Tag: Lord Pearson of Rannoch

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 2015-12-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, as part of their counter-terrorism strategy, they will encourage a national debate about the nature of Islam, including whether the Muslim tenets of Al Hijra, Taqiya, and Abrogation remain valid today.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

On 19 October, the Prime Minister announced the launch of the Government’s new comprehensive Counter Extremism Strategy, a core element of which is a programme of work to support those communities who are opposed to extremism in all its forms.

It is only by building a stronger Britain together, across all communities, that we will win the fight against terrorists and extremists.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 2016-03-22.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the UK can withdraw from EU treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, with 12 months notice or otherwise.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The Prime Minister, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), made clear to the House of Commons that “if the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit". The rules for exit are set out in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This is the only lawful route available to withdraw from the EU.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 2016-07-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in clarifying their definition of non-violent extremism”.”

Baroness Williams of Trafford

The definition of extremism is set out in the Counter-Extremism Strategy published on 19 October 2015 and is: ‘The vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also regard calls for the death of members of the armed forces as extremist.’ This definition covers both violent and non-violent extremism.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 2015-12-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the reply by Earl Howe on 2 December (HL Deb, col 1193), what actions will be criminalised from next April under the specific offence of anti-Muslim hatred, and whether the actions criminalised under that offence will include (1) criticism of the Muslim religion, and (2) statements from people who have left that religion explaining why they have done so.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

As the Prime Minister announced in October, we have asked the police to record all existing religious based hate crimes by the faith or belief (including absence of belief) of the victim from April next year.

Under existing hate crimes it is not an offence to criticise Islam or for those who have left the faith to explain why they have done so. The new recording system does not constitute a new offence of anti-Muslim hatred, but will require this to be recorded specifically.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 2016-03-22.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which EU countries are required by their constitutions to hold a referendum before their governments can agree changes to the EU treaties; and which countries have done so in the past.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

No EU country has an absolute constitutional requirement to hold a referendum before their government can agree to any amendment to the EU Treaties. Indeed, no EU Member State held a referendum on the most recent change to the EU Treaties which came into effect in 2013.

The following countries have a constitutional requirement to hold a referendum in certain circumstances (e.g. if proposed changes require a revision of a Member State’s constitution or constitute a transfer of competence/sovereignty to the EU):

• Austria
• Croatia
• Denmark
• Ireland
• Lithuania
• Romania
• Slovakia

The following countries have previously held a referendum on changes to the EU Treaties:

• Denmark
• Ireland
• France
• Italy
• Luxembourg
• Netherlands
• Spain

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 2016-07-20.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, under their counter-terrorism policy, it is acceptable to debate the nature of, and to criticise, all religions, including Islam, even if those arguments or criticisms offend adherents to those religions; and if not, whether they plan to clarify any limits on freedom of speech that that policy might impose.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

As the Prevent Strategy explicitly states the Government is absolutely committed to protecting freedom of speech. Section 31 of the Counter-Terrorism & Security Act 2015, for example includes specific protection for universities in this regard, and statutory guidance for schools makes the Prevent duty affirm our commitment that schools should be safe spaces in which children and young people can understand and discuss sensitive issues.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 2015-10-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the United Kingdom does not have a free trade agreement with China, and what assessment they have made of whether such an agreement would help to boost trade between the United Kingdom and China.

Lord Maude of Horsham

The recent EU Trade Strategy emphasised the EU’s engagement in deepening and rebalancing our relationship with China in a mutually beneficial way. The ongoing negotiation of a bilateral investment agreement is the top priority towards this objective and will bring substantial benefits for both the UK and the EU. The UK Government fully supports the ambition of further deepening the EU-China relationship through an FTA. Whilst no formal assessment has yet been made to ascertain the impact of an FTA with China we anticipate the benefits will be significant.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 2015-02-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the United for Wildlife’s follow-up to the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, what representations they are making to ensure that subsistence hunters are not being criminalised or evicted from their lands in the name of conservation.

Lord De Mauley

We have not made any specific representations on this issue.

The UK is one of the global leaders in the response to the illegal trade in wildlife. At the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade held in February 2014 more than 40 Governments committed to action designed to strengthen law enforcement, reduce demand and support alternative livelihoods of communities affected by poaching and trafficking. These Governments recognised the illegal trade in wildlife as a major barrier to sustainable, inclusive and balanced economic development that damages ecosystems, undermines good governance and the rule of law, threatens security, and reduces the revenue and local benefits earned from economic activities such as wildlife‐based tourism and the sustainable utilisation of and legal trade in wildlife. They recognised that sustainable livelihoods will be best supported by engaging with communities living in and around protected areas to reflect their needs alongside those of local wildlife.

We welcome the leadership of the Botswana Government in hosting the Kasane Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade on 25 March as a follow-up to the London Conference.