Asked by: Baroness Kennedy of Shaws (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have not yet responded to the report by the EU Justice Sub-Committee, <i>The UK’s opt-in Protocol: implications of the Government’s approach</i>, published on 24 March 2015; and when they plan to issue the response.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
As a result of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU on 23 June, the Government is considering it’s approach to the application of the JHA Opt-in and will inform the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees once the Government has completed its consideration.
Asked by: Baroness Kennedy of Shaws (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have not yet responded to the report by the EU Justice Sub-Committee, <i>The UK, the EU and a British Bill of Rights</i>, published on 9 May 2016; and when they plan to issue the response.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
Sir Oliver Heald wrote on 30 November concerning the Government’s response to Lord Boswell in his capacity as Chair of the EU Committee. In his letter, Sir Oliver said that the Government is currently considering human rights reform in the context of the future constitutional framework of the United Kingdom following the vote to leave the EU, and is therefore not in a position to provide a substantive response to the Sub-Committee’s report at this time.
Asked by: Baroness Kennedy of Shaws (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether cases before the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh have been conducted in accordance with international fair trial standards.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
This Government has made clear its support for Bangladesh’s efforts to bring to justice those accused of atrocities committed during the 1971 War of Independence. However, this must be done in a way that meets appropriate international legal standards. Non-governmental organisations continue to raise concerns about the process and we urged the Bangladeshi government to ensure compliance with these standards during Bangladesh’s second Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council in 2013. We continue to emphasise these points in our discussions with the Bangladeshi authorities.Asked by: Baroness Kennedy of Shaws (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Bangladesh Law Commission's proposed new law, now entitled <i>Bangladesh Liberation War (Denial, Distortion, Opposition) Crime Law</i>, and its implications for freedom of expression in that country.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The proposed new Bangladesh Liberation War (Denial, Distortion, Opposition) Crime Law is in the initial consultation phase. We will continue to watch the development of its provisions closely, raising as appropriate any concerns that might arise.
Asked by: Baroness Kennedy of Shaws (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of freedom of expression in Bangladesh, including the threats of criminal defamation against individual journalists and editors, and whether they will raise any specific concerns with the government of Bangladesh.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
We believe that a vibrant civil society and free media, able to challenge and hold authority to account, are fundamental to a democratic and economically successful society. We have made clear our concerns about freedom of expression in Bangladesh, most recently in a press statement about the murder of Nazimuddin Samad. In that statement the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my Hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), restated our position that the right to freedom of expression and open debate in Bangladesh must be upheld.
Asked by: Baroness Kennedy of Shaws (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the letter by Lord Bates to Lord Rosser on 8 January (DEP2016–0028) and the remarks by Lords Bates on 18 January (HL Deb, col 624), which immigration offences led, following conviction, to the forfeiture of assets totalling £966,024 in 2014–15; and how much was forfeited in total for each offence.
Answered by Lord Bates
There were 16 confiscation orders amounting to £966,024, these are broken down to the following offences.
Offence | Amount |
Forgery and Counterfeiting | £162,997.55 |
Facilitation investigation | £10,665.95 |
Sham Marriage - assisting unlawful immigration | £85,519.29 |
Fraud and Money Laundering | £2.00 |
Conspiracy to Facilitate a Breach of Immigration Law | £25,466.62 |
Conspiracy to assist unlawful immigration | £330,352.72 |
Fraud by false representation | £1,020.32 |
Assisting Unlawful Immigration into the UK | £350,000.00 |
In the case of Money Laundering, the small total is because of nominal confiscation orders. A nominal confiscation order for a small amount (such as £1), may be imposed where the court finds that the defendant has benefitted from his criminal conduct, but has no realisable assets. If circumstances change then the order can be revisited.
Asked by: Baroness Kennedy of Shaws (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the letter by Lord Bates to Lord Rosser on 8 January (DEP2016–0028) and the remarks by Lords Bates on 18 January (HL Deb, col 624), how they arrived at their assessment that in-country seizure could double with the use of the extended powers enabled by the new illegal working offence.
Answered by Lord Bates
The Government arrived at this assessment based on the impact of the court’s judgement in the case of Nuro on the ability of Home Office Immigration Enforcement to use Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) cash seizure powers which were conferred on immigration officers by section 24 of the UK Border Act 2007. The courts have held (Nuro v Home Office [2014]) that as it is not a criminal offence for an illegal immigrant who is not subject to immigration conditions to be self employed in the UK, there is insufficient causation between the offence of illegal entry to the UK and obtaining the earnings to apply POCA powers. The creation of the offence of illegal working will address this judgment and provide a broader basis for cash seizure.
Asked by: Baroness Kennedy of Shaws (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people have undergone the programme of deradicalisation referred to as the Healthy Identities Intervention since it was accredited; how many people are awaiting access to the programme; which establishments currently offer the programme; and how many programmes are being offered at each establishment, including the number of individuals able to access each course.
Answered by Lord Faulks
The Healthy Identity Intervention (HII) has not been accredited by the Correctional Services Advice & Accreditation panel (CSAAP) as it is not compatible with the criteria currently used.
There have been 65 HII completions since its pilot in 2010-11. Sixteen people are currently undertaking HII. There are currently 15 people waiting to begin the intervention. This can be for a number of reasons, including involvement in other offender behaviour programmes, or mental health problems.
Healthy Identity is targeted at those convicted under the terrorism legislation where extremism was their primary motive. Where violence is the primary motive, other Offender Behaviour programmes may be used. Healthy Identity Interventions is not commissioned for specific establishments in the same way as other offending behaviour programmes. HII is available widely across England and Wales prisons and probation services. It is delivered by trained chartered psychologists and experienced probation officers. There are currently 145 trained HII facilitators.
Asked by: Baroness Kennedy of Shaws (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people aged (1) 21 and over, and (2) under 21, are currently in prison for a terrorist offence; of those, (a) how many have been released on licence since January 2014, and (b) how many have undergone a programme of resettlement or deradicalisation; and what information they have on the effectiveness of resettlement or deradicalisation programmes.
Answered by Lord Faulks
As of Friday 23 October, there were 94 prisoners convicted of or on remand for offences under Terrorism Act legislation in prisons in England and Wales. Of these, 85 are 21 and over, and 9 are under 21. Of these 94 prisoners, 2 have been released and subsequently recalled to prison since January 2014.
Of the 94, 46 prisoners have undertaken the Extremism Risk Guidelines assessment. These assessments only occur when a prisoner has been convicted and settled in to prison. The Secretary of State has asked the department to review its approach to dealing with Islamist extremism in prisons and probation. This will be supported by external expertise and will sit alongside the cross government work currently underway on developing de-radicalisation programmes.
Asked by: Baroness Kennedy of Shaws (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people aged (1) 21 and over, and (2) under 21, are known to have returned to the United Kingdom from a conflict zone since January 2014; and of those, how many were (a) charged with an offence and convicted, and (b) not charged but were put under supervision and entered into programmes of deradicalisation.
Answered by Lord Bates
Figures on the number of people who have returned to the UK from all conflict zones are not available. However, the Police have estimated that around 700 people from the UK who are of concern are thought to have travelled to the Syria/Iraq region since the start of the conflict, and that around half of those have returned. All decisions on handling returnees from Syria or Iraq are taken on a case-by-case basis. For some, prosecution for terrorist offences is the right course of action, and this will be a decision for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. For others, it may be that support from mental health or social services might be more appropriate.