Tag: The Earl of Clancarty

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Clancarty on 2015-11-30.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will introduce legislation to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its two Protocols.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

The Government remains committed to bringing forward legislation to ratify the Hague Convention and accede to its two Protocols at the first opportunity.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Clancarty on 2016-03-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many individuals completed either Art and Design GCE AS/A level or Craft, Creative Arts and Design level 3 vocational qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined in each year since 2011.

Lord Nash

As there is no formal definition of what constitutes “Craft, Creative Arts and Design”, it has not been possible to provide the information that is requested.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Clancarty on 2015-12-02.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to the government of Saudi Arabia in the case of Ashraf Fayadh.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

We are aware of, and concerned about, the case of Palestinian national Mr Ashraf Fayadh. We oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and strongly support freedom of expression in every country. We regularly make the Saudi Arabian authorities aware of our views, and will consider suitable opportunities for raising our concerns over this case.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Clancarty on 2016-04-28.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have carried out research to ascertain the degree of awareness of small businesses about intellectual property rights.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) IP Awareness Survey was first conducted in 2006 and was rerun in 2010 and early 2015. The survey establishes a sense of understanding of IP and IP rights across all sizes of UK firms and all sectors of UK industry. The most recent survey contained 3 sections: an IP knowledge section which tested the respondent’s familiarity with IP, a management section which sought to discover how firms were administering IP within their organisation and a final section which focussed on where IP information and advice was sourced from.

Key findings include:

• 94% of respondents thought that it was important for businesses to understand how to protect their IP.
• 52% of responding firms had protected some sort of IP (either through a single right or a combination).
• 65% of respondents thought that confidentiality agreements are important to protecting their IP. This method of protection was the most popular.
• The majority of surveyed firms have not been involved in a dispute around IP, (over 75%).
• 96% of firms have not valued their IP.
• 79% of firms did not know that telling people about an invention before applying for a patent could lead to an unsuccessful application.
• 28% of firms check they are not infringing other people’s IP, the most popular IP management activity amongst respondents.
• 20% of firms indicated that they license their IP, allowing others to use it for a fee.

In addition to this formal piece of research the IPO routinely surveys businesses in the course of designing and delivering its business support and outreach activities. This is intended to help to monitor and assess the effectiveness of these activities to ensure they are fit for purpose and if necessary improve, develop and even cease them for alternative approaches.

The IPO is using findings from its own and other business surveys to inform its approach to business outreach and the creation of IP advisory and support tools.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Clancarty on 2015-10-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government under what legislation and on what grounds courts in the United Kingdom can make orders for the destruction of (1) original photographs, (2) paintings, and (3) artwork in other media.

Lord Faulks

There is a range of powers that enable the forfeiture of such items.

Section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 provides a general power of forfeiture allowing the courts, on conviction of an offence, to make an order depriving an offender of any rights in lawfully seized articles or articles in the possession or under the control of the offender at arrest or summons which were used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of committing, or facilitating the commission of, an offence or in relation to which the offender was convicted of an offence involving unlawful possession of property.

Section 5 of, and the Schedule to, the Protection of Children Act 1978 allows the forfeiture of any indecent photograph, pseudo-photograph or prohibited image of a child and any property which it is not reasonably practicable to separate from that property following any lawful seizure. The police must give notice of any intended forfeiture of such property and where forfeiture is contested the court must determine the issue.

Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 allows the courts power to order the forfeiture of obscene articles kept for publication which have been seized under a warrant issued under that section.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Clancarty on 2015-10-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government under what legislation the Metropolitan Police has brought the action against Graham Ovenden to order his collection of art to be forfeited and destroyed.

Lord Faulks

This action was brought under section 5 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The Government believes in freedom of expression in the arts, but it is imperative that we have robust laws to prevent the making of indecent images of children. Decisions on the destruction of any artwork are made by our independent courts and may be subject to appeal.