Asked by: Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken or are planning to take, following the recommendation of the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales in its Briefing Paper Responsibility of States under International Law to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang, China, published on 22 July, to use all available offices and legal means to prevent any violations being committed against Uyghur and Turkic Muslim populations.
Answered by Baroness Sugg
We are aware of the Bar Human Rights Committee report published on 22 July. We are carefully considering its findings. As the Foreign Secretary said during a Statement to the House on 20 July, we have particularly grave concerns about the gross human rights violations being perpetrated against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We regularly raise our serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including at the UN Human Rights Council in a joint statement with 27 other countries on 30 June.
Asked by: Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken or are planning to take, following the recommendation of the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales in its Briefing Paper Responsibility of States under International Law to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang, China, published on 22 July, as recommended by the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales, to create and apply Magnitsky-style sanctions on individuals, whether state or non-state actors, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person is involved in serious human rights violations in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.
Answered by Baroness Sugg
We are aware of the Bar Human Rights Committee report published on 22 July. We are carefully considering its findings. As the Foreign Secretary said during a Statement to the House on 20 July, we have particularly grave concerns about the gross human rights violations being perpetrated against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We regularly raise our serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including at the UN Human Rights Council in a joint statement with 27 other countries on 30 June.
Asked by: Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on research-led SMEs of the reported decision to withhold the UK's participation in the Unified Patent Court and the associated Unitary Patent.
Answered by Lord Callanan - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
Following publication of the Government’s approach to negotiations with the EU on 27th February, the Government will not be seeking continued participation in the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court. Participating in a court that applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU is inconsistent with our aims of becoming an independent self-governing nation.
All businesses, including SMEs, will be able to maintain patents in the UK and challenge or enforce them before UK courts as they do currently.
Asked by: Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the figures presented in section 5.9 of the HM Government Transparency Report 2018: Disruptive and Investigatory Powers (Cm 9609), published on 23 July 2018, (1) how many UK citizens were deprived of British citizenship under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 in 2018 and 2019; and (2) when the next transparency report on disruptive and investigatory powers will be published.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The HM Government transparency report on disruptive powers 2018-19 was published 19 March this year and confirms that 21 individuals were deprived of British citizenship under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 in 2018. Figures for 2019 will be available in the following transparency report on disruptive powers which will be published in due course.
Asked by: Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many persons formerly resident in the UK are known to have returned to the UK after travelling to the so-called Islamic State in Iraq or Syria; how many such persons have been subject to Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures and/or Temporary Exclusion Orders; how many such persons have been convicted of terrorist offences since their return; how many such convictions are for offences committed while abroad with the so-called Islamic State; and how many such convictions are for offences committed after their return to the UK.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The Government’s number one priority remains the safety and security of its citizens. All of those who have returned have been investigated and the majority have been assessed to pose no, or a low security risk. There have been around 40 convictions of individuals following their return from Syria, for a range of offences connected to their activities overseas or subsequent counter-terrorism investigations.
There are a number of tools available to law enforcement and security agencies to manage the threat posed by returning UK citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity abroad including Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs) and Temporary Exclusion Orders (TEOs).
The total number of TEOs imposed in 2017, the first year the power was used, was nine. As at 31 May 2018, there were eight TPIM notices in force, seven of which related to British Citizens. These figures were published in the 2018 Disruptive and Investigatory Powers Transparency Report. Due to national security considerations, it would not be appropriate to provide a further breakdown of these figures.
Asked by: Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) how many convicted terrorists have been released from prisons in (a) Great Britain, and (b) Northern Ireland, since 2001; and (2) how many such convicted terrorists in each category have been convicted of further terrorist offences committed after their release.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie
1a) Between January 2013 and December 2019, 196 individuals convicted of a terrorist offence (individuals who have been convicted under the Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006) have been released from prison in England and Wales. Prior to 2013, release data on Terrorism Act offenders was held at a local and regional level by relevant law enforcement partners, but not recorded centrally by the Ministry of Justice. Release data for Scotland is not held by the Ministry of Justice as prisons are a devolved matter.
1b) Release data for Northern Ireland is not held by the Ministry of Justice as prisons are a devolved matter.
2) Between January 2013 and December 2019, 6 individuals (3.06%) convicted of a terrorist offence (who have been convicted under the Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006) have been released from prison and have been convicted of a further terrorist offence (under the Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006) in England and Wales. Prior to 2013, release data on Terrorism Act offenders was held at a local and regional level by relevant law enforcement partners, but not recorded centrally by the Ministry of Justice. Recidivism rates for Scotland and Northern Ireland are not held by the Ministry of Justice as prisons are a devolved matter.
All those convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Act who have been released on probation are closely managed by the National Probation Service. HMPPS works closely with law enforcement partners to share information and manage the risks that these offenders present in custody and on probation to reduce the risk of reoffending, and to support them to reintegrate into the community.
Asked by: Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Exiting the European Union :
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 17 January (HL12669) and the Written Statement by Lord Callanan on 20 December 2018 (HLWS1187), whether (1) the text of the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement has been amended since 20 December 2018, and (2) the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement has been signed by the UK; if so, when; whether the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement is subject to section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010; and whether a copy of the EEA EFTA Separation Agreement has been laid before Parliament by a Minister of the Crown within the meaning of section 20(1)(a) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
Answered by Lord Callanan - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Dissolution. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.
Asked by: Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made on the commitment in the Home Office Biometrics Strategy, published in June 2018, to update the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice in collaboration with the Surveillance Camera Commissioner; when they expect the result of any updated Code; and whether such an update will include stronger guidance on the use of automatic facial recognition.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
We are planning to update the Surveillance Camera Code by the end of the year, subject to consultation with stakeholders, coordination with the Information Commissioner’s update to their guidance on the related data protection issues, and obtaining the necessary parliamentary time.
The Government believes that there is a legal framework for the use of live facial recognition technology. We are supporting the National Police Chiefs’ Council in developing operational guidance for the police, informed by the independent reviews of the trials.
Asked by: Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the post of Independent Reviewer of Prevent, provided for by section 20(8) of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, will be (1) classified as a public appointment, (2) included in the Schedule to the Public Appointments Order in Council, and (3) subject to the Governance Code on Public Appointments.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The Independent Reviewer will be a public appointment made Ministers. Short term appointments of this nature are not usually included in the Schedule to the Public Appointments Order in Council. Best practice with regards to public appointments will be followed as outlined in the Cabinet Office Governance Code on Public Appointments 2016.