Linked Data API

Show Search Form

Search Results

711186
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2017-03-14more like thismore than 2017-03-14
answering body
The Senior Deputy Speaker more like this
answering dept id 204 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name Senior Deputy Speaker (HoL) more like this
hansard heading Parliament: Internet more like this
house id 2 remove filter
legislature
25277
pref label House of Lords more like this
question text To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker, further to his Written Answer on 7 March (HL5612), what is the industry standard categorising service; who within the Parliamentary Digital Service (PDS) is responsible for the service; whether there is a contract or other service level agreement between PDS and the service; whether PDS pays for the service, and if so, how much is paid annually; whether the service reports to PDS in respect of its activities and decisions, and if so, how; whether its classification of websites is advisory or mandatory; whether Parliament is free to over-ride its classification of religion-based hate websites; and if so, why there are no plans to unblock the "Religion of Peace" website. more like this
tabling member printed
Lord Pearson of Rannoch remove filter
uin HL6074 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2017-03-23more like thismore than 2017-03-23
answer text <p>The Parliamentary Digital Service (PDS) uses the Check Point URL filtering service to categorise websites, and currently blocks a range of categories of website from the Parliamentary Estate, including “Hate/Racism”. PDS does not control which websites are put into which category by the filtering service; this is an automated process conducted at an industry level.</p><p>It is not possible to provide an accurate figure regarding the annual cost of the service as it is one of a number of services provided within a contract. With over one billion websites to categorise, it is not practicable for the filtering service to report to PDS in respect of its categorising decisions for particular websites. While it would be possible for PDS to unblock a website that has been included in a blocked category, there are no plans to unblock the “Religion of Peace” website, which has been included in the “Hate/Racism” category, because the site does not appear to have been incorrectly categorised.</p><p> </p>
answering member printed Lord McFall of Alcluith more like this
question first answered
less than 2017-03-23T11:53:35.207Zmore like thismore than 2017-03-23T11:53:35.207Z
answering member
4148
label Biography information for Lord McFall of Alcluith more like this
tabling member
3153
label Biography information for Lord Pearson of Rannoch more like this
694338
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2017-02-24more like thismore than 2017-02-24
answering body
The Senior Deputy Speaker more like this
answering dept id 204 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name Senior Deputy Speaker (HoL) more like this
hansard heading Parliament: Internet more like this
house id 2 remove filter
legislature
25277
pref label House of Lords more like this
question text To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker, further to his Written Answer on 1 February (HL 4961), whether he will give an instruction for the unblocking of the Religion of Peace website on the Parliamentary Estate; and if not, why not. more like this
tabling member printed
Lord Pearson of Rannoch remove filter
uin HL5612 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2017-03-07more like thismore than 2017-03-07
answer text <p>Access to the Religion of Peace website has been blocked on the Parliamentary Estate because it has been classified as a religion-based hate website by the Parliamentary Digital Service’s industry standard categorising service. As a result there are no plans for the website to be unblocked.</p> more like this
answering member printed Lord McFall of Alcluith more like this
question first answered
less than 2017-03-07T15:14:36.683Zmore like thismore than 2017-03-07T15:14:36.683Z
answering member
4148
label Biography information for Lord McFall of Alcluith more like this
tabling member
3153
label Biography information for Lord Pearson of Rannoch more like this
1304502
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2021-03-22more like thismore than 2021-03-22
answering body
The Senior Deputy Speaker more like this
answering dept id 204 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name Senior Deputy Speaker (HoL) more like this
hansard heading Peers: Conduct more like this
house id 2 remove filter
legislature
25277
pref label House of Lords more like this
question text To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker, further to the ‘Valuing Everyone’ training session for Peers on the morning of 16 March, whether describing a female over the age of 14 as a ‘girl’ rather than a ‘lady’ in the course of their parliamentary duties would constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords; and if so, what the penalty would be. more like this
tabling member printed
Lord Pearson of Rannoch remove filter
uin HL14454 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2021-04-06more like thismore than 2021-04-06
answer text <p>Only the Commissioner for Standards and the Conduct Committee can decide whether something is a breach of the Code of Conduct, upon receipt of a specific complaint to the Commissioner or appeal to the Conduct Committee. They do not deal with hypothetical situations.</p><p> </p><p> </p> more like this
answering member printed Lord McFall of Alcluith more like this
question first answered
less than 2021-04-06T15:16:06.237Zmore like thismore than 2021-04-06T15:16:06.237Z
answering member
4148
label Biography information for Lord McFall of Alcluith more like this
tabling member
3153
label Biography information for Lord Pearson of Rannoch more like this
1344918
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2021-07-07more like thismore than 2021-07-07
answering body
The Senior Deputy Speaker more like this
answering dept id 204 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name Senior Deputy Speaker (HoL) more like this
hansard heading Parliament: Internet more like this
house id 2 remove filter
legislature
25277
pref label House of Lords more like this
question text To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker, further to the Written Answers by Lord McFall of Alcluith on 1 and 24 February 2017 (HL4961 and HL5612), why the Religion of Peace website is no longer accessible from computers attached to the parliamentary network, having previously been available. more like this
tabling member printed
Lord Pearson of Rannoch remove filter
uin HL1820 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2021-07-21more like thismore than 2021-07-21
answer text <p>The Senior Deputy Speaker has asked me, as Chair of the Services Committee, to respond on his behalf. The Parliamentary Digital Service uses an industry standard service to categorise and block websites that are deemed offensive, the “Religion of Peace” website is blocked as part of this automated service as it is classified as a religion-based hate website by the service. There are no indications that the website has been available to access on the parliamentary network.</p> more like this
answering member printed Lord Touhig more like this
question first answered
less than 2021-07-21T14:01:18.737Zmore like thismore than 2021-07-21T14:01:18.737Z
answering member
542
label Biography information for Lord Touhig more like this
tabling member
3153
label Biography information for Lord Pearson of Rannoch more like this
678232
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2017-01-24more like thismore than 2017-01-24
answering body
The Senior Deputy Speaker more like this
answering dept id 204 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name Senior Deputy Speaker (HoL) more like this
hansard heading Parliament: Internet more like this
house id 2 remove filter
legislature
25277
pref label House of Lords more like this
question text To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker why access to the "Religion of Peace" website is not available on the Parliamentary estate. more like this
tabling member printed
Lord Pearson of Rannoch remove filter
uin HL4961 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2017-02-01more like thismore than 2017-02-01
answer text <p>The Parliamentary Digital Service uses an industry standard categorising service, the “Religion of Peace” website is blocked as part of this automated service as it is classified as a religion-based hate website by the categorising service.</p> more like this
answering member printed Lord McFall of Alcluith more like this
question first answered
less than 2017-02-01T12:01:26.417Zmore like thismore than 2017-02-01T12:01:26.417Z
answering member
4148
label Biography information for Lord McFall of Alcluith more like this
tabling member
3153
label Biography information for Lord Pearson of Rannoch more like this
1585544
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2023-02-08more like thismore than 2023-02-08
answering body
The Senior Deputy Speaker more like this
answering dept id 204 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name Senior Deputy Speaker (HoL) more like this
hansard heading House of Lords: Security more like this
house id 2 remove filter
legislature
25277
pref label House of Lords more like this
question text To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker whether £7 million is to be spent on the security works project at Peers' Entrance; why such expenditure is necessary; and who authorised it. more like this
tabling member printed
Lord Pearson of Rannoch remove filter
uin HL5563 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2023-02-16more like thismore than 2023-02-16
answer text <p>For security reasons, the Houses do not publish capital expenditure on security mitigating projects as providing this level of detail could enable an individual to infer the extent and nature of the works, and thus the vulnerabilities which they were intended to mitigate.</p><p>The necessity and cost of the works at Peers’ Entrance have been the subject of rigorous internal assessment through the usual business case process. The plans have also been validated by external experts. Members are always welcome to contact the Director of Security to discuss any security-related concerns privately.  <br></p><p>The Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the House, as Accounting and Corporate Officers, have responsibility for approving final business cases for security projects across the Parliamentary Estate, subject to advice from the Finance Directors and other relevant officials. The Clerk of the Parliaments’ decisions on security projects are informed by consultation with the House of Lords Commission, which ensures that the impact on Members is taken into account, and by the Finance Committee which receives regular reports regarding security expenditure. The Clerk of the House is informed by the equivalent groups and individuals in the House of Commons. Ultimately it is not the House that makes the final decision because security is a bicameral issue, and legal responsibility for safety sits with the Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the House.<br></p>
answering member printed Lord Gardiner of Kimble more like this
question first answered
less than 2023-02-16T14:01:31.05Zmore like thismore than 2023-02-16T14:01:31.05Z
answering member
4161
label Biography information for Lord Gardiner of Kimble more like this
tabling member
3153
label Biography information for Lord Pearson of Rannoch more like this
1314725
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2021-05-13more like thismore than 2021-05-13
answering body
The Senior Deputy Speaker more like this
answering dept id 204 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name Senior Deputy Speaker (HoL) more like this
hansard heading Parliamentary Estate: Visits more like this
house id 2 remove filter
legislature
25277
pref label House of Lords more like this
question text To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker whether the Parliamentary Estate will remain closed to visiting members of the public until September; if so, (1) for what reasons, and (2) what consideration he has given to the loosening of COVID-19 restrictions in England on 17 May in respect of the accessibility of the Estate; and what plans there are to resume normal catering services in the House. more like this
tabling member printed
Lord Pearson of Rannoch remove filter
uin HL231 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2021-05-27more like thismore than 2021-05-27
answer text <p>The Senior Deputy Speaker has asked me, as Chair of the Services Committee, to respond on his behalf.</p><p>Changes affecting the operation of Parliament as a whole, such as non-passholder access to the estate are decided jointly with the House of Commons Commission. Both Commissions agreed that business-related non-passholder access should resume from 17 May to reflect changes in government guidance. This is limited to one person, where the meeting cannot take place virtually. Access for the public will remain limited due to the need to control the overall number of people on the Parliamentary Estate to prevent crowding and control the risk and spread of the virus on the estate. Further changes to access may occur after step 4 following further consideration by the House of Lords Commission.</p><p>Changes to House of Lords catering services were made on 17 May, including the re-configuration of outlets in line with the ‘rule of six’. The following Lords catering venues are now open: River Restaurant and Terrace, Peers’ Dining and Guest Room, Long Room Bar, and the Millbank House ‘Coffee pod’. All outlets are operating within government guidance. Catering services in the House will be kept under review in the light of demand and the number of passholders on the estate.</p>
answering member printed Lord Touhig more like this
question first answered
less than 2021-05-27T14:28:00.263Zmore like thismore than 2021-05-27T14:28:00.263Z
answering member
542
label Biography information for Lord Touhig more like this
tabling member
3153
label Biography information for Lord Pearson of Rannoch more like this
1316955
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2021-05-20more like thismore than 2021-05-20
answering body
The Senior Deputy Speaker more like this
answering dept id 204 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name Senior Deputy Speaker (HoL) more like this
hansard heading House of Lords Chamber: Coronavirus more like this
house id 2 remove filter
legislature
25277
pref label House of Lords more like this
question text To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what plans there are for members to return to normal rules of debate for those who are physically present in the Chamber. more like this
tabling member printed
Lord Pearson of Rannoch remove filter
uin HL448 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2021-05-27more like thismore than 2021-05-27
answer text <p>The House of Lords Commission, which has responsibility for setting the strategic direction in this area, met on 25 May and had a preliminary discussion of these matters. The Commission discussion was informed by the debate on hybrid proceedings held in the Chamber on 20 May and was followed by a meeting of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, on 26 May, at which an initial consideration of procedural implications was undertaken. Proposals and options will be developed ahead of further anticipated deliberation at June meetings of the House of Lords Commission and Procedure and Privileges Committee. Decisions will continue to be informed by the latest Government guidance and advice from Public Health England. Finally, and most importantly, the House will be invited to consider motions in due course to agree procedures, including those relating to the rules of debate, moving forwards.</p> more like this
answering member printed Lord Gardiner of Kimble more like this
question first answered
less than 2021-05-27T15:14:36.183Zmore like thismore than 2021-05-27T15:14:36.183Z
answering member
4161
label Biography information for Lord Gardiner of Kimble more like this
tabling member
3153
label Biography information for Lord Pearson of Rannoch more like this
1260454
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2020-12-10more like thismore than 2020-12-10
answering body
The Senior Deputy Speaker more like this
answering dept id 204 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name Senior Deputy Speaker (HoL) more like this
hansard heading Lord Maginnis of Drumglass more like this
house id 2 remove filter
legislature
25277
pref label House of Lords more like this
question text To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what is the total estimated cost of the report by the Conduct Committee: The conduct of Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (HL Paper 185). more like this
tabling member printed
Lord Pearson of Rannoch remove filter
uin HL11364 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2020-12-16more like thismore than 2020-12-16
answer text <p>It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of the cost of the report <em>The conduct of Lord Maginnis of Drumglass</em> as most costs cannot be disaggregated from time spent by members or staff on other work.<br></p><p>1. Member costs</p><p> </p><p>The report into Lord Maginnis was considered at two separate meetings of the Conduct Committee, at the first there were other items on the agenda so claims for attendance were not solely related to consideration of this case. At the second meeting Lord Maginnis’ appeal was the only item on the agenda. All members of the Committee attended for that meeting. HL members can claim attendance allowance for participating in a virtual select committee but those claims may also cover other parliamentary work undertaken that day so it is not possible to say how much they claimed for their work on this case that day. Lay members have so far claimed £1,200 to prepare for and attend that meeting.</p><p>2. Payments to the Commissioner and her staff</p><p> </p><p>The costs of the time of the Commissioner for Standards and her office in relation to her investigation in to the complaints against Lord Maginnis cannot be disaggregated from her work on other cases. £5,760 was spent in payment to the external investigator who supported the Commissioner in her investigations into the four complaints. <br></p><p>3. Publication</p><p>The report was printed in-house on the same paper used for other parliamentary publications by a permanent staff team therefore the small costs of printing this report cannot be disaggregated from other work.</p>
answering member printed Lord McFall of Alcluith more like this
question first answered
less than 2020-12-16T17:12:44.377Zmore like thismore than 2020-12-16T17:12:44.377Z
answering member
4148
label Biography information for Lord McFall of Alcluith more like this
tabling member
3153
label Biography information for Lord Pearson of Rannoch more like this
1303638
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2021-03-17more like thismore than 2021-03-17
answering body
The Senior Deputy Speaker more like this
answering dept id 204 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name Senior Deputy Speaker (HoL) more like this
hansard heading House of Lords: Training more like this
house id 2 remove filter
legislature
25277
pref label House of Lords more like this
question text To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what is the estimated cost of providing ‘Valuing Everyone’ training to all (1) Peers, and (2) staff of the House of Lords; and out of which budget it is paid. more like this
tabling member printed
Lord Pearson of Rannoch remove filter
uin HL14339 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2021-04-15more like thismore than 2021-04-15
answer text <p>To the end of February £40,446 has been spent on Valuing Everyone training for members of the House of Lords, and £29,169 has been spent on Valuing Everyone training for staff of the House of Lords Administration, based on an assumption of cost per head across all training sessions delivered. The House of Lords share (30%) of development costs, pilot sessions and administration fees is £43,080.  All costs relating to the Valuing Everyone training are paid for from the budget of the bicameral Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.</p> more like this
answering member printed Lord McFall of Alcluith more like this
question first answered
less than 2021-04-15T13:37:06.017Zmore like thismore than 2021-04-15T13:37:06.017Z
answering member
4148
label Biography information for Lord McFall of Alcluith more like this
tabling member
3153
label Biography information for Lord Pearson of Rannoch more like this