1-20 of 730 results for subject:Vetting
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.445 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.012 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Vetting
- We searched for
- subject_t:Vetting OR subject_t:Blacklisting OR subject_t:"Positive vetting" OR subject_ses:93418
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
This briefing provides an overview of a range of key statutory employment rights in Great Britain, including unfair dismissal, deduction from wages and working time.
This briefing provides an overview of a range of key statutory employment rights in Great Britain, including unfair dismissal, deduction from wages and working time.
New clause 50 debated and negatived on division (4 to 9). New clause 51 debated and withdrawn. New clause 52 negatived on division (1 to 9). New clause 56 negatived on division (1 to 9). New clause 57, discussed with new clauses 58 and 104, debated and withdrawn. New clause 66 debated and negatived on division (4 to 8). New clause 72 debated and negatived on division (2 to 9). New clause 76 negatived on division (1 to 13). New clause 77 debated and withdrawn. New clause 81, discussed with new clause 82, debated and negatived on division (4 to 9). New clause 82 negatived on division (4 to 9). New clause 83 debated and negatived on division (4 to 10). New clause 84 negatived on division (5 to 9). New clause 85, discussed with new clause 98, debated and negatived on division (5 to 9). New clause 86 debated and negatived on division (4 to 9). New clause 87, discussed with new clause 113, debated and negatived on division (5 to 9). New clause 96, discussed with new clause 97, debated and withdrawn. New clause 97 negatived on division (5 to 9). New clause 98 negatived on division (5 to 9). New clause 99 debated and negatived on division (4 to 9). New clause 101 debated and negatived on division (4 to 9). New clause 104 negatived on division (5 to 9). New clause 105, discussed with new clause 106, debated and negatived on division (4 to 9). New clause 106 negatived on division (4 to 9). New clause 108, discussed with new clause 109, debated and withdrawn. New clause 109 negatived on division (5 to 9). New clause 112, discussed with new clauses 110 and 111, debated and negatived on division (4 to 9). New schedule 1 agreed to. Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to. Clause 70, as amended, agreed to. Amendment 37 to clause 71 negatived on division (4 to 9). Amendment 38 to clause 71 negatived on division (4 to 9). Amendment 39 to clause 71 negatived on division (5 to 9). Clause 71, as amended, agreed to. Clause 72 agreed to. Bill, as amended, to be reported (Bill 131). Written evidence reported to the House.
New clause 50 debated and negatived on division (4 to 9). New clause 51 debated and withdrawn. New clause 52 negatived on division (1 to 9). New clause 56 negatived on division (1 to 9). New clause 57, discussed with new clauses 58 and 104, debated and withdrawn. New clause...
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they conducted an Equality Impact Assessment of the prison service instruction and probation service instruction Security Vetting: PSI 07/2014, PI 03/2014 for (1) prisons, (2) HM Prison and Probation Service, and (3) providers of probation services.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they conducted an Equality Impact Assessment of the prison service instruction and probation service instruction Security Vetting: PSI 07/2014, PI 03/2014 for (1) prisons, (2) HM Prison and Probation Service, and (3) providers of probation services.
All Ministry of Justice policies are subject to equality considerations, and an Equality Impact Assessment is completed before publication where required.
PSI 07/2014, PI 03/2014 is a long-standing policy that was first published in 2014 and applies to staff and workers across prisons, HMPPS and providers of probation services. The policy is currently being revised and, as part of the redevelopment process, impacts on affected individuals will be considered. Any new policy will be subject to the appropriate Equality Impact Assessment requirements prior to publication.
The specific findings of the assessment undertaken when the policy was published are not currently in the public domain. HMPPS is unable to establish the detail of those findings in a timely manner as accurate, reliable data.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have conducted an Equality Impact Assessment of the prison service instruction and probation service instruction Security Vetting: PSI 07/2014, PI 03/2014; what assessment was made of the impact of the framework on women; and what conclusions were reached.
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have conducted an Equality Impact Assessment of the prison service instruction and probation service instruction Security Vetting: PSI 07/2014, PI 03/2014; what assessment was made of the impact of the framework on women; and what conclusions were reached.
All Ministry of Justice policies are subject to equality considerations, and an Equality Impact Assessment is completed before publication where required.
PSI 07/2014, PI 03/2014 is a long-standing policy that was first published in 2014 and applies to staff and workers across prisons, HMPPS and providers of probation services. The policy is currently being revised and, as part of the redevelopment process, impacts on affected individuals will be considered. Any new policy will be subject to the appropriate Equality Impact Assessment requirements prior to publication.
The specific findings of the assessment undertaken when the policy was published are not currently in the public domain. HMPPS is unable to establish the detail of those findings in a timely manner as accurate, reliable data.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they made, during the development of the prison service instruction and probation service instruction Security Vetting: PSI 07/2014, PI 03/2014, of the potential impact on individuals already employed by (1) prisons, (2) HM Prison and Probation Service, and (3) providers of probation services.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they made, during the development of the prison service instruction and probation service instruction Security Vetting: PSI 07/2014, PI 03/2014, of the potential impact on individuals already employed by (1) prisons, (2) HM Prison and Probation Service, and (3) providers of probation services.
All Ministry of Justice policies are subject to equality considerations, and an Equality Impact Assessment is completed before publication where required.
PSI 07/2014, PI 03/2014 is a long-standing policy that was first published in 2014 and applies to staff and workers across prisons, HMPPS and providers of probation services. The policy is currently being revised and, as part of the redevelopment process, impacts on affected individuals will be considered. Any new policy will be subject to the appropriate Equality Impact Assessment requirements prior to publication.
The specific findings of the assessment undertaken when the policy was published are not currently in the public domain. HMPPS is unable to establish the detail of those findings in a timely manner as accurate, reliable data.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what research he has undertaken into (a) inequalities in the criminal justice system and (b) the impact of DBS checks on those inequalities.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what research he has undertaken into (a) inequalities in the criminal justice system and (b) the impact of DBS checks on those inequalities.
Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system. We are committed to working in partnership with ethnic minority communities, stakeholders and delivery partners to seize opportunities and remove barriers to racial equality across the UK and to hear people’s lived experiences.
Data First is a pioneering data-linkage, research and academic engagement programme, led by the Ministry of Justice. By making linked data across courts, prison and probation services available to accredited academic researchers, Data First continues to facilitate new research on the nature and extent of ethnic disparities in sentencing outcomes that has not been possible before.
DBS checks and the wider criminal records regime must strike a balance between safeguarding and rehabilitation, but we recognise the different ways that they can impact on an individual’s life. Sir Brian Leveson’s recent independent review of the Criminal Courts also highlighted these impacts. On 2 December 2025, the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement, that we are considering Sir Brian’s recommendation, including opportunities to simplify the regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.
Amendment 137 to schedule 5 negatived on division (5 to 11). Amendment 136 to schedule 5 negatived on division (3 to 11). Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to. Clause 21 agreed to. Amendment 107 to clause 22 negatived on division (2 to 13). Amendment 108 to clause 22 negatived on division (2 to 13). Amendment 109 to clause 22 negatived on division (2 to 13). Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to. Schedule 6 agreed to. Clause 25 agreed to. Clause 26, discussed with new clauses 8 and 15, agreed to. Clauses 27 to 36 agreed to. Written evidence reported to the House.
Amendment 137 to schedule 5 negatived on division (5 to 11). Amendment 136 to schedule 5 negatived on division (3 to 11). Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to. Clause 21 agreed to. Amendment 107 to clause 22 negatived on division (2 to 13). Amendment 108 to clause 22 negatived on...
Clauses 50-58, 60-71 agreed to. Clause 59, as amended, agreed to. Clause 57, amendment 167, negatived on division (4 to 11).
Clauses 50-58, 60-71 agreed to. Clause 59, as amended, agreed to. Clause 57, amendment 167, negatived on division (4 to 11).
Lords committee stage sixth day. Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to. Schedule 6 agreed to. Clauses 25 to 52 agreed to. Clause 53 under consideration. (Part 1 of 2).
Lords committee stage sixth day. Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to. Schedule 6 agreed to. Clauses 25 to 52 agreed to. Clause 53 under consideration. (Part 1 of 2).
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, in this matter. It cannot possibly be fair to have a regulatory system in which, if the regulator does not perform and reach a decision within the specified time, for reasons that are not the...
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, in this matter. It cannot possibly be fair to have a regulatory system in which, if the regulator does not perform and reach a decision within the specified time, for reasons that are not the...
I am sorry to intervene so early, but the noble Baroness has said something quite stark. The policy of the United Kingdom is very clear in relation to the Russian Federation at the moment. Roman Abramovich was sanctioned because of the UK’s very clear position and the ownership of Chelsea...
I am sorry to intervene so early, but the noble Baroness has said something quite stark. The policy of the United Kingdom is very clear in relation to the Russian Federation at the moment. Roman Abramovich was sanctioned because of the UK’s very clear position and the ownership of Chelsea...
The noble Lord has pre-empted the further comments that I was going on to make. I can address this here. Clearly, in the example that is given regarding Russia, anyone connected to a state that is subject to sanctions would not pass the test. That is a straightforward way of...
The noble Lord has pre-empted the further comments that I was going on to make. I can address this here. Clearly, in the example that is given regarding Russia, anyone connected to a state that is subject to sanctions would not pass the test. That is a straightforward way of...
Can the Minister help me? She said she would comment on the amendments. What are her comments on Amendment 192, tabled by my noble friend Lord Addington, which would require the Bill’s propriety test to include equality, diversity and inclusion? We had a long and wide-ranging discussion on that the...
Can the Minister help me? She said she would comment on the amendments. What are her comments on Amendment 192, tabled by my noble friend Lord Addington, which would require the Bill’s propriety test to include equality, diversity and inclusion? We had a long and wide-ranging discussion on that the...
I am sorry that we have not had a fuller discussion on that, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his amendment and I agree that equality, diversity and inclusion are significant factors which the regulator has a duty to highlight. Equality, diversity and inclusion are not named...
I am sorry that we have not had a fuller discussion on that, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his amendment and I agree that equality, diversity and inclusion are significant factors which the regulator has a duty to highlight. Equality, diversity and inclusion are not named...
Could the noble Baroness say something about the UEFA letter which expresses its views on the Bill? Will she assure the Committee that a copy of this letter will speedily be sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and a copy put in the Library so that we know what...
Could the noble Baroness say something about the UEFA letter which expresses its views on the Bill? Will she assure the Committee that a copy of this letter will speedily be sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and a copy put in the Library so that we know what...
My understanding is that we will not be sending it, but I am sure there will be further clarification on this point.
My understanding is that we will not be sending it, but I am sure there will be further clarification on this point.
Can I ask why? This is a letter from the sports regulatory body that governs European football. Surely the Committee is entitled to know what its views are on the substance of the Bill we are debating.
Can I ask why? This is a letter from the sports regulatory body that governs European football. Surely the Committee is entitled to know what its views are on the substance of the Bill we are debating.
We have already covered this point. We are talking about a private letter to the Government. That is my understanding of the situation. I do not feel qualified to comment further at this stage.
We have already covered this point. We are talking about a private letter to the Government. That is my understanding of the situation. I do not feel qualified to comment further at this stage.
My Lords, I just want to say a word about Amendment 207. It talks about a club that is not a regulated club but bears a very similar resemblance to one that is in things such as the name, the shirt colours and things of that type—almost an imitation of...
My Lords, I just want to say a word about Amendment 207. It talks about a club that is not a regulated club but bears a very similar resemblance to one that is in things such as the name, the shirt colours and things of that type—almost an imitation of...