1-20 of 641 results for askedby:"Baroness Thornton"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.469 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.005 seconds
- Search query
- askedby:"Baroness Thornton"
- We searched for
- tablingMember_ses:303996 OR askingMember_ses:303996
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in supporting and funding the work of the British Council.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in supporting and funding the work of the British Council.
My Lords, I declare my interest: I was a board member of the British Council for 12 years—an unbroken record, I am told—many of them as a trustee, deputy chair and as acting chair.
The Government have increased funding for the British Council, and we are allocating it £173 million grant in aid per year until 2028-29. In addition, we have provided a one-off cash injection of £10 million this year to support the British Council to restructure its grant-funded operations, in line with its financial turnaround plan. We have also agreed to the British Council retaining the proceeds of asset sales of £60 million. These are significant increases, from the 2024-25 baseline of £162.5 million, when this Government took office. This is a very positive settlement for the British Council in what all noble Lords know are challenging fiscal circumstances.
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I have great affection and support for the British Council, having been a parliamentary ambassador for it for many years, and having met many incoming delegations over the years. What I did not hear in my noble friend’s Answer was a resolution of the punitive £200 million Covid-era solvency and restructuring loan handed to the British Council by the then Conservative Government. The costs are eye-watering: £15 million in interest every year before even making repayments. Can my noble friend tell me whether this is going to be resolved?
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I have great affection and support for the British Council, having been a parliamentary ambassador for it for many years, and having met many incoming delegations over the years. What I did not hear in my noble friend’s Answer was a resolution of the punitive £200 million Covid-era solvency and restructuring loan handed to the British Council by the then Conservative Government. The costs are eye-watering: £15 million in interest every year before even making repayments. Can my noble friend tell me whether this is going to be resolved?
As my noble friend knows, the loan was made on commercial terms to ensure compliance with the UK Subsidy Control Act, which means that interest rates are set at market rates. For the last five years, the British Council has made losses of around
£50 million per year, greatly in excess of the loan repayments. The priority, therefore, is for the British Council to address these ongoing commercial losses, return to surplus and implement its financial turnaround plan, to get itself back on to a long-term financially sustainable footing. In the meantime, the British Council continues to do excellent and important work, funded by grant in aid.
My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister a practical question relating to the place that we all work in? The Government have responsibilities not only for the Whitehall department but for the Palace of Westminster, which is, as noble Lords know, a grade 1 listed historic building, presenting a particular architectural challenge. Can my noble friend say whether guidance on implementing the judgment will include practical advice on accommodating third spaces in buildings where structural adaptation is constrained and whether we are going to receive that notice and advice in time to act on it? Indeed, will it be incorporated into the R&R proposals?
My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister a practical question relating to the place that we all work in? The Government have responsibilities not only for the Whitehall department but for the Palace of Westminster, which is, as noble Lords know, a grade 1 listed historic building, presenting a particular architectural challenge. Can my noble friend say whether guidance on implementing the judgment will include practical advice on accommodating third spaces in buildings where structural adaptation is constrained and whether we are going to receive that notice and advice in time to act on it? Indeed, will it be incorporated into the R&R proposals?
My noble friend will understand that I must declare an interest: I am on the programme board for R&R. The original legislation made it clear that accessibility and equality are key parts of the R&R programme. That is the most important thing. It is not simply about access to toilets; people cannot even get around this building, and that is an issue that we need to address. I am afraid I cannot be tempted to comment on the code. As my noble friend knows, that is now subject to purdah, but I can say that we have asked the EHRC to provide information on costs so that Ministers can make a fully informed decision. That is part of the process. We have asked the EHRC to provide a de minimis proportionate cost assessment so that Ministers can have sight of the cost implications that the guidance will incur when taking their decision.
My Lords, I would like to seek some clarification from my noble friend the Minister about this matter, because the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes adult capacity and the Care Act 2014 defines safeguarding thresholds, which my noble friend has outlined in some detail already. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that adults aged 18 to 25 referred to gender identity clinics are treated as autonomous patients without additional safeguarding measures beyond those which she has already outlined and apply to any competent adult?
My Lords, I would like to seek some clarification from my noble friend the Minister about this matter, because the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes adult capacity and the Care Act 2014 defines safeguarding thresholds, which my noble friend has outlined in some detail already. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that adults aged 18 to 25 referred to gender identity clinics are treated as autonomous patients without additional safeguarding measures beyond those which she has already outlined and apply to any competent adult?
Yes, I can assure my noble friend that patients are treated as individuals and their care is personalised. It is important, as my noble friend says, to recognise that the law presumes that patients aged 16 and over have capacity to consent to medical treatment. I can also give the reassurance, acknowledging as I have already that patients may have co-existing conditions that warrant additional safeguarding measures, that this will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I apologise to the House for my repeated appearances on this matter. Can my noble friend the Minister provide further clarity on the timeframe and next steps? It is already early 2026 and the consultation does not appear to be here yet. It is 13 years and counting since the Government acquired the right to legally recognise humanist marriages by order, and it is nearly six years since the High Court found the lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages to be discriminatory. Given the years of delay faced by humanist couples, can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that it will be our Labour Government who finally legally recognise humanist marriages, as has been done in Scotland and Northern Ireland in the interim while they have been looking at this matter? Perhaps she could meet with me to discuss in more detail the path to legal recognition.
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I apologise to the House for my repeated appearances on this matter. Can my noble friend the Minister provide further clarity on the timeframe and next steps? It is already early 2026 and the consultation does not appear to be here yet. It is 13 years and counting since the Government acquired the right to legally recognise humanist marriages by order, and it is nearly six years since the High Court found the lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages to be discriminatory. Given the years of delay faced by humanist couples, can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that it will be our Labour Government who finally legally recognise humanist marriages, as has been done in Scotland and Northern Ireland in the interim while they have been looking at this matter? Perhaps she could meet with me to discuss in more detail the path to legal recognition.
My noble friend should not apologise for raising this matter again; I think the entire House will want to thank her for her continued commitment to driving this forward. I had a feeling that, if my noble friend did not ask what “early” meant, somebody else would. I thought about replying “at pace” but then thought that that would make me deeply unpopular, so I am going for “as soon as possible”.
On a more serious point, my noble friend asked a number of questions which it is possible several other noble Lords may also wish to raise. The Government are not planning on using the order-making power. We do not want to create other inequalities with other groups; we want to make sure that there is a level playing field for all groups.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress and timetable towards legal humanist weddings.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress and timetable towards legal humanist weddings.
My Lords, the Government announced on 2 October last year that they intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. Our reforms will reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler and more modern, while protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, and this will include allowing humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will consult on the details early this year.
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether, and if so when and how, the learning from the results of the Better Start longitudinal programmes will become pregnancy and early years policy and be implemented.
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether, and if so when and how, the learning from the results of the Better Start longitudinal programmes will become pregnancy and early years policy and be implemented.
My Lords, we welcome the valuable learning that is emerging from the five Better Start partnerships and we look forward to the national evaluation report in the spring. The programmes provide important insights into early-years support in highly disadvantaged areas. Best Start Family Hubs and Healthy Babies already deliver a place-based prevention focus model. We will consider Best Start evidence, alongside other evaluations, as we develop policy to deliver a new neighbourhood health service and raise the healthiest generation of children ever.
I thank the Minister for that and declare an interest: my sister, Gill Thornton, is the director of Better Start Bradford, which is part of the £250 million programme funded by the National Lottery, with local funding too, for the last 10 years.
The model, which places children and family at the heart of service design, focuses on the first 1,001 days, which is critical because of the developmental window from conception to a child’s second birthday. I would like to hear how the Government will integrate this into their Best Start for Life programme.
I thank the Minister for that and declare an interest: my sister, Gill Thornton, is the director of Better Start Bradford, which is part of the £250 million programme funded by the National Lottery, with local funding too, for the last 10 years.
The model, which places children and family at the heart of service design, focuses on the first 1,001 days, which is critical because of the developmental window from conception to a child’s second birthday. I would like to hear how the Government will integrate this into their Best Start for Life programme.
The work in Bradford is to be commended. I can assure my noble friend that, through Best Start Family Hubs and Healthy Babies, local authorities will be expected to do exactly what the noble Baroness says is happening in Bradford: that is, to establish very inclusive and diverse routes for parent and carer participation. We want families to shape how services are set out and I absolutely agree that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life is a crucial and critical developmental window.
My Lords, proportionality, as I am sure the whole House recognises, is central to the Equality Act. But, of course, it will be difficult to apply. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that the Government promote a consistent and lawful understanding of proportionality across policy areas, particularly where rights appear to be in tension, while ensuring that decisions remain fair, evidence-based and respectful?
My Lords, proportionality, as I am sure the whole House recognises, is central to the Equality Act. But, of course, it will be difficult to apply. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that the Government promote a consistent and lawful understanding of proportionality across policy areas, particularly where rights appear to be in tension, while ensuring that decisions remain fair, evidence-based and respectful?
My Lords, that is an important principle in terms of the interpretation of law and the sometimes difficult ways in which law is applied. The For Women Scotland judgment on the definition of “sex” within the Equality Act was clear, but it is important that it is applied in a way that both has legal clarity and respects the rights and dignity of all those involved.
I commend my Government for the action they are taking on the Online Safety Act. It is a bit rich for the party opposite, who dragged their heels for several years, to talk about the implementation of this. I do not know how many noble Lords here would know how to download a VPN and then choose a country which has no age-verification rules. It is clear that there are teenagers who can do this. Is Ofcom researching this? Is it assessing these risks and will it be bringing forward solutions?
I commend my Government for the action they are taking on the Online Safety Act. It is a bit rich for the party opposite, who dragged their heels for several years, to talk about the implementation of this. I do not know how many noble Lords here would know how to download a VPN and then choose a country which has no age-verification rules. It is clear that there are teenagers who can do this. Is Ofcom researching this? Is it assessing these risks and will it be bringing forward solutions?
My noble friend highlights the complexity of some of these issues and the importance of understanding exactly the use of VPNs by adults and children, and whether they are indeed being used to circumvent the age-assurance aspects of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom, as it set out this morning, is researching the use of VPNs in many areas, particularly their use by children of all ages—older as well as younger children.
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they recognise dyscalculia as a learning difficulty, and what plans they have to support children who have it.
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they recognise dyscalculia as a learning difficulty, and what plans they have to support children who have it.
My Lords, we know that some children face real challenges in maths, particularly those with dyscalculia and other special educational needs. That is why we are supporting schools through our national RISE maths hubs, helping teachers deliver effective, inclusive lessons. Our Curriculum and Assessment Review is tackling attainment gaps for pupils with SEND, and in the new year we will publish a White Paper to build a system where every child receives early support so as to thrive.
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. For the edification of the House, dyscalculia is a specific difficulty in understanding numbers and number processes. It is 130 years since the term dyslexia was coined. In 1978, Baroness Mary Warnock was told by an education civil servant that she should not suggest that there is a special category of learning difficulty called dyslexia. Her report on special educational needs, of course, transformed that view. I rather hoped it would not take quite so long for the Government to properly recognise and integrate SEN support for the 6% of the population with dyscalculia. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that having children and young people struggling with numbers and maths is a huge problem for them as they become adults and seek work, and for future economic growth dependent on technology and innovation? Why would the Government take the risk of not recognising this as a learning difficulty and giving it the proper treatment it deserves?
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. For the edification of the House, dyscalculia is a specific difficulty in understanding numbers and number processes. It is 130 years since the term dyslexia was coined. In 1978, Baroness Mary Warnock was told by an education civil servant that she should not suggest that there is a special category of learning difficulty called dyslexia. Her report on special educational needs, of course, transformed that view. I rather hoped it would not take quite so long for the Government to properly recognise and integrate SEN support for the 6% of the population with dyscalculia. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that having children and young people struggling with numbers and maths is a huge problem for them as they become adults and seek work, and for future economic growth dependent on technology and innovation? Why would the Government take the risk of not recognising this as a learning difficulty and giving it the proper treatment it deserves?
My Lords, I very much recognise what my noble friend says about the challenges that children with dyscalculia have in relation to their maths. Probably where we differ is on whether it is necessary to name those things in order to make sure that children get support: we do not believe that a child should need a diagnosis of a condition to get support. While diagnoses and labels can be useful for some children, whether a child has secured a diagnosis should not determine the support they get. A child with dyscalculia needs more support to master concepts in maths, so the support that we offer will be the same as for others facing difficulties with maths—that is better scaffolding, more effective use of representation
and careful sequencing of learning. We are taking action to ensure that children who have difficulties with maths, including those with dyscalculia, will get the support they need.
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that six weeks, which included the summer, is actually not a very long time? Does he agree that the crucial matter here is to ensure that the guidance is right, respects the dignity and rights of individuals and groups, places an equality duty on public bodies and businesses, in scope with our legislation, and ensures that legal challenges are avoided by not rushing into this matter through being bullied by the EHRC, editorials in the Times, and others?
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that six weeks, which included the summer, is actually not a very long time? Does he agree that the crucial matter here is to ensure that the guidance is right, respects the dignity and rights of individuals and groups, places an equality duty on public bodies and businesses, in scope with our legislation, and ensures that legal challenges are avoided by not rushing into this matter through being bullied by the EHRC, editorials in the Times, and others?
My noble friend is right. As the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who is in her place, acknowledges in her letter, it is important that the Secretary of State can take a fully informed decision. That is also why, although the letter was received today, officials have approached the Equality and Human Rights Commission, requesting additional material that needs to be reviewed as part of giving a thorough consideration of the code. It was acknowledged in today’s letter that the request for additional information is necessary. Obviously, we have not received this information from the EHRC.
To ask His Majesty's Government which commissioners of the Equality and Human Rights Commission were appointed by (1) Elizabeth Truss, and (2) Kemi Badenoch, when they were respectively Minister for Women and Equalities; and when the terms of office of those commissioners are due to conclude.
To ask His Majesty's Government which commissioners of the Equality and Human Rights Commission were appointed by (1) Elizabeth Truss, and (2) Kemi Badenoch, when they were respectively Minister for Women and Equalities; and when the terms of office of those commissioners are due to conclude.
The following Commissioners were appointed under the tenure of Elizabeth Truss as Minister for Women and Equalities:
- Baroness Kishwer Falkner of Margravine (Chair) - 1 December 2020 - 30 November 2025
- Lord Bernard Ribeiro - 1 December 2020 - 30 November 2021
- Jessica Butcher - 1 December 2020 - 30 November 2024
- David Goodhart - 1 December 2020 - 30 November 2024
- Su-Mei Thompson - 1 December 2020 - 30 November 2024
- Dr Lesley Sawers (Scotland Commissioner, second term) - 29 March 2021 - 30 November 2025
- Akua Reindorf - 1 January 2022 - 31 December 2025
- Eryl Besse (Wales Commissioner) - 29 March 2022 - 31 October 2023 (resignation)
- Alasdair Henderson (second term) - 27 April 2022 - 26 April 2026
- Helen Mahy (second term) - 27 April 2022 - 4 March 2023 (resignation)
The following Commissioners were appointed under the tenure of Kemi Badenoch as Minister for Women and Equalities:
- Kunle Olulode - 3 January 2023 - 2 January 2027
- Arif Ahmed - 3 January 2023 - 11 August 2023 (resignation)
- Joanne Cash - 16 January 2023 - 15 January 2027
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the fact that The Times has reported on the content of the draft Statutory Code of Practice shared by the Equality and Human Rights Commission with the Minister for Women and Equalities, and of how the contents of that draft...
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the fact that The Times has reported on the content of the draft Statutory Code of Practice shared by the Equality and Human Rights Commission with the Minister for Women and Equalities, and of how the contents of that draft...
The Government does not comment on leaks.
The Minister for Women and Equalities will consider the EHRC’s updated draft Code. If the decision is taken to approve it, the Minister will lay it before both Houses over a period of 40 sitting days, as per the process set out in Section 14 of the Equality Act 2006.
The Code becomes statutory only after the formal process set out in the legislation has been followed.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, because this is of course a very serious issue, particularly in the case of babies and minors. There are grave difficulties in obtaining informed consent. Every person may be born with hundreds of genetic mutations potentially associated with fatal diseases, but nearly all are unlikely to cause serious health issues in the vast majority of those carrying such markers. Can my noble friend say what plans the Government have for funding and ensuring properly informed consent in screening programmes? I thank my noble friend Lord Winston for informing my question.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, because this is of course a very serious issue, particularly in the case of babies and minors. There are grave difficulties in obtaining informed consent. Every person may be born with hundreds of genetic mutations potentially associated with fatal diseases, but nearly all are unlikely to cause serious health issues in the vast majority of those carrying such markers. Can my noble friend say what plans the Government have for funding and ensuring properly informed consent in screening programmes? I thank my noble friend Lord Winston for informing my question.
My Lords, the Generation Study is particularly designed to inform policy of the type that my noble friend is rightly concerned with. These are extremely important issues, and I am glad to have spoken to our noble friend Lord Winston about these matters. Perhaps I could give the assurance that the study will test only for treatable conditions, where there is robust evidence that the condition is highly likely to develop within the first five years of life, and suspected positive results are then reviewed and confirmed through further tests. If genomic testing is used within future screening programmes, informed consent will still be required.
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what plans Parliament has, if any, to apply for Friendly WiFi certification.
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what plans Parliament has, if any, to apply for Friendly WiFi certification.
My Lords, Friendly WiFi provides certification showing that public wifi meets essential safety standards by filtering harmful content. Parliament places the upmost importance on ensuring the online safety of all who use its wifi. Given that the highest level of filtering and blocking technology is in place across all our corporate wifi services, I am informed that Parliament has no plans to apply for this certification.
I thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for that Answer. This scheme is a kitemark, of which there are several on the parliamentary website. This shows that the 80,000 children who access the Parliamentary Estate will not be able to access or see age-inappropriate material. Of course, our Parliament completely complies with this certification. My frustration on this Question—which I have been addressing for
three years now—is that, if local authorities such as North Yorkshire County Council, Newcastle City Council and many others, and major retails such as Ikea and Starbucks, and the Tate and major providers of public transport, can all see the importance of this scheme, why would Parliament not want to be seen to sponsor and help to promote a national scheme which is about improving online child safety? I wonder if this House might be able to nudge this along.
I thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for that Answer. This scheme is a kitemark, of which there are several on the parliamentary website. This shows that the 80,000 children who access the Parliamentary Estate will not be able to access or see age-inappropriate material. Of course, our Parliament completely complies with this certification. My frustration on this Question—which I have been addressing for
three years now—is that, if local authorities such as North Yorkshire County Council, Newcastle City Council and many others, and major retails such as Ikea and Starbucks, and the Tate and major providers of public transport, can all see the importance of this scheme, why would Parliament not want to be seen to sponsor and help to promote a national scheme which is about improving online child safety? I wonder if this House might be able to nudge this along.
My Lords, it is my understanding that Friendly WiFi certification is designed to reassure the users of publicly advertised wifi networks that essential safety standards are met and harmful content is blocked. It was intended primarily for retailers, hotels and transport companies, which advertise their wifi in this way. Parliament and government departments do not widely promote their wifi networks in the way that the universities, libraries and retailers mentioned do. The primary intention of the parliamentary wifi is to support visitors to the estate who are attending or supporting parliamentary business.
My Lords, first I will pay tribute to our noble friend Baroness Rendell, who championed this and ensured it was put on the statute book; she is much missed by all of us. Does my noble and learned friend agree that one of the most important things the Government must succeed in preventing is young girls being taken out of the country for this dreadful procedure? I would like to hear how that is progressing. Secondly, we have to pay attention to the hundreds, if not thousands, of women here in the UK who have already suffered this terrible procedure and who need the resourcing and help of our NHS in the special units that have been set up to do that. We have to ensure they are properly resourced.
My Lords, first I will pay tribute to our noble friend Baroness Rendell, who championed this and ensured it was put on the statute book; she is much missed by all of us. Does my noble and learned friend agree that one of the most important things the Government must succeed in preventing is young girls being taken out of the country for this dreadful procedure? I would like to hear how that is progressing. Secondly, we have to pay attention to the hundreds, if not thousands, of women here in the UK who have already suffered this terrible procedure and who need the resourcing and help of our NHS in the special units that have been set up to do that. We have to ensure they are properly resourced.
On the increased protection, there is provision already on the statute book, in Section 3A of the Female Genital Mutilation Act, which is about a failure to protect girls under 16. On the civil side, the family court also has a power to impose protection orders that put in place, for example, restrictions on travel and contact with children. Those are both criminal and civil measures, but, to have real effect, they need to be used more frequently—I am convinced of that. On the NHS, I agree; already there is a lot of work that is being done, and it needs to be fully supported. I had the privilege of meeting with the Vavengers, an NGO working in this field, which does fantastic work to promote the importance of healthcare to the victims of these crimes.
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to urge the Government of India to ratify key international human rights treaties and withdraw reservations that dilute existing commitments to align their domestic laws with international norms, particularly on caste-based and religious discrimination?
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to urge the Government of India to ratify key international human rights treaties and withdraw reservations that dilute existing commitments to align their domestic laws with international norms, particularly on caste-based and religious discrimination?
We raise these issues with the Indian Government, as my noble friend would expect us to. Clearly, it is for India to make its own choices, and it has been many decades, thankfully, since we were in a position to do otherwise, but we continue to have the appropriate conversations that she would wish us to have because, as I said in my earlier answer, some things, such as human rights, are universal, and that is how this Government approach these issues.