Tag: The Earl of Clancarty

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Clancarty on 2015-12-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Nash on 8 December (HL3697), what is the name of the new school; whether that school is a free school; and what involvement, if any, the New Schools Network had in founding that school.

Lord Nash

We cannot yet confirm which school the Commercial Road site will be developed for as the latest wave of applications is currently being assessed. Whether the entire site will be used will depend on the type of school approved.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Clancarty on 2016-05-09.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether 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 within the next Session.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Clancarty on 2016-02-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when British military liaison began with Saudi Arabia regarding its intervention in Yemen.

Earl Howe

The UK and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have a long history of defence co-operation and this involves an ongoing defence engagement relationship.

In addition, we have deployed a small number of military personnel serving as liaison officers in Saudi headquarters to provide insight into Saudi operations in Yemen. These liaison officers are not involved in the targeting process – whether it be selection, decision-making or directing.

The first of these liaison officers was deployed in May 2015.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Clancarty on 2016-07-07.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 28 June (HL Deb, col 1490) that the military and police need to have adequate resources, how many police staff in the UK are exclusively dedicated to the recovery of stolen art and antiques; whether there are plans to increase that number; and what sources of funding are available for those posts.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Home Office does not hold information on the police workforce engaged in the recovery of stolen art and antiquities. Ultimately decisions on the size, composition and deployment of a police force’s workforce are operational matters for individual chief constables, working with their democratically elected Police and Crime Commissioners. Specific funding is not provided centrally for this area of operations, and it is for the individual forces concerned to decide how best to allocate their available resources according to local and national priorities.

The 2016-17 funding settlement for the police ensures that the police have adequate funding to do their work. In 2016/17, direct resource funding to Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), including council tax precept, has been protected to at least flat cash levels. This means that no PCC who chose to maximise precept is facing a reduction in cash funding in 2016/17 compared to 2015/16 and the majority are seeing marginal cash increases in their spending power.

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.