Crispin Blunt

Independent - Reigate

First elected: 1st May 1997


Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill
30th Nov 2022 - 7th Dec 2022
Foreign Affairs Committee
18th Jun 2015 - 3rd May 2017
Committees on Arms Export Controls
10th Feb 2016 - 3rd May 2017
Liaison Committee (Commons)
10th Sep 2015 - 3rd May 2017
National Security Strategy (Joint Committee)
30th Nov 2015 - 3rd May 2017
Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee
5th Jan 2016 - 3rd May 2017
Committees on Arms Export Controls (formerly Quadripartite Committee)
10th Feb 2016 - 3rd May 2017
Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill
4th Mar 2013 - 16th Dec 2013
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation)
17th May 2010 - 6th Sep 2012
Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)
19th Jan 2009 - 6th May 2010
Finance and Services Committee
17th Jul 2005 - 9th Feb 2009
Opposition Whip (Commons)
15th Jun 2004 - 19th Jan 2009
Modernisation of the House of Commons
12th Jul 2005 - 15th Jul 2005
Defence Committee
17th Nov 2003 - 1st Nov 2004
Shadow Minister (Trade and Industry)
3rd May 2002 - 1st Jul 2003
Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)
18th Sep 2001 - 3rd May 2002
Environment, Transport & Regional Affairs
21st Feb 2000 - 1st Jun 2001
Defence Committee
14th Jul 1998 - 21st Feb 2000


Division Voting information

During the current Parliament, Crispin Blunt has voted in 699 divisions, and 17 times against the majority of their Party.

22 Mar 2021 - Trade Bill - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 29 Conservative Aye votes vs 318 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 300 Noes - 318
22 Mar 2021 - Trade Bill - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 26 Conservative No votes vs 318 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 319 Noes - 297
9 Feb 2021 - Trade Bill - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 13 Conservative No votes vs 341 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 351 Noes - 276
9 Feb 2021 - Trade Bill - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 31 Conservative No votes vs 318 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 318 Noes - 303
19 Jan 2021 - Trade Bill - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Conservative No votes vs 356 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 364 Noes - 267
19 Jan 2021 - Trade Bill - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 34 Conservative No votes vs 319 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 319 Noes - 308
13 Oct 2020 - Public Health: Coronavirus Regulations - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 42 Conservative No votes vs 298 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 299 Noes - 82
1 Jul 2020 - Finance Bill - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 11 Conservative Aye votes vs 317 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 232 Noes - 321
17 Jun 2020 - Health and Personal Social Services - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 104 Conservative Aye votes vs 124 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 253 Noes - 136
2 Jun 2020 - Proceedings during the Pandemic - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 31 Conservative Aye votes vs 240 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 185 Noes - 242
2 Jun 2020 - Proceedings during the Pandemic - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 11 Conservative No votes vs 257 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 261 Noes - 163
7 Dec 2021 - Nationality and Borders Bill - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Conservative Aye votes vs 305 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 245 Noes - 309
30 Mar 2022 - Health and Care Bill - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 72 Conservative Aye votes vs 175 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 215 Noes - 188
3 May 2023 - National Security Bill - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Conservative No votes vs 252 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 254 Noes - 136
27 Jun 2023 - Schools (Gender and Parental Rights) - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 10 Conservative No votes vs 25 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 34 Noes - 40
3 Jul 2023 - Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Conservative Aye votes vs 267 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 212 Noes - 272
3 Jul 2023 - Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill - View Vote Context
Crispin Blunt voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Conservative No votes vs 261 Conservative Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 268 Noes - 70
View All Crispin Blunt 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
Dominic Raab (Conservative)
(19 debate interactions)
Boris Johnson (Conservative)
(12 debate interactions)
Rosie Winterton (Labour)
(11 debate interactions)
View All Sparring Partners
Department Debates
Home Office
(36 debate contributions)
Cabinet Office
(22 debate contributions)
Department of Health and Social Care
(17 debate contributions)
View All Department Debates
View all Crispin Blunt's debates

Reigate Petitions

e-Petitions are administered by Parliament and allow members of the public to express support for a particular issue.

If an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures the Government will issue a written response.

If an e-petition reaches 100,000 signatures the petition becomes eligible for a Parliamentary debate (usually Monday 4.30pm in Westminster Hall).

Petition Debates Contributed

Reform the GRA to allow transgender people to self-identify without the need for a medical diagnosis, to streamline the administrative process, and to allow non-binary identities to be legally recognised.

I would like the Government to:
• make running conversion therapy in the UK a criminal offence
• forcing people to attend said conversion therapies a criminal offence
• sending people abroad in order to try to convert them a criminal offence
• protect individuals from conversion therapy


Latest EDMs signed by Crispin Blunt

21st February 2024
Crispin Blunt signed this EDM on Monday 4th March 2024

No confidence in the Speaker

Tabled by: William Wragg (Conservative - Hazel Grove)
That this House has no confidence in Mr Speaker.
91 signatures
(Most recent: 20 Mar 2024)
Signatures by party:
Conservative: 44
Scottish National Party: 41
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 2
Workers Party of Britain: 1
1st February 2024
Crispin Blunt signed this EDM on Tuesday 6th February 2024

LGBT History Month 2024

Tabled by: Kate Osborne (Labour - Jarrow)
That this House recognises and celebrates February as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) History Month 2024; welcomes this month-long celebration of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans history; notes that LGBTQ+ people have a long history of making incredible contributions to the UK; further notes that LGBTQ+ History month is …
45 signatures
(Most recent: 19 Feb 2024)
Signatures by party:
Labour: 27
Scottish National Party: 8
Independent: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Liberal Democrat: 2
Green Party: 1
Alliance: 1
View All Crispin Blunt's signed Early Day Motions

Commons initiatives

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

MPs who are act as Ministers or Shadow Ministers are generally restricted from performing Commons initiatives other than Urgent Questions.



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
4 Other Department Questions
13th Jun 2023
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, what assessment her Department have made of the potential merits of banning conversion therapy for trans people; and if she will make a statement on the conversion therapy ban.

There is clear evidence associating conversion practices with a range of significant harms. The Government remains committed to protecting everyone from these abhorrent practices, including those who are targeted on the basis of being transgender. We will shortly publish a draft Bill and consultation response setting out our approach. The draft legislation will go for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee in this parliamentary session.

Stuart Andrew
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
16th Sep 2021
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, what assessment she has made of the potential effect of the provisions in the Nationality and Borders Bill on (a) equality and (b) safety for LGBTQ+ people.

The Nationality and Borders Bill, which is part of our New Plan for Immigration, seeks to build a fair, but firm asylum and illegal migration system.

On 16 September, we published an Equality Impact Assessment for the policies being taken forward through the Bill. This includes an assessment on potential impacts on people who are LGBTQ+.

Kemi Badenoch
President of the Board of Trade
28th Jan 2021
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, pursuant to her Answer on conversion therapy to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton on 23 September 2020, Official Report, Column 931, whether the research has been completed; if she will publish that research; and when she plans to introduce steps to end conversion therapy.

I refer the hon. Member to my answer to Question 143679 on 29 January.

Kemi Badenoch
President of the Board of Trade
26th Jan 2021
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, pursuant to her answer on conversion therapy to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton on 23 September 2020, Official Report, Column 931, whether the research has been completed; if she will publish that research; and when she plans to introduce steps to end conversion therapy.

The Government continues to conduct research into conversion therapy and will publish this in due course. The Government will introduce steps to end conversion therapy after the research has concluded and we have considered its findings.

Kemi Badenoch
President of the Board of Trade
19th Oct 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that online content which is offensive and not harmful is not wrongly identified as harmful under the Online Safety Bill.

The draft Online Safety Bill delivers the government’s manifesto commitment to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online while defending free expression.

Regulation will not prevent adults from accessing or posting legal content, nor require companies to remove specific pieces of legal content. We recognise that adults have the right to upload and access content that some may find offensive or upsetting.

The largest and riskiest services will be required to set out their policies regarding content that is legal but harmful to adults and enforce these consistently. They will no longer be able to arbitrarily remove controversial viewpoints.

Users will have access to effective mechanisms to appeal content that is removed without good reason.

Our approach will empower adult users to keep themselves safe online, while ensuring children are protected and maintaining robust protections for freedom of expression.

Chris Philp
Minister of State (Home Office)
19th Oct 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what consideration he has given in the drafting of the Online Safety Bill to the case of Handyside v the United Kingdom (1976) which concluded that expressions that offend, shock, or disturb are protected under Article 10 (2) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The draft Online Safety Bill delivers the government’s manifesto commitment to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online while defending free expression.

Regulation will not prevent adults from accessing or posting legal content, nor require companies to remove specific pieces of legal content. We recognise that adults have the right to upload and access content that some may find offensive or upsetting.

The largest and riskiest services will be required to set out their policies regarding content that is legal but harmful to adults and enforce these consistently. They will no longer be able to arbitrarily remove controversial viewpoints.

Users will have access to effective mechanisms to appeal content that is removed without good reason.

Our approach will empower adult users to keep themselves safe online, while ensuring children are protected and maintaining robust protections for freedom of expression.

Chris Philp
Minister of State (Home Office)
19th Oct 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, with reference to the Online Safety Bill whether he plans ordinary sensibilities to have any regard to the adult's membership of a class or group of people with a certain characteristic targeted by the content.

The draft Online Safety Bill delivers the government’s manifesto commitment to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online while defending free expression.

Regulation will not prevent adults from accessing or posting legal content, nor require companies to remove specific pieces of legal content. We recognise that adults have the right to upload and access content that some may find offensive or upsetting.

The largest and riskiest services will be required to set out their policies regarding content that is legal but harmful to adults and enforce these consistently. They will no longer be able to arbitrarily remove controversial viewpoints.

Users will have access to effective mechanisms to appeal content that is removed without good reason.

Our approach will empower adult users to keep themselves safe online, while ensuring children are protected and maintaining robust protections for freedom of expression.

Chris Philp
Minister of State (Home Office)
19th Oct 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, with reference to the Online Safety Bill, whether it is his Department's policy that discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, or insult of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents are likely to have an adverse psychological impact on an adult of ordinary sensibilities.

The draft Online Safety Bill delivers the government’s manifesto commitment to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online while defending free expression.

Regulation will not prevent adults from accessing or posting legal content, nor require companies to remove specific pieces of legal content. We recognise that adults have the right to upload and access content that some may find offensive or upsetting.

The largest and riskiest services will be required to set out their policies regarding content that is legal but harmful to adults and enforce these consistently. They will no longer be able to arbitrarily remove controversial viewpoints.

Users will have access to effective mechanisms to appeal content that is removed without good reason.

Our approach will empower adult users to keep themselves safe online, while ensuring children are protected and maintaining robust protections for freedom of expression.

Chris Philp
Minister of State (Home Office)
19th Oct 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment her Department has made on whether online content that is considered to be blasphemous would fall within the remit of lawful but harmful content as defined within the Online Safety Bill.

The draft Online Safety Bill delivers the government’s manifesto commitment to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online while defending free expression.

Regulation will not prevent adults from accessing or posting legal content, nor require companies to remove specific pieces of legal content. We recognise that adults have the right to upload and access content that some may find offensive or upsetting.

The largest and riskiest services will be required to set out their policies regarding content that is legal but harmful to adults and enforce these consistently. They will no longer be able to arbitrarily remove controversial viewpoints.

Users will have access to effective mechanisms to appeal content that is removed without good reason.

Our approach will empower adult users to keep themselves safe online, while ensuring children are protected and maintaining robust protections for freedom of expression.

Chris Philp
Minister of State (Home Office)
24th May 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, for what reason covid-19 restrictions remain on the number of people who can sing together indoors.

I know that the restrictions on singing are frustrating to large numbers of amateur choirs and performance groups across the country and that many people have made sacrifices in order to drive down infections and protect the NHS over the last year. I can assure you that everyone across Government wants to ease these restrictions as soon as possible.

However, it is important that we take a cautious approach in easing restrictions. We have followed the views of public health experts on singing. We are aware, through the NERVTAG and PERFORM studies that singing can increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission through the spread of aerosol droplets.this was backed up by a consensus statement from SAGE, resulting in the suggested principles of safer singing being published.

We will continue to keep guidance and restrictions under review, in line with the changing situation. Further detail on step 4 will be set out as soon as possible.

14th Apr 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of removing admissions exemptions that allow faith schools to select pupils based on the religious beliefs and practices of parents.

Like all other mainstream state funded schools, schools designated with a religious character, commonly known as faith schools, must admit all children who apply, without reference to faith, where there are places available. Where they are oversubscribed, they may give priority for places to applicants on the basis of faith. No parent is required to provide information on their membership or practice of the faith when applying to a faith school, although they may not then be eligible for priority under any faith oversubscription criteria.

The Department does not intend to remove faith schools’ ability to set faith-based oversubscription criteria. Faith-based oversubscription criteria provide a means to support parents to have their children educated in line with their religious and philosophical beliefs, where they wish to do so.

The admission authority of a faith school is responsible for setting their admission arrangements and deciding whether or not to use faith-based oversubscription criteria.

The Department issues the statutory School Admissions Code which applies to all mainstream state funded schools, including faith schools, and places requirements on admission authorities about their arrangements and what they may ask from parents as part of the admissions process. The Code also signposts other relevant laws which admission authorities must comply with, including the Human Rights Act 1998.

In constructing any faith oversubscription criteria, a faith school’s admission authority must have regard to any guidance from the body or person representing the religion or religious denomination, to the extent that the guidance complies with the Code. They must also consult with the religious body when deciding how membership or practice of the faith is to be demonstrated. Ultimately, the admission authority must ensure its arrangements comply with the Code and other relevant legislation, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.

Anyone who is concerned that a school’s admission arrangements are unfair or unlawful is encouraged to refer an objection to the independent Schools Adjudicator, whose decision is binding and enforceable. The Government does not routinely make an assessment of the impact of individual faith schools’ admissions criteria. All legislation, including admissions law, must be compatible with equalities and human rights law.

The Department has no current plans to introduce more specific requirements for faith school admissions beyond those already set out in law. The Department routinely considers reports and guidance from stakeholders and other bodies, such as the report issued by the National Secular Society. All such information helps to inform future policy development.

14th Apr 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what guidance her Department issues to faith schools on the implications of the UK's human rights obligations under international law for their admissions policies.

Like all other mainstream state funded schools, schools designated with a religious character, commonly known as faith schools, must admit all children who apply, without reference to faith, where there are places available. Where they are oversubscribed, they may give priority for places to applicants on the basis of faith. No parent is required to provide information on their membership or practice of the faith when applying to a faith school, although they may not then be eligible for priority under any faith oversubscription criteria.

The Department does not intend to remove faith schools’ ability to set faith-based oversubscription criteria. Faith-based oversubscription criteria provide a means to support parents to have their children educated in line with their religious and philosophical beliefs, where they wish to do so.

The admission authority of a faith school is responsible for setting their admission arrangements and deciding whether or not to use faith-based oversubscription criteria.

The Department issues the statutory School Admissions Code which applies to all mainstream state funded schools, including faith schools, and places requirements on admission authorities about their arrangements and what they may ask from parents as part of the admissions process. The Code also signposts other relevant laws which admission authorities must comply with, including the Human Rights Act 1998.

In constructing any faith oversubscription criteria, a faith school’s admission authority must have regard to any guidance from the body or person representing the religion or religious denomination, to the extent that the guidance complies with the Code. They must also consult with the religious body when deciding how membership or practice of the faith is to be demonstrated. Ultimately, the admission authority must ensure its arrangements comply with the Code and other relevant legislation, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.

Anyone who is concerned that a school’s admission arrangements are unfair or unlawful is encouraged to refer an objection to the independent Schools Adjudicator, whose decision is binding and enforceable. The Government does not routinely make an assessment of the impact of individual faith schools’ admissions criteria. All legislation, including admissions law, must be compatible with equalities and human rights law.

The Department has no current plans to introduce more specific requirements for faith school admissions beyond those already set out in law. The Department routinely considers reports and guidance from stakeholders and other bodies, such as the report issued by the National Secular Society. All such information helps to inform future policy development.

14th Apr 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the impact of faith schools setting admissions criteria relating to families' private lives on those families.

Like all other mainstream state funded schools, schools designated with a religious character, commonly known as faith schools, must admit all children who apply, without reference to faith, where there are places available. Where they are oversubscribed, they may give priority for places to applicants on the basis of faith. No parent is required to provide information on their membership or practice of the faith when applying to a faith school, although they may not then be eligible for priority under any faith oversubscription criteria.

The Department does not intend to remove faith schools’ ability to set faith-based oversubscription criteria. Faith-based oversubscription criteria provide a means to support parents to have their children educated in line with their religious and philosophical beliefs, where they wish to do so.

The admission authority of a faith school is responsible for setting their admission arrangements and deciding whether or not to use faith-based oversubscription criteria.

The Department issues the statutory School Admissions Code which applies to all mainstream state funded schools, including faith schools, and places requirements on admission authorities about their arrangements and what they may ask from parents as part of the admissions process. The Code also signposts other relevant laws which admission authorities must comply with, including the Human Rights Act 1998.

In constructing any faith oversubscription criteria, a faith school’s admission authority must have regard to any guidance from the body or person representing the religion or religious denomination, to the extent that the guidance complies with the Code. They must also consult with the religious body when deciding how membership or practice of the faith is to be demonstrated. Ultimately, the admission authority must ensure its arrangements comply with the Code and other relevant legislation, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.

Anyone who is concerned that a school’s admission arrangements are unfair or unlawful is encouraged to refer an objection to the independent Schools Adjudicator, whose decision is binding and enforceable. The Government does not routinely make an assessment of the impact of individual faith schools’ admissions criteria. All legislation, including admissions law, must be compatible with equalities and human rights law.

The Department has no current plans to introduce more specific requirements for faith school admissions beyond those already set out in law. The Department routinely considers reports and guidance from stakeholders and other bodies, such as the report issued by the National Secular Society. All such information helps to inform future policy development.

14th Apr 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the national secular society report entitled how state school admissions policies enable coercive control in religious communities, published in February 2023, whether she has made an assessment of the implications for her policies of that report's findings on admissions requirements for state-funded faith schools.

Like all other mainstream state funded schools, schools designated with a religious character, commonly known as faith schools, must admit all children who apply, without reference to faith, where there are places available. Where they are oversubscribed, they may give priority for places to applicants on the basis of faith. No parent is required to provide information on their membership or practice of the faith when applying to a faith school, although they may not then be eligible for priority under any faith oversubscription criteria.

The Department does not intend to remove faith schools’ ability to set faith-based oversubscription criteria. Faith-based oversubscription criteria provide a means to support parents to have their children educated in line with their religious and philosophical beliefs, where they wish to do so.

The admission authority of a faith school is responsible for setting their admission arrangements and deciding whether or not to use faith-based oversubscription criteria.

The Department issues the statutory School Admissions Code which applies to all mainstream state funded schools, including faith schools, and places requirements on admission authorities about their arrangements and what they may ask from parents as part of the admissions process. The Code also signposts other relevant laws which admission authorities must comply with, including the Human Rights Act 1998.

In constructing any faith oversubscription criteria, a faith school’s admission authority must have regard to any guidance from the body or person representing the religion or religious denomination, to the extent that the guidance complies with the Code. They must also consult with the religious body when deciding how membership or practice of the faith is to be demonstrated. Ultimately, the admission authority must ensure its arrangements comply with the Code and other relevant legislation, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.

Anyone who is concerned that a school’s admission arrangements are unfair or unlawful is encouraged to refer an objection to the independent Schools Adjudicator, whose decision is binding and enforceable. The Government does not routinely make an assessment of the impact of individual faith schools’ admissions criteria. All legislation, including admissions law, must be compatible with equalities and human rights law.

The Department has no current plans to introduce more specific requirements for faith school admissions beyond those already set out in law. The Department routinely considers reports and guidance from stakeholders and other bodies, such as the report issued by the National Secular Society. All such information helps to inform future policy development.

14th Apr 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will take steps to ban school admissions policies that require women to dress modestly.

Like all other mainstream state funded schools, schools designated with a religious character, commonly known as faith schools, must admit all children who apply, without reference to faith, where there are places available. Where they are oversubscribed, they may give priority for places to applicants on the basis of faith. No parent is required to provide information on their membership or practice of the faith when applying to a faith school, although they may not then be eligible for priority under any faith oversubscription criteria.

The Department does not intend to remove faith schools’ ability to set faith-based oversubscription criteria. Faith-based oversubscription criteria provide a means to support parents to have their children educated in line with their religious and philosophical beliefs, where they wish to do so.

The admission authority of a faith school is responsible for setting their admission arrangements and deciding whether or not to use faith-based oversubscription criteria.

The Department issues the statutory School Admissions Code which applies to all mainstream state funded schools, including faith schools, and places requirements on admission authorities about their arrangements and what they may ask from parents as part of the admissions process. The Code also signposts other relevant laws which admission authorities must comply with, including the Human Rights Act 1998.

In constructing any faith oversubscription criteria, a faith school’s admission authority must have regard to any guidance from the body or person representing the religion or religious denomination, to the extent that the guidance complies with the Code. They must also consult with the religious body when deciding how membership or practice of the faith is to be demonstrated. Ultimately, the admission authority must ensure its arrangements comply with the Code and other relevant legislation, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.

Anyone who is concerned that a school’s admission arrangements are unfair or unlawful is encouraged to refer an objection to the independent Schools Adjudicator, whose decision is binding and enforceable. The Government does not routinely make an assessment of the impact of individual faith schools’ admissions criteria. All legislation, including admissions law, must be compatible with equalities and human rights law.

The Department has no current plans to introduce more specific requirements for faith school admissions beyond those already set out in law. The Department routinely considers reports and guidance from stakeholders and other bodies, such as the report issued by the National Secular Society. All such information helps to inform future policy development.

14th Jul 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate he has made of the number of pupils unable to access their nearest school because of religiously selective admissions.

The majority of parents are offered a place at a school of their choice. In 2021, 98% of parents received an offer from one of their top three choices of primary school, while 93.4% received offers from one of their top three choices of secondary school.

The Department has not made an estimate of the number of pupils with no reasonable choice other than to attend a faith school due to a lack of secular provision in their area, or an estimate of the number of pupils unable to access their nearest school because of religiously selective admissions.

Local authorities have a duty to provide sufficient school places in their area. Faith schools have played an important role in our education system for many years. Faith schools are popular with parents and are more likely than other schools to be rated by Ofsted as Good or Outstanding.

Faith schools are allowed to give priority to children of their faith where they are oversubscribed. Of those that do, some choose to allocate only a certain percentage of their places with reference to faith, while others do not have faith admissions criteria at all.

14th Jul 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate he has made of the number of pupils with no reasonable choice other than to attend a faith school due to lack of secular provision in their area.

The majority of parents are offered a place at a school of their choice. In 2021, 98% of parents received an offer from one of their top three choices of primary school, while 93.4% received offers from one of their top three choices of secondary school.

The Department has not made an estimate of the number of pupils with no reasonable choice other than to attend a faith school due to a lack of secular provision in their area, or an estimate of the number of pupils unable to access their nearest school because of religiously selective admissions.

Local authorities have a duty to provide sufficient school places in their area. Faith schools have played an important role in our education system for many years. Faith schools are popular with parents and are more likely than other schools to be rated by Ofsted as Good or Outstanding.

Faith schools are allowed to give priority to children of their faith where they are oversubscribed. Of those that do, some choose to allocate only a certain percentage of their places with reference to faith, while others do not have faith admissions criteria at all.

14th Jul 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what steps he has taken to protect the secular ethos of (a) non-faith and (a) community-ethos academies entering into mixed-multi academy trusts.

Non-faith or community-ethos schools have different characteristics, particularly in relation to governance, compared to schools with a religious designation. Their secular character and ethos are protected regardless of which type of multi-academy trust they join.

The academy trust’s charitable object is to recognise and support a school’s individual ethos. This places an obligation on the trust and its board to ensure that a non-faith or community school’s character is safeguarded in a mixed multi-academy trust.

The supplemental funding agreement, a contract between my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education, and academy trusts, has recently been updated to include clauses to protect the local governance arrangements of a non-faith or community school joining a mixed multi-academy trust.

28th Apr 2020
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether it remains his Department's policy that statutory relationships and sex education will be implemented in schools from September 2020.

The Department is giving due consideration to the implementation of the statutory relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) curriculum in the context of COVID-19. There is no intention to change the regulatory requirements for the implementation of RSHE.

The Department continues to work with key stakeholders and subject experts to develop a comprehensive programme of support for schools which includes a digital service to be delivered through GOV.UK.

13th Nov 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether he has had recent discussions with (a) the Food Standards Agency and (b) its advisory committees on its guidance on the acceptable daily intake of cannabidiol (CBD) for consumers, published on 12 October 2023.

The Secretary of State has regular discussions with the Government’s arm’s-length bodies, including the Food Standards Agency, on a range of issues.

Mark Spencer
Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
21st Feb 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make an assessment of the implications for her policies of the finding in research by NFU Mutual, published on 7 February 2023, that 39 per cent of dog owners surveyed stated that their dog does not always respond to their command to return; if she will take steps to increase the number of dogs receiving training to prevent sheep worrying; and whether her Department has conducted research on the potential impact of such training on the number of dog attacks on sheep.

In December 2021, Defra published research in collaboration with Middlesex University investigating measures to reduce dog attacks and promote responsible dog ownership. In response to this research, we have established a Responsible Dog Ownership working group involving police, local authorities and animal welfare organisations which is considering the report’s recommendations, including those relating to dog training. This research did not specifically address the impact of training on the number of dog attacks on sheep.

Currently it is an offence for a person to allow their dog to chase or attack livestock on any agricultural land – that includes where a dog is at large in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep.

The Government maintains that it is best practice to keep a dog on a lead around livestock. The Countryside Code advises dog walkers to always check local signs as there are situations where this is already a legal requirement for all or part of the year.

Mark Spencer
Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
30th Jan 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to the finding of the National Police Chiefs' Council Livestock Worrying Working Group that the dog was unaccompanied in most livestock worrying incidents, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of promoting livestock aversion training courses for dogs.

The statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs includes guidance and reminders for owners about their responsibilities to provide for the welfare needs of their animals and to keep their dogs safe and under control. Natural England have also published a refreshed version of the Countryside Code, which helpfully sets out certain legal requirements and provides advice on controlling dogs around livestock.

Training dogs is important to help them learn to behave appropriately and to make it easier to keep them under control. It is important to seek professional advice to identify/discuss any behaviour problems and the best training options for your dog as an incorrect training regime can negatively affect a dog’s welfare. Reward based training which includes the use of things that dogs like or want is widely regarded as the preferred form of training dogs.

Mark Spencer
Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
30th Jan 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of amending the code of practices for the welfare of animals to include guidance on (a) invisible containment fence systems for livestock, (b) invisible containment fence systems for pets and (c) remote electronic training collars for dogs.

Defra’s codes of practice provide owners and keepers with information on how to meet the welfare needs of their animals, as required under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The codes of practice are kept under review and updated in line with legislative developments and changes in animal welfare practice.

Mark Spencer
Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
8th Dec 2022
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department (a) holds any data and (b) has conducted any research on the number of dogs injured by e-collars.

The best proven method of preventing a dog from attacking livestock is to keep the dog on a lead when exercising around other animals, as advised by farmers and other keepers of livestock. The statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs includes guidance on how to keep dogs safe and under control. The code is available here: Code of practice for the welfare of dogs - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Defra’s research into electric shock collars is available here: Science Search (defra.gov.uk) .

Mark Spencer
Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
8th Jun 2022
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to letter TO2018/02940/MO sent by his Department in February 2018, on electronic training aids for dogs under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, if he will make an assessment of scientific evidence published since 2018 on the potential merits of banning on e-collars for dogs.

Following a consultation in 2018, and as set out in our Action Plan for Animal Welfare, the Government decided to ban electric shock collars controlled by hand-held devices in England, under new legislation which should be introduced this year, given their scope to harm cats and dogs.

We have listened carefully to a range of views from pet owners and respondents, as well as consulting key stakeholders including animal welfare charities, e-collar manufacturers, and trainers who use e-collars.

The proposed ban on the use of electric shock collars controlled by hand-held devices was developed after considering a broad range of factors, including the impact of a ban. When considered alongside the academic research, the public consultation responses, and direct engagement with the sector, the Government concluded that these types of electric shock collars present an unacceptable risk to the welfare of dogs and cats and that their use should not be permitted.

Defra-commissioned research (AW1402 and AW1402a) revealed that many e-collar users were not using them properly and in compliance with the manufacturers' instructions. As well as being misused to inflict unnecessary harm, there is also concern that e-collars can redirect aggression or generate anxiety-based behaviour in pets, making underlying behavioural and health problems worse.

The statutory Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs includes guidance and reminders for owners about their responsibilities to provide for the welfare needs of their animal, but also to keep their dogs safe and under control.

Victoria Prentis
Attorney General
18th May 2022
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of alternatives to e-collars for dogs on reducing the instances of dogs attacking livestock.

The Government takes the issue of livestock worrying very seriously, recognising the distress this can cause farmers and animals, as well as the financial implications. New measures to crack down on livestock worrying in England and Wales are to be brought in through the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which was introduced in Parliament on 8 June 2021. The new measures will enhance enforcement mechanisms available to the police and expand the scope of livestock species and locations covered by the law.

Meanwhile we maintain that it is best practice to keep your dog on a lead around livestock. Natural England recently published a refreshed version of the Countryside Code, which highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock. The Code also makes specific reference to keeping dogs in sight and under control to make sure they stay away from livestock, wildlife, horses and other people unless invited. Moreover, the Code helpfully sets out certain legal requirements, encouraging visitors to always check local signs as there are locations where you must keep your dog on a lead around livestock for all or part of the year.

Following a consultation in 2018, and as set out in our Action Plan for Animal Welfare, the Government decided to ban electric shock collars controlled by hand-held devices in England under new legislation which should be introduced this year, given their scope to harm cats and dogs.

The proposed ban on the use of these electric shock collars was developed after considering a broad range of factors, including the impact of a ban. When considered alongside the academic research, the public consultation responses, and direct engagement with the sector, the Government concluded that these electric shock collars present an unacceptable risk to the welfare of dogs and cats and that their use should not be permitted.

Victoria Prentis
Attorney General
29th Apr 2020
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps she is taking to ensure that support for LGBT+ initiatives are adequately resourced during the covid-19 outbreak.

Working on LGBT rights is essential to meet DFID’s vision of a world where no one is left behind. This is central to the Global Goals and a secure and prosperous world. Organisations implementing LGBT initiatives are facing significant challenges as a result of COVID-19. DFID supports many programmes on access to services for all, including vulnerable and persecuted minorities, promotion and protection of rights and tackling stigma and discrimination. These programmes include initiatives on LGBT inclusion. DFID is in discussion with partners to find flexible solutions to ensure they can use the resources allocated to implement these programmes effectively.

28th Apr 2020
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what steps she is taking to ensure that the most vulnerable LGBTI+ people in developing countries (a) have fair and equal access and (b) receive non-discriminatory treatment in clinics and other healthcare settings in relation to (i) covid-19, (ii) hormone, (ii) antiretroviral, (iii) PrEP, (iv) PEP and (v) condom provision during the covid-19 pandemic.

The UK Government works to ensure that all aid reaches the most vulnerable including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Vulnerable populations will experience COVID 19 outbreaks differently. COVID 19 is likely to reinforce their marginalised position in society, their experience of discrimination, violence and stigma, and further limit their access to essential support and services. For this reason, on 9 April, further guidance was circulated across DFID highlighting that inclusion must be central to our response to COVID 19 and the specific contexts and needs of vulnerable people such as LGBT people should be taken into account when developing practical programmes to tackle COVID 19.

8th Jul 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he plans to make a decision on whether people who are double-vaccinated can be exempt from covid-19 quarantine measures.

From 19 July, arrivals who have been fully vaccinated through the UK vaccination programme (plus 14 days) will not have to self-isolate or take a day 8 test when travelling to England from amber list countries. There are no changes to the green or red list, or for those arriving from countries on these lists.

Robert Courts
Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
8th Jul 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what methodology his Department uses to allocate countries to the green, amber and red travel lists; and if he will publish that methodology.

Decisions on Red, Amber or Green List assignment and associated border measures are taken by Ministers, who take into account the JBC risk assessments, alongside wider public health factors.

Key factors in the JBC risk assessment of each country include:

  • genomic surveillance capability
  • COVID-19 transmission risk
  • Variant of Concern transmission risk

A summary of the JBC methodology is published on gov.uk, alongside key data that supports Ministers' decisions.

Robert Courts
Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
17th Jul 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of psilocybin on the (a) health and (b) ability to work of people with long term health conditions; and whether his Department is taking steps to support research into these areas.

No assessment has been made by the Department for Work and Pensions of the potential impact of psilocybin on the health, or ability to work, of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.

The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health. This includes the potential impact of psilocybin on the health and ability to work of people with long-term health conditions. Applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money and scientific quality.

Tom Pursglove
Minister of State (Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery)
10th Dec 2020
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people have had a Pension Wise guidance appointment (a) by telephone and (b) in person in the South East between April 2019 and March 2020.

The Money and Pensions Service publishes data on pension wise appointments across 2019-2020 here:

https://moneyandpensionsservice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Pension-Wise-Service-Evaluation-report-2019-2020.pdf

Guy Opperman
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
10th Dec 2020
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people have had a Pension Wise guidance appointment (a) by telephone and (b) in person in Reigate constituency between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2020.

The Money and Pensions Service publishes data on pension wise appointments across 2019-2020 here:

https://moneyandpensionsservice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Pension-Wise-Service-Evaluation-report-2019-2020.pdf

Guy Opperman
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
15th Nov 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if she will publish all the scientific data supporting the findings in the Joint position paper from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) and Committee on Toxicity (COT) on establishing a provisional acceptable daily intake (ADI) for pure form (≥98%) cannabidiol (CBD) in foods, based on new evidence, which was published on 12 October 2023.

The scientific data was summarised in the joint position paper from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and Committee on Toxicity, which is available at the following link:

https://acnfp.food.gov.uk/JointpositionpaperfromACNFP%26COTonestablishingprovisionalADIforpureformCBDinfoods

Further detailed information will be published on the Food Standards Agency’s website in safety assessments relating to the novel foods applications for cannabidiol, as required by Article 23 4 (e) of Novel Foods Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, which are in preparation.

Andrea Leadsom
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
17th Jul 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will take steps to increase the level of research into the use of psilocybin for the treatment of (a) depression, (b) addiction and (c) other chronic conditions on health inequalities; and if he will take steps to fund research into the use of psilocybin.

The Department commissions research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), who have invested £1.1 million in a randomised controlled trial to examine if it is feasible, safe and effective to use psilocybin to treat people with treatment-resistant depression. NIHR welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including the use of psilocybin in the treatment of depression, addiction and other chronic conditions. Applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money and scientific quality.

NIHR infrastructure is supporting psilocybin research via the NIHR King’s Clinical Research Facility and the NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre where researchers are developing and evaluating the efficacy and safety of psilocybin therapy for use in the National Health Service and other healthcare settings.

18th Jan 2023
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the paper entitled Single-Dose Psilocybin for a Treatment-Resistant Episode of Major Depression, published in 2022, if he will ask the Chief Medical Officer to assess the (a) medicinal and (b) therapeutic utility of psilocybin.

As it says in the conclusion of the paper “Larger and longer trials, including comparison with existing treatments, are required to determine the efficacy and safety of psilocybin for this disorder.” When new treatments are sufficiently developed, there are existing mechanisms in the United Kingdom to licence those treatments and determine their cost effectiveness and use. These are the correct routes to follow, once the evidence is sufficiently developed.

15th Jun 2022
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, for what reason his Department took more than five months to reply to correspondence from the hon. Member for Reigate sent on 5 December 2021 on behalf of a constituent regarding student nurse placement hours.

In 2021, the Department received over 43,500 items of correspondence – an increase of almost four times compared to 2019. While we endeavour to reply to cases within 20 working days, the increased volumes of correspondence have led to backlog of cases, which officials are addressing as quickly as possible. We are committed to restoring our response times for correspondence to pre-pandemic levels.

Edward Argar
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
30th Nov 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the findings of a February 2021 British Medical Journal report on sexual and reproductive health that 89 per cent of women who have used the telemedicine service for early medical abortion have reported that they would opt to have treatment at home again if necessary and a February 2021 report published by the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology that complications due to abortion have decreased since that service was introduced, if he will make it his policy to make that service permanent.

We are considering all evidence submitted to the Government’s public consultation on whether to make permanent the temporary measure allowing for home use of both pills for early medical abortion. We will publish our response in due course.

11th Jun 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what risk assessment he has made of the implications of ending UK participation with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) European Drug Report 2021; and on what basis the UK Government has withdrawn from participation, in the context of EU membership not being a requirement.

In line with the Withdrawal Agreement, the United Kingdom ceased to be a member of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addition (EMCDDA) on 31 January 2020. As the UK is no longer a member of EMCDDA, it does not take part in the annual reporting process.

The UK continues to have strong domestic drugs monitoring and surveillance systems, augmented through our sharing of information and expertise with international partners, including the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the World Health Organization.

Jo Churchill
Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
7th Jun 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what recent assessment he has made of (a) the likelihood of alcohol and tobacco being misused, (b) the risk of alcohol and tobacco misuse causing harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem and (c) the effectiveness of excluding alcohol and tobacco from control of harmful drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

No recent assessment has been made.

The Government is committed to supporting the most vulnerable at risk from alcohol misuse, including through establishing alcohol care teams in hospitals and supporting children of alcohol dependent parents. We will be publishing a new Tobacco Control Plan later this year setting out plans for England to become a smoke-free country by 2030.

Jo Churchill
Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
10th Dec 2020
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether (a) his Department and (b) NHS England undertook an equalities impact assessment of the amendments to NHS England’s service specification for Gender Identity Development Services for children and adolescents published on 1 December 2020; and if he will make a statement.

No equalities impact assessment was undertaken by the Department or NHS England and NHS Improvement.

NHS England and NHS Improvement took immediate action following the High Court Ruling on 1 December. Their amendment to the service specification for gender identity services for children and young people was published on the day of the judgement in order to protect patients and clinicians given the significant safeguarding, clinical and legal issues raised. The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust will be conducting a clinical risk assessment of every young person who is immediately affected by the decision.

Jo Churchill
Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
8th Dec 2020
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps his Department and NHS England are taking to support the mental health and wellbeing of patients whose treatment has been suspended or cancelled following the judgment in Bell v Tavistock.

The Gender Identity Development Service will ensure that appropriate psychosocial support and psychological therapies are available to patients who are removed from puberty blockers, as well as to their families and carers.

Jo Churchill
Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
8th Dec 2020
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps his Department and NHS England are taking to ensure continuity of care for patients affected by the recent court ruling in Bell v Tavistock.

A full clinical review must be carried out for all patients under the age of 16 years old who are currently receiving puberty blockers. If the patient intends to continue on puberty blockers or progress onto cross sex hormones, the lead clinician must make a ‘best interests’ application to the Court for final determination of that individual’s needs. No patients will have puberty blockers withdrawn unless, as a result of the clinical review, a clinical decision, in consultation with the patient, is made to withdraw puberty blockers, or a court considers a ‘best interest’ decision and decides it is not in the patient’s interest to remain on puberty blockers.

Jo Churchill
Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
8th Dec 2020
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether (a) his Department and (b) NHS England undertook an equalities impact assessment of the amendments to NHS England’s service specification for Gender Identity Development Services for children and adolescents published on 1 December 2020; and if he will make a statement.

No equalities impact assessment was undertaken by the Department or NHS England and NHS Improvement.

NHS England and NHS Improvement took immediate action following the High Court Ruling on 1 December. Their amendment to the service specification for gender identity services for children and young people was published on the day of the judgement in order to protect patients and clinicians given the significant safeguarding, clinical and legal issues raised. The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust will be conducting a clinical risk assessment of every young person who is immediately affected by the decision.

Jo Churchill
Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
12th Nov 2020
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the letter of 16 October 2020 from the Minister with responsibility for drugs to the hon. Member for Reigate, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of emerging evidence on the use of Psylocybin in the treatment of depression and trauma.

The Government has made no recent assessment of the potential merits of rescheduling psilocybin, which remains a Schedule 1 substance under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (the 2001 Regulations).

Ministers continue to take a close interest in any new evidence relating to controlled drugs and they would seek expert advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs before making any amendments to the 2001 Regulations.

Jo Churchill
Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
19th Oct 2020
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 16 October 2020 to Question 98661 on Funerals: Coronavirus, what is defined as a funeral for the purposes of covid-19 restrictions on attendance, and what the policy is on multiple events for one deceased individual.

The current restrictions on social contact include an exemption for gathering to attend a funeral. Such a gathering can include no more than 30 people and must be held at a COVID-19 secure venue, not a private dwelling.

A ‘commemorative event following a person’s death’ may be held following the funeral including a wake, stone setting or scattering of ashes. Commemorative events are limited to 15 people and also must be held at a COVID-19 secure venue and not a private dwelling.