The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-11-03.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 3 November (HL2678), what steps they propose to take following the European Court of Justice’s judgments in case C-362/14, Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I refer the noble Lord to my answer of 3rdNovember [HL2678].
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-11-25.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Dunlop on 4 November (HL3009), why investigation of historic crime in Northern Ireland, including the retention of fingerprint and DNA samples from non-convicted individuals, requires different provisions to the rest of the UK, and whether they plan to seek permission for any non-compliance of those provisions with Article 8 of the ECHR.
Lord Dunlop
The investigation of historic deaths creates particular difficulties because the evidential trail has significantly narrowed. Forensic evidence, including fingerprint and DNA evidence, is therefore a key element in Troubles-related investigations, as it presents the strongest strand of investigative opportunity.
Dealing with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past is an essential part of the transition to long term peace and stability – this is not a consideration which applies in the same way in the rest of the UK. It is disappointing that agreement was not reached in the recent political talks on the proposed institutions for dealing with the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland.
The Government remains fully committed to working alongside the Northern Ireland parties, victims groups and other stakeholders to deliver the institutions intended to achieve broad consensus for legislation and deliver new legacy mechanisms. The Government is satisfied that the retention of relevant biometric data for the purpose of investigating Troubles-related crimes is proportionate.
We are working closely with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice to ensure that any proposal to retain relevant data will strike the appropriate balance between Article 2 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and be compatible with the judgment of the European Court in Marper.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-12-14.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether non-academic employees of a UK university are considered to be public officers for the purposes of misconduct or malfeasance in public office.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
This is a matter of interpretation for the courts to pronounce upon in the context of a relevant case, and it would not be appropriate for the department to provide a general legal opinion.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-01-20.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much was paid for the inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly in 2003 to (1) the government legal team and (2) the chairman.
Lord Faulks
The report of Lord Hutton’s Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly was published on 28 January 2004. The inquiry website indicates that staff costs for the inquiry secretariat were £145,975 and that the cost of external advice, including lawyers’ fees, was £990,303. No fees are shown as having been paid to Lord Hutton. No further breakdown of costs is available.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-02-01.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government who is responsible for ensuring that, in discussions under the Belfast Agreement 1998 with the government of the Republic of Ireland, only those entitled to attend the appropriate strands do so.
Lord Dunlop
Discussions with the Irish Government in matters relating to the Belfast Agreement are in accordance with the established three-stranded approach to Northern Ireland affairs. A commitment to continue to uphold the three-stranded approach was also contained in the Government’s Northern Ireland manifesto at the General Election.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-02-23.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Dunlop on 23 February (HL6044), why the answer did not answer parts 2, 3 and 4 of the question; and whether they will now do so.
Lord Dunlop
My written answer dated 23 February 2016 (HL6044) made reference to the Joint Communiqué of the meeting of 26 February 2007, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The Joint Communiqué provides the answers to parts 2 and 3 of the Noble Lord’s original question (details of attendees and topics discussed).
In relation to part 4 of the original question, as previously advised no formal actions were listed following this meeting. The focus at the time was the drive towards devolution and the Conference urged all political leaders to act with courage and determination in order to attain this.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-05-04.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether parity of esteem as established in the Belfast Agreement 1998 applies to people who live in the Republic of Ireland.
Lord Dunlop
As I have explained in my previous replies to the noble Lord, the concept of ‘parity of esteem’ is expressed and defined in the 1998 Belfast Agreement in relation to people living in Northern Ireland. This Government sees parity of esteem as treating everybody in Northern Ireland fairly and with equal respect, just as it is committed to treating people fairly and with equal respect wherever they live in the United Kingdom.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2016-09-09.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the qualifying criteria for servicemen to be considered as mobilised, and how mobilisation is recognised.
Earl Howe
The Reserve Forces are a valuable and highly valued component of the Armed Forces. Under the Reserve Forces Act 1996 the Secretary of State for Defence can authorise the mobilisation of Reserve Forces if it appears to him that it is necessary or desirable to use them to contribute to the delivery of the nation’s security. All reservists are liable for mobilisation. The maximum period for which a reservist may be mobilised is up to one year in a four year period.
We aim to provide at least 28 days notice of mobilisation. In selecting individuals for mobilisation we will, as far as practicable, take into account their personal circumstances, including employment. The flexibility in selecting individuals for mobilisation will depend on the scale, urgency and nature of the threat. Employers and reservists can appeal against a mobilisation.
When a reservist reports for military service, a medical inspection is carried out and their physical fitness is measured to ascertain their wellbeing and fitness to deploy. Training appropriate to the nature of the task will be given prior to deployment.
Once mobilised individuals are paid as regulars and receive relevant allowances. In addition, reservists and their employers are entitled to claim financial assistance which mitigates the financial impact of the mobilisation.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-11-04.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have discussed with the government of the United States the collection of UK citizens’ data through the PRISM programme, and if so, with what result.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
It is the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to comment in detail on matters of intelligence. This includes discussions with allies and liaison agencies.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Laird on 2015-11-25.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many files from children’s homes in London that were previously supervised by the Home Office remain unopened because they are marked not for opening”; to which homes they relate; and how long those files have been closed.”
Lord Bates
Following a machinery of government change in the early 1970s, Home Office files relating to children’s home inspections were transferred to the Department for Health and Social Security. There are 49 files with ‘children’s home’ and ‘London’ in the catalogue description dating from 1931 onwards that are held at The National Archives. Details of the files, including whether they are closed, can be found through a search of The National Archives catalogue. Most are closed for 75 years from the date they went out of active use as they contain sensitive personal information where release would distress or endanger an individual who was a minor at the time the file was in use.