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 Baroness Deech, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
A bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and make provision in connection with financial settlements following divorce.
A Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; and make provision in connection with financial settlements following divorce.
A Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and make provision in connection with financial settlements following divorce
A bill to provide for a review by the Secretary of State of the regulations governing gamete storage periods
A Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and make provision in connection with financial settlements following divorce.
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.
Baroness Deech has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Government will publish its response to the consultation on flexible working in due course.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.