Tag: Lord Lester of Herne Hill

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.

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

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what files they hold at Her Majesty’s Government Communications Centre, and what are their plans to make the files held there available to the public during this Parliament.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Foreign and Commonwealth (FCO) archive records are held by the FCO rather than Her Majesty’s Government Communications Centre (HMGCC). Most of these archive records are held in the FCO main archive at Hanslope Park in Buckinghamshire, which houses approximately 1.2 million files. The FCO has published its archive file inventory and the review programme for its files. The FCO is committed to complying with the Public Records Act and to full transparency with respect to our record holdings.

HMGCC, which is also at Hanslope Park, is one of the Government’s science and technology establishments, responsible for ensuring that the Government’s communications systems in the UK and around the globe are effective, reliable and secure.

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), whether they will place retention instruments 111 to 119 in the Library of the House.

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 2016-03-01.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether local authorities that engage in foreign boycotts risk acting in breach of the common law as well as the UK’s regime of procurement rules.

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 2016-05-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have evaluated the possible risks to national security and social cohesion of the spread of the Wahhabi ideology.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

HM Governement’s Counter Extremism Strategy and Counter – Terrorism strategy, CONTEST, set out 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.