benefits both them and our dynamic economy. The HE system must be supported to do this, which is why we are putting in almost £900 million of new investment into HE over the next three years, including the largest increase in government funding for the sector to support students and teaching in over a decade.

Our changes to student loans will make the system more sustainable and fairer for students and taxpayers, while continuing to enable anyone with the ability and the ambition to benefit from HE to do so. There will be up to £75 million to deliver a new national state scholarship to support high-achieving disadvantaged students. We have previously announced that maximum maintenance loans will be increased by 2.3% in academic year 2022/23, following a 3.1% increase in 2021/22, taking the support available for the lowest-income students to record levels in cash terms.

A full assessment of the impacts of the HE reform policies and proposals, including changes to student loans and their regional impacts, has been conducted and is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-education-reform-equality-impact-assessment.

Baroness Barran
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
12th Jan 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the Ofsted Chief Inspector's call for (1) a register of children being home educated, and (2) stronger legislation to enable the closing down of illegal schools.

The department agrees with the Ofsted Chief Inspector’s call for a form of register for children not in school, and is committed to this. We will set out further details on this in the government response to the ‘Children Not in School’ consultation, which we will publish in the coming months.

The department has previously committed to taking forward measures to make it easier for Ofsted to investigate and gather evidence of breaches of section 96 of the Education and Skills Act 2008, and prosecute those responsible for running unregistered schools, including in the 2019 Integrated Communities Action Plan. Such measures are planned to be taken forward when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

Baroness Barran
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
5th Jan 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the number of children that have left unregistered religious schools lacking (1) basic skills, or (2) qualifications, since 2013.

Any educational institution which provides full-time provision to 5 or more pupils of compulsory school age (or one or more pupils of compulsory school age who is ‘looked after’ or has an education, health and care plan) is required to register with the Secretary of State for Education as a school. It is a criminal offence under section 96 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 to conduct an independent educational institution unless it is registered.

The existing definition of full-time education does not capture education providers which offer only a narrow curriculum even if this teaching takes place throughout all, or most, of the school day.

The consultation on regulating independent educational institutions included proposals to consider how to expand on the categories of full-time institutions that will be regulated in the same way that independent schools are currently regulated, and to change the definition of independent schools in primary legislation to incorporate such education providers. Taking forward the proposals would bring a range of currently unregistered institutions under the independent education regulatory regime.

The government remains committed to changing the law on the registration of independent educational institutions. We repeated that commitment in the department’s evidence to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, and we welcomed the recommendation when the report was recently published.

Publication of the response to the regulating independent educational institutions consultation is expected in early 2022.

The department has not made any estimate of the number of children attending or who have left unregistered schools. Those conducting an unregistered school are committing a criminal offence and they do not generally inform the department about the school’s operation. The same principle applies to the number of children who have suffered serious abuse or corporal punishment at an unregistered school.

Baroness Barran
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
5th Jan 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they will publish their response to the Regulating independent educational institutions consultation, which ran from 14 February 2020 to 27 November 2020.

Any educational institution which provides full-time provision to 5 or more pupils of compulsory school age (or one or more pupils of compulsory school age who is ‘looked after’ or has an education, health and care plan) is required to register with the Secretary of State for Education as a school. It is a criminal offence under section 96 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 to conduct an independent educational institution unless it is registered.

The existing definition of full-time education does not capture education providers which offer only a narrow curriculum even if this teaching takes place throughout all, or most, of the school day.

The consultation on regulating independent educational institutions included proposals to consider how to expand on the categories of full-time institutions that will be regulated in the same way that independent schools are currently regulated, and to change the definition of independent schools in primary legislation to incorporate such education providers. Taking forward the proposals would bring a range of currently unregistered institutions under the independent education regulatory regime.

The government remains committed to changing the law on the registration of independent educational institutions. We repeated that commitment in the department’s evidence to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, and we welcomed the recommendation when the report was recently published.

Publication of the response to the regulating independent educational institutions consultation is expected in early 2022.

The department has not made any estimate of the number of children attending or who have left unregistered schools. Those conducting an unregistered school are committing a criminal offence and they do not generally inform the department about the school’s operation. The same principle applies to the number of children who have suffered serious abuse or corporal punishment at an unregistered school.

Baroness Barran
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
5th Jan 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to legislate to close the loopholes that enable unregistered but de facto full-time educational settings to avoid registration.

Any educational institution which provides full-time provision to 5 or more pupils of compulsory school age (or one or more pupils of compulsory school age who is ‘looked after’ or has an education, health and care plan) is required to register with the Secretary of State for Education as a school. It is a criminal offence under section 96 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 to conduct an independent educational institution unless it is registered.

The existing definition of full-time education does not capture education providers which offer only a narrow curriculum even if this teaching takes place throughout all, or most, of the school day.

The consultation on regulating independent educational institutions included proposals to consider how to expand on the categories of full-time institutions that will be regulated in the same way that independent schools are currently regulated, and to change the definition of independent schools in primary legislation to incorporate such education providers. Taking forward the proposals would bring a range of currently unregistered institutions under the independent education regulatory regime.

The government remains committed to changing the law on the registration of independent educational institutions. We repeated that commitment in the department’s evidence to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, and we welcomed the recommendation when the report was recently published.

Publication of the response to the regulating independent educational institutions consultation is expected in early 2022.

The department has not made any estimate of the number of children attending or who have left unregistered schools. Those conducting an unregistered school are committing a criminal offence and they do not generally inform the department about the school’s operation. The same principle applies to the number of children who have suffered serious abuse or corporal punishment at an unregistered school.

Baroness Barran
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
5th Jan 2022
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they will publish their response to the Children not in school consultation, which ran from 2 April 2019 to 24 June 2019; and whether they plan to introduce the register of children educated otherwise than at mainstream schools outlined in that consultation.

The department remains committed to a form of local authority register for children not in school. We will set out further details on this in the government response to the ‘children not in school’ consultation, which we will publish in the coming weeks.

Baroness Barran
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
22nd Nov 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the High Court decision in Goodred v Portsmouth City Council [2021] EWHC 3057, what steps they are taking to ensure that local authorities are aware of their powers to carry out inquiries to check that home schooled children are receiving "a suitable education", as required by the Education Act 1996.

The department intervened in the Goodred v Portsmouth City Council judicial review as a neutral party to assist the court in understanding relevant guidance and legislation. A judgment was handed down on 16 November 2021, where the claim was dismissed on all grounds.

The government has substantially strengthened its guidance to local authorities on exercising their powers in relation to elective home education. The revised guidance, which was published in April 2019, sets out the steps that local authorities should take to satisfy themselves that the education provided by parents at home is suitable, and the actions that they can take if they are not satisfied. This guidance will be reviewed again in due course.

Baroness Barran
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)
23rd Feb 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their proposals to champion freedom of speech in universities extends to (1) hate speech, and (2) antisemitic speech, as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association.

My right hon. Friend, the Sectary of State for Education, announced new measures to strengthen free speech and academic freedom at universities in England on 16 February 2021, in order to stamp out unlawful silencing on campuses. The new measures set out in the policy paper will help to ensure that our universities are places where free speech can thrive. The policy paper can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-education-free-speech-and-academic-freedom.

However, the right to free speech does not include the right to harass others, or to incite violence or terrorism. The government has always been very clear that there is no place in our society, including in higher education, for hatred or any form of harassment, unlawful discrimination or racism, including antisemitism. Universities have clear responsibilities in this regard: they and other higher education providers should be at the forefront of tackling hatred.

In October 2020, the Secretary of State wrote to all higher education providers in England urging adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. It is estimated that at least 31 additional institutions have adopted the definition since this letter, with more indicating their intention to adopt. We have been clear that adopting the IHRA definition sends a clear and important signal to students and staff that antisemitism is taken seriously and it will not be tolerated. The IHRA ​definition allows providers better to understand and recognise incidents of antisemitism, which helps them​ to address hatred or unlawful discrimination in higher education settings. We will continue to call on providers to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

The government does not see a conflict between protecting freedom of speech and adopting the IHRA definition. Indeed, our strengthened protections for free speech are likely to support Jewish students who on a number of occasions have had their freedom of speech curtailed by others. Universities have clear legal responsibilities regarding discrimination and harassment, and must balance these with their legal duties to protect free speech.

We will continue to work across government to ensure that racism and religious hatred of any kind is not tolerated anywhere, including in our world-leading universities.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
3rd Feb 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the report by University College London What do Students Know and Understand about the Holocaust, published on 19 April 2018, what plans they have for the reform of holocaust education in schools.

The Government has supported Holocaust education for many years and is fully committed to continuing this support.

In recognition of its importance, the Holocaust is the only historic event which is compulsory within the national curriculum for history at key stage 3. This ensures that young people from every background can continue to learn about the Holocaust and its relevance today. Effective teaching about the Holocaust can support pupils to learn about the possible consequences of antisemitism and extremism and to understand how society can prevent the repeat of such a catastrophe.

The Department for Education further supports school pupils’ and teachers’ understanding of the Holocaust by providing funding for the University College London’s Centre for Holocaust Education, £500,000 in the 2020-21 finanical year match-funded by the Pears Foundation, and the Holocaust Educational Trust’s Lessons from Auschwitz project, £2.193 million for the 2020-21 financial year. These programmes help reach all types of schools and help to develop high-quality teaching across the school sector.

The University College London Centre for Holocaust Education’s report and wider research informs the continuing professional development work for teachers that the Department for Education funds by identifying key gaps in knowledge and underpins the educational resources that the centre makes available to teachers across the country.

13th May 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the answer by Baroness Berridge on 12 May (HL Deb, col 569), what plans they have to ensure that secondary school pupils receive adequate sex education despite the right of parents with objections to request to withdraw them from the lessons.

We want to support all young people to be happy, healthy and safe. We also want to equip them for adult life and to make a positive contribution to society. That is why we are making Relationships Education compulsory for primary school-age pupils, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) compulsory for secondary school-age pupils and Health Education compulsory for pupils in all state-funded schools, from September 2020.

The statutory guidance sets out that parents will continue to have a right to request to withdraw their child from sex education delivered as part of RSE in secondary schools which, unless there are exceptional circumstances, should be granted up to three terms before their child turns 16. At this point, if the child themselves wishes to receive sex education rather than be withdrawn, the school should make arrangements for this to happen in one of the three terms before the child turns 16, the legal age of sexual consent. The statutory guidance can be accessed via the following link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/805781/Relationships_Education__Relationships_and_Sex_Education__RSE__and_Health_Education.pdf.

Parents will not be able to request to withdraw their child from sex education delivered as part of the science curriculum. There is also no right to withdraw from Relationships Education at primary or secondary as we believe the content of these subjects is essential in supporting pupils’ wellbeing and attainment, and helping young people to become successful and happy adults who make a meaningful contribution to society.

Before granting any such request from parents, it would be good practice for the headteacher to discuss the request with parents and, as appropriate, with the child to ensure that their wishes are understood and to clarify the nature and purpose of the curriculum. Good practice is also likely to include the headteacher discussing with parents the benefits of receiving this important education and any detrimental effects that withdrawal might have on the child.

Parents should also be given every opportunity to understand the purpose and content of Relationships Education and RSE. Good communication and opportunities for parents to understand and ask questions about the school’s approach help increase confidence in the curriculum. This can be an important opportunity to talk about how these subjects contribute to wider support in terms of pupil wellbeing and keeping children safe.

13th May 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps will be taken to ensure that the right of secondary school pupils to opt in to sex education three terms before they turn 16 will be independently exercised in circumstances where their parents had previously withdrawn them from sex education lessons.

We want to support all young people to be happy, healthy and safe. We also want to equip them for adult life and to make a positive contribution to society. That is why we are making Relationships Education compulsory for primary school-age pupils, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) compulsory for secondary school-age pupils and Health Education compulsory for pupils in all state-funded schools, from September 2020.

The statutory guidance sets out that parents will continue to have a right to request to withdraw their child from sex education delivered as part of RSE in secondary schools which, unless there are exceptional circumstances, should be granted up to three terms before their child turns 16. At this point, if the child themselves wishes to receive sex education rather than be withdrawn, the school should make arrangements for this to happen in one of the three terms before the child turns 16, the legal age of sexual consent. The statutory guidance can be accessed via the following link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/805781/Relationships_Education__Relationships_and_Sex_Education__RSE__and_Health_Education.pdf.

Parents will not be able to request to withdraw their child from sex education delivered as part of the science curriculum. There is also no right to withdraw from Relationships Education at primary or secondary as we believe the content of these subjects is essential in supporting pupils’ wellbeing and attainment, and helping young people to become successful and happy adults who make a meaningful contribution to society.

Before granting any such request from parents, it would be good practice for the headteacher to discuss the request with parents and, as appropriate, with the child to ensure that their wishes are understood and to clarify the nature and purpose of the curriculum. Good practice is also likely to include the headteacher discussing with parents the benefits of receiving this important education and any detrimental effects that withdrawal might have on the child.

Parents should also be given every opportunity to understand the purpose and content of Relationships Education and RSE. Good communication and opportunities for parents to understand and ask questions about the school’s approach help increase confidence in the curriculum. This can be an important opportunity to talk about how these subjects contribute to wider support in terms of pupil wellbeing and keeping children safe.

11th Mar 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of whether universities in England and Wales (1) have breached the public sector equality duty, and (2) are compliant with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, by permitting Israeli Apartheid Week activities to take place on their campuses.

There is no place in our society - including within higher education (HE) – for hatred or any form of harassment, discrimination or racism, including antisemitism. The government will continue to work with universities to ensure we stamp out antisemitism in all its forms.

The government expects HE providers to take their responsibilities, including those under the Equality Act 2010 (including the Public Sector Equality Duty) and to promote freedom of speech, seriously. We expect HE providers to have robust policies and procedures in place to meet, and balance, their legal obligations effectively and to investigate and swiftly address reports of hate crime, including any antisemitic incidents that are reported.

We expect HE providers to have clearly set out procedures and policies for events and the hosting of external speakers, which allow for open, transparent events, challenge and debate and ensure that lawful speech can occur on campuses. Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, HE providers have a legal duty to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for their members, students, employees of the establishment and visiting speakers.

In relation to events occurring under the banner of Israeli Apartheid Week, it is crucial that HE providers handle these appropriately, taking into account their legal obligations to ensure that our values, expectations and laws are upheld.

The government strongly encourages HE providers to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It is an important tool in tackling antisemitism and a strong signal that HE providers take these issues seriously.

5th Mar 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of SOAS University of London’s compliance with the (1) public sector equality duty, and (2) International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, further to the decision to host a student workshop on advocacy for Palestine on campus on 7 March sponsored by EuroPal Forum; and what assessment they have made of (a) EuroPal Forum’s, and (b) EuroPal Forum’s senior leadership’s, relationship with Hamas.

This government has committed to strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities and ensure they are places where free speech and debate can thrive – this includes considering the underpinning legal framework. We have made it clear that if universities do not uphold free speech, the government will.

However, there is no place in our society - including within higher education (HE) – for hatred or any form of harassment, discrimination or racism, including antisemitism. The government will continue to work with universities to ensure we stamp out antisemitism in all its forms.

The government expects HE providers to take their responsibilities, including those under the Equality Act 2010 and for freedom of speech, seriously. We expect HE providers to have robust policies and procedures in place to meet, and balance, their legal obligations effectively and to investigate and swiftly address reports of hate crime, including any antisemitic incidents that are reported.

We expect HE providers to have clearly set out procedures and policies for events and the hosting of external speakers, which allow for open, transparent events, challenge and debate and ensure that lawful speech can occur on campuses. Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, HE providers have a legal duty to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure freedom of speech within the law for their members, students, employees and visiting speakers.

The government does not support blanket no-platforming of individuals or organisations. There have been some examples of attempts to restrict free speech under the banner of no-platforming or safe spaces and it is important that this does not become commonplace.

The government adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism in 2016 and has written to HE providers on several occasions encouraging them to consider adopting this definition. The government sees the IHRA definition as an important tool in tackling antisemitism and a strong signal that HE providers take these issues seriously, which is why we will continue to call on higher education providers to adopt this definition.

2nd Nov 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to prevent flooding along Millbank; and what measures are involved.

Millbank in Westminster is at risk from two main sources of flooding: surface water flooding caused by heavy rainfall and flooding from the tidal Thames. Lead Local Flood Authorities (London Boroughs) hold responsibility for managing surface water flooding, under the Flood and Water Management Act. As a Category 1 responder, the Environment Agency works with other authorities, where possible, to support their response to surface water flooding.

The Thames' tidal defence network is made up of 330 kilometres of flood walls, embankments, 9 major barriers, pumping stations, and flood gates. The Thames Barrier is at the heart of this network, having made its 200th closure to prevent flooding in central London in October this year. These structures protect over £321 billion worth of property and 1.4 million people from flooding. These structures are all having to work harder due to climate change.

The Environment Agency's Thames Estuary 2100 Plan sets a long-term approach upgrading flood defences to manage rising sea levels whilst delivering wider social, environmental and economic benefits for the Thames Estuary. The Thames Estuary 2100 Plan was designed with climate change at its core. It was the first adaptive flood risk management strategy developed in England and is internationally recognised as a leading example of a climate adaptation strategy. By taking an adaptive approach, we can better anticipate and respond to a range of future climate scenarios, ensuring we are investing in the right flood risk management actions at the right time, to ensure the resilience of the estuary and its communities in the future.

2nd Jun 2020
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that any financial support they provide to assist the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Gaza and the West Bank is spent as intended.

The UK has pledged £764 million to support the global humanitarian response to COVID-19. We?have?delivered?additional vital support in the Occupied Palestinian Territories by providing?£840,000?to WHO and UNICEF to purchase and co-ordinate the delivery of?medical equipment,?treat critical care patients, train frontline public health personnel and scale up laboratory testing capacity.

All UK funding to the OPTs is subject to robust controls against fraud and the diversion of aid, and DFID’s funding agreements also commit partners to understand and comply with UK and international counter terrorism legislation.?We maintain regular dialogue with all implementing partners to ensure UK funding is spent as intended.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
22nd Mar 2024
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with (1) Network Rail and (2) Oxfordshire County Council to ensure appropriate access from West Oxford to Oxford Station for disabled and elderly passengers, including travel by bus.

I am advised that Network Rail continue to work closely with Oxford County Council and consult with local accessibility groups in planning the works at Oxford station. Disabled parking is available near the station, marshals are on hand to assist passengers and extra buses are providing accessible transport from Botley Road to the city centre during the period of the road closure.

Lord Davies of Gower
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
11th Mar 2024
To ask His Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with Network Rail concerning access by disabled people to Oxford station during the period of construction works there.

I understand that Network Rail has consulted with local accessibility groups in planning its current construction works at Oxford station. During construction, access within the station will be unaffected by the works and considerably improved with the delivery of the new western entrance.

Lord Davies of Gower
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
16th Oct 2023
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the review of low traffic neighbourhoods announced on 30 July, what steps they plan to take to prevent the introduction of new low traffic neighbourhoods until the review is completed.

The Government’s review of low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) schemes is underway. The Department recommends that local authorities should not be introducing any new LTNs, unless already contractually committed, until after the review has concluded.

Installation of LTNs and other traffic management measures remain the responsibility of local councils, who are accountable for the decisions they take.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
7th Dec 2022
To ask His Majesty's Government what guidance they have given to local authorities which are considering traffic restriction schemes of the changes in traffic patterns resulting from (1) the COVID-19 lockdowns, and (2) increased working from home.

It is for local authorities to gather relevant data as part of the development of traffic management schemes, which may include local traffic count and travel demand data.

The Department has published the Active Travel Toolkit which provides advice to local authorities on developing walking and cycling schemes, including advice on travel demand management plans. The Department has also published additional Network Management Duty guidance for local authorities on managing their road networks to provide measures to support active travel. Both are available free on the Department’s website.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
7th Dec 2022
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 in regards to providing sufficiently for (1) consultation of the public before the implementation of low traffic neighbourhood schemes, and (2) post-implementation consultation.

No such assessment has been made by the Department. Low traffic neighbourhood schemes may be implemented using standard traffic restrictions, which require a Traffic Regulation Order made following the Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. These already include a requirement for ongoing consultation and evaluation for 6-months following the making of an experimental TRO. For permanent TROs, the regulations require consultation on proposed orders, including with a range of statutory consultees.

The Department recommends as good practice that authorities carry out post implementation reviews for all permanent traffic orders.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
7th Dec 2022
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the (1) necessity, and (2) sufficiency, of consultation of the public at the conclusion of a period of experimental traffic orders made under section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

No assessment has been made by the Department. However, LTN and traffic filter restrictions require traffic regulation orders (TROs), that must be made following the procedures set out in the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. These already include a requirement for ongoing consultation and evaluation for six-months following the making of an experimental TRO.

If an authority wishes to make an experimental TRO permanent, there are additional consultation requirements as part of the process for making a permanent traffic order under section 1 of the 1984 Act.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
7th Dec 2022
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on (1) businesses, and (2) cultural activities, as a result of the installation of city traffic filters.

Local authorities are responsible for managing their road networks, including decisions on introducing traffic management measures such as traffic filters.

It is for them to consider the possible impacts on communities as part of scheme developments, both positive and negative, and potential mitigations.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)
7th Dec 2022
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of local authorities introducing traffic filters to reduce nitrogen dioxide pollution; and of whether this displaces such pollution from city centres to city peripheries; and what plans they have, if any, to amend the regulations relating to the use of traffic filters in such circumstances.

Under the NO2 Programme, local authorities with persistent exceedances of nitrogen dioxide concentrations are required to assess and implement measures to reduce and maintain nitrogen dioxide levels to within legal limits in the shortest possible time. Local authorities make their assessment using rigorous transport and air quality modelling. This is informed by impact assessments, which include the consideration of traffic displacement, and extensive public consultation. Measures may include implementation of a Clean Air Zone by a local authority using powers under the Transport Act 2000. Clean Air Zones reduce the frequency of journeys taken by the most-polluting vehicles within the zone and can increase vehicle turnover to cleaner vehicles.

Local authorities monitor NO2 reduction measures throughout their lifetime in collaboration with the DfT/ Defra Joint Air Quality Unit.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)