Author: admin

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what criteria they set in respect of the requirement for transparency and openness in the decision-making processes of all public and publicly-funded bodies.

    Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen

    As a matter of principle, members of the public should be able to routinely access information that is in the public interest and is safe to disclose. Access to information helps ensure accountability for public authorities and facilitates better informed and more productive public debate.

    All public bodies have a publication scheme, which outlines what they will publish. The Information Commissioner’s Office provides guidance on the publication scheme for each body. This covers evidence of decision making, board meeting minutes, agendas, consultations and datasets, including those pertaining to public spending and to public service function, in an accessible format. Datasets are published on the data.gov.uk website, while other evidence is available on individual body websites.

    All central government departments are required to publish information about key aspects of their management and operations, including details of senior staff salaries and departmental expenditure.

    The Cabinet Office also publishes guidance for departments on transparency for their arm’s length bodies. This guidance states that they should:

    • make an explicit commitment to openness in all their activities;
    • publish details of senior staff and board members, with appropriate contact details;
    • hold open board meetings or an annual open meeting;
    • publish annual report and accounts;
    • publish a management or mission statement;
    • proactively publish performance data;
    • publish spend data over £500; and
    • establish effective correspondence and complaint handling procedures.

    Statements by Accounting Officers are published in arm’s length body annual reports. The publication of these statements demonstrates how Accounting Officers have fulfilled his or her personal responsibility to manage and control the resources in the organisation.

    In its annual Public Bodies Reports the Cabinet Office sets out high-level information on arm’s length body transparency in areas including publication of annual reports and open board meetings.

    The transparency data published by government does not disclose personal data. Where necessary, minutes and papers which detail decision-making are edited to remove data which could be used to identify individuals.

    Transparency information published by the local government is governed by the transparency code. The principles that underpin the code are the same, and similarly, data pertaining to function and spend data must be disclosed. The code has just undergone consultation. Proposed changes include altering the way transparency data is published and presented to increase accessibility.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the rules and procedures of the Northern Ireland Parades Commission were most recently reviewed, and when the next review will be.

    Lord Dunlop

    The Public Processions (NI) Act 1998 requires the Parades Commission to keep the procedural rules and guidelines it issues under that Act under review and empowers it to, from time to time, revise the whole or any part of the procedural rules and guidelines and issue the revised versions.

    The rules and guidelines are reviewed on an annual basis; the timing of such reviews is a matter for the Parades Commission.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government in what way the Northern Ireland Parades Commission is accountable to them and to the courts.

    Lord Dunlop

    The Parades Commission operates independently of Government in line with the provisions contained in the Public Processions (NI) Act 1998.

    The Commission is accountable to the courts for its operational decisions.

    The Commission is accountable to the Northern Ireland Office for the management of its resources.

  • Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    Lord Laird – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Northern Ireland Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government in what way the Northern Ireland Parades Commission meets international treaty obligations on human rights.

    Lord Dunlop

    The duties and functions of the Northern Ireland Parades Commission are set out in the Public Processions (NI) Act 1998. The Act is compliant with international treaty obligations on human rights.

  • Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the European Arrest Warrant system will cease to have legal force in the UK following Brexit.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    We are leaving the EU but co-operation on security with our European and global allies will be undiminished.

    Officials are exploring options for cooperation arrangements once the UK has left the EU. We will do what is necessary to keep people safe, but it would be wrong to set out our position in advance of negotiations.

  • Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Stoddart of Swindon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are consulting the fishing industry concerning its position following Brexit.

    Lord Gardiner of Kimble

    The Government has met with representatives from the fishing industry concerning its position following EU exit and will continue to do so. This includes a round table discussion on 15 September 2016 which included representatives from the finfish and shellfish catching sectors, recreational fishermen and environmental NGOs.

  • Lord Quirk – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Lord Quirk – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Quirk on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Mobarik on 21 September (HL1561), how many hours of education per week is currently provided in Young Offender Institutions.

    Lord Keen of Elie

    Since 16 August 2015, education providers in public sector under-18 Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) have been required to provide 27 hours of education a week, supplemented by three hours of physical education.

    YOI Parc is operated by G4S and is currently contracted to provide 25 hours of education and 5 hours of interventions each week.

  • Lord Watson of Richmond – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    Lord Watson of Richmond – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Watson of Richmond on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will ensure that the views of those who voted for Remain in the EU Referendum are respected and taken fully into account.

    Lord Bridges of Headley

    The Government is committed to ensuring that the negotiations result in a deal that works for Britain and is in the interests of everyone in the UK.

    We have taken the conscious decision to build a national consensus to our approach to the negotiations. We are consulting a wide range of stakeholders in order to create a national picture of what people want from a deal on exiting the EU. This will allow us to deliver on what the country asked us to do through the referendum, by identifying the opportunities as well as the challenges.

    We have already said that we will consult and work with the devolved administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because we want Brexit to work in the interests of the whole country.

    Our guiding approach is to implement the mandate that the people have given us to deliver the UK’s exit from the EU, and to do so in a smooth way, which delivers the best deal for the British people and sees us working constructively with our EU partners going forward.

  • The Lord Bishop of St Albans – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The Lord Bishop of St Albans – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Lord Bishop of St Albans on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Pakistan about the imminent appeal hearing for Asia Bibi at the Pakistani Supreme Court on the charge of blasphemy.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    On 13 October the Supreme Court in Pakistan postponed Ms Asia Bibi’s appeal hearing indefinitely. I remain concerned about Ms Bibi and continue to follow developments in her case closely. We raise regularly our concerns about misuse of the blasphemy laws with the Pakistani Government, and continue to urge Pakistan to adhere to its international obligations and uphold the rule of law. During his visit to Pakistan in March, the former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), made clear our concerns about minority communities and misuse of the blasphemy laws.

    The UK supported the EU statement of October 2014 following the decision of the Lahore High Court to uphold the conviction of Ms Bibi. We will continue to work with our EU and other international partners to ensure our views are made clear to the Pakistani authorities.

  • Baroness Hamwee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Baroness Hamwee – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hamwee on 2016-10-10.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government why, in the guidance for Home Office staff published on 9 September, for the purposes of assessing the mental health of an immigration detainee and of Rule 35 reports regarding particularly vulnerable detainees, a distinction is made between torture by state actors and torture by non-state actors.

    Baroness Williams of Trafford

    The definition of torture adopted for the “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy is in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) although, for the purposes of the policy, it has been extended to cover serious harm inflicted by terrorist groups exploiting instability or civil war to hold territory.

    The Government adopted this definition as it most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be adversely affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state, or by an organisation exercising similar control, and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered.

    In order to be consistent, the same definition was applied to the reporting system in rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 under which doctors working in immigration removal centres are required to report concerns that a detainee may have been the victim of torture. This has no effect on the requirement also in rule 35 for such doctors to report where a detainee’s health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued detention or the conditions of detention.