Tag: Lord Lester of Herne Hill

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2016-02-22.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take, if any, in response to the Court of Appeal’s declaration, in relation to the case of David Miranda and the safeguarding of journalistic material, that Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Bates

The Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Miranda litigation dealt with Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 as in force at the time of David Miranda’s examination, which took place in August 2013. In March 2015, the Home Office updated the Code of Practice for Schedule 7 Examining and Review Officers to direct that examining officers may not examine material they reasonably believe to be journalistic using Schedule 7. Given this amendment, the government considers that Schedule 7 as currently in force is compatible with Article 10 of the Convention.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2016-04-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government who is responsible for the appointment of prison imams.

Lord Faulks

Prison Governors are responsible for appointing all Chaplains into prison based roles.

In order to ensure our current practice is as robust and effective as possible in dealing with extremism in prison, the Justice Secretary commissioned a review, supported by external expertise, of the overall approach to dealing with Islamist extremism in prisons, probation and the youth justice system and is currently considering the recommendations.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2015-11-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will publish the feasibility study of 2014 on caste discrimination.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

We are currently considering the conclusions and recommendations of the caste feasibility study as part of our wider consideration of the implications of the Tirkey v Chandok tribunal judgments. We will keep the House informed of further developments on this matter.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2015-12-21.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of any correlation between Wahhabism and extremism and terrorism in the UK.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

HM Government’s Counter Extremism Strategy and counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST, set out our approach to tackling the full range of factors that allow extremist and terrorist groups to grow and flourish. These include directly challenging ideologies, including those which have a theological basis. The review into funding of extremism in the UK will include funding that comes from overseas.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will give guidance to local authorities about the limits on their powers to engage in political boycotts overseas.

Lord Bridges of Headley

On 17 February, the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) published procurement guidance for public authorities that makes clear that boycotts in public procurement are inappropriate outside where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government.

This new guidance gives no consideration to matters of common law, which is a matter for the courts. However, the guidance makes it clear that local level boycotts can be unlawful and lead to severe penalties against the contracting authority and the Government.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2016-04-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether EU laws on telecommunications and media protect freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

EU laws on telecommunications (electronic communications services) exclude services that provide, or exercise editorial control over content transmitted using electronic communications networks and services. While printed media (e.g. newspapers) are not within the scope of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, the Directive does apply to audio visual media, (television broadcasts and other tv-like content). The Government has considered the impact of the Directive on freedom of expression when responding to the European Commission’s consultation on the future of that Directive. The Government’s response is attached.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2015-11-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which instruments have been used to grant exemptions from deposit in the National Archives under the Public Records Act 1958 since the introduction of the rule that closed records should be deposited after 20 years.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Departments that wish to physically retain custody of records for an administrative or other reason (such as national security) for longer than the prescribed period require a retention instrument.

Since 2013, when the Government began its move towards transferring records to the National Archives when they are 20 years old, rather than 30, retention instrument numbers 111 to 119 have been approved.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2015-12-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 15 December (HL3615), in respect of each retention instrument, what were the reasons for deciding not to transfer records to the National Archives, and what was the subject matter of each instrument.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

As set out in the Public Records Act 1958 (as amended), public records selected for permanent preservation are transferred toThe National Archives or an approved place of deposit no later than 20 years after creation, unless an department is authorised to keep them for longer. Such decisions are undertakenwithadvice from the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives.

The Access to Public Records Manual published by the National Archives sets out the seven broad grounds for retention, which is attached.

Retention instruments can cover multiple applicationsby departments to retain records and the number of applications covered by Lord Chancellor’s Instruments 111-119 ranges from 37 to 253, which were submitted by between 8 and 15 departments.

The grounds provided by departments that were given permission to retain records under Instruments 111, 113, 114 and 119 are 1,2,4 and 6. Records under Instruments 112, 115, 117 and 118 were retained on grounds 1, 4 and 6 and records under Instrument 116 were retained on grounds 4 and 6. Each of the Instruments therefore covers documents retained on grounds of national security, as well as other administrative reasons.

There is a strong public interest in not releasing information which could undermine the safeguarding of national security.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to respond to the European Parliament’s call for an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia, and if so, how.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

It is up to individual member states, not the European Parliament, to make national arms export licensing decisions.

The Government takes its arms export responsibilities very seriously and operates one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, taking account of all relevant factors at the time of the application.

We are able to review licences and suspend or revoke as necessary when circumstances require.

The Government is satisfied that extant licences for Saudi Arabia are compliant with the UK’s export licensing criteria.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill on 2016-04-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they propose to increase immigration and asylum chamber fees, and what assessment they have made of the likely impact of those increased fees on access to justice.

Lord Faulks

We’re protecting the most vulnerable from any fee increase, including those who receive asylum support and cases involving children being supported or housed by a local authority. But it is also right that the taxpayer does not subsidise those who choose to challenge a decision made by the Home Office before the Tribunal.

We have a duty to the public to reduce the deficit and ensure sustainable funding for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service.

We have published a full impact assessment alongside the consultation document published on the Government website.